-
#2220 by TheUberOverLord on 25 Jan, 2016 14:17
-
...
My experience at Universities and at corporate R&D is that curtailing of project funding decisions is confidential and therefore such decisions would not be willingly discussed. To know the truthful details of the decision making would require personally knowing the decision makers, and even in that case the information would be bound by confidentiality and would not be able to be shared in public.
I have always understood that Prof. Yang herself has not responded to queries but I have heard little if anything about attempted contact to current University staff on locating others and their contact information that were involved in the editorial reviews of Prof. Yang's papers.
I would think that others, like yourself, would have good odds in getting some response from staff at this University? Whereas I think I would most likely fail at trying the same thing because I have no Chinese academic friends that might better understand the politics of going about this correctly.
Don
We have a similar situation in the US with the curtailing by Boeing of the project with Shawyer, where Boeing is not releasing the reasons or details about the project decisions.
Would it not still be possible to potentially get names and contact information of those that did editorial reviews of Prof. Yangs papers and then afterwards attempt to contact those individuals avoiding the subject of why funding ceased?
Even any attempt like that, most likely would be better done by someone with your credentials than me or others that might go about it the wrong way, politically.
Don -
#2221 by Willem Staal on 25 Jan, 2016 14:24
-
The more i study the EM Drive the more im convinced that the "force" generated is a result of a wave transition. The RF generator in a EM drive is made with a magnetron.
Microwaves are a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation with a frequency higher than ordinary radio waves but lower than infrared light, and there is the key.
The fact that waves are pushed into the cavity as a microwave and due to the form of the funnel those waves are phase-transforming into a heat wave. And because heat moves from hot to cold (the wide part of the cavity) it will generate thrust. (it is just a tiny amount but in space its huge)
-
#2222 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 14:33
-
The more i study the EM Drive the more im convinced that the "force" generated is a result of a wave transition. The RF generator in a EM drive is made with a magnetron.
Welcome to the forum
Microwaves are a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation with a frequency higher than ordinary radio waves but lower than infrared light, and there is the key.
The fact that waves are pushed into the cavity as a microwave and due to the form of the funnel those waves are phase-transforming into a heat wave. And because heat moves from hot to cold (the wide part of the cavity) it will generate thrust. (it is just a tiny amount but in space its huge)
If the force generated by the EM Drive is just the result of the release of heat, in outer space, this heat release could only occur by heat radiation (as heat convection and conductivity would be eliminated in vacuum, as there is no medium in which much convection and certainly not much thermal conductivity can take place).
If so, it appears that there are other more efficient forms of releasing heat by radiation in a preferential direction to produce recoil than by using microwaves in a truncated cone (almost cylindrical up to now) resonant cavity to produce induction heating of the whole cavity (as done at the present time).
Induction heating the whole copper cavity (including the conical walls and both ends, rather than just one end) seems inefficient.
And even then, heat radiation does not look like a particularly efficient (and certainly not high thrust) space propulsion method when compared to other competing space propulsion methods.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Propulsion by radiating heat is still propulsion via infrared photons, which is similar to other photon propulsion methods. Worse, thermal photons are limited by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
So, the efficiency (force/Power) of the EM Drive (if propulsion is due to thermal photons) should be less than the efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, while the EM Drive proponents are proposing an efficiency several orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.(*)
See: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
(*) It gets even worse, because one needs to correct for angle of emission. Photons cannot be perfectly collimated.
(**) If anything this may explain why Shawyer and Yang never published a single experiment performed in partial vacuum, and why Boeing may have discontinued the project with Shawyer, because propulsion by thermal convection may take place in experiments in air but it will dissapear in vacuum -
#2223 by glennfish on 25 Jan, 2016 14:52
-
Yes, good question, with a positive answer: the Notsosureofit hypothesis (see: http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis ) predicts that:
Prof Woodward Mach's Effect theory is a General Relativity theory as well, and Paul March sees the EM Drive dielectric at NASA as explainable by Woodward's theory as another side of the coin of White's QV.
...
Looking at the EM drive constructions, there seems to be hypothetical consideration of the dielectric that maybe it's important, or maybe it's not.
Assuming these are related hypotheses, and EM drive theory seems to be shallow compared to Woodward, can anyone come up with a relationship between the conical structure of an EM drive device saturated with resonance and RF stuff and the dielectrics described by Woodward?
...
1) A resonant electromagnetic cylindrical cavity with constant circular cross section:
● self-accelerates under resonance if there is a dielectric asymmetrically located in the cylindrical cavity
● does not self-accelerate if the dielectric is symmetrically placed in the cavity
● does not self-accelerate if there is no dielectric asymmetrically placed in the cavity
2) A resonant electromagnetic tapered cavity, like a truncated cone:
● self-accelerates under resonance if there is no dielectric in the tapered cavity
● experiences greater acceleration under resonance if a dielectric is also asymmetrically located in the tapered cavity
The Notsosureofit hypothesis (see: http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis ) is a proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implies that a dispersive cavity resonator will self-accelerate. A dispersive cavity resonator can be produced by either:
● a geometrically asymmetric cavity, like a tapered cavity: a truncated cone
or
● a cavity with a constant cross-section, like a cylindrical cavity that has a dielectric asymmetrically placed in the cavity
either one can result in self-acceleration.
Problem: it has not been shown yet how the Notsosureofit hypothesis reconciles with
● conservation of momentum
● conservation of energy
Appeal is made to versions of General Relativity, since conservation of energy-momentum (they are both tied in together in GR) in General Relativity is much more nuanced than in classical physics (in General Relativity even the definition of center of mass is ambiguous).
Again, probably way out of my pay-grade question.
When I look at the "Notsosureofit hypothesis" and the "Woodward hypothesis", I'm hard pressed to find a commonality that shows the dielectric properties that Woodward describes in the Notsosureofit math.
I wouldn't doubt that it's buried in a term somewhere that's obvious to someone better trained than I, but I'm scratching my head trying to see how the two are related. Could you point me in the right direction please? I'm not going to try to do any math here, I'm at the comic book level in that regard, but I have enough training to sketch the outlines, I think. -
#2224 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 14:59
-
...
Since Prof. Woodward has stated that the only way he can see the EM Drive to produce thrust is with dielectric inserts, and Prof. Woodward rejects the experimental results of Shawyer and Yang without a dielectric insert, I don't see how you can reconcile both Notsoureofit and Woodward's hypothesis since Woodward does not accept Shawyer's premise that an EM Drive can self-accelerate without dielectric inserts and Notsosureofit does.
Again, probably way out of my pay-grade question.
When I look at the "Notsosureofit hypothesis" and the "Woodward hypothesis", I'm hard pressed to find a commonality that shows the dielectric properties that Woodward describes in the Notsosureofit math.
I wouldn't doubt that it's buried in a term somewhere that's obvious to someone better trained than I, but I'm scratching my head trying to see how the two are related. Could you point me in the right direction please? I'm not going to try to do any math here, I'm at the comic book level in that regard, but I have enough training to sketch the outlines, I think.
Perhaps:
1) Nososureofit can see a connection between both hypotheses
2) Paul March has stated that Woodward's hypothesis and White's Quantum Vacuum are two sides of the same coin and that he, Paul March has envisioned how Woodward's hypothesis could result in propulsion of the EM Drive without a dielectric insert so perhaps Paul March would have an idea how to answer that. Distinguished ex-NSF member DeltaMass
worked with Prof. Woodward and also wrote about this problem in previous threads.
The only commonality I see between Woodward's hypothesis and Notsosureofit's hypothesis is that Woodward's hypothesis is based on a version of General Relativity (Woodward's hypothesis needs an Euclidean flat space Universe to be consistently valid, as I understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Curvature (*) ) and Notsosureofit is examining General Relativity as a foundation for his hypothesis to answer the conservation of energy/momentum puzzle.
(*) Results of the Planck mission released in 2015 show the cosmological curvature parameter, ΩK, to be 0.000±0.005, coincident with a flat universe -
#2225 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 15:44
-
Continued from
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1482521#msg1482521 and from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1482668#msg1482668 and from
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1482865#msg1482865
More information from TheTravellerReturns: another hand-drawn sketch (RF amplifier supported by "height adjustable books" with coax connection to frustum of a cone resonator cavity, still appearing to show that his frustum is not fully shielded in an enclosure, hence may be affecting the digital scale readings, as there was an acceptance also that the frustum is held together by gravity and not fully sealed we hope that he keeps safe and protects himself from microwave radiation), test setup kept simple, he says to allow replication by other DoItYourself people:
● feed to amplifier: 27 volts Direct Current, 15 ampsQuote from: TheTravellerReturnsShould add that I have some concern if the 50 Hz full wave modulation & possible induced harmonic distortion of the Rf signal had anything to do with the generated thrust.
