These seem to be depressive, defeatist, Kafkaesque responses. I am going to wait to see what people who actually work at Eagleworks say. $25M (just picking a reasonable but arbitrary amount here) might to a lot of money Eagleworks, but for the federal government, that's pin money. Even in a word where governments are overrun by corruption, pettiness, and mismanagement, that doesn't mean that all parts are, all the time.
"Dean Drive" mechanics can offer an insight to EM Drive function.-snip-
Later more detailed studies showed that the Dean Drive developed no net time- averaged force and that Newton's 3rd Law remained intact.
This is a question for Eagleworks people:It seems as though you are short of resources of various types. I propose an online petition, utilizing the "we the people" facility of whitehouse.gov, to ask for more resources to be given to NASA, earmarked for Eagleworks, for the projects of the EM-drive/ME-drive/Q-thruster, and its application to the Alcubierre drive. If you could come up with a proposal, perhaps more focused than I've indicated, this would be the meat of the petition.I don't mean to over the heads of the NASA Administration, and force them to take money away from other programs for this one. This would be additional, federal money. In my experience, being given more resources than you can use raises expectations beyond what is achievable. Most often, you can't get a project done twice as fast by spending twice as much money on it.
Let's say this all works as claimed by Shawyer, and there is indeed scability and improved performance in high Qs.Theoretically, what would be the smallest size possible for a Q-thrust device?Rick
Star-Drive, is your current test setup the same as shown in figure 17 of the AIAA paper from July last year, but with the RG-8 cable? If so, you might have issues with the cable. Most high quality RG-8 has a manufacturers minimum bend radius of 4" and can develop some "entertaining" behavior in short order if bent beyond that. You might want to check the cable in its current shape on a network analyzer to verify performance.If the cable is degrading, you might want to look at something like Gore phaseflex cable in that spot. It would give you the flexibility of the RG-142 with the RF performance of the RG-8, and better repeatablity to boot.
Following on what jknuble said about the multipactor-like effect as a possible cause of thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect I can't help but wonder about what's going on with the copper surface of the frustum. A quick back of the envelope (well, python) calculation shows that there's certainly enough energy in these devices to somehow atomize a small amount of copper , and propel them with enough momentum to produce a small amount of thrust. For example, a 30 watt emdrive where 0.001% of the energy went towards atomization and 1% went toward addtional momentum of the particles... You'd have a device with 91uN thrust, propelling 1.4ng of copper a second at 65500m/s.I can think of 3 ways to debunk this. 1) perhaps that amount of particles going that fast would be noticeable with the naked eye, so this isn't really a valid explanation. 2) stick a detector behind the thruster (are they ionized?). 3) SEM of the surface compared to scraps from the same batch of copper not used in the thrustum.
Just want to run this by the group.I am a believer that thrust doesn't scale ONLY with Q. We even can see that in the data. See the original Nasa paper.http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdfI think I have a good idea for once. I think the "Where is the balanced gain and loss?" thing from the other day is addressed by creating an unstable cavity, aka not high Q, not low Q either. The balanced gain and loss stuff came up here. 4th-6th links from top.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1357829#msg1357829I think the trick is to get energy in, put it to work a few thousand times (doing all that quantum wizardry I posted papers on ), then let it go as heat, which will inevitably happen as photons are red shifted and fall out of resonance. High Q is a baddie. Low Q is a baddie. What's the point of having all that accumulated energy sitting in there static, doing nothing? We need this thing to ride the razor's edge between gain and loss. Also, what made this kinda click with me is what Mr. Shawyer said below. The Cullen paper he mentioned is shared here:https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharingSo if this passes the smell test, how is the next question. Seems like not having the dielectric covering the entire small end (vs just a small patch) might be a good thing to try. I'm sure there's a ton of ways to do this.There's a lot we can learn from that whispering-gallery research cited.http://revolution-green.com/optics-breakthrough-demonstrates-new-behaviors-physics/http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262451086_Paritytime-symmetric_whispering-gallery_microcavitieshttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.4564.pdfI'm openly brainstorming here. Would like some feedback.
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/02/2015 03:51 pmJust want to run this by the group.I am a believer that thrust doesn't scale ONLY with Q. We even can see that in the data. See the original Nasa paper.http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdfI think I have a good idea for once. I think the "Where is the balanced gain and loss?" thing from the other day is addressed by creating an unstable cavity, aka not high Q, not low Q either. The balanced gain and loss stuff came up here. 4th-6th links from top.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1357829#msg1357829I think the trick is to get energy in, put it to work a few thousand times (doing all that quantum wizardry I posted papers on ), then let it go as heat, which will inevitably happen as photons are red shifted and fall out of resonance. High Q is a baddie. Low Q is a baddie. What's the point of having all that accumulated energy sitting in there static, doing nothing? We need this thing to ride the razor's edge between gain and loss. Also, what made this kinda click with me is what Mr. Shawyer said below. The Cullen paper he mentioned is shared here:https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharingSo if this passes the smell test, how is the next question. Seems like not having the dielectric covering the entire small end (vs just a small patch) might be a good thing to try. I'm sure there's a ton of ways to do this.There's a lot we can learn from that whispering-gallery research cited.http://revolution-green.com/optics-breakthrough-demonstrates-new-behaviors-physics/http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262451086_Paritytime-symmetric_whispering-gallery_microcavitieshttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.4564.pdfI'm openly brainstorming here. Would like some feedback.Shawyer's explanation does not pass the smell test, and is not adressed by the Cullen paper you linked. Look for example at figure 5. There is a movable piston at the end of the waveguide T-junction, which is subject to radiation pressure. The piston will exert a (Newton's 3rd law) reaction force, and so momentum is conserved.The EM drive is a fully enclosed cavity. The radiation inside will reflect off the walls and create some strain in the copper, but the net force integrated by the surface (given by the integral of the Poynting vector) has a time average of 0, as has been demonstrated mathematically many many times.It is absolutely true that one can view standing waves as linear superpositions of traveling waves. This is just a different way of saying that Maxwell's equations are linear. Rodal's analysis is true whether one thinks of the fields as standing or superpositions of traveling waves. There is nothing besides the stress-energy tensor in the classical theory of electromagnetism.To be clear: there is NO explanation for any increase in momentum of the drive to be found in classical theory (including Special Relativity through Maxwell's equations).If there is an actual effect, then it must be caused by the coupling of electromagnetic fields to some other heretofore unobserved field. Even if such a coupling could be made in a way that is Lorentz invariant, it should have been detectable very easily at particle colliders. So again I ask:If there is some effect here, why has it not been observed in far more precise experiments that probe the exact same physics?
What I mean is that any attempt to formulate a theory of where the anomalous thrust is coming from which is based on classical electrodynamics will fail. A fully quantum approach is required. What I mean by "other than usual symmetry conditions" is that based off what I've been reading (aka not my own original research), simultaneous breaking of P & T symmetries is required.