Quote from: aero on 05/26/2015 06:04 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/26/2015 04:16 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/26/2015 04:09 pmQuote from: VAXHeadroom on 05/26/2015 03:57 pmI really think this is a critical insight. The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser. The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.The Flight Thruster EM Drive Shawyer built for Boeing was a sealed unit and operates at 3.85GHz.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlThe effect we are discussing will certainly take place in a sealed unit, if the gas inside the sealed cavity has the properties required for the effect to take place. All that is required is for the gas inside the cavity to have these properties. As per Prof. Yang's analysis in her 2010 paper.So how would that work? Would the gas be ionized in a preferred direction such that a gas molecule accelerated in the positive direction (to pick a coordinate direction) would be less massive (by an electron or a few electrons) than the gas returning. The ionized gas reaches the base plate and on contact is deionized by accepting electrons from the metal then the less strongly ionized (neutralized) gas is accelerated (drifts) back to the other end finding the region within the cavity where ionization occurs with electrons given up to the cavity walls or other end. The cycle repeats.(...)Edit Add: I just described a recirculating ion gun didn't I? How hot is this antenna anyway?(...)Either way, zapping nice heavy ions back and forth really helps with the orders of magnitude of the effect, whatever it might be. What might be happening is that the ions are standing in for us as nice heavy virtual protons to help out with the practical application of the various theoretical frameworks emerging here and elsewhere. Hm.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/26/2015 04:16 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/26/2015 04:09 pmQuote from: VAXHeadroom on 05/26/2015 03:57 pmI really think this is a critical insight. The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser. The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.The Flight Thruster EM Drive Shawyer built for Boeing was a sealed unit and operates at 3.85GHz.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlThe effect we are discussing will certainly take place in a sealed unit, if the gas inside the sealed cavity has the properties required for the effect to take place. All that is required is for the gas inside the cavity to have these properties. As per Prof. Yang's analysis in her 2010 paper.So how would that work? Would the gas be ionized in a preferred direction such that a gas molecule accelerated in the positive direction (to pick a coordinate direction) would be less massive (by an electron or a few electrons) than the gas returning. The ionized gas reaches the base plate and on contact is deionized by accepting electrons from the metal then the less strongly ionized (neutralized) gas is accelerated (drifts) back to the other end finding the region within the cavity where ionization occurs with electrons given up to the cavity walls or other end. The cycle repeats.(...)Edit Add: I just described a recirculating ion gun didn't I? How hot is this antenna anyway?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/26/2015 04:09 pmQuote from: VAXHeadroom on 05/26/2015 03:57 pmI really think this is a critical insight. The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser. The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.The Flight Thruster EM Drive Shawyer built for Boeing was a sealed unit and operates at 3.85GHz.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlThe effect we are discussing will certainly take place in a sealed unit, if the gas inside the sealed cavity has the properties required for the effect to take place. All that is required is for the gas inside the cavity to have these properties. As per Prof. Yang's analysis in her 2010 paper.
Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 05/26/2015 03:57 pmI really think this is a critical insight. The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser. The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.The Flight Thruster EM Drive Shawyer built for Boeing was a sealed unit and operates at 3.85GHz.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
I really think this is a critical insight. The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser. The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.
Please remember that our copper frustum has a baked on silicone PCB anti-oxidation ~0.001" thick coating on its interior surfaces to keep the copper surfaces from oxidizing and thus lowering its Q-factor over time.
I have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.
Quote from: tchernik on 05/26/2015 06:45 pmI have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.I wouldn't expect any coherent theoretical explanation anytime soon, or ever. This device is not based on any valid theoretical model that is consistent with mainstream science and observation. All the proposed models still allow for violations in conservation of moment or conservation of energy, or even both. Shawyer's speculation is the only slightly reasonably grounded (but still incredibly fringe) one, and the most you can get from that "model" is a drive that is about as efficient as pointing a flashlight out the back of a vehicle. I think it speaks for themselves how much the scientific and engineering community are paying to this work. There certainly won't be any increase thrust, as any such thrust was due to thermal or electronic noise in the first place. The experimental method is botched, and the data is incomprehensible (the error bars are far too large to make any justifiable conclusions). Also, none of it has even been peer-reviewed and the researchers don't seem to be interested in repeatability or having other researchers take a much deeper look at their work. The fact that my previous post was "widely reported" and deleted just shows how incredibly sensitive they and their supporters are to any criticism.
Hello i am new in this forum. Based on my own simple model(flat end plates) the frequency has to be approximately 2.52GHz.I hope this is helpfull
"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.
