-
#660 by Monomorphic on 27 Mar, 2016 22:02
-
I assumed the air track would have problems with the full weight of the transformer and magnetron. I was anticipating having to mount the heavy transformer above and run high voltage down from above. Nope. If anything, the added wight made the glider's movement smoother.
For initial tests I will probably run the 120V to the emdrive from above using flexible wire. I hope to eventually have a battery powered self-contained emdrive on the air-track.
-
#661 by rq3 on 27 Mar, 2016 22:03
-
Roger advised me the video was done at a SPR licensee and not at SPR. Was also told he could only show thrusters older than 5 years.
In the photo below Mr. Shawyer's rotating demo can be seen in the background. Why didn't he start it up and let BBC film that? It's over 5 years old. Also next time you talk to Mr. Shawyer can you ask him what the large bird cage apparatus is that hangs from the ceiling above him in this photo. It looks like it has fan blades on it. Why is it suspended from the roof beams?
It is my understanding that area was storage for old thrusters and other equipment. The EmDrive shown was 2008 tech. As for the Demonstrator, there is already a video that you can view on www.emdrive.com
Do believe a early cryo EmDrive was originally videoed on the air track. Was surprised to see the very old pre Flight Thruster on the air track. Do note the episode was scheduled for late Feb but was pulled and nothing was shown for the last week in Feb. Finally was shown late March. Wild guess was the cryo unit was replaced at the edit of USAF or UK MOD.
Would also add Roger said BBC did film both USAF & UK MOD but neither interview made the episode.
BTW who is "Coyote"? Seems the BBC left us a trail to follow.
Which is it? A licensee site or a storage area that SPR uses? Also what is the fan hanging from the roof beams used for? It looks like there are some spot lights around it. Is this another experiment that Mr. Shawyer is doing where the fan and spotlights are turned on? If so, what would be below the fan and illuminated by the spot lights?
I think I can see, where this whole thing is moving. Mr. Shawyer will get older and older, and suddenly he will be gone. Meanwhile, decades will have passed and no credible demonstrations been made. Just another story of someone who could have changed the world for the better, but didn't, because.. reasons .
I take it you have read and accepted nothing of what Roger shared with me and I passed on?
If any replicator reads ALL of what Roger, Prof Yang & myself has shared they will suceed. If they modify the recipe, well they are skiing "Off Piste" & good luck.
The point is not, what you or others passed on. This effort is certainly not about spreading annecdotal history, is it? The point is, Mr. Shawyer has been promoting this apparatus for many years now. You write "(..) If any replicator reads ALL of what Roger, Prof Yang & myself has shared they will suceed. (..)". Succeed in what exactly? Succeed in not demonstrating advanced versions of his apparatus, although claiming he has them? Also, having studied the largest parts of what is available, I am positive that Mr. Shawyer's theory of operation is not correct. Falling in love with one's theory doesn't make it correct.
Also, the only relevant testing to be done of an allegedly advanced technology like this, has to be done in the vacuum of space, in orbit around the Earth. If it works as predicted in vacuum, separated from any other masses, it will 100% work on Earth. If it is guaranteed, that there really is no coupling mass for impulse exchange in the surroundings like Earth's mass, and the device is shielded from any fields it may interact with in contrived ways, that no human may ever find, then it can be proven whether the device shows an unknown physical property. This alone would be revolutionary.
I think that the Aachen guys from hackaday.io might have a shot on showing us, if there is something real going on. The goal is putting a mini version into a cubesat and do some real vacuum of space, no-coupling-masses-present testing.
I can think of several technologies that will work in the micro-gravity, vacuum environment of space that WILL NOT work on Earth. -
#662 by RotoSequence on 27 Mar, 2016 22:07
-
I assumed the air track would have problems with the full weight of the transformer and magnetron. I was anticipating having to mount the heavy transformer above and run high voltage down from above. Nope. If anything, the added wight made the glider's movement smoother.
