-
#420 by Rodal on 23 Mar, 2016 11:16
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334
Link to BBC article explaining the contents of the Horizon episode, Project Greenglow: The Quest for Gravity Control, broadcast at 20:00 GMT on BBC Two tonight
Thank you for the BBC article. Upon reading it, I noticed the following quote in this BBC article:QuoteJohn Ellis at Cern is particularly scathing: "With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
Shawyer uses only Maxwell's laws and Special Relativity (not General Relativity !) to try to explain his EM Drive claimed anomalous results. Ellis, is a British theoretical physicist who is currently Clerk Maxwell Professor of Theoretical Physics at King's College London.
Ellis attended King's College, Cambridge, earning his Ph.D. in physics in 1971. After brief post-doc positions at SLAC and Caltech, he went to CERN and has held an indefinite contract there since 1978. He was awarded the Maxwell Medal and the Paul Dirac Prize by the Institute of Physics in 1982 and 2005 respectively, and is an Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London since 1985 and of the Institute of Physics since 1991.
With this background and interest, Ellis is the kind of scientist that Shawyer should reach for help, he could drive to see him.
Both Shawyer and Ellis are quoted in the BBC article. So Shawyer must know about Ellis's opinion expressed in the BBC article.
Why doesn't Shawyer drive to see people like Ellis and tell him: please look at my experiments, I think they show an anomalous force. The engineering and scientific community does not accept my explanation, could you please help me analyze my experiments? Could you please help me with my force balance analysis and microwave force equations that are not accepted by the engineering and scientific community?
Since Prof. Ellis was interviewed by the BBC for the same program that featured Shawyer and Ellis twice won the highest award in the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition (in 1999 and 2005), it is not unreasonable to assume that Ellis would be willing to help Shawyer, and give him his scientific opinion. -
#421 by rfmwguy on 23 Mar, 2016 13:12
-
Thank you for the Ellis quote. I believe it exemplifies what many experimenters have trouble with. If one has a genuine interest and would be willing to help, its best to state so; as opposed to "With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334
Link to BBC article explaining the contents of the Horizon episode, Project Greenglow: The Quest for Gravity Control, broadcast at 20:00 GMT on BBC Two tonight
Thank you for the BBC article. Upon reading it, I noticed the following quote in this BBC article:QuoteJohn Ellis at Cern is particularly scathing: "With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
Shawyer uses only Maxwell's laws and Special Relativity (not General Relativity !) to try to explain his EM Drive claimed anomalous results. Ellis, is a British theoretical physicist who is currently Clerk Maxwell Professor of Ellis attended King's College, Cambridge, earning his Ph.D. in physics in 1971. After brief post-doc positions at SLAC and Caltech, he went to CERN and has held an indefinite contract there since 1978. He was awarded the Maxwell Medal and the Paul Dirac Prize by the Institute of Physics in 1982 and 2005 respectively, and is an Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London since 1985 and of the Institute of Physics since 1991.
With this background and interest, Ellis is the kind of scientist that Shawyer should reach for help, he could drive to see him.
Both Shawyer and Ellis are quoted in the BBC article. So Shawyer must know about Ellis's opinion expressed in the BBC article.
Why doesn't Shawyer drive to see people like Ellis and tell him: please look at my experiments, I think they show an anomalous force. The engineering and scientific community does not accept my explanation, could you please help me analyze my experiments? Could you please help me with my force balance analysis and microwave force equations that are not accepted by the engineering and scientific community?
Since Prof. Ellis was interviewed by the BBC for the same program that featured Shawyer and Ellis twice won the highest award in the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition (in 1999 and 2005), it is not unreasonable to assume that Ellis would be willing to help Shawyer, and give him his scientific opinion. -
#422 by TheTraveller on 23 Mar, 2016 13:12
-
Since Prof. Ellis was interviewed by the BBC for the same program that featured Shawyer and Ellis twice won the highest award in the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition (in 1999 and 2005), it is not unreasonable to assume that Ellis would be willing to help Shawyer, and give him his scientific opinion.
