Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:25 pmMight be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlI listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered: How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?
Might be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html
We can safely bet that the excellent moderators here will take good care of Mr. Shawyer so that he can explain how this thing works in his own words.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 01:30 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:25 pmMight be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlI listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered: How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?We need to ask Shawyer as maybe a typo.Maybe Mulletron can ask him as he has email contact and the data is in the public domain?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:38 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 01:30 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:25 pmMight be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlI listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered: How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?We need to ask Shawyer as maybe a typo.Maybe Mulletron can ask him as he has email contact and the data is in the public domain?I don't think that we can dismiss this as a typo (and therefore I agree with you that it should be pursued with a question to Shawyer) because in a previous discussion in this thread I had addressed this question to Star-Drive, who answered that as far as he knew there were two ways to change the direction of thrust of EM Drives: a) to change the location of the dielectric polymer insert and b) to change the mode shape. Star-Drive posted his experimental evidence for a) and wrote that he had no experimental evidence for b) which (to my mind) means that this is information he may know from other experiments.
90 seconds of thrust at 326mN/kW over a power input range of 150w to 450W is not something that is hard to test for.SPR say they built & qualified this Flight Thruster for Boeing.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlSo where is it? Why don't EW have it to test?
...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 02:28 pm90 seconds of thrust at 326mN/kW over a power input range of 150w to 450W is not something that is hard to test for.SPR say they built & qualified this Flight Thruster for Boeing.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlSo where is it? Why don't EW have it to test?My recollection is that it was earlier reported in these threads that Boeing decided to discontinue any further work on it. Do you have any further (or different) information ?Concerning Eagleworks working with Shawyer, Eagleworks is already under severe budget constraints, for NASA to enter into an R&D agreement with a foreign company pursuing intellectual property rights is not a trivial endeavor as it would require IP negotiations and agreement from NASA's IP department, so that is fully understandable.
... Seems fairly easy for Boeing to send a SPR Flight Thruster to EW to test?
Hi,I have two questions:1. if the pendulum that measures the force is made of metal, is it properly shielded from electro magnetism?2. why, in the second run there was much less thrust? (this was an experiment where more measures were taken against confounding variables, so does the drop in thrust indicate any confounding variable to have played a major role in the thrust measured in the first experment?91.2 µN at 17 W of input power50 µN with 50 W of input powerthanks,Siem
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 02:43 pm... Seems fairly easy for Boeing to send a SPR Flight Thruster to EW to test?No, NASA cannot just "accept" a SPR Flight Thruster to test just like that, when SPR is a foreign company pursuing intellectual property rights. Even Ford Motor Company will not accept any letter from any inventor disclosing an invention and much less accept to test in their R&D department a rig from a company pursuing IP rights. It would involve an IP agreement.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:46 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 02:43 pm... Seems fairly easy for Boeing to send a SPR Flight Thruster to EW to test?No, NASA cannot just "accept" a SPR Flight Thruster to test just like that, when SPR is a foreign company pursuing intellectual property rights. Even Ford Motor Company will not accept any letter from any inventor disclosing an invention and much less accept to test in their R&D department a rig from a company pursuing IP rights. It would involve an IP agreement.....
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 02:54 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:46 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 02:43 pm... Seems fairly easy for Boeing to send a SPR Flight Thruster to EW to test?No, NASA cannot just "accept" a SPR Flight Thruster to test just like that, when SPR is a foreign company pursuing intellectual property rights. Even Ford Motor Company will not accept any letter from any inventor disclosing an invention and much less accept to test in their R&D department a rig from a company pursuing IP rights. It would involve an IP agreement.....Yes, based on my experience being in charge of R&D departments in private companies and managing Intellectual Property negotiations and litigation, I would expect that for NASA to test devices from companies pursuing intellectual property rights it would involve a negotiation of an IP agreement.
Yes, based on my experience being in charge of R&D departments in private companies and managing Intellectual Property negotiations and litigation, I would expect that for NASA to test devices from companies pursuing intellectual property rights it would involve a negotiation of an IP agreement.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.html
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.