Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 940641 times)

Offline Devilstower

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 6
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.


Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2659
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.

What meep give us is the ability to see in detail the actions using Maxwell's equations, to model them and define them and when things happen outside of the box that meep can't see I think we can be better prepared to define it. I would hate guessing what mode TE012 or TE01 actions would look like in the frustum. I've seen simulations on the net but they were for cylinders or rectangular waveguides and we know the cavity actions are nothing like they are.

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
Concerning the methodology to follow, being theory before building or building before theory, i can say there are ample examples of both approaches.
Englert and Higgs had formulated their theories decades before a device could be build to prove their ideas.
And as already suggested, Edison did build things first, without any theoretical frame to back him up...

These approaches are not contradictory or conflicting and allow perfect coexistence. They're both valid  ways to study nature...

As for rfmwguy being "biased"...let me say that being unbiased does simply not exist. We are all biased. The moment an image or thought enters our brain it gets a certain preference (or bias) attached to it. It is an essential element in the process to make sense of our world.
You can only be unbiased if you can not place it among previous acquired information and/or in total absence of emotions, which is... never....
We always have a preferred interpretation of what we see or think. We're evolutionary trained to see and search for patterns and attribute sentiments to what we experience...
ah well, so far for the illusion of objectivity... :)

So, back to the science level, what makes good science is the ability to question (and possible revise) your "natural" bias, either with a new theoretical framework, or a puzzling experiment.

Offline PaulF

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell


It's quite funny how the search for the first filament that would keep going for a while, resembles how in the 1990's the search was on for the last link in the chain for LEDs - A blue LED with high luminoscity. They were literally throwing together semi-metals in the hopes they'd find the right mix. And eventually they did. And the cheap RGB LED was a fact.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2015 10:38 AM by PaulF »

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.

It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.

Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.



A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients.

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 351
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.

It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.

Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.



A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients.
1) Please point to your reference to the study of tapered cavity with spherical ends, specifically measuring KE or kinetic force.
2) Other than Shawyer, no EmDrive design uses spherical ends to my knowledge.
3) No emotion here, but a proper request for my time and information should not begin with an accusation, as this makes me believe you are not serious about my answer.

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246


Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Liked: 707
  • Likes Given: 1394
FYI:

https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1077242

 Force Calibration: Common Errors Laboratories Make
Live Presentation: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:00 pm ET

This Webinar will cover metrological traceability in relation to force measurement.  The Webinar will show the attendee common force measurement errors and the importance of calibrating the instrument in the manner it is being used.   By the end of the Webinar the attendee should be able to understand metrological traceability hierarchy and identify potential force measurement errors.   

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 631
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....

If I was leading a team researching this and I had the budget, I'd be pleased to have someone like him doing some modeling and data analysis for me.

After all, he and aero came with the best model so far of what really happens in the resonant cavity using Maxwell's equations, and all in front of our very eyes.

And yes, this is something people usually gets paid to do (professional scientists and technical consultants, I mean). We tend to forget it because we had the privilege of following this outburst of creativity in this forum at the right moment and time.

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2015 11:39 PM by tchernik »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Shell and I were joking about nsf-1701 accidentally beaming him into an alternate dimension, but I believe work is the likely cause. Since he's been reported to be ok, doesn't matter why...doc will be back when he can.

Until then, let's bug shell for some more assembly pics  ;D

Offline TheTraveller

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

Offline jmossman

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • San Jose, CA
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 180
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modied mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

Re-running the existing NSF-1701 rig using a modified mag without 60Hz pulsing would be a very useful data point.  (albeit creating a bigger thermal management problem)

Adding the ability to sweep the mag frequency would also be very interesting test.    :D

[EDIT: typo]
« Last Edit: 10/08/2015 02:20 AM by jmossman »

Offline TheTraveller

Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2015 03:20 AM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 402
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?




Offline TheTraveller

Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?

Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.

The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.

As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.

BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2015 05:07 AM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9326
  • UK
  • Liked: 1654
  • Likes Given: 183

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.

But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with.

Offline TheTraveller


Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.

But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with.

Agreed.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Tags: