-
#1000 by SeeShells on 31 Dec, 2015 08:31
-
Well… to put it politely… this task turned out to be… umm… more difficult than I was hoping for. And after a day of struggling the result came out… ugly… At one point I was considering to give up, start from scratch and do it right. This would however imply a delay of at least a month… Figured I have nothing to lose with this one anyway, so I finished it the way I could.
Good for you!
…If I ever to do this again, or if anyone is planning to make one, the way to go is to order custom-made flanges for both ends; those would need to be made from ~3mm copper. Then cut the template and allow for the overlap joint (the way SeaShells did it). I went with a butt joint trying to avoid the 0.5 mm discontinuity; the resulting trouble is not worth it. The 2 flanges are a must to force the template into a proper circular shape and to then maintain that shape. Note how mine ended up deformed despite all the effort with steel ties.
Cleaning, tuning, characterizing (Q factor) and the actual test run will happen in early 2016. Makes for an easy New Year wish.
Happy coming New Year!
For something that looks easy at first glance, it really isn't. I went to the local hardware store and picked up a thin piece of aluminum to practice the best way to bend the cone to get the shape I needed. Tried a standard roller first and that didn't work because of the geometry of the rollers didn't match the frustum's angles and it wanted to make a tube.
Another tip on doing a lap butt joint. The strip you use to join the two halves together needs to be curved to match the curvature of the side walls. Solder only one side first then bring in the other side and clamp. Solder tack up and down the side about every 1/2" so you heating doesn't melt the work you have already done. You also must heat the copper from the inside not directly on the solder and allow the solder to flow to the heat and seam.
A butt lap joint will give you a stronger seam if done correctly.
Butt ... seam aside (hahaha) all you did a good job and finally got it done. I didn't post all the time building this where I threw up my hands and pulled my hair to just go and sit in the hot tub to cool off.
Shell
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/EM%20thruster%20023_zpszdhkoxqt.jpg.html?sort=3&o=31 -
#1001 by qkrkorean on 31 Dec, 2015 08:37
-
i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you. -
#1002 by SeeShells on 31 Dec, 2015 09:11
-
Yes ！ D - big: D - 290 mm small: 170 mm L - center: 240 mm TE013（pure copper sheet （ thickness 1.25 mm ））. If you need TE012, I can modify the mould.I'm worried that this entire argument (from the first Rodal post) is going to insult / drive off Chinese contributors. Might I suggest that we assume the information given is likely correct.
Have learned he/she has a TE013 molded frustum for sale.
Asking for more detailed engineering data.
Big 290 mm, Small 170 mm, center 240 mm show a TE012 mode. Is this correct or did I do something wrong at 3 in the morning?
Need to get some sleep....
Shell -
#1003 by Flyby on 31 Dec, 2015 09:17
-
And also, while all this important information would certainly be unfortunate and discouraging if true, there is also a possibility that this is not the case at all. Yes, I know, conspiracy. Nobody likes it. Yet, imagine for the second that the effect has indeed been confirmed. And you're the military. What is your next step going to be? While the genie cannot be put back into the bottle, there is at least a chance to delay the recognition of the fact by every other country in the world. So report that it contradicts existing physics, and that nobody takes it seriously, and that the researcher has since retired (and nobody has heard anything back from her since then. How convenient.). Do not provide any details as to the actual results, and then just shut up expecting the hype to die off. I am not saying this is what is happening, there is no way to be sure of that; I am saying this would be a plausible scenario to pursue if the effect has actually been confirmed.
I'm worried that this entire argument (from the first Rodal post) is going to insult / drive off Chinese contributors. Might I suggest that we assume the information given is likely correct.
Allthough I do not side with this type of the conspiracy theories, I do feel that skepticism should apply to all information we get, unless it can be verified independantly by others.
If it is acceptable to cast doubts onto Yang's results because incomplete data information, or question R.Shawyer's credibility based upon the financial results of his company, then It should also be normal to set questionmarks about the new information about prof Yang. You can not be a skeptic for only those things you do not like and turn a blind eye to things that fit our natural bias.
As we have not identified the person who claimed to work with dr.Yang in the past, we can only ASSUME that information is correct, while keeping the notion , in the back of our mind, that this might be incorrect information.
Doubt should remain the key on all unverified information, but in order to progress, we have no other option then to assume that certain information is correct. As long we do not forget it is an assumption we made from start, it is ok , i guess...
fe, although there is a substantial and serious doubt about the EMdrive workings, in order to progress with the experiments (needed for verification) we have no other alternative then to assume it works as a starting attitude. After all, if you're sure it doesn't work, there is no point of building and testing one, is there?
The same applies to the new information about prof. Yang. The best case would be that she starts interacting her selves here on this forum, but that remains wishful thinking at this moment.
All we know with a fair degree of certainty is that on the NWPU website (school of astronautics) she is still listed as a teacher on the 2014-05-13 professors list.
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1541/7837.htm
and that her personal page has the same date stamp
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1549/7982.htm
I could not find any birth date, but considering she might have been around 25 when graduating in 1982, that puts her age around ±58 years. Is that a common age for a Chinese professor to retire? no idea, tbh...
The only certitude on her retirement we'll have is when the university updates their page... -
#1004 by Chrochne on 31 Dec, 2015 10:33
-
i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you.
Welcome!
I was wondering if you get our message and I am glad you joined our EmDrive community here on NSF!
We are looking forward for your comments on testing of the EmDrive! -
#1005 by X_RaY on 31 Dec, 2015 10:50
-
3 a clock seems to be bad time for calculations
Yes ！ D - big: D - 290 mm small: 170 mm L - center: 240 mm TE013（pure copper sheet （ thickness 1.25 mm ））. If you need TE012, I can modify the mould.I'm worried that this entire argument (from the first Rodal post) is going to insult / drive off Chinese contributors. Might I suggest that we assume the information given is likely correct.
Have learned he/she has a TE013 molded frustum for sale.
Asking for more detailed engineering data.
Big 290 mm, Small 170 mm, center 240 mm show a TE012 mode. Is this correct or did I do something wrong at 3 in the morning?
Need to get some sleep....
Shell
TE013 is correct for this dimensions.
-
#1006 by madsci on 31 Dec, 2015 12:22
-
i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you.
Hello,
1. As far as I can see this experiment is similar to Iulian Berca's.
2. The thrust obtained at the scale is around 1.5g.
3. The lengths of the two arms of the lever are similar with the frustum's arms seems to be slightly longer.
Let's say the ratio is:
frustum's arm length / counterweight arm's length = 1.2
4. Therefore the thrust at the frustum is around:
1.5/1.2=1.25g
This is quite similar to Iulian's result which is encouraging.
So for me the big question is now:
Can the 1.2g of thrust (or weight imbalance) can be explained by effects like:
- thermal air flow effects
- electromagnetic (Lorentz) forces on the power supply cables
My uneducated guess:
- the Lorentz forces would be much smaller than 1.2g
- the thermal air flow effects: no idea
Can any of the physicists here give a rough estimate of the magnitude of those two effects for the conditions of this experiment ? -
#1007 by Rodal on 31 Dec, 2015 12:57
-
...
We also have the following information:
Allthough I do not side with this type of the conspiracy theories, I do feel that skepticism should apply to all information we get, unless it can be verified independantly by others.
If it is acceptable to cast doubts onto Yang's results because incomplete data information, or question R.Shawyer's credibility based upon the financial results of his company, then It should also be normal to set questionmarks about the new information about prof Yang. You can not be a skeptic for only those things you do not like and turn a blind eye to things that fit our natural bias.
As we have not identified the person who claimed to work with dr.Yang in the past, we can only ASSUME that information is correct, while keeping the notion , in the back of our mind, that this might be incorrect information.
Doubt should remain the key on all unverified information, but in order to progress, we have no other option then to assume that certain information is correct. As long we do not forget it is an assumption we made from start, it is ok , i guess...
fe, although there is a substantial and serious doubt about the EMdrive workings, in order to progress with the experiments (needed for verification) we have no other alternative then to assume it works as a starting attitude. After all, if you're sure it doesn't work, there is no point of building and testing one, is there?
The same applies to the new information about prof. Yang. The best case would be that she starts interacting her selves here on this forum, but that remains wishful thinking at this moment.
All we know with a fair degree of certainty is that on the NWPU website (school of astronautics) she is still listed as a teacher on the 2014-05-13 professors list.
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1541/7837.htm
and that her personal page has the same date stamp
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1549/7982.htm
I could not find any birth date, but considering she might have been around 25 when graduating in 1982, that puts her age around ±58 years. Is that a common age for a Chinese professor to retire? no idea, tbh...
The only certitude on her retirement we'll have is when the university updates their page...
1) Yang's last published paper on her EM (propellant-less] Drive was published in 2014, same year as the data in the University's website (2014-05-20), which matches the information recently given for cancellation of her EM Drive funding in 2014. (The 2014 EM Drive paper dealt with temperature measurements on a heated EM Drive, using embedded thermocouples throughout. The embedded thermocouples showed considerable temperatures on the endplates.) (Hat tip to Dagger) It is also noteworthy that Yang has a paper published in 2015 on a conventional ion thruster that relies on conventional reaction: Experimental optimization in ion source configuration of a miniature electron cyclotron resonance ion thruster, using a propellant source (NOT a propellant-less drive)
2) from October 2014 until now several people in these NSF EM Drive threads wrote to her e-mail address [email protected] and nobody has ever reported receiving an answer from this university e-mail. Several have reported not receiving any answers, after multiple attempts at communication with her. It is highly unusual in the academic community for Professors not to answer requests for papers and further information.
3) In previous threads we had as an active participant a technology journalist that wrote articles in Wired Magazine and Aviation Week & Space Technology, who had been in contact with Yang prior to mid 2014. The journalist reported being unable to receive any response from Yang since that time.
Suggestion: people further interested in researching this subject (the veracity of the information regarding the cancellation of her EM Drive project and her retirement in 2014) may try accessing her phone number, which is listed as 86-29-88492421 in the University's website. -
#1008 by X_RaY on 31 Dec, 2015 13:03
-
It looks like a cylindrical cavity resonator. The basic result for both orientations is almost the same (increasing weight measurement of the counterweight at the balance).i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you.
Hello,
1. As far as I can see this experiment is similar to Iulian Berca's.
2. The thrust obtained at the scale is around 1.5g.
3. The lengths of the two arms of the lever are similar with the frustum's arms seems to be slightly longer.
Let's say the ratio is:
frustum's arm length / counterweight arm's length = 1.2
4. Therefore the thrust at the frustum is around:
1.5/1.2=1.25g
This is quite similar to Iulian's result which is encouraging.
So for me the big question is now:
Can the 1.2g of thrust (or weight imbalance) can be explained by effects like:
- thermal air flow effects
- electromagnetic (Lorentz) forces on the power supply cables
My uneducated guess:
- the Lorentz forces would be much smaller than 1.2g
- the thermal air flow effects: no idea
Can any of the physicists here give a rough estimate of the magnitude of those two effects for the conditions of this experiment ?
Looks strong like thermal effects like convection / ballooning...
Edit: This is an important test and must be compared with a similar but conical cavity! Maybe one can eliminate (most of) the thermal component going this way. -
#1009 by Dagger on 31 Dec, 2015 13:09
-
1) Yang's last published paper was published in 2014
I see Yang Juan listed here from 2015-04-07:
Experimental optimization in ion source configuration of a miniature electron cyclotron resonance ion thruster -
#1010 by Rodal on 31 Dec, 2015 13:14
-
Thanks, I will modify "last published paper" to "last published paper on the EM Drive" in my post, as the paper1) Yang's last published paper was published in 2014
I see Yang Juan listed here from 2015-04-07:
Experimental optimization in ion source configuration of a miniature electron cyclotron resonance ion thruster
Experimental optimization in ion source configuration of a miniature electron cyclotron resonance ion thruster
( 2015 年4 月7 日收到; 2015 年6 月30 日收到修改稿)
is on a conventional ion thruster (using reaction), which uses a propellant source
-
#1011 by Flyby on 31 Dec, 2015 13:19
-
Hello,
1. As far as I can see this experiment is similar to Iulian Berca's.
2. The thrust obtained at the scale is around 1.5g.
3. The lengths of the two arms of the lever are similar with the frustum's arms seems to be slightly longer.
Let's say the ratio is:
frustum's arm length / counterweight arm's length = 1.2
4. Therefore the thrust at the frustum is around:
1.5/1.2=1.25g
This is quite similar to Iulian's result which is encouraging.
So for me the big question is now:
Can the 1.2g of thrust (or weight imbalance) can be explained by effects like:
- thermal air flow effects
- electromagnetic (Lorentz) forces on the power supply cables
My uneducated guess:
- the Lorentz forces would be much smaller than 1.2g
- the thermal air flow effects: no idea
Can any of the physicists here give a rough estimate of the magnitude of those two effects for the conditions of this experiment ?
Not a physicist here, but from what I recall from Iulian's and rfmwguy's experiment, the thermal effects can be split into :
- Buoyancy (hot air balloon effect)
- chimney effect (air drag from rising hot air)
Any seesaw setup will face the same thermal problems (and doubts), hence why I personal bias towards a rotating table setup. On condition you do not add any moving parts (motors, pumps, etc), movement of such a setup is unaffected by thermal effects...
If i were to build an experimental test setup, I'd choose for a 200-300W rotating setup. Why in those power ranges? well, if we assume the data from prof Yang is correct, it is in that power range that you get the biggest thrust/power input ratio, hence - most probably - the best and clearest signal.(if there is any...) -
#1012 by rfmwguy on 31 Dec, 2015 13:25
-
NSF-1701A Update - Proofreaders needed (please)
After checking my mad money funds, I will need to gain a little $$ support for my Phase II testing next year. I am about to launch a very modest kickstarter campaign. It is in the proofreading stage and is not live, but I would like everyone's feedback on it first:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1242138957/1611953324?token=1b6d8572
Remember, this is not to solicit donations here, just feedback on the wording, etc. It is not a live campaign yet.
When it does go live, I will simply put a link to it in my signature file, like Shell, and not conduct a beg-a-thon.
I suggest PM'ing me with commentary to minimize thread size. Thanks pals!
(edit) Just noticed, you can also post comments directly on the kickstarter page. -
#1013 by Vesc on 31 Dec, 2015 13:37
-
After watching the linked video, YouTube suggested another which I watched. I HIGHLY suggest those who are only passingly familiar(like me!) with waveguides and resonances watch this FANTASTIC lecture by Dr Walter Lewin from MIT (a genius lecturer!). (you old veterans might want to watch it too ) ESPECIALLY the last 10 minutes - the demonstration of resonance convergence and decay is pretty fascinating. I really need to watch all of that semester (8.03)
Sorry to quote from so old a post, I wish forums worked more like the old USENET newsgroups whereby replies could be threaded under original postings to keep them organized together. I finally watched this entire video and have to agree it is well worth watching. I agree the last 10 minutes are definitely worth watching and relevant to what is going on here. And thanks for posting that!
I did not see any more errata, other than the mixup over the dimension variable 'c' versus the speed-of-light constant 'c'. I had to chuckle. It reminded me of an old lecture from my very first EE course whereby the justification for the EE's replacement of the mathematical symbol of i for sqrt(-1) with j. All because of the adaptation of the variable 'i' to represent electrical current!
If I might digress a bit. What it reminds me so much is of my college days and having friends from those days, when stereophonic sound systems were all the rage, declaring that it was *insane* to pay upwards of high 3 and 4 dollar figures for good audio speakers. And then set off to design their own! Usually quite an education ensued. And usually with only modest results. Of course computer modeling of such a thing was literally unheard of back then, and of course, even less affordable than the commercial offerings so eagerly being sought to be replaced. As for me, I have a pair of Dalquist DQ-10s phased arrays. I have yet to see anything come as close to being able to do spacial imaging and faithful reproduction of extremely high audio F, short of a ribbon speaker!
But to return to topic I was not surprised by the many nodal responses of a box cavity. Nor would Dr. Bose. Of course what is most impressive of all are the predictions from theory which hold up quite well. Fortunately that theory also holds for all those attempting the work here!
Happy New Year to all you DIYers and good luck in 2016! Looking forward to some interesting measurements! BTW even hearty *refutations* I will consider good results!! The only bad science are the experiments not done!
Sorry for the long holiday-only digression, I return to lurking and yield back the forum to your regular contributors. -
#1014 by rfmwguy on 31 Dec, 2015 13:54
-
Healthy discussions for sure. I might add that rotary or torsional is subject to small Lorentz per Mr Li's paper (double-digit micronewtons). Basically, a compass wanting to point to the North Pole. No vertical Lorentz forces were quantified.
Hello,
1. As far as I can see this experiment is similar to Iulian Berca's.
2. The thrust obtained at the scale is around 1.5g.
3. The lengths of the two arms of the lever are similar with the frustum's arms seems to be slightly longer.
Let's say the ratio is:
frustum's arm length / counterweight arm's length = 1.2
4. Therefore the thrust at the frustum is around:
1.5/1.2=1.25g
This is quite similar to Iulian's result which is encouraging.
So for me the big question is now:
Can the 1.2g of thrust (or weight imbalance) can be explained by effects like:
- thermal air flow effects
- electromagnetic (Lorentz) forces on the power supply cables
My uneducated guess:
- the Lorentz forces would be much smaller than 1.2g
- the thermal air flow effects: no idea
Can any of the physicists here give a rough estimate of the magnitude of those two effects for the conditions of this experiment ?
Not a physicist here, but from what I recall from Iulian's and rfmwguy's experiment, the thermal effects can be split into :
- Buoyancy (hot air balloon effect)
- chimney effect (air drag from rising hot air)
Any seesaw setup will face the same thermal problems (and doubts), hence why I personal bias towards a rotating table setup. On condition you do not add any moving parts (motors, pumps, etc), movement of such a setup is unaffected by thermal effects...
If i were to build an experimental test setup, I'd choose for a 200-300W rotating setup. Why in those power ranges? well, if we assume the data from prof Yang is correct, it is in that power range that you get the biggest thrust/power input ratio, hence - most probably - the best and clearest signal.(if there is any...)
Regarding balance beam, you are absolutely correct. Thermal rise is the enemy here. What experimenters are looking for is reversal, attenuation or static periods against that rise, with reversal being the most significant.
Several have suggested ways around it, fluid dynamics (out of our reach for now), acceleration changes as well as statistical analysis. Basically, balance beam appears to be the most cost-effective way to go, but TT and Monomorphic are using rotary and air slide setups respectively.
All are imperfect and shy of a vacuum chamber, but DIYers work with what they have. IMO, a DIY in ambient with all errors accounted for is the ultimate goal...not an easy one, but think all understand this and still have fun trying their best.
-
#1015 by madsci on 31 Dec, 2015 13:54
-
It looks like a cylindrical cavity resonator. The basic result for both orientations is almost the same (increasing weight measurement of the counterweight at the balance).i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you.
Hello,
1. As far as I can see this experiment is similar to Iulian Berca's.
2. The thrust obtained at the scale is around 1.5g.
3. The lengths of the two arms of the lever are similar with the frustum's arms seems to be slightly longer.
Let's say the ratio is:
frustum's arm length / counterweight arm's length = 1.2
4. Therefore the thrust at the frustum is around:
1.5/1.2=1.25g
This is quite similar to Iulian's result which is encouraging.
So for me the big question is now:
Can the 1.2g of thrust (or weight imbalance) can be explained by effects like:
- thermal air flow effects
- electromagnetic (Lorentz) forces on the power supply cables
My uneducated guess:
- the Lorentz forces would be much smaller than 1.2g
- the thermal air flow effects: no idea
Can any of the physicists here give a rough estimate of the magnitude of those two effects for the conditions of this experiment ?
Looks strong like thermal effects like convection / ballooning...
Edit: This is an important test and must be compared with a similar but conical cavity! Maybe one can eliminate (most of) the thermal component going this way.
It looks like a frustum to me, not a cylinder.
But you're right that he obtains very similar values of thrust with the frustum pointing in opposite directions.
Therefore, it's not a confirmation of the EM drive effect.
If I remember correctly Iulian obtained different thrust numbers for the up/down directions.
However, if the thermal effect thrust with such a setup is indeed of the order of 1g, that casts a lot of doubts on Iulian's results too: they might also be explained by thermal effects. -
#1016 by madsci on 31 Dec, 2015 14:03
-
NSF-1701A Update - Proofreaders needed (please)
After checking my mad money funds, I will need to gain a little $$ support for my Phase II testing next year. I am about to launch a very modest kickstarter campaign. It is in the proofreading stage and is not live, but I would like everyone's feedback on it first:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1242138957/1611953324?token=1b6d8572
Remember, this is not to solicit donations here, just feedback on the wording, etc. It is not a live campaign yet.
When it does go live, I will simply put a link to it in my signature file, like Shell, and not conduct a beg-a-thon.
I suggest PM'ing me with commentary to minimize thread size. Thanks pals!
(edit) Just noticed, you can also post comments directly on the kickstarter page.
Suggestion: allow small donations of $1 and $3.
They might contribute significantly to your goal. -
#1017 by Flyby on 31 Dec, 2015 14:11
-
Interesting...1) Yang's last published paper was published in 2014
I see Yang Juan listed here from 2015-04-07:
Experimental optimization in ion source configuration of a miniature electron cyclotron resonance ion thruster
If she - as claimed- retired somewhere in 2014, is it common practice in the academic world to release papers after retirement?
Maybe this is just a linguistic problem and some confusion about the meaning of "retired" or "retirement"?
What if she simply withdrew (="retired") from the project after failing to secure funding for a super-cooled version of her experiment?
bah... always the same..whenever one starts with a question, you end up with a whole page of questions and hardly any answers...
-
#1018 by oyzw on 31 Dec, 2015 14:14
-
i m Kyungpook National Univ student and i find this Thread to youtube.
Hello！How are you！ I'm emfans from China ，can you send this video to my email [email protected] ？ Thank you very much！
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJXO1wwppOE&google_comment_id=z12wtf4pqojutrpp304cerkwjqakj5wwh3k&google_view_type#gpluscomments
so glad to see it ! and i make a emdrive this youtube and with caption. (translation must need)
simple experiment. would like watch my video . Thank you. -
#1019 by Mulletron on 31 Dec, 2015 14:15
-
......
________
(*) Also Dr. White at NASA carefully distanced himself and his project from the unaccepted theories of Yang and Shawyer, who he never embraced, as they are obviously incompatible with well-known physics.
Dr. White's QV-virtual plasma thruster theory? does not exactly conform to any currently accepted understanding of either the QV or Gravity.
It is difficult to justify criticisms of any theory attached to the publication of any experiment, whether published or presented for purposes of funding. As someone mentioned earlier, when dealing with what is New Physics, journals expect an included theory of operation and not many venture capitalists are going to be willing to provide funding, in the early stages of any technological development without some explanation, of how/why it might work. In neither case does the attached theory have to have been proven a realistic explanation.... No, all that is required is that it be acceptable to the reviewing(s) parties. If theory had to be proven before being published, there would be no theoretical physics, at all.
It is unreasonable to reject experimental claims based solely on an attached theory of operation.., or without all of the facts contributing to any claims made based on experiment. Shawyer, Yang and even Eagleworks have not provided sufficient detail of their experimental design that anyone could just duplicate their tests, without a great deal of trial and error. Rejecting experimental claims based on incomplete detail, or the lack of specific design detail, is valid.., but in that case you are rejecting their reporting or experimental design. The actual engineering and physical design...
Until the dust settles on any proposed new technology, rejecting claims based on faulty theory is bad science. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, of just where the line between engineering and theory is, where the EMDrive is concerned. Most of what I have seen is an engineering effort, aimed at reproducing and testing past claims, and a healthy dose of theoretical speculation. It is the engineering that drives the experimental design, not so much what we imagine the theory of operation might be.
As I have said before, It would be far better to catch the rabbit.., replicate or experimentally refute the claimed results before, cooking it!.., chasing the theory of operation. Engineering is based on what we know and trial and error, while any theory of operation would seem to be obviously New Physics and not entirely explainable by any inherited or aquired theoretical bias, based on past experience.
Great post, yet I disagree with the portion highlighted in blue. I honestly feel like I'm flying blind without some sort of acceptable theory of operation in mind (at least acceptable to me). The current theories on the table make no sense. It is no wonder why EmDrive is not progressing. The experimental results are sitting in the noise floor. Sure, trial and error may get better results, better RF engineering may get better results. Actually understanding how it works and exactly why it does what it supposedly does, is what gets results.
An analogy. Can you imagine what kind of boon doggle it would be to try and improve the operation of a transistor without knowledge of Quantum Mechanics? Making a semiconductor work well requires in depth understanding of such things.
There is no requirement for EmDrive to require "obviously New Physics."
TE013 is correct for this dimensions.
bah... always the same..whenever one starts with a question, you end up with a whole page of questions and hardly any answers...