An email to Dr. White head, Eagleworks, JSC, NASA:QuoteHi Dr. White,I'm an active member of the NSF EMDrive discussion forum and of the Reddit EMDrive group and an engineer by training.On both forums your Appendix A titled"Analysis of Conservation of Energy for Interplanetary Space Missions using Electric Propulsion"http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdfhas been claimed to be in error, being1) The calculations for the start-final KE analysis is negative but is shown as positive.2) The analysis fails to use the Oberth effect on the KE of the ships fuel.Your comments are most welcome as possible CofE violation for long term thrusting spacecraft needs to be understood, especially if applicable to non propellantless drive technology.I would also like to further understand this statement of yours:"When this situation occurs, in order to ensure that the input energy is equal to the change in kinetic energy, the thrust to power performance will have to decrease over time."How will this happen? How will the ship know when to stop obeying A = F/M and start reducing force generation to not break CofE? What will happen if the ship continually accelerates?I actively support your work at Eagleworks and believe those that say your Q Thruster / EMDrive can't work as claimed because then CofE will be violated are incorrect.Hopefully your reply will help others to understand apparent CofE violation with propellantless thrusters is not the show stopper they think it is.Best regardsI didn't mention the NSF membersdeltaMass,WarpTech,frobnicat who appatently have claimed Dr. White is wrong.Do hope they come forward once Dr. White responds and take up their claims directly with Dr. White.Getting the CofE issue clearly resolved one way or the other is so important so we can move forward and leave an incorrect assumption (one or the orher) behind.When I initially had issues with Roger Shawyer, I didn't call him out in a public forum, making comments behind his back that he was incorrect. I gave him the courtesy of answering my concerns, which he did.
Hi Dr. White,I'm an active member of the NSF EMDrive discussion forum and of the Reddit EMDrive group and an engineer by training.On both forums your Appendix A titled"Analysis of Conservation of Energy for Interplanetary Space Missions using Electric Propulsion"http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdfhas been claimed to be in error, being1) The calculations for the start-final KE analysis is negative but is shown as positive.2) The analysis fails to use the Oberth effect on the KE of the ships fuel.Your comments are most welcome as possible CofE violation for long term thrusting spacecraft needs to be understood, especially if applicable to non propellantless drive technology.I would also like to further understand this statement of yours:"When this situation occurs, in order to ensure that the input energy is equal to the change in kinetic energy, the thrust to power performance will have to decrease over time."How will this happen? How will the ship know when to stop obeying A = F/M and start reducing force generation to not break CofE? What will happen if the ship continually accelerates?I actively support your work at Eagleworks and believe those that say your Q Thruster / EMDrive can't work as claimed because then CofE will be violated are incorrect.Hopefully your reply will help others to understand apparent CofE violation with propellantless thrusters is not the show stopper they think it is.Best regards
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/23/2015 07:44 amAn email to Dr. White head, Eagleworks, JSC, NASA:QuoteHi Dr. White,I'm an active member of the NSF EMDrive discussion forum and of the Reddit EMDrive group and an engineer by training.On both forums your Appendix A titled"Analysis of Conservation of Energy for Interplanetary Space Missions using Electric Propulsion"http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdfhas been claimed to be in error, being1) The calculations for the start-final KE analysis is negative but is shown as positive.2) The analysis fails to use the Oberth effect on the KE of the ships fuel.Your comments are most welcome as possible CofE violation for long term thrusting spacecraft needs to be understood, especially if applicable to non propellantless drive technology.I would also like to further understand this statement of yours:"When this situation occurs, in order to ensure that the input energy is equal to the change in kinetic energy, the thrust to power performance will have to decrease over time."How will this happen? How will the ship know when to stop obeying A = F/M and start reducing force generation to not break CofE? What will happen if the ship continually accelerates?I actively support your work at Eagleworks and believe those that say your Q Thruster / EMDrive can't work as claimed because then CofE will be violated are incorrect.Hopefully your reply will help others to understand apparent CofE violation with propellantless thrusters is not the show stopper they think it is.Best regardsI didn't mention the NSF membersdeltaMass,WarpTech,frobnicat who appatently have claimed Dr. White is wrong.Do hope they come forward once Dr. White responds and take up their claims directly with Dr. White.Getting the CofE issue clearly resolved one way or the other is so important so we can move forward and leave an incorrect assumption (one or the orher) behind.When I initially had issues with Roger Shawyer, I didn't call him out in a public forum, making comments behind his back that he was incorrect. I gave him the courtesy of answering my concerns, which he did.Add Rodal to that list too. I remember because of "imprimatur(a)"
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:28 AM 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. Well, when somebody like Hawkings proposes chronology protection to prevent time travel:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjectureit is invested with the imprimatura of somebody serious. So White and Woodward deserve the same attention and respect.How do you address Woodward's conjecture ? (he claims that it is perfectly compatible with GR)
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.
