Quote from: rfmwguy on 03/21/2016 01:47 amThe time and expense needed to create a patent plus allowing the company's name on it for the world to see makes me wonder...was a working prototype built? Airbus doesn't strike me as a company that would engage in frivolous patents on non-working concepts. If they do, shame on them...its setting a poor example for the world to see. There is only one other possibility, they have something. The 2006 article in newscientist should have discredited the patent app...yet it was published in 2015. Boeing once had an emdrive and silence since then except for a quote they aren't working with shawyer. 2 of the worlds largest aerospace companies have been evaluating peopellantless propulsion...perpetual motion machines for space nerds...why would they have even tried? And why is there a 2015 patent on the books? Dismissing this as "nothing to see here" is either naive or wishful opinion. A simple interest in a propellantless engine should not have lead to a patent, yet it did. Perhaps airbus can clarify.I believe you are right there. I saw this happen in companies I worked for. They discredited the inventors in order to take over their patents later. Zen-In do well to believe in the numbers, but there is always more than that. That is where Trallever is right. It is about the $$. I would not be suprised if Airbus intention was to discredit him. They done their research well and know that just s little push will damage his reputation even more... I do not have any idealistic visions about the american companies. Money is first motivator for them.Also I do not think this dabate have any meaning here. Zen-In may I ask you why do you repeatedly bring this subject here? I know you are very sceptical to Em-Drive and that is understatement, but damaging Mr. Shawyer reputation any further do not bring us any closer to solving this anomalous device.
The time and expense needed to create a patent plus allowing the company's name on it for the world to see makes me wonder...was a working prototype built? Airbus doesn't strike me as a company that would engage in frivolous patents on non-working concepts. If they do, shame on them...its setting a poor example for the world to see. There is only one other possibility, they have something. The 2006 article in newscientist should have discredited the patent app...yet it was published in 2015. Boeing once had an emdrive and silence since then except for a quote they aren't working with shawyer. 2 of the worlds largest aerospace companies have been evaluating peopellantless propulsion...perpetual motion machines for space nerds...why would they have even tried? And why is there a 2015 patent on the books? Dismissing this as "nothing to see here" is either naive or wishful opinion. A simple interest in a propellantless engine should not have lead to a patent, yet it did. Perhaps airbus can clarify.
Quote from: Rodal on 03/20/2016 05:48 pm(*) I still don't understand why Mr. Shawyer, upon the negative reception to his "theoretical explanation" and his NewScientist article, didn't seek cooperation from British Universities. The UK has some outstanding universities: why doesn't he go to Cambridge University for example, and tell them: I have an experiment that shows a force, but my explanation is not well received in the scientific/engineering community, can you help me with a better explanation and to show that my experimental results are valid?Just maybe that has been done.Ah to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.
(*) I still don't understand why Mr. Shawyer, upon the negative reception to his "theoretical explanation" and his NewScientist article, didn't seek cooperation from British Universities. The UK has some outstanding universities: why doesn't he go to Cambridge University for example, and tell them: I have an experiment that shows a force, but my explanation is not well received in the scientific/engineering community, can you help me with a better explanation and to show that my experimental results are valid?
The device can function using energy in electrical form alone, to power primarily the electromagnets and to a lesser extent all of the accessories required for the operation of the propulsion device....On board an interstellar space vehicle, electrical energy is for example produced by a radioisotope generator, the technology of which is known, and the operating life of which is more than 20 years...at constant acceleration the star Proxima Centauri (Alpha Centauri C) located at a distance of 270,000 astronomical units (4.22 light years) could be reached in 18 years with a constant acceleration of 0.265 m/s^2 (ignoring the effects of general relativity), the speed reached on arrival therefore being c/2, i.e. half the speed of light...In the hypothetical case of a space vehicle with a mass of a 300 kg such as a probe vehicle, the acceleration presumes the application of an average force of 79.5 N (the mass multiplied by the acceleration)....The force generated by the propulsion device being internal to the system formed by the space vehicle, it is applied to an object at a relative speed of zero with respect to said propulsion device. In this case, assuming the average force to be a constant, the average power continuously transmitted to the space vehicle for its acceleration is 10.5 W...With a hypothetical output of the propulsion system of only 1%, taking into account the impulsive aspect of said propulsion system and the losses in the various mechanical and electrical components, it was established that 1 kW of onboard power is enough to complete the mission. A radioisotope generator having the capacity to produce such power is perfectly accessible with the current technologies.
Is there a demonstrator available for the EADS patent? http://tinyurl.com/hksu5reIt seems to be impossible to generate a force in a specific direction based on such mechanical setup. (Many people may think the same about the em drive).While thinking about the applied momenta and back reactions and force vectors during rotation on the inertia mass I dont see that is possible because the average of all these forces have to cancel each other perfectly. Even the patent is authentic I would wonder if it worked as described.I don't say it's impossible but seems unlikely to me.Please correct me when I miss something related to this machine.
Is there a demonstrator available for the EADS patent? http://tinyurl.com/hksu5reIt seems to be impossible to generate a force in a specific direction based on such mechanical setup. (Many people may think the same about the em drive).While thinking about the applied momenta and back reactions and force vectors during rotation on the inertia mass I dont see that is possible because the average of all these forces have to cancel each other perfectly. Even the patent is authentic I would wonder if it worked as described.I don't say it's impossible but seems unlikely to me.Please correct me when I miss something related to this machine.EDITIt would be relatively easy for a company like EADS to confirm or to reject this, in regarding to the pure numbers posted by Dr.Rodal. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1506249#msg1506249
Build Update: "NSF-TE311" is well underway. I worked most of the day on the frustum. By far, the side-walls are the most difficult part of the emdrive to fabricate!Also shown is the first-surface mirror attached to the emdrive that is part of the interferometer. Pro-tip. If you order your copper from onlinemetals.com, it comes attached to a cardboard honeycomb. Leave it attached and tape it down to make it easier to cut the 1mm copper.
Could you maybe explain your test stand operation and general experimental method in more detail.
Quote from: spupeng7 on 03/22/2016 12:58 amCould you maybe explain your test stand operation and general experimental method in more detail. The build is actually very simple. There are two main components: an air track and an interferometer. They are designed to be used independently, as well as together. The air track is the horizontal square tube the emdrive hangs beneath. This is an air bearing that can be used to simulate a frictionless environment. The 450nm interferometer is built into the support structure. It is used to measure displacement with extreme precision. *That is a Salvador Dali clock I picked up some years ago. Not a reflection.
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 03/20/2016 07:32 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 03/20/2016 06:53 pmAh to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.Rogers first patent on an emdrive like technology was in 1989. He's had almost thirty years to come up with a more coherent theoretical explanation for the emdrive, and yet in his latest paper from July of 2015 (see here), he offers up the exact same nonsense theoretical explanation he has offered up since day one.So if Roger is "holding some theory stuff very close to his chest", then are we to believe that in your opinion the most recent paper contains an intentionally incorrect theoretical explanation? Because I can guarantee you no one from any of these collaborating universities would have let him use such a trivially incorrect explanation. So how to reconcile this issue? If he knows his theoretical explanation is bogus, why is he still using it in his published works?You never heard of Industrial Secrets?Roger is not a Publish or Die academic. Why should he give away the combination to the vault?BTW I have advised him to get on his skates and open the commercial propellantless drive market NOW as there are 2 other propellantless drive techs coming on stream.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 03/20/2016 06:53 pmAh to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.Rogers first patent on an emdrive like technology was in 1989. He's had almost thirty years to come up with a more coherent theoretical explanation for the emdrive, and yet in his latest paper from July of 2015 (see here), he offers up the exact same nonsense theoretical explanation he has offered up since day one.So if Roger is "holding some theory stuff very close to his chest", then are we to believe that in your opinion the most recent paper contains an intentionally incorrect theoretical explanation? Because I can guarantee you no one from any of these collaborating universities would have let him use such a trivially incorrect explanation. So how to reconcile this issue? If he knows his theoretical explanation is bogus, why is he still using it in his published works?
Ah to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.
Regarding the mysteries of patents, disclosures, claims, refutations, etc: A working EMdrive is bigger than patents. You could call it a military technology, or a world-changing invention. Many groups may be jostling for position in attempts to get valuable information, or funding, while at the same time protecting their own secrets. "Dirty tricks" may happen. My advice is to be wary.
Quote from: Monomorphic on 03/22/2016 02:54 amSince no-one else has asked:A) How have you measured the minimum force required to move a EMdrive-equivalent mass on that air-track? (And what is the minimum force?)B) Do you have a way of measuring the force produced by your EMDrive, or are you just looking at a binary yes/no result from displacement?
Quote from: Paul451 on 03/22/2016 10:49 amQuote from: Monomorphic on 03/22/2016 02:54 amSince no-one else has asked:A) How have you measured the minimum force required to move a EMdrive-equivalent mass on that air-track? (And what is the minimum force?)B) Do you have a way of measuring the force produced by your EMDrive, or are you just looking at a binary yes/no result from displacement?A properly designed air track has no minimum force required to get it moving because it has zero stiction. All retarding forces it experiences (drag/friction) are dynamic and dependent on being in motion.The air-track is pretty much binary, it either moves or it doesn't. The interferometer will allow me to do much more precise measurements of displacement. This is accomplished by counting the interference fringe patterns as they change. Lastly, there is a third set-up mode: the White-Juday Field Interferometer. In this configuration the laser passes through the center of the frustum to look for variations in the path time.