For initial tests I will probably run the 120V to the emdrive from above using flexible wire. I hope to eventually have a battery powered self-contained emdrive on the air-track.
Glad that the air track works! Was the setup sliding down the frustum from air currents there at the start? -
#663 by Monomorphic on 27 Mar, 2016 22:19
-
Glad that the air track works! Was the setup sliding down the frustum from air currents there at the start?
No. I had given it a little push before i started filming. The platform is very stable, especially with the added weight, and only moves when pushed. -
#664 by Flyby on 27 Mar, 2016 23:21
-
Flyby, does the 100 = the reported 24 cm height of the frustum? And to complicate things further, I just received this:
Yes, that's why i referred to the last drawing as being "parametric".
Any height value you put in there = 100%
all other values can then be obtained from there:
fe the large base is then 24cm x 115.4% = 27.69cm.
There is of course some margin of error due to the limited scale the original drawing was at, which results in a lack of precision. I estimate it probably will not be more then ± 1mm.
I've seen that list before in this topic (thread 5 or 6?) and somebody even translated it...
When looking back on this topic it really is amazing how much work that has been done till today, all on a voluntary basis and with a positive attitude, regardless it may very well end up one big hoax... (I hope not).
-
#665 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Mar, 2016 00:26
-
Dead on Flyby, assuming the entire length = 24 cm, I came up with 27.696 cm for the Bottom Diameter and 18.552 Diameter for the Top Diameter. With both plates adjust to the "fully in" position(s), this would allow 16.546 cm, just above 1.5 WL at 2.45 GHz. Lengths up to 1 and 5/8s and < 2 full Lengths with the plates adjusted to the fully out positions. The bottom plate adjustment ranges = a little less than 3.456 cm, and the top plate with a little less than 3.98 cm. It still seems as though the dimensions reported in "Experimental Results - EM Drive" are inaccurate!!!
Flyby, please feel free to double check my numbers and plug in CMs and MMs for all.---> .24 is the multiplier
I used for the conversion of your numbers. , F.L. PS: the 'little bid less than' is used as the thickness(es)
of the end plates is/are unknown. Ciao!
-
#666 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 00:41
-
Dead on Flyby, assuming the entire length = 24 cm, I came up with 27.696 cm for the Bottom Diameter and 18.552 Diameter for the Top Diameter. With both plates adjust to the "fully in" position(s), this would allow 16.546 cm, just above 1.5 WL at 2.45 GHz. Lengths up to 1 and 5/8s and < 2 full Lengths with the plates adjusted to the fully out positions. The bottom plate adjustment ranges = a little less than 3.456 cm, and the top plate with a little less than 3.98 cm. It still seems as though the dimensions reported in "Experimental Results - EM Drive" are inaccurate!!!
Yes, that's correct. The reason why the dimensions in the wiki Experimental Data
Flyby, please feel free to double check my numbers and plug in CMs and MMs for all.---> .24 is the multiplier
I used for the conversion of your numbers. , F.L. PS: the 'little bid less than' is used as the thickness(es)
of the end plates is/are unknown. Ciao!
Length = 0.24 m
Big Diameter = 0.247 m
Small Diameter = 0.114425 m
Cone 1/2 angle = 15.44 degrees
are different is because:
1) They are based on the known length (0.24m) from the report, plus the cone 1/2 angle from the picture ( 15.44 degrees ), and being able to get the resonance with that mode shape at the frequency reported, using the exact solution. This leads to a smaller "small diameter" than as per the drawing. This is all explained in detail in this message in NSF EM Drive Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339
2) Flyby and others commented that there is a lot of uncertainty on getting dimensions from the drawing (and if my memory is correct, Flyby and others pointed out that there are other drawings which lead to very different dimensions).
But basically, if one takes for granted that Yang's reported frequency and mode shape are correct, one must satisfy that the internal dimensions of her frustum should be able to resonate in that mode shape at the reported frequency
Buona sera!
