-
#2220 by Vesc on 11 May, 2016 11:46
-
D'oh!!.../...
(*) It would be fully understandable that having paper being peer-reviewed for the first time is very meaningful to a first time author. But as an effect on Aerospace, the paper published by Shawyer in Acta Astronautica does not appear to have had a significant effect on the EM Drive perception... What would have a great effect would be:
1) Foremost: to have a spacecraft accelerated by an EM Drive
2) A test that would be universally recognized as definitive proof by the scientific community. This means at this point in time, at the minimum:
a) torsional pendulum
b) powered by batteries, self-integrated in the moving device
c) tested under partial vacuum
since (c) would eliminate thermal convection artifacts and (b) would eliminate electromagnetic Lorentz and momentum forces from power cables (including coaxial cables), thermal and stiffness forces from cables. A Cavendish pendulum would eliminate many artifacts present in other instruments.
Prof. Yang has met all three of the above (a,b, and c) in her recent paper that nulliifies her previous claimed results.
Ultimate acceptance of a technology requires independent replication at different institutional centers, so be prepared for a long haul. Rome wasn't built in a day.
For an earth based experiment I am advocating adding
d) independence from environmental magnetic field
Yes. We should have considered this earlier. oops...
Personally still not a big fan of 2b. I think there are ways around the problem that don't force one to stay in low power regimes, although any positive result would surely benefit from it. -
#2221 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 11:54
-
The specific reviewer in a peer-review process is supposed to be anonymous, the author only knows what Journal is doing the peer-review, and for major journals, a list of Editors, but never knows the identity of the specific reviewer. It would be highly improper for somebody to doxx a specific reviewer since the reviewer is anonymous.
1) The peer-review process is strictly confidential: both the authors and the peer-reviewers are sworn to secrecy simply means that if you have a paper undergoing peer-review you are sworn to secrecy as far as anything that a peer-reviewer communicates with you in the process. The secrecy pertains the peer-review process between a particular journal and the authors.
Still, huh? I've never heard about the authors not being allowed to communicate freely whatever the reviewer has written and indeed a lot of people talk (or more like complain) about how the reviewer has misunderstood the point of their paper or something similar.
Since the specific reviewer is anonymous, all that you can complain about specifically is the Journal. But, in my experience (at a particular period of time and places) it was improper to discuss the peer-review process because this is a confidential process that the author agreed ahead of time to go through and to keep confidential. Therefore it was not proper to openly disclose "an anonymous reviewer in Journal X is asking me to do this ...". It was OK to complain confidentially about this with the Journal Editors, but not to openly complain about a specific Journal and the process they engaged you in. That was my experience.
Science magazine present guidelines:QuoteThe review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board.
The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.
Science magazine has an Impact Factor exceeding 850
-
#2222 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 13:12
-
Granted, I was basing my statement upon some 2nd hand info and assumptions, but my impression was exactly what you have written. Of course, we don't know for certain because of the lack of communications from EW directly.2) process time could go over a year depending on journal. Also authors may decide to withdraw submission to a given journal if the peer-review process becomes unacceptable and re-submit the paper to another journal.
3) there is no retesting I have heard of while I worked at MIT ASRL, that is practically out of the question. Our Lab had several papers being published, never heard of asking for retesting in the peer-review process. Professors in a PhD thesis committee may ask for retests, Members of an R&D Supervisory Committee may ask for re-tests, Venture Capitalists may ask for retests, but not peer-reviewers for a technical paper, to my knowledge.
The peer-review process usually entails addressing technical issues in the paper write-up, reviewers do not usually ask re-tests as they know that the amount of time for scientific tests would be unacceptable (asking for retesting would be, practically, tantamount to rejection: the paper would have to be re-submtted.).
(snip)
For a paper on the subject of the EMDrive, the reviewers would be doing the journal a disservice if they did not request some additional experiments. There are many alternative hypotheses (experimental error related) to those bound to be proposed by the EW group.
