-
#2380
by
SH
on 03 May, 2015 20:26
-
-
#2381
by
TheTraveller
on 03 May, 2015 20:27
-
I really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.
Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.
Why doesn't Sawyer just bring it to Glenn Research Center to test there? They already offered to test the device if it can produce more than 100 micro-newton, and Shawyer's device is purportedly well above that.
I also proposed EW to test either the SPF Demonstrator device or the SPF Flight Thruster (which Boeing should have sitting on a shelf) which it seems is considered a "High Fidelity Test Article"
There are merits to rebuilding a device instead of simply retesting the same device.
By building a new device, according similar specs and testing it, you can actually validate the principle behind the 2 devices (Shawyer's and EW's) if they produce similar results.
If they contradict each other, you'll need additional testing, of course..
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
Agree building your own device is good. So is validation of Shawyer EM Drive thrust. Established a base line. Establishes once and forever that it works as claimed. Then start to work out why.
-
#2382
by
TheTraveller
on 03 May, 2015 20:32
-
This belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
And maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
Boeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue [as of Nov 5, 2012].
http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
Great. So Boeing should have no issues sending the Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EM Drives over to EW to test?
Boeing has already sent over at least one other propellantless thruster to EW for them to test.
Interesting article which fails to mention, in 2010, Boeing acquired all the SPR IP through a licensing deal setup by the British government. Listen to Shawyer talk about the deal from 3:30 in the 1st interview video:
http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html He claims it went dark.
-
#2383
by
Flyby
on 03 May, 2015 20:32
-
Well was not that dark as EW displayed the attached.
Lower right is the Flight Thruster Boeing acquired from SPF (Shawyers company). Note it is rated as a "High Fidelity Test Article". Guess that means it works well and is highly reliable in the test results generated.
Not sure where I got this from, (been reading it somewhere...) but i thought the Flight Thruster was made out of ALU to have a better heat dissipation capacity (thicker walls also), so it could be tested for a longer period without fast Q degradation. The copper frustum devices are tested in short burst due to heat degrading performance problems.
This ALU one could probably "work" for an extended period.. hence the naming of "High fidelity" ? In all honesty, I'm guessing here, but it does make sense, no?
-
#2384
by
SH
on 03 May, 2015 20:35
-
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!
The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
-
#2385
by
SH
on 03 May, 2015 20:49
-
The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Phantom Works often works on classified projects so that last conspiracy theory might not actually be too far fetched, especially considering how little they had to say about
why they are no longer working with Shawyer. If anyone has contact with Shawyer, it might be interesting "experiment" to ask Shawyer how things are going with Phantom Works, to see if his response sounds suspiciously like someone who's been silenced under contract to not talk about it.
-
#2386
by
dustinthewind
on 03 May, 2015 20:51
-
In your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.
Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.
If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.
If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.
Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?
The issue of power dissipation due to the skin effect is fully addressed in the COMSOL Fnite Element analyses, which predicted the measured Q's. The COMSOL Finite Element analysis fully respects conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
There can only be travelling waves if there is a net momentum flux. But such momentum is prevented by the previous arguments based on conservation of momentum (unless suitable emission of particles can support the measured thrust).
Thermal losses in a vacuum (unless there is outgassing, etc.) cannot support the claimed thrust forces, due to the previously addressed issue (what particles are being emitted, and what is their momentum).
All the above is true under linear Maxwell's equations and special relativity. Otherwise one would have to argue for breaking of P T parity, nonlinear anisotropic effects, coupling interaction with outside fields, etc.
I am just addressing that there should be standing waves that appear to move. It comes from when you have an initial wave from the power source. There is also a reflected wave that leaves with a smaller amplitude. I did the plots in wxmaxima.
c:1;
w:1;
k:1;
A:1;
B:.5;
f(x,t):=A*sin(k*x-w*t);
g(x,t):=B*sin(k*x+w*t);
for a:0 thru %pi step %pi/10 do wxplot2d(f(x,a)+g(x,a),[x,0,2*%pi],[y,-1.5,1.5]);
So then the traveling modes appear to carry power to the area of power loss. I am not saying it explains the thrust but maybe it is important to keep in mind.
-
#2387
by
TheTraveller
on 03 May, 2015 20:58
-
The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Phantom Works often works on classified projects so that last conspiracy theory might not actually be too far fetched, especially considering how little they had to say about why they are no longer working with Shawyer. If anyone has contact with Shawyer, it might be interesting "experiment" to ask Shawyer how things are going with Phantom Works, to see if his response sounds suspiciously like someone who's been silenced under contract to not talk about it.
In his recent interview video Shawyer discusses the Boeing deal at 3:30, 1st video.
http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlSays it went dark / out of the public domain.