Quote from: tchernik on 05/26/2015 06:45 pmI have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.I wouldn't expect any coherent theoretical explanation anytime soon, or ever. This device is not based on any valid theoretical model that is consistent with mainstream science and observation. All the proposed models still allow for violations in conservation of moment or conservation of energy, or even both. Shawyer's speculation is the only slightly reasonably grounded (but still incredibly fringe) one, and the most you can get from that "model" is a drive that is about as efficient as pointing a flashlight out the back of a vehicle. I think it speaks for itself how much attention the scientific and engineering community are paying to this work. There certainly won't be any increase thrust, as any such thrust was due to thermal or electronic noise in the first place. The experimental method is botched, and the data is incomprehensible (the error bars are far too large to make any justifiable conclusions). Also, none of it has even been peer-reviewed and the researchers don't seem to be interested in repeatability or having other researchers take a much deeper look at their work. The fact that my previous post was "widely reported" and deleted just shows how incredibly sensitive they and their supporters are to any criticism.
Quote from: Davinator on 05/26/2015 09:29 pm"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.I admit that my post was much more snarkier and offensive in hindsight, so I apologize for that. But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments? If you see my earlier posts, you would see I've had great technical discussions with others on here about proposed models and how it fits with current science. I would love to discuss the esoteric details of an acceptable and viable model that is put forth, but, to my knowledge, no such actual model has been proposed to date.
Quote from: Supergravity on 05/26/2015 09:55 pmQuote from: Davinator on 05/26/2015 09:29 pm"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.I admit that my post was much more snarkier and offensive in hindsight, so I apologize for that. But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments? If you see my earlier posts, you would see I've had great technical discussions with others on here about proposed models and how it fits with current science. I would love to discuss the esoteric details of an acceptable and viable model that is put forth, but, to my knowledge, no such actual model has been proposed to date. My answer is I don't know. Like most people here, we mainly discuss things from Shuttle to SLS. These advanced topic threads are very specailist and I have no dog in this race.All I'm saying, per my post, is these threads still fall under the same moderation where you can have any opinion, but you have to present it within site rules. That other post had some unacceptable comments in it and that results in a deleted post. I'm a moderator so I had to post.And to show it's nothing to do with whatever opinion people have, the above post is completely fine!
A physicist pal has asked me a question I cannot answer about this stuff and so I will repeat it here:"I want to know how they actually determine what the Q actually IS for the resonant mode of the particular cavity they are actually using. "
But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments?
In Shawyers Flight Thruster test the reported max thrust achieved was around 170mN. ...That is approx 17 gf. Is a bit over the weight of 2 x US dollar coins. If I put them in your outstretched palm, could you feel the weight? Sure it is not a kg but the level is significant and not what some mosquito produces when it lands on your arm.
The most important point to be made, is that to measure force, the cavity must experience acceleration. In a fully restrained cavity, thrust and reaction force cancel out. ...Clearly, in a static situation, where T and R both exist as forces, they will cancel out. Thus any attempt to measure them by simply placing the thruster vertically on a set of scales will fail. If however the thrust is sufficient such that a = -g, then the thruster could be made to hover above the scales. ...In free space, the thruster will simply accelerate at a m/s/s, and R will not be measurable. To measure R it is necessary to restrain the thruster against a fixed reference point.However at rest, no force can be measured as R will cancel out T as in Fig 1. ...
A number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the forces produced by an EmDrive thruster. In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.Indeed, in the UK when the background force changes were eliminated, in an effort to improve force measurement resolution, no EmDrive force was measured. This was clearly a result of attempting to measure the forces on a fully static thruster, where T and R cancel each other.
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP. While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141 Quote:"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations."" Note that this interview was given after the Boeing technology transfer deal. Since he specifically mentioned Boeing by name as a company he is NOT working with, I think we may have to conclude that the Boeing technology transfer deal must not have led to any developments.(We could guess that Boeing is developing the technology under such close secrecy that SHawyer himself doesn't know about it, or that Shawyer is trying to throw off the trail, but that is getting a bit conspiratorial.)
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP. While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141 Quote:"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations.""
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 05/26/2015 10:37 pmI have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP. While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141 Quote:"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations."" Note that this interview was given after the Boeing technology transfer deal. Since he specifically mentioned Boeing by name as a company he is NOT working with, I think we may have to conclude that the Boeing technology transfer deal must not have led to any developments.(We could guess that Boeing is developing the technology under such close secrecy that SHawyer himself doesn't know about it, or that Shawyer is trying to throw off the trail, but that is getting a bit conspiratorial.)Any kind of technology whatever it was that was being actively developed in the black world would at no time be confirmed by even its inventor as they would be subject to strict NDAs. So we can take nothing from that article. I'm not saying it is in this case merely that if it was that would be the kind of answer you might well get.