The faulty filter caps will be replaced and the old ones retained so I can recreate the 27 Vdc with the heavy 50 Hz ripple if required.Quote from: TheTravellerReturnsFurther investigation has revealed the bench PSU used to power the 100W Rf amp has faulty filter capacitors and at full load the 27 vdc had a very significant 50Hz full wave ripple. This means the 63W forward power indication and not very good full power VSWR may not have been correct.
PSU is being repaired plus a battery bank is being installed to ensure the Rf amp receives smooth DC power.
This PSU fault does not affect the measured 2.2mN (~0.22g) averaged Up and Down force.
The digital scale is being updated from a max 1.5kg model to a 3.0kg model, still with 0.01g resolution, which is approx 100uN resolution.
Here are updated schematics of the test setup, which has been designed to be KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and low cost to enable others to replicate my findings.
Full replication data, schematics, parts lists, suppliers names, etc will be provided when the final data release is done end Feb 2016.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iRlI1V0FtdXRLTXc/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iQzBMMmZvOTNjUW8/view?usp=sharing
I fully realise that for my test data to be widely accepted, replication and verification must occur. That effort by others will be fully supported by myself.
-
#2226 by wallofwolfstreet on 25 Jan, 2016 16:44
-
I see a glaring issue in TheTraveller's (TT's) experimental setup. In the following reddit post from 13 hours ago, you can see the section I've highlighted in bold:Quote
As posted to EmDriveResearch: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
Beside my bed is my MidNight NotePad (one you actually write on), for well MidNight Brain Waves. It is full.
Made a decision as to my near term goal, which is to publish when force generation reaches 20mN as that is far out of any thermal and/or Lorentz force noise as to stop any skeptics. 20mN is 50% of what Roger predicts the frustum can do (at 100W inside the frustum). So gives me enough breathing / head room to pull this off.
When I reach that goal is when I publish plans, schematics, photos and videos but not before. Why? As any earlier photos and video will go viral all over the globe and the skeptics / deniers will attack with everything they have as otherwise their fun is gone.
My current frustum is held together via gravity with the frustum sitting on the small end plate and the big end plate sitting on the frustum. Did flatten the frustum ends using a few rotations over fine metal finishing paper. So thermal effect guys, the frustum is not sealed and any internally heated air will leave via the not air tight joints. Please note the end plates are 40mm bigger in diameter than the frustum ends, so any heated air than leaves the frustum at the end plate to frustum joint will not go straight up. 1st will go out axially, then move past a 20mm wide lip before going vertical. Enjoy calculating the very small buoyancy force that will be generated. Please note that any heated air that leaves at the top should be replaced with air drawn in at the bottom.
The existing scale tops out at 1.5kg and will soon be exceeded. With 0.5mm thick end plates, the frustum weighs ~1.1kg and the 300mm dia double sided copper pcb EMI shield weighs ~0.25kg, All up ~1.35kg so close to the limit. Adding on the flange and using 1mm thick end plates will bump weight to ~1.6kg and with the EMI shield to 1.85kg. So replacing the current 1.5kg digital scale with a 2.1kg scale. Both have +- 0.01g resolution.
Will add a Red led in front of the scale display to show Rf on and off periods. Can then video the entire frustum and scale display with my phone to show weight changes that occur as the Red led goes on and off.
Plan to run progressively longer and longer Rf on to off times as my confidence in not blowing the Rf amp increases. Not blowing the Rf amp is VERY IMPORTANT to me as other EmDrive experimenters have done just that and it is not a nice event to occur.
Currently at 2.2mN force with a bad PSU. Need to achieve 20mN to publish. Will get there. Will happen.
If I am reading that correctly, and looking at the graphic which TT has shown of his work, there is an extended metal lip where the frustum side wall conjoins with the end plate (the end plate being just a piece of metal which has been laid on top of the frustum side wall). TT says the heated air from within the frustum is allowed to vent at this gap between frustum and side wall, where it travels out across this 20mm wide lip before going vertical.