-
#2388
by
KittyMoo
on 03 May, 2015 21:12
-
Look.
It seems that the Sawyer work has gone 'dark' in one way or another.
Lets leave that where it ended. (Seemed to end?)
EW is openly carrying on experiments for us all to see. AND telling us what they plan in the very near future.
I suggest we analyse and discuss EW experiments and not Sawyers for obvious reasons.
If Mr. Sawyer would talk to us then maybe all would change. Who knows?
-
#2389
by
Rodal
on 03 May, 2015 21:17
-
He may have just meant that Boeing is not communicating with him as to the reasons why the project was terminated.
If a project really goes dark (with the military meaning of that term) and one has or is involved in that project, one doesn't answer that "the project went dark", one instead either doesn't answer or just says that one doesn't know, or more often,
one cleverly deflects the question. The last thing one wants to do is to attract attention to a dark military project.
The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about the Fight Club.
The second rule is...
-
#2390
by
ThinkerX
on 03 May, 2015 21:18
-
Ok...watched Shawyer's video.
Clears up something I'd been wondering about and posted about here a time or two before:
1) his original concept came about 40 years ago as part of a cold war era missile development program. He and his team were encouraged to consider radical ideas, an apparently (his version) of the core concept stems from this period.
2) about a decade later, while designing military satellites, he began looking into this again, and started contemplating commercial possibilities. His superiors were less than impressed, so Shawyer parted ways and founded his own company.
I like the 'turntable test.' Seems like something the Eagleworks team should shoot for. But...does this system of measuring thrust have any flaws that might skew the results?
-
#2391
by
zen-in
on 03 May, 2015 21:20
-
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!
The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
The moderators may have to start up a new thread devoted to em-drive conspiracy theories; or better yet just delete all such posts.
-
#2392
by
A_M_Swallow
on 03 May, 2015 21:23
-
{snip}
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Or Boeing did not get a government grant to develop the thruster so they cancelled the project.
-
#2393
by
PaulF
on 03 May, 2015 21:33
-
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!
The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Even without conspiracy theories, that last line sounds very plausible to me. We all know Boeing is in bed with the U.S. government (OK one then
)
-
#2394
by
ThinkerX
on 03 May, 2015 21:33
-
Ok, I'm trying to keep this straight, because I don't think we've seen the complete list posted here recently
1) Shawyer - how many different EM drives did he build? Three? Seven?
And because he talks about it in his videos, how many 1st generation, and how many second generation? He says the 'first generation' devices went to Boeing, but how many?
2) Chinese - how many different EM Drive devices?
3) Eagleworks team - just one device, or more than that?
then, so far as I am aware, a number of people in this thread are building EM drives of their own:
1) Mulletron - still under construction
2) Notsosureofit - started?
3) DIY Fan - no word in a while
Seem to remember at least one other.
-
#2395
by
PaulF
on 03 May, 2015 21:35
-
{snip}
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Or Boeing did not get a government grant to develop the thruster so they cancelled the project.
If Boeing found the tech to be viable I don't think the rejection of federal budget would stop them pumping their own money into it. This may be tracable through bookkeeping records that are made public.
-
#2396
by
TheTraveller
on 03 May, 2015 21:35
-
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!
The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.
We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
The moderators may have to start up a new thread devoted to em-drive conspiracy theories; or better yet just delete all such posts.
Shawyer made a public statement. Specifically about the EM Drive tech Boeing licensed. There is no speculation about what he said.
-
#2397
by
Flyby
on 03 May, 2015 22:01
-
transcript from the video (timeframe 4:10):
"...in fact... we actually transfered all our design and test data to Boeing.
It is noticable that any subsequent programs have not been acknowledged in the public domain..."
It doesn't really say it has been terminated by Boeing, just that no info is being released from their side.
It could either mean it has gone "dark" (militarized), or that it is shelved (cancelled) or put on ice (on hold)... yours to pick..
-
#2398
by
Stormbringer
on 03 May, 2015 22:18
-
So if they didn't shelve it this may be the intermittent windshield wiper of exotic propulsion.
-
#2399
by
TheTraveller
on 03 May, 2015 22:22
-
transcript from the video (timeframe 4:10):
"...in fact... we actually transfered all our design and test data to Boeing.
It is noticable that any subsequent programs have not been acknowledged in the public domain..."
It doesn't really say it has been terminated by Boeing, just that no info is being released from their side.
It could either mean it has gone "dark" (militarized), or that it is shelved (cancelled) or put on ice (on hold)... yours to pick..
And yet EW or some other body labels the SPR Flight Thruster that Boeing licensed (lower right in attachment) a "High Fidelity Test Article". Don't think that label, on a NASA publication, came from SPR or Shawyer or would be put on a non functional device that did not produce reliable thrust.
)