_________
PS: when referring to "wavelengths" please remember that the resonance wavelength inside the truncated cone is different from the wavelength in free-space and that the wave-pattern of resonance in a truncated cone is such that the wave-pattern is not one of constant wavelength as in a cylinder of constant cross section (which has a waveform like a cosine) but instead the wavepattern has varying wavelength along the longitudinal direction (governed by spherical Bessel functions)
-
#667 by TheTraveller on 28 Mar, 2016 03:13
-
A few more images inside the "Workshop". There seems to be multiple ceiling fans and equipment racks at the right side of the air track, against the left and rear walls, plus some equipment sitting on the polished floor.
-
#668 by TheTraveller on 28 Mar, 2016 03:23
-
Some time ago I located this building as to where the SPR office was located.
Address reference:
http://rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
-
#669 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 03:29
-
Some time ago I located this building as to where the SPR office was located.
Isn't that the address at Broadmarsh Centre that was actually revealed by DaCunha recently?, to where he sent his formal and complete application:...Actually recently, being curious and willing to work full time on the microwave resonator concept, I sent an application to SPR Ltd. (Shawyers company) because this would be the only way to have enough time to pursue all projects.
I sent my formal and complete application to
SPR Ltd.
Unit 40.
Broadmarsh Centre
Havant
Hampshire
PO9 1HS
United Kingdom
they wrote upon it: Return to sender (me), adress unknown, no such number no such zone.
Does SPR exist after all? If they do, can't they show the decency to send a one sentence mail that they are not in need of scientists and engineers?
A lot of questions.
It surely looks like the same address, when I use Google Earth... -
#670 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Mar, 2016 03:30
-
Dr. Rodal, yes thank you: while I am aware of the complexities of resonance in our truncated cones, I some how conflated what you had describe so well about waves in a "strait guide" with the complex patterns associated with resonance in a frustum. Up 24 hours strait had something to do with it I guess. While I can't get the original Juan paper, I have seen the many different representations of test article n question here on NSF forum and on line. I think that prior to tossing the dimensions that Flyby and I concur about (only in that they are derived from a different schematic and are extrapolations), I think it only fair that we at least run a few sims on them prior to their ignominious demise.
So the Top diameter = 18.552cm. The Bottom diameter = 27.696cm. And the beginning height = 16.564cm... which can be adjusted up to 24 cm. Buona Sera , F.L. -
#671 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 03:35
-
Dr. Rodal, yes thank you: while I am aware of the complexities of resonance in our truncated cones, I some how conflated what you had describe so well about waves in a "strait guide" with the complex patterns associated with resonance in a frustum. Up 24 hours strait had something to do with it I guess. While I can't get the original Juan paper, I have seen the many different representations of test article n question here on NSF forum and on line. I think that prior to tossing the dimensions that Flyby and I concur about (only in that they are derived from a different schematic and are extrapolations), I think it only fair that we at least run a few sims on them prior to their ignominious demise.
So the Top diameter = 18.552cm. The Bottom diameter = 27.696cm. And the beginning height = 16.564cm... which can be adjusted up to 24 cm. Buona Sera , F.L.
That sounds like a good idea. Since I run those checks a few months ago with the exact solution, it would be a good idea, as an independent check, perhaps if somebody (perhaps Monomorphic ?) can independently run your dimensions with FEKO and see whether he can get resonance for TE012 at the same frequency quoted by Yang.
___
PS: If they would get resonance, for those dimensions, it means that there is a typo in Yang's paper because it would conflict with her mathematical constraint equation for TE012 as well. In other words, your diameter dimensions are in conflict with her equation constraining the TE012 mode as a function of frequency and diameters.
Buona Sera -
#672 by Bob Woods on 28 Mar, 2016 03:36
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics. -
#673 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 03:43
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
If you go over the posts of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>> personally. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from the company Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this in response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. That SPR has contracts with aerospace companies, etc. So, essentially WallOfWolfStreet has researched the veracity of what has been claimed for SPR..
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
So, these are discussions about one company that has been assigned patents on the subject of this thread: "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications" (the subject of this thread not being "physics" but being the EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications).