Having been raised in the sixties, I am kinda allergic to imprimatura imprimaturs. A pox on them, say I.
Quote from: demofsky on 06/23/2015 02:34 amQuote from: SeeShells on 06/23/2015 01:35 amI have a 7 ton car lift in my shop that is buried in over 3 feet of bedrock and concrete so I figured I would use that as it's stable. Thoughts? Questions?ShellIn my own speculative experimental design I also have thought about using a very large beam with a laser pointer. Question. Does something as massive as that beam really need any additional dampening? Without doing the math, I envisaged that any changes would happen slowly, the mass of the beam dampening most artifacts. Also, because it will be slow, you need to be mindful of cooling since everything will need to run for long periods of time.Good points. I worried about the pendulum effect that I've seen on other tests and the slow movement of other outside forces is a concern. I remember setting up anti-vibration tables in a lab and watching cars and trucks drive by a 100 foot away. Even when we would set up our semiconductor equipment in a lab with a concrete floor we could detect the bending movement of the floor and into our machines by someone walking next to it. Very small movements, but a issue when they were expecting submicron accuracies. Cooling is a issue and I hope the holes in the Copper Frustum help, free hanging with holes I should get away from a hot air balloon effect but still need to worry about hot air eddie currents from the frustum. Turning the drive around should give me subtracting data for the total deviations.The lasers are great to monitor deflections and vibrations of the beam, plus they are very cheap.I hope by putting the beam between the 2 stainless steel cables I can reduce movement in one direction and the oil damper should help with any others... hope.Thanks for your input, I don't feel so alone in doing this.Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 06/23/2015 01:35 amI have a 7 ton car lift in my shop that is buried in over 3 feet of bedrock and concrete so I figured I would use that as it's stable. Thoughts? Questions?ShellIn my own speculative experimental design I also have thought about using a very large beam with a laser pointer. Question. Does something as massive as that beam really need any additional dampening? Without doing the math, I envisaged that any changes would happen slowly, the mass of the beam dampening most artifacts. Also, because it will be slow, you need to be mindful of cooling since everything will need to run for long periods of time.
I have a 7 ton car lift in my shop that is buried in over 3 feet of bedrock and concrete so I figured I would use that as it's stable. Thoughts? Questions?Shell
Roger Shawyer kindly sent me a copy of his EMDrive paper that is currently under peer review. All I can say is WOW. All doubt will be removed. Apologises but can't yet share it.Would make one comment. The EMDrives on the IXS Clark are old tech, working at only 4N/kW. If you think the voyage times here http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_shiplook good, well lets just say they need to be revised downward quite a bit.Still in bed, recovering slower than desired, damn old age, but getting there. My build start still looks like 4 to 6 weeks away but the design steadly improves. Force measurement system will follow what Shawyer did in the Flight Thruster demo setup as attached. Hang it from a spring and measure the generated forces on a digital scale. Typical KISS enginerring.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/22/2015 11:44 pmRoger Shawyer kindly sent me a copy of his EMDrive paper that is currently under peer review. All I can say is WOW. All doubt will be removed. Apologises but can't yet share it.Would make one comment. The EMDrives on the IXS Clark are old tech, working at only 4N/kW. If you think the voyage times here http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_shiplook good, well lets just say they need to be revised downward quite a bit.Still in bed, recovering slower than desired, damn old age, but getting there. My build start still looks like 4 to 6 weeks away but the design steadly improves. Force measurement system will follow what Shawyer did in the Flight Thruster demo setup as attached. Hang it from a spring and measure the generated forces on a digital scale. Typical KISS enginerring.This is quite a WOW post Mr. Traveller. I try to speculate that second generation EmDrive (prototype) is operational? I can not wait to read that paper you speak about. I also can not imagine what storm it will start here on the forum (and not only here). I already feel sorry for the moderators.Anyway thank you for interesting post.
The liquid connection of choice here is something called Galinstan. Do check it out. It's far safer than mercury.
If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/23/2015 03:44 amQuote from: aero on 06/23/2015 02:53 amQuote from: Rodal on 06/23/2015 02:35 amQuote from: Rodal on 06/22/2015 10:32 pm....Let's try to work through this. The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:Ex ?Ez?Hx?Hz?Quote from: aero on 06/23/2015 12:56 amX is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.Can you plot the Absolute Value of the E field:for example, for the cross-section with normal yinstead of Ez, can you have contour plot Sqrt[(Ex)^2 + (Ez)^2]That is not an option that I see in the h5topng manual. Maybe HDFview has that option but I think you're asking for some MatLab data processing. If so, then no, I can't, maybe someone else would like to accept the challenge. I know that Meep users commonly reduce data using MatLab programs so it's likely possible.Your Ex component should be zero (I keep forgetting that you are using x for the longitudinal axis)There should only be a magnetic field Hx component in the longitudinal direction for x for TE modes.That's why it is called Transverse Electric: there should not be an electric field in the longitudinal directionIt is for a circular cross section with normal x you need to plot Sqrt[Ez^2+Ey^2]Can you please verify that your Ex is zero ?Can you give us a plot of the Hx field for the TE mode?I'm thinking that we need to consider the coordinate systems in a little more detail. The origon of the of the EM fields is the location of the antenna. The x, y, and z coordinates of the EM fields start at that origin. The fields do pass through the origon of the cavity which is on the central axis of rotation equidistant from the ends. Meep calculates from the origin of the cavity but the field patterns are at an angle to that origin, maybe by as much as 45 degrees. The antenna center is offset from the big end by 1.35 inches and the central axis by the radius of the cavity minus 7 mm in the Y edge direction of the cavity. So the field pattern coordinate values detected by meep are a vector combination of the field patterns generated by the antenna. To me the implication seems to be that patterns detected by meep will not coincide with the theorecal patterns except when the antenna is centered within the cavity.
Quote from: aero on 06/23/2015 02:53 amQuote from: Rodal on 06/23/2015 02:35 amQuote from: Rodal on 06/22/2015 10:32 pm....Let's try to work through this. The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:Ex ?Ez?Hx?Hz?Quote from: aero on 06/23/2015 12:56 amX is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.Can you plot the Absolute Value of the E field:for example, for the cross-section with normal yinstead of Ez, can you have contour plot Sqrt[(Ex)^2 + (Ez)^2]That is not an option that I see in the h5topng manual. Maybe HDFview has that option but I think you're asking for some MatLab data processing. If so, then no, I can't, maybe someone else would like to accept the challenge. I know that Meep users commonly reduce data using MatLab programs so it's likely possible.Your Ex component should be zero (I keep forgetting that you are using x for the longitudinal axis)There should only be a magnetic field Hx component in the longitudinal direction for x for TE modes.That's why it is called Transverse Electric: there should not be an electric field in the longitudinal directionIt is for a circular cross section with normal x you need to plot Sqrt[Ez^2+Ey^2]Can you please verify that your Ex is zero ?Can you give us a plot of the Hx field for the TE mode?
Quote from: Rodal on 06/23/2015 02:35 amQuote from: Rodal on 06/22/2015 10:32 pm....Let's try to work through this. The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:Ex ?Ez?Hx?Hz?Quote from: aero on 06/23/2015 12:56 amX is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.Can you plot the Absolute Value of the E field:for example, for the cross-section with normal yinstead of Ez, can you have contour plot Sqrt[(Ex)^2 + (Ez)^2]That is not an option that I see in the h5topng manual. Maybe HDFview has that option but I think you're asking for some MatLab data processing. If so, then no, I can't, maybe someone else would like to accept the challenge. I know that Meep users commonly reduce data using MatLab programs so it's likely possible.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/22/2015 10:32 pm....Let's try to work through this. The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:Ex ?Ez?Hx?Hz?Quote from: aero on 06/23/2015 12:56 amX is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.Can you plot the Absolute Value of the E field:for example, for the cross-section with normal yinstead of Ez, can you have contour plot Sqrt[(Ex)^2 + (Ez)^2]
....Let's try to work through this. The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:Ex ?Ez?Hx?Hz?
X is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.
Quote from: Star One on 06/23/2015 11:10 amIf he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.Don't believe he cares what his many detractors think. Do believe many here may have undisclosed reasons behind their deep seated dislike of him.So yes I agree the peer review paper will have little effect on changing deep rooted opinions.It is a pitty to see intelligent people invest so much intellectual capital in opposing Roger Shawyer and his EMDrive invention that there is no way for them to later alter their position and still be credible.
The end of the beam opposite of the drive is a laser pointer to monitor any disturbances. (thrust hopefully) Still looking at scales so I've not put one into my layout.Thoughts? Questions?
A much longer video of the EmDrive Demonstrator engine on the rotary air bearing test rig has just been released:http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Notes on Test video:The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period. This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces.The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W.
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 06:05 amQuote from: demofsky on 06/23/2015 05:37 amQuote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 05:07 amMOMENTUM ENHANCEMENTI think I just solved the momentum enhancement problem, and learned something new in the process. I'm working on my DC analysis, since now I'm 99% convinced microwaves are not causing thrust. In the course of my day, I was trying to figure out how much momentum is carried away by a quantum of magnetic flux. Very interesting answer, probably best described quantum mechanically, though that is not how I came to this conclusion.In a superconductor, the momentum of the cooper pair is given by; p = h/λA quantum of magnetic flux is given by: Φ=h/2eTherefore, momentum/volt-sec = p/Φ = 2e/λIn macroscopic terms, the momentum carried away by the magnetic flux, depends on the recoil momentum of the charge per unit length of the electrons flowing in the copper. This value is an intrinsic property of the copper based on the free electron density, which is only slightly altered by collisions, heat and relativistic effects (velocity). So far, I have shown that due to the inductance gradient of the cone geometry, there is a force acting on the current and magnetic flux, pushing it toward the big end. I've also shown that the drift velocity at the small end is much larger than at the big end, so as the current is pushed toward the big end, it is losing momentum in the form of magnetic flux. The amount of momentum gained by the frustum will depend on the difference in drift velocity, the momentum stored as magnetic flux AND, on how much of it can escape.ToddWOW!!! This is VERY interesting!! When you say "AND, on how much of it can escape." are you referring to the magnetic flux that is storing the momentum? If so what is the mechanism that it uses to escape in your view? Thanks!Yes, but I'm still working on it. It's partially due to resistance of the copper. When there is a voltage drop, it means flux is escaping the loop. For DC it's no problem, but for microwaves, the only thing that might explain it would be excessive heat causing the skin effect to degrade. IMO, thrust is more likely due to the DC offset from the half-wave 60Hz rectification driving the magnetron, than it is from the microwaves.ToddThat says thrust is proportional to frequency. Laser cavities here we come. Or maybe just very high frequency driven magnatrons. The reason they switch at 60 Hz is because 60 Hz is at the wall socket but there isn't any good reason not to use a 400 Hz generator or go even much higher. Might need to re-design the magnatron but that's no biggie compared to the payoff, if the thruster works that way.
Quote from: demofsky on 06/23/2015 05:37 amQuote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 05:07 amMOMENTUM ENHANCEMENTI think I just solved the momentum enhancement problem, and learned something new in the process. I'm working on my DC analysis, since now I'm 99% convinced microwaves are not causing thrust. In the course of my day, I was trying to figure out how much momentum is carried away by a quantum of magnetic flux. Very interesting answer, probably best described quantum mechanically, though that is not how I came to this conclusion.In a superconductor, the momentum of the cooper pair is given by; p = h/λA quantum of magnetic flux is given by: Φ=h/2eTherefore, momentum/volt-sec = p/Φ = 2e/λIn macroscopic terms, the momentum carried away by the magnetic flux, depends on the recoil momentum of the charge per unit length of the electrons flowing in the copper. This value is an intrinsic property of the copper based on the free electron density, which is only slightly altered by collisions, heat and relativistic effects (velocity). So far, I have shown that due to the inductance gradient of the cone geometry, there is a force acting on the current and magnetic flux, pushing it toward the big end. I've also shown that the drift velocity at the small end is much larger than at the big end, so as the current is pushed toward the big end, it is losing momentum in the form of magnetic flux. The amount of momentum gained by the frustum will depend on the difference in drift velocity, the momentum stored as magnetic flux AND, on how much of it can escape.ToddWOW!!! This is VERY interesting!! When you say "AND, on how much of it can escape." are you referring to the magnetic flux that is storing the momentum? If so what is the mechanism that it uses to escape in your view? Thanks!Yes, but I'm still working on it. It's partially due to resistance of the copper. When there is a voltage drop, it means flux is escaping the loop. For DC it's no problem, but for microwaves, the only thing that might explain it would be excessive heat causing the skin effect to degrade. IMO, thrust is more likely due to the DC offset from the half-wave 60Hz rectification driving the magnetron, than it is from the microwaves.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 05:07 amMOMENTUM ENHANCEMENTI think I just solved the momentum enhancement problem, and learned something new in the process. I'm working on my DC analysis, since now I'm 99% convinced microwaves are not causing thrust. In the course of my day, I was trying to figure out how much momentum is carried away by a quantum of magnetic flux. Very interesting answer, probably best described quantum mechanically, though that is not how I came to this conclusion.In a superconductor, the momentum of the cooper pair is given by; p = h/λA quantum of magnetic flux is given by: Φ=h/2eTherefore, momentum/volt-sec = p/Φ = 2e/λIn macroscopic terms, the momentum carried away by the magnetic flux, depends on the recoil momentum of the charge per unit length of the electrons flowing in the copper. This value is an intrinsic property of the copper based on the free electron density, which is only slightly altered by collisions, heat and relativistic effects (velocity). So far, I have shown that due to the inductance gradient of the cone geometry, there is a force acting on the current and magnetic flux, pushing it toward the big end. I've also shown that the drift velocity at the small end is much larger than at the big end, so as the current is pushed toward the big end, it is losing momentum in the form of magnetic flux. The amount of momentum gained by the frustum will depend on the difference in drift velocity, the momentum stored as magnetic flux AND, on how much of it can escape.ToddWOW!!! This is VERY interesting!! When you say "AND, on how much of it can escape." are you referring to the magnetic flux that is storing the momentum? If so what is the mechanism that it uses to escape in your view? Thanks!
MOMENTUM ENHANCEMENTI think I just solved the momentum enhancement problem, and learned something new in the process. I'm working on my DC analysis, since now I'm 99% convinced microwaves are not causing thrust. In the course of my day, I was trying to figure out how much momentum is carried away by a quantum of magnetic flux. Very interesting answer, probably best described quantum mechanically, though that is not how I came to this conclusion.In a superconductor, the momentum of the cooper pair is given by; p = h/λA quantum of magnetic flux is given by: Φ=h/2eTherefore, momentum/volt-sec = p/Φ = 2e/λIn macroscopic terms, the momentum carried away by the magnetic flux, depends on the recoil momentum of the charge per unit length of the electrons flowing in the copper. This value is an intrinsic property of the copper based on the free electron density, which is only slightly altered by collisions, heat and relativistic effects (velocity). So far, I have shown that due to the inductance gradient of the cone geometry, there is a force acting on the current and magnetic flux, pushing it toward the big end. I've also shown that the drift velocity at the small end is much larger than at the big end, so as the current is pushed toward the big end, it is losing momentum in the form of magnetic flux. The amount of momentum gained by the frustum will depend on the difference in drift velocity, the momentum stored as magnetic flux AND, on how much of it can escape.Todd
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/23/2015 01:38 pmA much longer video of the EmDrive Demonstrator engine on the rotary air bearing test rig has just been released:http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlAlso interesting notes (I don't recall whether this information is new or not):Quote from: ShawyerNotes on Test video:The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period. This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces.The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W.I don't know how he claims to have measured the 96 mN on the air-bearing
Just FYI, I notified Paul March regarding the integration error as soon as I found it. I have nothing personal against Roger Shawyer. His relativistic mathematics is blatantly wrong, anyone can do the math and know it's wrong. There are significant forces on the side walls that cannot be neglected. It appears to me that SPR ignores the correct way to do the math with Maxwell's equations, because it doesn't give him the answer he wants. To me, that is the sign of someone who is either uninterested in understanding it thoroughly, or is trying to hide something or deceive someone. Rather than simply say, "I don't know why it works, but you can see that it does." He's been trying to develop it for over a decade, yet has not made much progress due to his incorrect theory.Todd