Note: I learned the hard way once myself when I worked for a large corporation. If one has a formal Communications Department staffed with a Director and support crew, you'd best use them...or your work life can become...lets say miserable.
-
#2223 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 13:22
-
***Reply From Roger Shawyer***
Mr Shawyer was kind enough to reply to my email with questions posed from this forum. I'm sure he gets many such requests and it can become burdensome (I can relate in a small way myself). Anyway, here is his reply.
"Dave
Whilst I do not pretend to be a theoretical Physicist, the professional scientists that I have worked with all start their questioning by going through the derivation of the thrust equation line by line.
In spite of the all the effort that has gone into theoretical considerations on your forum I have yet to see anyone attempt this. If they have, then clearly I have missed it because I do not follow the forum continuously.
However those that have carried out a rigorous study of the theory paper all agree that the maths and assumptions made in the derivation are correct.
(snip)
Roger"
-
#2224 by frobnicat on 11 May, 2016 13:26
-
.../...
D'oh!!
For an earth based experiment I am advocating adding
d) independence from environmental magnetic field
Yes. We should have considered this earlier. oops...
Personally still not a big fan of 2b. I think there are ways around the problem that don't force one to stay in low power regimes, although any positive result would surely benefit from it.
There have been and still is a fair amount of serious discussion (and even publication) about Lorentz forces that pertains to this aspect ! My point specifically is that it sounds (to me) easier (though not trivial) to reach a high degree of confidence in independence of the effect from momentum exchange with environmental magnetic field by an active analysis of actual dependence on artificial added field, than to rely solely on mitigation of such coupling by wiring design (also this is certainly worth to try and improve) and/or trying to nullify field to 0 over experimental volume (say with mumetals walls or just one Helmholtz coils pair counteracting geomagnetic field), because one never knows if 0 is 0 enough.
Actually this (active field parameter dependence probing) might be the only practical way to ascertain experimentally that a Lorentz force minimizing wiring design or other mitigating scheme is good enough, not depending on hypothesis on what DC currents are present in what amount where. Since it relies on the shape of experimental values against current in Helmholtz coil (a parameter that is easy to control with a current generator) and a given rough assessment of having a range of magnitude above that of natural field, there is no high precision magnetic measurement involved. Obviously it does require some minimum level of repeatability in the measured forces and/or enough statistical significance to make sense, and it would take time. Should the test not be done in vacuum but in atmosphere, the heating of the coils might interfere by adding convection effect to the (present or absent) magnetic coupling that's probed... then consider just 2 data points at same current intensity, forward and reverse (obviously switch on and off Helmholtz coils apart from on off of EMdrive to avoid confusion and allow discrimination in measures vs time) . That should give same heating patterns, but opposite magnetic fields, a good start to have a much clearer idea about (in)dependence from environmental magnetic field.
For your last point, it is certainly possible to get up to 1kW for few tens of second in a reasonably sized self powered package, although thermal management will make repetition of tests more painful. I imagine should this go "industrial" a solution where an automated system gets the tested package to dock/plug into a thermal socket to get rid of excess heat after each run, or a water cooled jacket acting as passive thermal buffer around active parts, this jacket/buffer being itself enclosed in thermally isolated enveloppe, and just two small sections tubing going through the external isolation. All closed and passive during test. After each fire test, plug the tubing to external source of thermostated (?) water, pump for enough time to cool down to ref. temp., unplug, test again etc...
From left to right = from inside to outside
During run :
test article---water buffer jacket---isolation
After run :
test article---water buffer jacket---isolation---external tank constant temp.
with a cute actuated robotic cradle that captures and secures the self contained assembly each time, and releasing before next test, and aligning and damping to rest position for a quick start again while we are at it.
mmh, just my idea if I had lot of spare time and a seriously oversized DIY budget to spend
( or needed to write a screenplay scene of a futuristic EMdrive lab, adding steam, lot of steam
)
-
#2225 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 13:30
-
...