Some background on how the Boeing Flight Thruster contract with SPR occurred. I suggest Roger went through a LOT of theory guys during the below process:Quote from: Roger Shawyer emailIn response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
It is my understanding that during the Flight Thruster contract negotiation process, the Demonstrator EmDrive, spinning on the rotary test rig, was available and tested by the US interested parties.
Knowing the process SPR when through, it is very difficult to accept the US licensee did not have 100% solid proof the EmDrive worked and had a working theory PRIOR to awarding SPR the contract to build the Flight Thruster. -
#423 by Monomorphic on 23 Mar, 2016 13:23
-
"With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
"Thank you Captain Obvious!" was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read that quote. Hopefully the Clerk Maxwell Professor of Theoretical Physics can do a little better than that - like providing specific critiques of Shawyer's theory and experimental methodology. -
#424 by Willem Staal on 23 Mar, 2016 13:39
-
#425 by rfmwguy on 23 Mar, 2016 13:40
-
It sure is frustrating that a top scientist cannot simply say "Look, I don't think the emdrive will work, but I'm willing to help you set up an experiment to prove me wrong. Perhaps we both can learn something in the process.""With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
"Thank you Captain Obvious!" was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read that quote. Hopefully the Clerk Maxwell Professor of Theoretical Physics can do a little better than that - like providing specific critiques of Shawyer's theory and experimental methodology.
To me, this is such an easy thing to say. Then, if an experimenter says "no", shame on the experimenter. -
#426 by TheTraveller on 23 Mar, 2016 13:44
-
This look like a good read..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-confirms-paper-controversial-space-propulsion-under-peer-review-1551210
Interesting statement in that article:QuoteRodal is building his own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum, while pointing out how differences in dielectric materials, among other things, can affect how the results are interpreted.
Did I miss something? -
#427 by Willem Staal on 23 Mar, 2016 13:50
-
Dunno, but you can bet other options than copper will be used for frustrums. Paul Kocyla for instance is working on a YBCO superconducter frustrum..This look like a good read..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-confirms-paper-controversial-space-propulsion-under-peer-review-1551210
Interesting statement in that article:QuoteRodal is building his own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum, while pointing out how differences in dielectric materials, among other things, can affect how the results are interpreted.
Did I miss something?
-
#428 by TheTraveller on 23 Mar, 2016 13:51
-
It sure is frustrating that a top scientist cannot simply say "Look, I don't think the emdrive will work, but I'm willing to help you set up an experiment to prove me wrong. Perhaps we both can learn something in the process.""With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
"Thank you Captain Obvious!" was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read that quote. Hopefully the Clerk Maxwell Professor of Theoretical Physics can do a little better than that - like providing specific critiques of Shawyer's theory and experimental methodology.
To me, this is such an easy thing to say. Then, if an experimenter says "no", shame on the experimenter.
That is how science is supposed to work. However we live in a world where mathematical models are built, instead of physical models and the results from the math models trump physical results, well at least in the case of the EmDrive.
Sad really, sad. -
#429 by Rodal on 23 Mar, 2016 13:54
-
...
Back in 1989 I was invited to give a paper at Cambridge University at a Conference (that was later published in book form). I was lucky to have beautiful weather, I remember for example how beautiful it was to see punting on river cam, Bridge of Sighs, Cambridge University.
Thank you for the Ellis quote. I believe it exemplifies what many experimenters have trouble with. If one has a genuine interest and would be willing to help, its best to state so; as opposed to "With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."
Since I was at Cambridge, I took advantage of the opportunity to call a famous Professor at Cambridge University I had never met, who had nothing to do with the conference I was attending, to ask to see him at his office.
Much to my surprise, his secretary replied with a time at which I could meet the famous professor. I remember the meeting well to this date: I was surprised that he was willing to talk for over an hour on a number of R&D subjects to somebody much younger, who he had never met. The famous professor even went further, he invited me to have tea at a room in Cambridge University where famous professors gathered at tea time. It was a memorable experience.
The moral of this story is that one has to be willing to reach to famous knowledgeable people, as one has nothing to lose and much to gain and learn from talking to them.