This was done to eliminate buoyancy effects within the frustum. The only issue now, is that the entrapped hot air underneath this lip has its own buoyancy effect. He has switched buoyancy effects within the frustum for buoyancy effects under the lip of his upper end plate. A hot air balloon is just a mass of hot air trapped underneath the canvas covering of the balloon. TT has trapped the hot hair ejected from within his cavity under the metal lip of his top end plate, as he himself states here:Quote1st will go out axially, then move past a 20mm wide lip before going vertical
He has essentially created a hot air balloon, where the balloon is an inefficient flat piece of metal instead of a nice spherically shaped piece of canvas. See attached figure.
If you look at the picture that he has posted of his setup, it seems clear to me that he has measured the force on his upper end plate caused by the entrapped hot air underneath as it flows radially outwards.
Can't say for certain without more info though.
-
#2227 by Tellmeagain on 25 Jan, 2016 18:52
-
Probably the best thing to do is to contact the University directly:
see: http://hangkong.nwpu.edu.cn/home/fs/Professor.htm
Notice that Prof. Juan Yang was listed as a Prof. in Aeronautics in the last listing (a few years old) while I could not find her listed any longer as a Prof. at her University in this latest listing http://hangkong.nwpu.edu.cn/home/fs/Professor.htm
She is not in school of aeronautics , but in school of astronautics. She is still listed in the Chinese version of the professor list there,
list: http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/szdw/jslb.htm
Her page: http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1229/6335.htm
-
#2228 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 18:54
-
....
She is not in school of aeronautics , but in school of astronautics. She is still listed in the Chinese version of the professor list there,
list: http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/szdw/jslb.htm
Her page: http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1229/6335.htm
Thanks for the correction ! I corrected my posts accordingly (to the extent of my recollection).
NSF User TheUberOverLord ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1482910#msg1482910 ) suggestedQuotewhether would it not still be possible to potentially get names and contact information of those that did editorial reviews of Prof. Yangs papers and then afterwards attempt to contact those individuals avoiding the subject of why funding ceased.
As I understand you are fluent in the Chinese language (and you linked to pages in Chinese language for Prof. Juan Yang's position at her University), and I am not, you may be interested in following up TheUberOverLord's suggestion.
-
#2229 by SeeShells on 25 Jan, 2016 19:19
-
I see a glaring issue in TheTraveller's (TT's) experimental setup. In the following reddit post from 13 hours ago, you can see the section I've highlighted in bold:
Simple correction to address the frustum thrust is to flip it over 1800 and measure.QuoteAs posted to EmDriveResearch: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
Beside my bed is my MidNight NotePad (one you actually write on), for well MidNight Brain Waves. It is full.
Made a decision as to my near term goal, which is to publish when force generation reaches 20mN as that is far out of any thermal and/or Lorentz force noise as to stop any skeptics. 20mN is 50% of what Roger predicts the frustum can do (at 100W inside the frustum). So gives me enough breathing / head room to pull this off.
When I reach that goal is when I publish plans, schematics, photos and videos but not before. Why? As any earlier photos and video will go viral all over the globe and the skeptics / deniers will attack with everything they have as otherwise their fun is gone.
My current frustum is held together via gravity with the frustum sitting on the small end plate and the big end plate sitting on the frustum. Did flatten the frustum ends using a few rotations over fine metal finishing paper. So thermal effect guys, the frustum is not sealed and any internally heated air will leave via the not air tight joints. Please note the end plates are 40mm bigger in diameter than the frustum ends, so any heated air than leaves the frustum at the end plate to frustum joint will not go straight up. 1st will go out axially, then move past a 20mm wide lip before going vertical. Enjoy calculating the very small buoyancy force that will be generated. Please note that any heated air that leaves at the top should be replaced with air drawn in at the bottom.
The existing scale tops out at 1.5kg and will soon be exceeded. With 0.5mm thick end plates, the frustum weighs ~1.1kg and the 300mm dia double sided copper pcb EMI shield weighs ~0.25kg, All up ~1.35kg so close to the limit. Adding on the flange and using 1mm thick end plates will bump weight to ~1.6kg and with the EMI shield to 1.85kg. So replacing the current 1.5kg digital scale with a 2.1kg scale. Both have +- 0.01g resolution.
Will add a Red led in front of the scale display to show Rf on and off periods. Can then video the entire frustum and scale display with my phone to show weight changes that occur as the Red led goes on and off.