It would becomes :
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Also, we are questionning about an Emdrive device that would be moving freely inside a moving train, or an Emdrive that would be moving freely in a free falling elevator. How would it behaves ? with what referential should we consider the Kinetic Energy ?
Gilbertdrive and Frobnicat, does this "answer" by Shawyer help you as a response for what Shawyer uses as a referential for kinetic energy?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1532634#msg1532634
(I don't find it to be a proper, considerate response to the specific question that was asked:
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1531412#msg1531412 )
Something appears to be amiss -
#2226 by Monomorphic on 11 May, 2016 14:16
-
It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
Recommend we proof the emails. Anyone who begins a sentence with "Whilst" has a certain appreciation for the queen's english.
And perhaps we should highlight the question, as Dr. Rodal has, or resend just that question. -
#2227 by frobnicat on 11 May, 2016 14:22
-
...
Frobnicat, does this help you as a response for what Shawyer uses as a referential for kinetic energy?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1532634#msg1532634
(I don't find it to be a proper response to the question that was asked:
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1531412#msg1531412 )
Don't know what's been "snipped", I guess only civilities ?
Well first thanks for an answer at all. That said, the main point isn't addressed. And do we know who are all the "professional scientists" "that have carried out a rigorous study of the theory paper" and made sense of it ? This is puzzling (it's hard not to sound overly sarcastic) that among the various people (including without doubt quite a number of professional scientists, or else with serious scientific backgrounds) caring here at NSF to share their understanding of Shawyer's theoretical paper the overwhelming consensus is that it hardly makes any sense, or at least that there are huge holes to see how we are supposed to connect the dots (bread crumbs ?), while among the people he "cites" (at British defense ? at Boeing ? Universities ??) they can "all agree that the maths and assumptions made in the derivation are correct" ...
Basically, what is the "thrust equation" that is supposed to be correctly derived according to his scientific consultants ? If it's the one that gives thrust for a given power and a given Q, should it save apparence of energy conservation then it must be that the variation of Q due to, say, "history of use", is a central factor to the practical limitation of EMdrives applications. Beyond qualitative statement, do we have an explicit formula by Shawyer indicating Q as a function of "history of use" ?
Of course a space mission designer can't rely on circular reasoning like "Energy is conserved because Q decreases. Q decreases in such a way that energy is conserved", especially when energy is so ill defined to start with. So not only we are left to connect the dots and escape the circular reasoning by ourselves, but by Shawyers own indications one of the dots is fatally ill defined. At some point how Q is supposed to decrease must be stated in clear predictive terms as an explicit function of trajectory/use, because thrust must be known in clear terms for mission design.
Short answer : obviously no, the precise question is evaded. Either need more from him or from his scientific consultants. The highlighted question remains (and many more, but this one is central).
-
#2228 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 15:04
-
Its probably the most we can expect from Mr Shawyer. I'm sure our questions have been asked and re-asked many times. I have not followed him over the years like many have, so I have no particular interest in gaining more information from him. Quite frankly, it was Iulian Berka that launched me into the emdrive world when he used to post here before moving to China.
When I can, I will invite folks to NSF either directly or through myself as a go-between, to present their cases. Not all realize that NSF isn't an attack machine like other forums, so there is natural reluctance for inventors to post on public forums.
Anyhow...that was my attempt at adding a little more info to the Shawyer emdrive story...sorry I couldn't do more.
-
#2229 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 15:09
-
..I'm sure our questions have been asked and re-asked many times. ...
I don't understand why you are sure of this.
No, I don't think that the question about Kinetic Energy referential has ever been asked before of Mr. Shawyer.
Other questions (conservation of momentum, balance of forces, etc.) have been asked.
I have not seen the question of referential of Kinetic Energy ever been presented so clearly even in the very long New Scientist blog dealing with criticism of Shawyer's article, or in any other venue.