SPR Ltd. is also the company that received the infusion of money from the UK Government (related to space flight applications).
SPR Ltd. is also the company that entered into an agreement with Boeing (related to space flight applications).
Such discussions about SPR, are similar to discussions in NSF forums, about SpaceX or Boeing or any other company engaged in the aerospace business.
It is pertinent to the thread insofar as assessing whether such aerospace company has the financial means to conduct the "Spaceflight Applications" and R&D that is being claimed by others in this thread.
Of course I would agree that nobody should be interested in the personal status of any person, and the private financial status of private individuals should not be discussed in these forums.
I would not mind if this thread would become only about "physics of the EM Drive" or only about "institutional and DIY testing of the EM Drive" but it seems logical to me that if somebody repeatedly claims in this thread that the company SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees, contracts, etc., that then it is only fair for somebody else to verify the veracity of such claims. -
#674 by TheTraveller on 28 Mar, 2016 03:43
-
#675 by TheTraveller on 28 Mar, 2016 03:49
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company. -
#676 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 04:28
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company.
SPR Ltd. is an R&D company as per official UK classification (SIC) <<72190 - Other research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering>>
and as per the Investment memorandum for SPR Ltd :
http://ind-tech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Investment-Memorandum-final.pdf
which details for example << development to Flight Qualified status >>
Credit due to WallOfWolfStreet NSF User who previously posted the above public information for this company engaged in R&D for propellant-less electromagnetic Satellite Propulsion (pertinent to the subject matter of this thread: EM Drive for space flight applications). -
#677 by zen-in on 28 Mar, 2016 04:48
-
Some time ago I located this building as to where the SPR office was located.
Address reference:
http://rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
The photos inside show a peaked roof yet in the satellite view the roof looks flat or slightly rounded. The low angle of the Sun (note the long shadows) would make a shadow on one side of a peaked roof. I don't think they are the same building just based on that observation. Also there is just one fan in the room. In the earlier photo Mr. Shawyer was standing near the triangular tower section and the fan suspended from the roof beams was behind him. In the photo below the two spotlights next to the fan can be seen. It looks like there is a square work table below it.
-
#678 by Bob Woods on 28 Mar, 2016 05:22
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company.
SPR Ltd. is an R&D company as per official UK classification (SIC) <<72190 - Other research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering>>
and as per the Investment memorandum for SPR Ltd :
http://ind-tech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Investment-Memorandum-final.pdf
which details for example << development to Flight Qualified status >>
Credit due to WallOfWolfStreet NSF User who previously posted the above public information for this company engaged in R&D for propellant-less electromagnetic Satellite Propulsion (pertinent to the subject matter of this thread: EM Drive for space flight applications).
Doc & Phil, I guess since all I can add to the effort are words of encouragement and an admiration of this groundbreaking collaboration, I really don't count. It's just that it's always easy to get distracted about the little things. It's not really a problem, because the only thing that we all want is good science.
I read, and I understand vastly more than I did a year ago. What may be happening takes my breath away. DaCuna's math shows an immense potential ( I just wish I had the math to truly follow it).
To borrow a well worn phrase, Live long and prosper.
-
#679 by Flyby on 28 Mar, 2016 11:45
-
zen-in,Some time ago I located this building as to where the SPR office was located.
Address reference:
http://rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
The photos inside show a peaked roof yet in the satellite view the roof looks flat or slightly rounded. The low angle of the Sun (note the long shadows) would make a shadow on one side of a peaked roof. I don't think they are the same building just based on that observation. room.
(......)
as architect, i can confirm the above pictures are NOT of the same building.
As you correctly stated, the actual test location has a pitched roof, where as the research site has a completely different building morphology.
I've joined some 3D views of the site that make the site more "readable".
Clearly, none of the buildings has a pitched roof and from what I can see, they are more organized as office spaces (windows, doors, etc) rather then a big enclosed hall.
So maybe his office could be located there, but, nah, Shawyer's den is clearly elsewhere...
