Quote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 11:06 amAlthough i have a slight inclination towards believe there is indeed an effect, simply because of shawyer's video of his dynamic test, because of the test performed in china and because the Eagleworks results, I still feel very uncomfortable about the silence Shawyer has on his first generation super cooled device.If I would have irrefutable and impressive results with a supercooled EMdrive, I would not hesitate to make it known to the world. I'm sure a lot of scientific and financial interest would come my way... but I'm not Shawyer... still.. the question remains.. why the silence?NDA, money, under contract, testing issues?Shawyer did email Mullerton
Although i have a slight inclination towards believe there is indeed an effect, simply because of shawyer's video of his dynamic test, because of the test performed in china and because the Eagleworks results, I still feel very uncomfortable about the silence Shawyer has on his first generation super cooled device.If I would have irrefutable and impressive results with a supercooled EMdrive, I would not hesitate to make it known to the world. I'm sure a lot of scientific and financial interest would come my way... but I'm not Shawyer... still.. the question remains.. why the silence?
...Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.Feel free to comment on this first draft.
Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting
... and because the cavity did not contain any polymer dielectric insert.
All-The EM Drive wiki project is starting to take shape - thanks in particular to @MazonDel who has begun adding and organizing content, including links back to the relevant posts and attachments on this forum and elsewhere. It's still very early, so any assistance is greatly appreciated! The site is run on MediaWiki (the same software used by Wikipedia) so it's quite easy to jump in and start contributing.For those building their own test articles, I invite you to update this page with your plans and links to any relevant photos, diagrams, videos, etc. We also have sections to list out the various theory proposals, possible error sources and a placeholder FAQ.@Chris Bergin, feel free to link to this from the forums, when and if you think it would be of value to your visitors (particularly the newer ones).-Rolf
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/07/2015 01:20 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 08:49 pmQuote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.Feel free to comment on this first draft.What an original contribution !this is very interesting:Quote from: Marco FrascaOne sees that there is an additional component to the laser field exiting the cavity that interacts with the mode inside. This can have terms with the frequency shifted and is a purely gravitational effect.This result is extremely interesting. Quote from: Marco FrascaI have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity. Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen. This could explain recent results at Eagleworks with a resonator having the form of a truncated cone. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanationThis justifies Dr. White's attempts to measure these effects with an interferometerI'm looking forward to your attempt at dealing with a truncated cone geometry (difficult geometry to analyze)
Quote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 08:49 pmQuote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.Feel free to comment on this first draft.
Quote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.
I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.
One sees that there is an additional component to the laser field exiting the cavity that interacts with the mode inside. This can have terms with the frequency shifted and is a purely gravitational effect.
I have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity. Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen. This could explain recent results at Eagleworks with a resonator having the form of a truncated cone. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanation
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 11:03 amQuote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.
Quote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/07/2015 03:08 pmNow, that's something we can all agree with I second that statement! You know I have some old wire mesh (old front door screen) to build a cone shaped can, connect some wires to an old and discarded microwave, power it and Bingo, Warp Drive! It's not that simple and what if I, by the shot in the dark make something that does work better than anything out there? I've accomplished very little as the other part of the equation of why, isn't there. Theory, Design, Engineering and Testing all go hand in hand. One aspect may leapfrog another during a process.I have no solid clue why this EM drive works, sure there are some great theories (some of them have "warped" my little brain) out there. I have no doubt a answer will make itself known by Developing Theories, Designing, Building, Testing in synergy.
Now, that's something we can all agree with
Quote from: CW on 05/07/2015 03:34 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 11:03 amQuote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here, the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).
Quote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.How about using Tesla batteries for a few seconds (>300 KW?) and send the damn thing at the other side of the galaxy? Would that form a convincing test result?
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels. We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!
Quote from: R.W. Keyes on 05/07/2015 06:17 pmQuote from: CW on 05/07/2015 03:34 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 11:03 amQuote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here, the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build.I'm doing as close as possible to Shawyer replication as I can as I feel the closer I stay to Shawyer, the higher the chance of success. WHEN that works I may start trying stuff outside what Shawyer has shared.
Quote from: deuteragenie on 05/07/2015 07:07 pmQuote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.How about using Tesla batteries for a few seconds (>300 KW?) and send the damn thing at the other side of the galaxy? Would that form a convincing test result?From what I distill from some of the information I have read, coronal discharges were already plaguing some of the teams at power between 100 and 1000 Watts. a 300KW burst would probably fry everything we can throw at it and would require serious re-design of the components and use of materials, if at all possible.
...My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build....
I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/07/2015 06:57 pm...My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build....Another advantage to replicate the Flight Thruster, is that the Flight Thruster is one of only two designs that are close to what appears to be the optimum cone angle (7.5 degrees). Only the Shawyer Experimental and Shawyer's Flight Thruster are close to this optimum geometry:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370559#msg1370559
I am not an engineer, a scientist, or an inventor. I am just an english major who writes science fiction and thinks this is really cool. So, that said, is there any chance that the guys at Eagleworks are ever going to have a Gofundme? Is there any way for all the people watching this project who don't have technical skills to kick in a little money to fund those who DO?Just asking. Seems crowdfunding might help get around some of the "big organizations won't fund our research" problem.
The point I'm making is this. You see these men sitting at the table together in this video? They're all on the same team....trying to figure out how to pull off interstellar flight. For the good of all of us. Now they're duking it out in an interview in Wired. They (like us) should all be working together, pooling resources, combined knowledge and experience. Instead a rift has formed, which will likely kill progress.