It it is to the credit of Frobnicat to have:
1) Placed conservation of energy as a bigger problem than conservation of momentum (which is the first thing people think of, rather than "free energy machine") (Frobnicat addressed this before Higgins)
2) distilled the issues so crystal clearl to have pinpointed the issue of referential for Kinetic Energy. I have not seen that done so clearly elsewhere
If anybody knows of Shawyer ever been asked before what is the referential for Kinetic Energy, and particularly they know of an answer Shawyer gave, we would appreciate knowing it.
Otherwise we must conclude that Shawyer never thought of this issue, that Shawyer does not have an answer to it, because the use of a referential for Kinetic Energy for an EM Drive in outer space, without expelling any mass or energy, or being acted by external fields, would run into a big contradiction with Shawyer's claim that he is using Special Relativity.
-
#2230 by SeeShells on 11 May, 2016 15:25
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1532125#msg1532125Quote
I would suggest to run experiments with the device turned at least in all 3 different perpendicular planes, to have a complete experimental measurement of what is going on.
Dr. Rodel,
Even better, taking into account that the EM Drive is supposed to "thrust" in one preferential direction would be to test it in 6 different rotations= 2X3, pointing small end forward, and also big end forward in all 3 different planes with respect to the force of gravity.
Michelson and Morley's experiment was to verify the aether (and NOT to disprove it). They measured the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind").
First on Michelson and Morley's experiment. I've been chastised before for saying it, but there is no bad data.
OK here it is, your morning atta-boy three cheers pat on the back. Over the top post! So much information to absorb. Because of that link I was up till 3AM reading your write up.
Very nice and I will be revisiting it again.
In my setup where I'm feeding the frustum with a coax only where do you see it contributing to the anomaly?
The only action I have is the coax, the rest is in a sealed box and yes I'll cool the box with fans but the frame will have a plastic over the top of wire mesh Faraday shield.
Sorry for the crude drawings but they get my ideas across.
Shell -
#2231 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 15:36
-
...
In my setup where I'm feeding the frustum with a coax only where do you see it contributing to the anomaly?
...
Good question. We know that the coaxial cable delivers a force that is proportional to the energy density it carries times the cross-sectional area of the cable. One would have to analyze how that force is delivered to the EM Drive. I can see that from a conservation of electromagnetic momentum and energy viewpoint that momentum and energy are delivered from a stationary source (the power supply) to an object that may move as a result.
The center of momentum is not in the EM Drive but it is somewhere between the stationary source and the EM Drive. How far is the center of momentum (taking into account electromagnetic momentum delivered by the coaxial cable) from the EM Drive? I don't know yet.
At the moment these are just words, and therefore I will not be convinced by my own explanation until I can put this in equations (which I am in the process of doing).
One thing I have determined is that nobody to my knowledge has satisfactorily addressed the conservation of energy and conservation of momentum equations concerning the issue of power being delivered from a stationary source.
The Finite Element Analysis that Yang used (or FD analyis by Meep or BD analysis by FEKO) do NOT satisfy the equilibrium equations point by point (they only do so in an integral sense if and only if the formulation is based on a variational principle -which I have not seen anybody proving: WHAT IS THE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE?), so in this respect I am very skeptical of FE, FD an BD calculations.
Meep's Finite Difference formulation is not based on a variational principle.
(It is incorrect to state that numerical FD implementation of some of Maxwell's equations assure satisfaction of all conservation principles, that is known already NOT to be correct).
Moreover I doubt that anybody has conducted an analysis (for example using a multi-physics code like ANSYS) modeling the coaxial cable from the stationary source delivering electromagnetic momentum to the movable EM Dive.
Given this state of affairs, at the moment, I would be most convinced by batteries (as done by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian in their nullification experiments, and by Hackaway Aachen team's tiny EM Drive and now Cannae new testing setup ) in the moving device and not by power delivered from a stationary source. Of course may be the issue of a stationary source may turn out to be unimportant for your setup, I am not sure at the moment, and I will not know until somebody analyzes it mathematically. -
#2232 by SeeShells on 11 May, 2016 16:09
-
...
In my setup where I'm feeding the frustum with a coax only where do you see it contributing to the anomaly?
...
Good question. We know that the coaxial cable delivers a force that is proportional to the energy density it carries times the cross-sectional area of the cable. One would have to analyze how that force is delivered to the EM Drive. I can see that from a conservation of electromagnetic momentum and energy viewpoint that momentum and energy are delivered from a stationary source (the power supply) to an object that may move as a result.
The center of momentum is not in the EM Drive but it is somewhere between the stationary source and the EM Drive. How far is the center of momentum (taking into account electromagnetic momentum delivered by the coaxial cable) from the EM Drive? I don't know yet.
At the moment these are just words, and therefore I will not be convinced by my own explanation until I can put this in equations (which I am in the process of doing).
One thing I have determined is that nobody to my knowledge has satisfactorily addressed the conservation of energy and conservation of momentum equations concerning the issue of power being delivered from a stationary source.
Although I am not an expert in Quantum Mechanics (and many other things), I am an expert in Finite Element Analysis and I fully know that the Finite Element Analysis that Yang used (or FD analyis by Meep or BD analysis by FEKO) do NOT satisfy the equilibrium equations point by point (they only do so in an integral sense if and only if the formulation is based on a variational principle -which I have not seen anybody proving: WHAT IS THE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE?), so in this respect I am very skeptical of FE, FD an BD calculations.
Meep's Finite Difference formulation is not based on a variational principle.
(It is incorrect to state that numerical FD implementation of some of Maxwell's equations assure satisfaction of all conservation principles, that is known already NOT to be correct).
Moreover I doubt that anybody has conducted an analysis (for example using a multi-physics code like ANSYS) modeling the coaxial cable from the stationary source delivering electromagnetic momentum to the movable EM Dive.
Given this state of affairs, at the moment, I would be most convinced by batteries (as done by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian in their nullification experiments, and by Hackaway Aachen team's tiny EM Drive and now Cannae new testing setup ) in the moving device and not by power delivered from a stationary source. Of course may be the issue of a stationary source may turn out to be unimportant for your setup, I am not sure at the moment, and I will not know until somebody analyzes it mathematically.
Honest answers and I'm not sure of it, but I think a real world test where both the external power driven frustum is profiled and then set up to add the batteries and inverter driving a magnetron to the drive will give us some concrete answers to go along with the math. I expect a higher noise level and a higher statistical error window with the system powered by batteries in this setup although not enough to hurt the data collection.
Having ANSYS to model would be great but I don't know anyone who has it.
Shell -
#2233 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 16:17
-
...
I fully agree
Honest answers and I'm not sure of it, but I think a real world test where both the external power driven frustum is profiled and then set up to add the batteries and inverter driving a magnetron to the drive will give us some concrete answers to go along with the math....
That would be a great experiment ! (comparing both batteries and external power). Then if you prove that coaxial setup gives same results as battery, one can scale up to higher powers and bigger EM Drives, to make this something that can be used for spacecraft applications, for the final test in space. -
#2234 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 16:26
-
Shell, I have about the same setup, off-beam power (DC) but still have the mag on the frustum with a new mitigated thermal lift design. Our center injection of power (or RF) will have to be explained very precisely how it could impact rotation. Myself, without qualifying data to support it, it is an assumption only, but I do have a simple test in mind I'll probably do....
In my setup where I'm feeding the frustum with a coax only where do you see it contributing to the anomaly?
...
Good question. We know that the coaxial cable delivers a force that is proportional to the energy density it carries times the cross-sectional area of the cable. One would have to analyze how that force is delivered to the EM Drive. I can see that from a conservation of electromagnetic momentum and energy viewpoint that momentum and energy are delivered from a stationary source (the power supply) to an object that may move as a result.
The center of momentum is not in the EM Drive but it is somewhere between the stationary source and the EM Drive. How far is the center of momentum (taking into account electromagnetic momentum delivered by the coaxial cable) from the EM Drive? I don't know yet.
At the moment these are just words, and therefore I will not be convinced by my own explanation until I can put this in equations (which I am in the process of doing).
One thing I have determined is that nobody to my knowledge has satisfactorily addressed the conservation of energy and conservation of momentum equations concerning the issue of power being delivered from a stationary source.
Although I am not an expert in Quantum Mechanics (and many other things), I am an expert in Finite Element Analysis and I fully know that the Finite Element Analysis that Yang used (or FD analyis by Meep or BD analysis by FEKO) do NOT satisfy the equilibrium equations point by point (they only do so in an integral sense if and only if the formulation is based on a variational principle -which I have not seen anybody proving: WHAT IS THE VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLE?), so in this respect I am very skeptical of FE, FD an BD calculations.
Meep's Finite Difference formulation is not based on a variational principle.
(It is incorrect to state that numerical FD implementation of some of Maxwell's equations assure satisfaction of all conservation principles, that is known already NOT to be correct).
Moreover I doubt that anybody has conducted an analysis (for example using a multi-physics code like ANSYS) modeling the coaxial cable from the stationary source delivering electromagnetic momentum to the movable EM Dive.
Given this state of affairs, at the moment, I would be most convinced by batteries (as done by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian in their nullification experiments, and by Hackaway Aachen team's tiny EM Drive and now Cannae new testing setup ) in the moving device and not by power delivered from a stationary source. Of course may be the issue of a stationary source may turn out to be unimportant for your setup, I am not sure at the moment, and I will not know until somebody analyzes it mathematically.
Honest answers and I'm not sure of it, but I think a real world test where both the external power driven frustum is profiled and then set up to add the batteries and inverter driving a magnetron to the drive will give us some concrete answers to go along with the math. I expect a higher noise level and a higher statistical error window with the system powered by batteries in this setup although not enough to hurt the data collection.
Having ANSYS to model would be great but I don't know anyone who has it.
Shell
A perpendicular power injection to the center of the torsion beam COULD push or pull the beam at the connection point whether by thermal deformation or some other form of force(?). THAT is easy to measure...LDS the injection point on the beam and look for the perpendicular force when the drive is pointed up or down, not horizontally.
If I play devils advocate, I've been around high power RF transmissions systems for the better part of my career and never observed an instantaneous kinetic force on transmission lines when power was applied. However, I did observe through repeated heating and cooling cycles, connectors (mainly the outer shell) fail at the coax connection. Personal observations are simply that, personal observations. We will need to eliminate potential errors provided the error potential has some documented experiment which highlight it. New error theories may not be worth chasing (IMHO only). -
#2235 by Gilbertdrive on 11 May, 2016 16:27
-
...
It would becomes :
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Also, we are questionning about an Emdrive device that would be moving freely inside a moving train, or an Emdrive that would be moving freely in a free falling elevator. How would it behaves ? with what referential should we consider the Kinetic Energy ?
Gilbertdrive and Frobnicat, does this "answer" by Shawyer help you as a response for what Shawyer uses as a referential for kinetic energy?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1532634#msg1532634
(I don't find it to be a proper, considerate response to the specific question that was asked:
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1531412#msg1531412 )
Something appears to be amiss
It does not help at all !
In fact, is seems to be a generic answer. Like if our message was trying to demonstrate a mistake in his formula.
But the mail sent by RFMWGUY was only an ask for a precision to understand the Emdrive Basis paper
So, I feel about the same what when I get a generic automatic answer by a SAV to a precise problem.
Did he even read it ?
Maybe he got two many messages in the past, with general appreciation of his work, and no precise question, so he is on automatic mode.
We can give him the benefit of the doubt.
