EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 12

[Chris Bergin]

This is a thread focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0

Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0

Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0

Thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0

Thread 9:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0

Thread 10:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.0

Thread 11:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.0

--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/


Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 6 million thread reads and 1 million article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.

--

Additional requirements:

No boring back and forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong". No spamming silly messages in every post like "time to come out of the shadows". Mods will trim posts that are not of worthwhile quality.

[TheTraveller]

Chris,

Let's cut to the end game.

As you should know I'm building 4 SPR Flight Thrusters, RF systems & balance beam test rigs.

Plan is to work with 3 very experienced & respected EmDrive builders/testers to use the supplied kit to verify or not Roger's IAC paper claims.

I'm sure anyone with any knowledge of EmDrive history knows who the 3 are. Not my place to name them.

I'm willing to build another system, visit NSF & engage you & your staff as another verifier. Only condition is you release a full & honest report of the verification process & final results/conclusions.

Time to stop the doubt.

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

[JohnFornaro]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

[TheTraveller]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

Hi John,

Such claims, as Roger, not I, makes in his 2019 IAC paper, need multiple independent verification.
Is how science works.
Each verifier gets to keep the kit.
Simple for them to then do further testing.

Yes I will publish my experimental results.
As will the 3 other independent verifiers.
Hopefully NSF will be the 4th independent verifier.

Then any doubt ends & massive development of propellant less space propulsion begins.

[leovinus]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

Such claims, as Roger, not I, makes in his 2019 IAC paper, need multiple independent verification.
Is how science works.

With respect, you are missing an important point here. As an example, a review from a friendly neighbor (Like NSF) is not the same as a peer-review from a respected MIT physics professor. Therefore, a word of advice, what you need is to engage university physics departments and work with them to verify the devices. I used plural because you cannot do science on one datapoint/device. Once done, publish the work in a peer-reviewed physic journal.

[Star One]

To paraphrase Disney I’ll believe it when I see a microwave fly!

[Bob012345]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

Such claims, as Roger, not I, makes in his 2019 IAC paper, need multiple independent verification.
Is how science works.

With respect, you are missing an important point here. As an example, a review from a friendly neighbor (Like NSF) is not the same as a peer-review from a respected MIT physics professor. Therefore, a word of advice, what you need is to engage university physics departments and work with them to verify the devices. I used plural because you cannot do science on one datapoint/device. Once done, publish the work in a peer-reviewed physic journal.

Are you basically saying work done by members of this group on their own time and dime aren't worth anything because they don't have an academic association?

[TheTraveller]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

Such claims, as Roger, not I, makes in his 2019 IAC paper, need multiple independent verification.
Is how science works.

With respect, you are missing an important point here. As an example, a review from a friendly neighbor (Like NSF) is not the same as a peer-review from a respected MIT physics professor. Therefore, a word of advice, what you need is to engage university physics departments and work with them to verify the devices. I used plural because you cannot do science on one datapoint/device. Once done, publish the work in a peer-reviewed physic journal.

Hi Leovinus,

One of the verifiers is a well known physics professor with knowledge & experience in this field.

I would expect him to publish a paper with his findings.

[TheTraveller]

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

Uhhhh. No.  That's your job.

Such claims, as Roger, not I, makes in his 2019 IAC paper, need multiple independent verification.
Is how science works.

With respect, you are missing an important point here. As an example, a review from a friendly neighbor (Like NSF) is not the same as a peer-review from a respected MIT physics professor. Therefore, a word of advice, what you need is to engage university physics departments and work with them to verify the devices. I used plural because you cannot do science on one datapoint/device. Once done, publish the work in a peer-reviewed physic journal.

Are you basically saying work done by members of this group on their own time and dime aren't worth anything because they don't have an academic association?

Hi Bob,

Each of the verifiers gets to keep all the gear, Flight Thruster, RF system & test rig. No strings attached.

I assume they will find it useful as a future reference.

[TheTraveller]

To paraphrase Disney I’ll believe it when I see a microwave fly!

Hi Star One,

Might suggest you 1st read Roger's soon to be released IAC paper.

BTW have you read his Flight Thruster engineering report? Very detailed instructions to enable DIY build, excitation & test of the Flight Thruster he created for Boeing?

http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf

[RonM]

I'm willing to build another system, visit NSF & engage you & your staff as another verifier. Only condition is you release a full & honest report of the verification process & final results/conclusions.

This is a website for spaceflight news. I'm pretty sure Chris doesn't have a research lab to test your device. You should check with other forum members that have been active in testing EM drives.

Looking forward to reading the IAC paper.

[TheTraveller]

I'm willing to build another system, visit NSF & engage you & your staff as another verifier. Only condition is you release a full & honest report of the verification process & final results/conclusions.

This is a website for spaceflight news. I'm pretty sure Chris doesn't have a research lab to test your device. You should check with other forum members that have been active in testing EM drives.

Looking forward to reading the IAC paper.

Hi Ron,

Chris is also invited, assuming the verifier agrees, to have a reporter present during the verification procedure.

Assuming he believes such an event is worthy of a 1st hand report?

[otlski]

Chris,

Let's cut to the end game.

As you should know I'm building 4 SPR Flight Thrusters, RF systems & balance beam test rigs.

Plan is to work with 3 very experienced & respected EmDrive builders/testers to use the supplied kit to verify or not Roger's IAC paper claims.

I'm sure anyone with any knowledge of EmDrive history knows who the 3 are. Not my place to name them.

I'm willing to build another system, visit NSF & engage you & your staff as another verifier. Only condition is you release a full & honest report of the verification process & final results/conclusions.

Time to stop the doubt.

Are you & NSF willing to be the 4th verifier?

TT, Can you post the manufacturer and model number of the scale you intend to supply?

[TheTraveller]

TT, Can you post the manufacturer and model number of the scale you intend to supply?

Hi Otlski,

Roger recently advised me he has changed from the Avery FC161 scale to a Kern 100g scale with 0.001g resolution & RS232 comms. Waiting on his advise as to the Kern model number as for me it is important to use the same scale as Roger.

This is the list of equipment Roger used for the original spring based test rig.
From page 19 of his Flight Thruster engineering report.

http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf

[edit] New scale is a Kern PCB 100-3/RS:
https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/weighing-scales/6700719/

[RotoSequence]

it is important to use the same scale as Roger.

Why would that be the case? No artefacts should exhibit themselves if a different product has a comparable feature set, and different measuring devices could only affirm the presence of thrust, not prevent the detection of it.

[TheTraveller]

it is important to use the same scale as Roger.

Why would that be the case? No artefacts should exhibit themselves if a different product has a comparable feature set, and different measuring devices could only affirm the presence of thrust, not prevent the detection of it.

Hi RotoSequence,

Please understand I will be arriving at each verifiers site with 2 suitcases of gear, which can be set up on a standard office desk.
Each kit will be the same.
All they supply is the desk, power & a Windows 10 laptop/computer with at least 1 free USB port.

My job will be to setup the system, with the help of the verifier, explaining how it all goes together.
Then together run through several test sequences.
Once we are both happy about the gear, the test setup and the process, then the verifier will start doing their own test runs.
When that is finished, then the "official" test runs will be done by the verifier and the results recorded & shared/published.

While what you say is true, I decided to try to introduce as few as possible alterations to Roger's test setup.
It is after all a replication.
Once we have 4 sets of independent test data, then for sure modify as desired.

Anyway I've never been a great fan of reinventing the wheel.
KISS has always been my pathway.

[TheTraveller]

Current fabrication, machining, polishing & silver coating cost quotes for 4 x SPR Flight Thruster replicants are running around $12k US each.

RF system ~$3k.
Test rig ~$2k.
Travel, hotel, meals, cars, etc ~$3k.

All up about $20k per kit/verification.

[meberbs]

While what you say is true, I decided to try to introduce as few as possible alterations to Roger's test setup.
It is after all a replication.
Once we have 4 sets of independent test data, then for sure modify as desired.

That would only be one set of data, to have independent data, you need to change the measurement equipment.

If changing the measurement equipment changes the results, it means you have an experimental error, not a working device. You did not actually answer the question that Rotosequence asked.

[TheTraveller]

You did not actually answer the question that Rotosequence asked.

I said his statement was correct.

What you said is also true.

But for now I'll settle for 3, possibly a 4th UK verifier, reporting the same results.

Each of the 3 current verifiers has experience in building, exciting & testing EmDrives. They know what to look for that could cause false positives.

As each verifier gets to keep all the kit, would expect to see further testing on different test rigs.
Including in a vac chamber.

This is the start phase of a longer process to obtain general acceptability that the EmDrive works.

The next phase will see the simple balance beam test rig updated to a simple rotary test rig & me doing many public demos around the world.

Should add that each Flight Thruster will have the end plate alignment as good as it gets.
Expect at least a Q of 50,000 and a specific thrust of ~340mN//kWrf.
At 150WRf input, expect to see ~50mN or 5g of thrust.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 500 times less thrust.
Which means the signal to noise ratio should be a lot better than what they had to deal with.
Sure there may be 100uN forces floating around, but they will not be seen nor cause any significant false positives.

[Mark7777777]

FWIW, http://www.emdrives.com redirects to the last post of this Thread 12.