-
#430 by Rodal on 23 Mar, 2016 14:07
-
Thank you but, the ibtimes article is incorrect. I never posted at NSF that I was building my <<own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum>>
Dunno, but you can bet other options than copper will be used for frustrums. Paul Kocyla for instance is working on a YBCO superconducter frustrum..This look like a good read..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-confirms-paper-controversial-space-propulsion-under-peer-review-1551210
Interesting statement in that article:QuoteRodal is building his own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum, while pointing out how differences in dielectric materials, among other things, can affect how the results are interpreted.
Did I miss something? -
#431 by rfmwguy on 23 Mar, 2016 14:15
-
Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
Thank you but, the ibtimes article is incorrect. I never posted at NSF that I was building building my <<own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum>>
Dunno, but you can bet other options than copper will be used for frustrums. Paul Kocyla for instance is working on a YBCO superconducter frustrum..This look like a good read..
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-confirms-paper-controversial-space-propulsion-under-peer-review-1551210
Interesting statement in that article:QuoteRodal is building his own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum, while pointing out how differences in dielectric materials, among other things, can affect how the results are interpreted.
Did I miss something?
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF. -
#432 by Monomorphic on 23 Mar, 2016 14:20
-
Has anyone tried modeling the fields inside the prototype C-band geometry? It seems this is a shape that is much easier to fabricate. Even if the end-plates are curved, they are done so along one axis and not as a hemisphere.
If Shawyer's hands are about the same size as mine, that would make it about 14cm high. Base looks about 10cm x 12 cm and the top 5m x 12 cm. I suspect the end-plates are machined to be curved. It also looks like the frustum material is aluminum. Will do a quick model and C-band sweep.
I suspect Shawyer is going higher in frequency so he can shrink the size of the emdrive. It might be interesting to see a 2.45Ghz emdrive in this shape.
-
#433 by TheTraveller on 23 Mar, 2016 14:22
-
Thank you but, the ibtimes article is incorrect. I never posted at NSF that I was building my <<own version of the Nasa aluminium frustum>>
If you are ever interested in doing so, once I publish my min 20mN data, you will be able to access the full plans. Additionally fully built and tested frustums will be available. -
#434 by TheTraveller on 23 Mar, 2016 14:26
-
Has anyone tried modeling the fields inside the prototype C-band geometry? It seems this is a shape that is much easier to fabricate. Even if the end-plates are curved, they are done so along one axis and not as a hemisphere.
If Shawyer's hands are about the same size as mine, that would make it about 14cm high. Base looks about 10cm x 12 cm and the top 5m x 12 cm. I suspect the end-plates are machined to be curved. It also looks like the frustum material is aluminum. Will do a quick model and C-band sweep.
I suspect Shawyer is going higher in frequency so he can shrink the size of the emdrive. It might be interesting to see a 2.45Ghz emdrive in this shape.
As far as I know, that was the 1st Flight Thruster prototype C band build. More data on that build is attached. Better image page 3.
I do note it is similar to the only cryo EmDrive photo that has been released to the public as attached.
-
#435 by Rodal on 23 Mar, 2016 14:41
-
...Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not building a completely closed metallic cavity.
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF. -
#436 by rfmwguy on 23 Mar, 2016 14:51
-
Thank you Dr Rodal. The rephrased question remains, are you building your own version of a propellantless and/or electromagnetic thruster? (This sets aside the nomenclature of EMDrive being a closed metallic cavity which you correctly pointed out). Thank you in advance for your reply....Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not presently building a completely closed metallic cavity.
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF. -
#437 by Rodal on 23 Mar, 2016 14:55
-
Off topic
Thank you Dr Rodal. The rephrased question remains, are you building your own version of a propellantless and/or electromagnetic thruster? (This sets aside the nomenclature of EMDrive being a closed metallic cavity which you correctly pointed out). Thank you in advance for your reply....Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not presently building a completely closed metallic cavity.
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF.
for this thread <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>
-
#438 by Left Field on 23 Mar, 2016 14:55
-
So it is one of these possibilities:...Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not building a completely closed metallic cavity.
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF.
Not completely closed & metallic
Completely closed & non-metallic
Not completely closed & non-metallic
-
#439 by SeeShells on 23 Mar, 2016 15:01
-
...Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not building a completely closed metallic cavity.
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF.
I wish you the very best of luck!!!
Shell
PS: I think I see what you're doing but I will not let the cat out of the bag.
for this thread <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>