If Rfmwguy can send an answer... I would propose something very simple.
Mr Shawyer, we thank you for your kind answer. [Or any better formula]
Our question was not about the verification of your formulas, but about the referential for the Kinetic Energy, that is not indicated in your Emdrive Basis document
We have no doubt about the quality of your work, it is just that you have forgotten to precise the referential used for Kinetic energy in the Slide Conservation Of Energy
Without this information, we can not interpretate the Slide. We guess that this information was given to the professional scientists who verified your formulas, and we should be very grateful if you can indicate us this referential.
Or, if we are afraid that he does not read if it makes too much lines, maybe a shorter version :
Mr Shawyer, we thank you for your kind answer. [Or any better formula]
Please, can you indicate us the referential used for Kinetic Energy in the Slide Conservation of Energy
We have seen no mistake, but this information is missing. Probably a missing line. -
#2236 by Gilbertdrive on 11 May, 2016 16:33
-
Its probably the most we can expect from Mr Shawyer. I'm sure our questions have been asked and re-asked many times. I have not followed him over the years like many have, so I have no particular interest in gaining more information from him. Quite frankly, it was Iulian Berka that launched me into the emdrive world when he used to post here before moving to China.
So, do not take account of my last message. I perfectly understand if you prefer to stop the exchange for now with Roger Shawyer
Thanks very much to have send him the last one ! -
#2237 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 16:37
-
You're welcome. Since I really don't know him, its best I not push him for more answers. For whatever reason, his reply is what it is. I certainly would think he accepts email inquiries on his website. Its possible you could receive more info that I did.Its probably the most we can expect from Mr Shawyer. I'm sure our questions have been asked and re-asked many times. I have not followed him over the years like many have, so I have no particular interest in gaining more information from him. Quite frankly, it was Iulian Berka that launched me into the emdrive world when he used to post here before moving to China.
So, do not take account of my last message. I perfectly understand if you prefer to stop the exchange for now with Roger Shawyer
Thanks very much to have send him the last one ! -
#2238 by SeeShells on 11 May, 2016 16:42
-
Sure welcome your input Dave....
I fully agree
Honest answers and I'm not sure of it, but I think a real world test where both the external power driven frustum is profiled and then set up to add the batteries and inverter driving a magnetron to the drive will give us some concrete answers to go along with the math....
That would be a great experiment ! (comparing both batteries and external power). Then if you prove that coaxial setup gives same results as battery, one can scale up to higher powers and bigger EM Drives, to make this something that can be used for spacecraft applications, for the final test in space.
My plan is to not tie the coax with a solid strap to the center beam it just bends 90 degrees at that point. The first tests will just be pressure to a digital scale and the couple of microns that the beam will move shouldn't be hampered by the coax. I'll have the force measurement first and do a free running rotational after to see acceleration. I'm not planning to do a spinning +360ofrustum until the battery pack inverter magnetron allows it to spin free.
Shell -
#2239 by Gilbertdrive on 11 May, 2016 16:48
-
A perpendicular power injection to the center of the torsion beam COULD push or pull the beam at the connection point whether by thermal deformation or some other form of force(?). THAT is easy to measure...LDS the injection point on the beam and look for the perpendicular force when the drive is pointed up or down, not horizontally.
If I play devils advocate, I've been around high power RF transmissions systems for the better part of my career and never observed an instantaneous kinetic force on transmission lines when power was applied. However, I did observe through repeated heating and cooling cycles, connectors (mainly the outer shell) fail at the coax connection. Personal observations are simply that, personal observations. We will need to eliminate potential errors provided the error potential has some documented experiment which highlight it. New error theories may not be worth chasing (IMHO only).
Anyway, the best thing to do is to do both test With external supply, and with batteries.
It will help to quantify the possible coax influence.
A very funny solution would be... if the Emdrive was finally not working, but if a long coaxial cable, with the appropriaté parameters, was a real propellantless device.
)
