Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 940005 times)

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 773
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

   Level 1 - Basic Research: basic principles are observed and reported {NOT necessarily agreed upon - my addition}.  This is the lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include fundamental investigations and paper studies.
   Level 2 Applied Research: technology concept and/or application formulated.  Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be formulated. Examples are limited to analytic studies and experimentation.

We have had paper studies and observation and reporting of basic principles for Level 1. While the data is equivocal as to magnitude, degree and validity of existence of the effect, but there is sufficient evidence (theoretical, simulation, and experimental)  to proceed with trying to understand the effect. 

   Level 2 is just that -applied research.  As the definition says - limited to analytic studies and experimentation.   It could be argued we are there but I think not.   That is why I said on the cusp.  Further, I believe that careful experimentation can result in a) better signal to noise ratio to further prove or disprove existence and b) determine effects and trend lines of most significant variables.   Specifically applying some of the principals of Design of Experiments method (DOE) may allow us to simultaneously to a) and b).

I am not trying to convince or force anyone to believe in either the effect or my judgment of TRL.   I simply intend to use the TRL concepts and DOE to attempt to define a next generation of DIY experiments aimed at the goals I mentioned above.

Herman
EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! . 

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • California
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 371

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1. 

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1353
  • United States
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 2159
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)

Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic RF?
« Last Edit: 10/15/2015 01:04 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)

Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.

Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.

Offline kencolangelo

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 42
Possibly an actual constructive contribution to make.  ::)
I wonder if an image-based method for measuring distance might be an easy way to get some cheap precision?

Perhaps a highish-megapixel digital camera, maybe 16MP+, coupled to a macro lens whose optical properties were well described. Combined with an optical scale for reference this can easily provide inexpensive, relatively high precision (1:3000) linear movement measurement.

Optionally, and way more precise, you could use the linear optical sensor array bar off a flatbed scanner. These typically provide a purely linear resolution of 300+ pixels per inch, up to a claimed 1200 ppi non-interpolated (!) and a very high sampling rate, well over 1khz.
Here are some examples of this sort of thing.


http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts



Some folks make a nifty spectrometer out of one.


Just throwing this out there. Hope it helps.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24


Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Probably the EMdrive to work, needs the presence of all the mater/energy and so of all the stars of the causal universe to exchange momentum ! ;) ;) (It is at least the theoretical explanation given by James Woodward to the mechanism of his own exotic propulsion system similar to EMDrive : they both don't need to expell matter with momentum to accelerate).

Solar arrays of spacecrafts can collect the energy of close enough stars. This will not work if the spacecraft is too far from the closest star.

To collect the energy of cosmic radiations is not something we know how to do  today.

But there is something strange with the EMDrive concept : apparently its kinetic energy could become greater than the energy requested to operate it. If this fact is confirmed, the EMDrive could produce more energy than it consumes !!  :o :o   Really strange ....

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.

None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2015 11:30 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 165
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3089
  • Likes Given: 2658
BREAKING NEWS at 5!

Drive Building Update!!!

In for the day but got a lot done. Recap in pictures.

Shell

http://imgur.com/a/rkRGq

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92


Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.

Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.

Hey! I found it! not a solar panel...THIS:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/solar-cells-will-be-made-obsolete-by-3d.html
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 773
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

Concur - and likewise.
EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.

None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.

You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.

NASA is chronically underfunded.
Retired, yet... not

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Thought stream alert - 20 years ago I would help specify filter designs for use in radar applications where group time delay distortion of pulses were unacceptable. These were LC filters, mainly IF range. Gaussian topologies were the best, not for shape factors but for lack of pulse distortion called ringing and overshoot.

Time domain distortion...ringing...never once considered any kinetic energy associated with this type of em pulse distortion. Who would have? Indeed.

Who would have ever noticed or measured for KE? Not me, for sure. Too bad, I might have been on to something.

/end thought stream alert

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • California
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 371
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. 
Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study.   However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:

"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."

So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1.   But this is just semantics.   If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt?    Is it still at TRL1?   If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null?    At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1.   And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1.   The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.

The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92

You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.

NASA is chronically underfunded.