Plan to run progressively longer and longer Rf on to off times as my confidence in not blowing the Rf amp increases. Not blowing the Rf amp is VERY IMPORTANT to me as other EmDrive experimenters have done just that and it is not a nice event to occur.
Currently at 2.2mN force with a bad PSU. Need to achieve 20mN to publish. Will get there. Will happen.
If I am reading that correctly, and looking at the graphic which TT has shown of his work, there is an extended metal lip where the frustum side wall conjoins with the end plate (the end plate being just a piece of metal which has been laid on top of the frustum side wall). TT says the heated air from within the frustum is allowed to vent at this gap between frustum and side wall, where it travels out across this 20mm wide lip before going vertical.
This was done to eliminate buoyancy effects within the frustum. The only issue now, is that the entrapped hot air underneath this lip has its own buoyancy effect. He has switched buoyancy effects within the frustum for buoyancy effects under the lip of his upper end plate. A hot air balloon is just a mass of hot air trapped underneath the canvas covering of the balloon. TT has trapped the hot hair ejected from within his cavity under the metal lip of his top end plate, as he himself states here:Quote1st will go out axially, then move past a 20mm wide lip before going vertical
He has essentially created a hot air balloon, where the balloon is an inefficient flat piece of metal instead of a nice spherically shaped piece of canvas. See attached figure.
If you look at the picture that he has posted of his setup, it seems clear to me that he has measured the force on his upper end plate caused by the entrapped hot air underneath as it flows radially outwards.
Can't say for certain without more info though.
Shell
A friend gave me a sign "Don't blame me.... I'M NO ROCKET SURGEON" It's going on my lab wall.
Shell -
#2230 by Mulletron on 25 Jan, 2016 20:02
-
Would the group be interested in starting a weekly fireside chat at a time (GMT) we can agree upon? Google hangouts can accommodate us. Was watching this earlier and I think we should do this too. It seems to work pretty well. I use it to video chat with the family and it works really well so I can vouch for it.
-
#2231 by rfmwguy on 25 Jan, 2016 21:07
-
I would like to pose this question to those more familiar with peer-reviewed journal publications...
It is my understanding that the best papers in the best journals always require an agreed upon THEORY before publishing occurs. IOW, do you think EW's paper in the works will have to nail down the theory BEFORE it goes to print? If so, the theory must be much further along than I assume. As of now, its all up in the air in my estimate.
Inquiring minds want to know...well, I do anyway... -
#2232 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 21:18
-
I would like to pose this question to those more familiar with peer-reviewed journal publications...
No. I can tell you there is NO such requirement. It is up to the Peer Reviewers to review the papers very carefully and find errors, etc. There is no such thing as "agreed upon theory" anyway, what there is, is a scientific method. There are so many examples, but the way that Einstein, Feynmann, von Neumann, Heissenberg, Dirac and others got famous is to develop a new theory, instead of working on an old agreed-upon theory. Actually, in my experience, reputable journals abhor "review articles of agreed-upon theories". You are expected to come up with something new, and not to work on something old (even worse is just to review something old).
It is my understanding that the best papers in the best journals always require an agreed upon THEORY before publishing occurs. IOW, do you think EW's paper in the works will have to nail down the theory BEFORE it goes to print? If so, the theory must be much further along than I assume. As of now, its all up in the air in my estimate.
Inquiring minds want to know...well, I do anyway...
What is a no-no is to work to try to publish a paper with a theory where the mathematics are wrong, or where the author cannot adequately answer questions regarding the mathematics and physics behind their arguments.
Concerning publication of the EW article, it all depends (entirely) on what journal they intend to publish. There are journals that concentrate only on experiments. There are journals that concentrate on theory and there are journals that deal with both. There are so many peer-reviewed journals, that it is really not hard to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is hard to get published in the highly ranked (by citation index) journals, easy to get published on the low-citation index journals and low readership journals.
Concerning time for peer-review it is perfectly normal for this process to take several months, even a long time, nothing unusual.
Do you know what journal they are intending to publish their article on?
-
#2233 by rfmwguy on 25 Jan, 2016 21:31
-
Great reply, Doc...learned something. I can only assume it is one of the AIAA Journals since their Conference Paper is listed there, but I'm not sure...I'd bet a six-pack though its one of these:I would like to pose this question to those more familiar with peer-reviewed journal publications...
No. I peer-reviewed (assisting a Professor who was an Editor) articles for a highly ranked (citation index) Peer reviewed journal and I can tell you there is NO such requirement. It is up to the Peer Reviewers to review the papers very carefully and find errors, etc. There is no such thing as "agreed upon theory" anyway, what there is, is a scientific method. There are so many examples, but the way that Einstein, Feynmann, von Neumann, Heissenberg, Dirac and others got famous is to develop a new theory, instead of working on an old agreed-upon theory. Actually, in my experience, reputable journals abhor "review articles of agreed-upon theories". You are expected to come up with something new, and not to work on something old (even worse is just to review something old).
It is my understanding that the best papers in the best journals always require an agreed upon THEORY before publishing occurs. IOW, do you think EW's paper in the works will have to nail down the theory BEFORE it goes to print? If so, the theory must be much further along than I assume. As of now, its all up in the air in my estimate.
Inquiring minds want to know...well, I do anyway...
Concerning publication of the EW article, it all depends (entirely) on what journal they intend to publish. There are journals that concentrate only on experiments. There are journals that concentrate on theory and there are journals that deal with both. There are so many peer-reviewed journals, that it is really not hard to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is hard to get published in the highly ranked (by citation index) journals, easy to get published on the low-citation index journals and low readership journals.
Concerning time for peer-review it is perfectly normal for this process to take several months, even a long time, nothing unusual.
Do you know what journal they are intending to publish their article on?
https://www.aiaa.org/journals/
Specifically, one of these 2:
AIAA Journal
Journal of Propulsion and Power -
#2234 by Mulletron on 25 Jan, 2016 21:36
-
I just saw a couple well thought out (and yes polarizing) posts about hoaxers from history just disappear. There's value in knowing the mistakes from our past, gentlemen.
-
#2235 by rfmwguy on 25 Jan, 2016 21:41
-
I just saw a couple well thought out (and yes polarizing) posts about hoaxers from history just disappear. There's value in knowing the mistakes from our past, gentlemen.
See my PM to you. -
#2236 by Rodal on 25 Jan, 2016 22:25
-
...
Great reply, Doc...learned something. I can only assume it is one of the AIAA Journals since their Conference Paper is listed there, but I'm not sure...I'd bet a six-pack though its one of these:
https://www.aiaa.org/journals/
Specifically, one of these 2:
AIAA Journal
Journal of Propulsion and Power
I think it is only one journal, the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power (same AIAA Journal that published the nullification of the Woodward Mach Lorentz thruster by Marini and Galian: Ricardo L. Marini and Eugenio S. Galian. "Torsion Pendulum Investigation of Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation Thrusting", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 26, No. 6 (2010), pp. 1283-1290.doi: 10.2514/1.46541).
They have a brand new Editor-In-Chief, from Notre Dame:
https://engineering.nd.edu/news-publications/engineering-newswire/powers-succeeds-douglas-talley-as-editor-in-chief-of-journal-of-propulsion-and-power
DATE: January 18, 2016QuoteJoseph M. Powers, an AIAA Associate Fellow, and professor and associate chair of the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, with a concurrent appointment to the Department of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, has been appointed editor-in-chief of the Journal of Propulsion and Power (JPP). Powers succeeds Douglas Talley of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
“Powers is one of the most diligent associate editors I have encountered,” said Frank K. Lu, AIAA vice president-publications. “I am sure that his leadership and inspiration will ensure the continued eminence of JPP.”
An associate editor of JPP since 2003, Powers becomes the fourth editor-in-chief of the journal.
Powers has been at the University of Notre Dame since 1989, and his professional duties include research program development in theoretical combustion, leading a research team in the Center for Shock Wave-processing of Advanced Reactive Materials, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses, and various department, college, and University service work, including supervision of undergraduate programs in aerospace and mechanical engineering.
A recipient of an AIAA Distinguished Service Award from the AIAA Propellants and Combustion Technical Committee, Powers is a member of several committees and associations, including: the Committee on Standards in Computational Fluid Dynamics, the International Colloquium on Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, the Combustion Institute, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the American Physical Society. Powers has served as a conference organizer and session chair for a variety of AIAA conferences.
About JPP
Established in 1986 with the support of AIAA’s propulsion-related technical committees, JPP had its roots in the American Rocket Society’s journal, Jet Propulsion, and provided a broader venue for papers than the Journal of Energy, which ceased publication in 1983.
— Duane Hyland, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
- See more at: https://engineering.nd.edu/news-publications/engineering-newswire/powers-succeeds-douglas-talley-as-editor-in-chief-of-journal-of-propulsion-and-power#sthash.njUApS5I.dpuf
His background being in <<theoretical combustion, leading a research team in the Center for Shock Wave-processing of Advanced Reactive Materials>> I doubt that he is going to be challenging or arguing about the Quantum Vacuum theory, but the peer-review will center more on the general scientific method of research and its application towards space propulsion.
Actually, I doubt if anybody in AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power is an expert on the Quantum Vacuum, or General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
The review is probably dealing more with the methods used in NASA EW's paper.
That's why I always thought it was nonsense for people to make too much out of a peer-review paper (for example Shawyer's recent paper in Acta Astronautica) as each paper review differs upon the background of the people doing the review. One cannot expect somebody teaching combustion, etc., to be an expert on the Quantum Vacuum. But he has general knowledge of the scientific method and scientific excellence on how it should be applied towards experiments etc.
-
#2237 by RFPlumber on 25 Jan, 2016 22:40
-
I see a glaring issue in TheTraveller's (TT's) experimental setup. In the following reddit post from 13 hours ago, you can see the section I've highlighted in bold:
...
If I am reading that correctly, and looking at the graphic which TT has shown of his work, there is an extended metal lip where the frustum side wall conjoins with the end plate (the end plate being just a piece of metal which has been laid on top of the frustum side wall). TT says the heated air from within the frustum is allowed to vent at this gap between frustum and side wall, where it travels out across this 20mm wide lip before going vertical.
This was done to eliminate buoyancy effects within the frustum. The only issue now, is that the entrapped hot air underneath this lip has its own buoyancy effect. He has switched buoyancy effects within the frustum for buoyancy effects under the lip of his upper end plate. A hot air balloon is just a mass of hot air trapped underneath the canvas covering of the balloon. TT has trapped the hot hair ejected from within his cavity under the metal lip of his top end plate, as he himself states here:Quote1st will go out axially, then move past a 20mm wide lip before going vertical
He has essentially created a hot air balloon, where the balloon is an inefficient flat piece of metal instead of a nice spherically shaped piece of canvas. See attached figure.
...
I am afraid it is a lot worse than this. There is hot air escaping the frustum via the end wall gaps. Any asymmetry with those gaps will produce an immedaite force. The air escaping is then both accumulating under those end plate lips contributing to buoyancy, yet some of it is likely flowing up/down the frustum walls creating all kinds of air pressure disturbances (as it is at the same time interacting with warm air from outer frustum walls) pushing the frustum in all directions. Any vertical projection of those forces will be reflected by the scale as "thrust" as well.
And then there are going to be RF leaks through the same gaps which air is escaping through. Those RF leaks may or may not be impacting the digital scale - hard to tell. (Yes, I understand those notorios RF leaks are only a concern when no thrust is observed for some strange reason ).
EmDrive at mN levels is hot air (pun intended). This has been shown very well in both Tajmar and EW papers.
-
#2238 by Chris Bergin on 25 Jan, 2016 22:49
-
I'm going to step in for the mods now and note the following points.
Personal attacks and profanity are not allowed (yes, I know they are on social media sites, which always have been quantity over quality as that's their business model) and no one is above the rules here.
People who say "I'm leaving because someone disagreed with me, return, behave for a week and then throw a hissy fit, behave after another warning and then turn again, attack members and then come out with the same "I'm leaving!!! Someone disagreed with me!!!" post(s) will be subject to forum rules. It's all a bit sad, but we're about quality over quantity here. Also remember, it takes a lot of complaints for someone to be banned and being banned is usually just a small period of not being able to post, as opposed to banishment. A cool down period if you will. A full ban has only been given to about 50 members (none spammers) in 10 years.
This is a specific thread to EM Drive, it's not a "I only read this thread and did you see Blue Origin the other day. Here's a video!" - which was hilariously off topic, but a sign of people who never step outside of this thread or section, as we have a section and threads for that and everything else.
These are long threads and it's the rule of the entire forum that posts need to be worthwhile. "LOLZ" and a Meme of a goldfish swearing ain't worthwhile
This thread is about the EM Drive progress. It is being used by several NASA folk (they aren't using the social media sites, per their request for me to keep what is a fringe subject alive on this site) ahead of the big tests that are coming at its next NASA center very soon. They are using this site's threads on this because of the history of the subject's progress, the crowdsourcing efforts and the quick catch up they can do on a bi-daily (or whatever) basis, where they don't have to trawl through 500 "Iz got me toaster to vibrate across me kitchen and anyone who says dat's not propellantless thrust can kiss my as*! and I'm LEAVING if u says dat!" posts because of the forum rules for the entire site's forum.
The forum rules go back to the days of some previous forum models (which some social media sites seem to be reinventing) where anyone could post anything and guess what happened? Chaos, that's what! Human Sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...
Ok, I've bored myself now. EM Drive. Post about EM Drive. Think "does this post add to the conversation"? Before posting. Quality over quantity. -
#2239 by rfmwguy on 25 Jan, 2016 23:17
-
OK, this is a great summary with details...Propulsion and Power seems to be at the top of the list of possibilities. So, scientific methodology is key and new, speculative theories wouldn't necessarily auto-reject the paper if I understand correctly. Therefore, we'll have to wait and see if it gets past NASA's internal review perhaps. Good deal, we have a Journal webpage to watch titled Articles in Advance (of JPP publication):...
I think it is only one journal, the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power (same AIAA Journal that published the nullification of the Woodward Mach Lorentz thruster by Marini and Galian).
They have a brand new Editor-In-Chief, from Notre Dame:
https://engineering.nd.edu/news-publications/engineering-newswire/powers-succeeds-douglas-talley-as-editor-in-chief-of-journal-of-propulsion-and-power
DATE: January 18, 2016QuoteJoseph M. Powers, an AIAA Associate Fellow, and professor and associate chair of the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, with a concurrent appointment to the Department of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, has been appointed editor-in-chief of the Journal of Propulsion and Power (JPP). Powers succeeds Douglas Talley of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
“Powers is one of the most diligent associate editors I have encountered,” said Frank K. Lu, AIAA vice president-publications. “I am sure that his leadership and inspiration will ensure the continued eminence of JPP.”
An associate editor of JPP since 2003, Powers becomes the fourth editor-in-chief of the journal.
Powers has been at the University of Notre Dame since 1989, and his professional duties include research program development in theoretical combustion, leading a research team in the Center for Shock Wave-processing of Advanced Reactive Materials, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses, and various department, college, and University service work, including supervision of undergraduate programs in aerospace and mechanical engineering.
A recipient of an AIAA Distinguished Service Award from the AIAA Propellants and Combustion Technical Committee, Powers is a member of several committees and associations, including: the Committee on Standards in Computational Fluid Dynamics, the International Colloquium on Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, the Combustion Institute, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the American Physical Society. Powers has served as a conference organizer and session chair for a variety of AIAA conferences.
About JPP
Established in 1986 with the support of AIAA’s propulsion-related technical committees, JPP had its roots in the American Rocket Society’s journal, Jet Propulsion, and provided a broader venue for papers than the Journal of Energy, which ceased publication in 1983.
— Duane Hyland, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
- See more at: https://engineering.nd.edu/news-publications/engineering-newswire/powers-succeeds-douglas-talley-as-editor-in-chief-of-journal-of-propulsion-and-power#sthash.njUApS5I.dpuf
His background being in <<theoretical combustion, leading a research team in the Center for Shock Wave-processing of Advanced Reactive Materials>> I doubt that he is going to be challenging or arguing about the Quantum Vacuum theory, but the peer-review will center more on the general scientific method of research and its application towards space propulsion.
Actually, I doubt if anybody in AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power is an expert on the Quantum Vacuum, or General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
The review is probably dealing more with the methods used in NASA EW's paper.
That's why I always thought it was nonsense for people to make too much out of a peer-review paper (for example Shawyer's recent paper in Acta Astronautica) as each paper review differs upon the background of the people doing the review. One cannot expect somebody teaching combustion, etc., to be an expert on the Quantum Vacuum. But he has general knowledge of the scientific method and scientific excellence on how it should be applied towards experiments etc.
http://arc.aiaa.org/toc/jpp/0/0
worked with Prof. Woodward and also wrote about this problem in previous threads.