Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/26/2016 02:06 amQuote from: OnlyMe on 11/26/2016 01:31 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 11:08 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.So you believe that Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics and then engineered his EmDrive of today from the physics?While it is true that experiments are being done all of the time by many working on the EmDrive concept, there is at this time no credible mechanism of physics known that results in force. The experiments are experiments tinkering with the engineering design, in large part as a function of trial and error. All working toward producing a drive that will produce enough thrust that the physics (physical mechanism) that produces the thrust can be explored.Only for those who believe that Shawyer's theory of operation is correct, does your statement hold true. But only to the extent that Shawyer's theory of the science is a true and accurate description of the underlying mechanism...Look at the historical series of frustums and power supply designs, from Shawyer, to Yang, to EW and several DIYs, and what you will find is a series of engineering improvements and many just starting from scratch with a rather vague idea, of what went before. The only solid science or scientific tools employed in the designs right now, the simulation software.., all say there should be no net thrust.., and yet it moves.There seem to be a couple of theories that may be getting close to both describing what is observed, predicting better designs and suggesting a mechanism of operation. But not quite there yet.I do know what experimental physics is, and so far the credible physics involved seems to be saying an EmDrive should not produce thrust, and yet again.., it moves.Unless someone is withholding results with undeniable thrusts, we're still working on engineering a functional drive, that can be examined and tested to determine the scientific mechanism of operation.Even the progression of Shawyer's various drives look more like a series of engineering improvements than the realization of any credible underlying scientific mechanism of operation.There is a difference between experiments refining an engineering design and scientific experiments based on an underlying scientific theory/model. The first aims to improve or maybe just prove a functional result like thrust, while the second is both designed to meet the requirements of and prove the accuracy of a theoretical model. We are all, speculating about theory, but so far.., and again unless someone is holding back.., we are still working our way through engineering designs, with the hope of achieving something new and wonderful.
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/26/2016 01:31 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 11:08 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 11:08 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
EW, non resonant dielectric
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 07:41 amEW, non resonant dielectricWhat nonsense are you talking about? Their experiment was in resonance.Also, for all of the torsion pendulums and some of the other experiments you call "static" involve measurements, the measurement was of the cavity moving. And really when you break it down, what scales measure is the small displacement from the force of the object pushing on it. Plus if you are going to call torsion pendulums static, then you also have to do so for the others (like some on this forum) who have torsion pendulums that measured a force towards the small end. If you actually consider the data, you will realize that what you are saying is inconsistent.
Quote from: meberbs on 11/26/2016 07:59 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 07:41 amEW, non resonant dielectricWhat nonsense are you talking about? Their experiment was in resonance.Also, for all of the torsion pendulums and some of the other experiments you call "static" involve measurements, the measurement was of the cavity moving. And really when you break it down, what scales measure is the small displacement from the force of the object pushing on it. Plus if you are going to call torsion pendulums static, then you also have to do so for the others (like some on this forum) who have torsion pendulums that measured a force towards the small end. If you actually consider the data, you will realize that what you are saying is inconsistent.The dielectric EW used at the small end of their Cu frustum was not internally resonant nor was its axial position carefully adjusted so there was phase coherence between the EmWaves inside the resonator and those inside the frustum. SPR, in the Experimental EmDrive, used a commercial ceramic 2.45GHz dielectric resonator with a very high Q.EW used 2 discs of polyethylene.Very different situation.Ok yes there is a VERY small movement in ANY static force measurement system. And some time the EmDrive in TM212 seems to struggle to generate a clean Thrust impulse force as EW recorded with their torsion pendulum.With the EW EmDrive sometime the time needed to generate the Thrust force is longer than the thermal changes and then at other times, their EmDrive delivers a very strong and fast impulse force.Here are the data for the TE012 dielectric and non dielectric tests NASA conducted:1) TE012 with small end dielectric: 2.0mN/kW, force direction big to small2) TE012 with NO dielectric: 3.85mN/kW, force direction small to big (supports Roger's comments that dielectrics reduce the force generated)Please note that using TE012 mode, especially without the small end dielectric, the force impulse is very fast, as fast as that of the electrostatic calibration system.Just maybe if NASA had used TE012 excitation, without a dielectric, all the comments about the slow force generation in TM212 mode would have been eliminated?Please note the force direction arrows on the images.
Commercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard. Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation. A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher. Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure. Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters. Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.
Quote from: X_RaY on 11/26/2016 09:01 amCommercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard. Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?As the Roger's report as attached.QuoteThe thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation. A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher. Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure. Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters. Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 09:11 amQuote from: X_RaY on 11/26/2016 09:01 amCommercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard. Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?As the Roger's report as attached.QuoteThe thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation. A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher. Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure. Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters. Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.In theory, wouldn't a dielectric cause the EM field to be manipulated? I.e. would the dielectric make the majority of the EM waves be nearer to the dielectric medium while active?
Quote from: therealjjj77 on 11/26/2016 09:32 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 09:11 amQuote from: X_RaY on 11/26/2016 09:01 amCommercial dielectric resonators are not designed to use inside conductive cavity resonators, especially not for a truncated conical cavity. As you pointed out several times, the distances between shells of constand phase along the central axis changes for this kind of cavity shape.Dielectric resonators are designed to use without conductive walls in a TE,TM or HEM mode where its resonant at specific frequencies for several mode shapes( hybrid electromagnetic (HEM) modes are not present in conductive cavities due to boundery conditions. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~tomwu/course/eel6482/notes/18%20Fundamental%20Waveguide%20Theory.pdf )When you put such a dielectric resonator into the frustum the situation is quite different, the mode shape will be governed by the sourrounding metallic cavity. The consequence is that the resonant frequencies of both single resonators will change when you stick them together. The position of the dielectric is also a point in this regard. Question: Was the dielecrtic resonator, you are talking about, optimized in this manner for the usage inside of the cavity resonator?As the Roger's report as attached.QuoteThe thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation. A rectangular feed structure was used with a resonant slot selected for the input launcher. Input matching was achieved by feed length adjustment and a tuning screw.An annular choke in the feed, open to the EMC enclosure, provided a path for reflected power to a load mounted on the inside wall of the enclosure. Thruster resonance tuning was carried out by variation of the position of the end wall, using screw adjusters. Optimum impedance matching at the dielectric boundary was achieved by fine adjustment of the axial position of the dielectric section.If you read the report, Roger details how the axial position of the 2.45GHz resonator was tuned, plus how the adjustable big end plate was tuned.In theory, wouldn't a dielectric cause the EM field to be manipulated? I.e. would the dielectric make the majority of the EM waves be nearer to the dielectric medium while active?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414665#msg1414665
Quote from: SeeShells on 11/25/2016 09:12 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pmbut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pmbut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/26/2016 05:40 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 05:35 amQuote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.Or take a short cut. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Interesting.If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 05:35 amQuote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.Or take a short cut. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Quote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 10:58 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 11/25/2016 09:12 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pmbut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children. We don't care about hurt feelings, we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part. We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there. There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear. President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care. We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.Just saying.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 06:51 amQuote from: WarpTech on 11/26/2016 05:40 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 05:35 amQuote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.Or take a short cut. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Interesting.If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.That one is 8.5" long, 8" Dia.https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FG2C88E?psc=1This one is 8" long, 13" Dia.I don't know the small dia. for either of them, but I purchased the longer one. I'll let you know when it arrives.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.Just saying.
Quote from: SeeShells on 11/25/2016 04:30 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/25/2016 07:42 amMaybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources. With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does. ShellI do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.Maybe Paul can comment?
Quote from: Star One on 11/25/2016 07:42 amMaybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources. With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does. Shell
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 06:27 amQuote from: SeeShells on 11/25/2016 04:30 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/25/2016 07:42 amMaybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources. With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does. ShellI do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.Maybe Paul can comment?Phil:Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)Best, Paul M.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 06:27 amQuote from: SeeShells on 11/25/2016 04:30 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/25/2016 07:42 amMaybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources. With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does. ShellI do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.Maybe Paul can comment?Phil:Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project. JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point. (The demanded 50% budget for the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn? Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)Addendum: Find attached four slides with my contribution to the Glenn test program that never materialized.Best, Paul M.