When I was young I was indeed under that illusion. I did learn differently WRT to doing big things. But what i expect is if such an agency agrees to take on a relatively simple short term project such as validating or nullifying some table top experiment that is barely above the pay grade of a garden shed tinkerer that they would fund it if such funds are akin to a small businesses' petty cash box contents.

That the replication team could not get a special materials ceramic plate fabricated to size spec due to budget is appalling. That they could not find a high speed motor the equivalent of a dental air powered drill rig because of budgeting is also appalling. Those engineers had to know how to do it so the failure had to be due to budget issues. How much would that have cost?

Now EW is working on a shoestring as well with engineers working out of pocket and off the clock at times to get stuff they need. Arguably they do have extraordinary resources in ways as well like that floating table lab building. But they also have areas where they are completely on their own.

I just think for stuff you could probably get done for the price of a used car NASA should not be so stingy on particularly if they have agreed to take the job on. I can see being tight and careful on larger expenses like launch costs or space probes or satellites but this is like arguing over whether to get one or two ply Toilet Paper for the office bathroom when the expendables budget line items is well in the green.

Giving these guys a few thousand isn't even going to affect the schedules of NASA's big ticket projects and procurements. "We'd like to get that Space Shuttle mark II but we can't because some clerk down in S4 ordered fancy TP for the bathroom!" I may have had too much faith in NASA's budget when i was young and in high school but It doesn't work like this either.  :)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Okay we can negotiate : no neutron reactor in your garage  ;) ;), we would just be happy to see installed a thermal vacuum chamber.  :) :).

Offline RERT

Stumbled across this today:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4913.pdf

This describes a force resulting from interaction of EM waves with solid objects, which can be either attractive or repulsive. It treats solids as 'Solid State Plasmas', and discusses experiments showing light falling on a lead ball leading to an attractive force, which I think is reported higher than the incident radiation pressure.

The effect is known as the Gradient/Miller or Ponderomotive effect.

Seems relevant if it is correct.

R.

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 773
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. 
Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study.   However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:

"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."

So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1.   But this is just semantics.   If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt?    Is it still at TRL1?   If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null?    At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1.   And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1.   The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.

The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.

1. NIAC is only one  user of TRL concepts.  Re: NIAC item 6 is in their solicitation, others may or may not have such an item, however that is also "semantics".  Solicitations often have language designed to limit responses and the number of proposals or to easily eliminate proposals from consideration.  Proposal evaluation is an EXPENSIVE activity.   As a principal or bookboss contributor to dozens major proposals with values from a few hundred thousand to well over a billion dollars I am very familiar with such items, usually in sections L or M of solicitations.  Likewise as a writer of dozens of solicitations I have crafted similar exclusionary or elimination language.

2. TRLs are widely used in much of engineering development and well beyond the solicitation/proposal stage.   Often, TRLs are evaluated at such events as PDR, CDR, Milestone C etc.   

3. WRT to "appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1."  First I would say that several credible defenses have been offered.  These include various simulations and theoretical discussions.   These are important BTW.   None have been conclusively proven,  and some ( or all) have been questioned by critics as unlikely, but credible defenses have been offered.  Those critics are most important as they too help define the limits and parameters.   Second point that seems pedantic but is central to this.   In many instantiations of TRL, there is nothing below "1".   NASA may consider that realm, either explicitly with "TRL 0" or implicitly by statements such as "not yet at TRL 1".   That is not necessarily the common usage in other institutions.  So,  based on my professional work experience, I utilize TRL 1 as the "starting point", YMMV.

4. The "offered defenses" are important as they allow some guidance for a plan of experimentation (DOE or otherwise) in the advancement of EMDrive to TRL2. 

 Why is this important, particular as it relates to spaceflight applications?  Because it allows a defined maturation of the technology towards where reasonable testing in a spaceflight environment might be planned.   Until the parameters affecting EMDrive are at least predicted qualitatively and impacts, interactions and effects begun to be measured qualitatively I doubt anyone would consider shouldering the expense, not to mention potential liability and danger of incorporating such a test into a mission (manned or unmanned).

As for myself, for my test planning and execution, I shall proceed with the approach of attempting to advance EMDrive from TRL 1 to TRL 2.    Going back to working on my whitepaper now.   

Curmudgeon mode off.

Herman


EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Tags: