-
#2180 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 09:43
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf -
#2181 by Gilbertdrive on 30 Oct, 2016 10:03
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
There is a huge difference between not taken it for proven, an rejecting it.
I don't consider these Shawyer tests like a proof. They were not conducted in vacuum, and thrust is not big enough for eliminating thermal and other effects. I think that is has beem discussed earlier in these threads. But I don't consider either it is proven wrong. More independant test are needed. -
#2182 by chongma on 30 Oct, 2016 10:39
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
doesn't the scientific method demand independent third parties be able to reproduce the results before it can be verified? an experiment needs to be described clearly with apparatus and instructions. this allows anybody to follow the instructions and achieve the same result. this is more difficult in the case of commercially sensitive or state of the art where the scientist is either withholding vital experiment data or a large budget is required for apparatus. the members of the forum are trying to get to a stage where they can consistently and reliably reproduce any amount of thrust. no small task IMHO -
#2183 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 11:09
-
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
You reject the Demonstrator test report and the confirming review that Roger recently released, showing 8.33g of Thrust force generation (small to big)?
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf
There is a huge difference between not taken it for proven, an rejecting it.
I don't consider these Shawyer tests like a proof. They were not conducted in vacuum, and thrust is not big enough for eliminating thermal and other effects. I think that is has beem discussed earlier in these threads. But I don't consider either it is proven wrong. More independant test are needed.
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig. As I understand the process it was something like:
Roger ask for funding from UK gov
V
UK Gov asks UK MOD for assistance
V
UK MOD appoints reviewer and review panel
V
Independent reviewer reviews and confirms Roger's claims
V
UK MOD review panel reviews the independent report and advises the appropriate minister's dept
V
Roger gets more funding
I believe this process occurred three times:
1) for the Experimental EmDrive static force report
2) for the Demonstrator EmDrive static force report
3) for the Demonstrator EmDrive dynamic / rotary test report (which is still to be released)
http://emdrive.com/background.htmlQuoteIn a parliamentary reply on 5 December 2006, Margaret Hodge, the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions stated that funding for this ”pioneering“ project required that “highly qualified technical experts and academics carried out an assessment on behalf of the department“
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061205/text/61205w0031.htm scroll to the bottomQuoteElectromagnetic Relativity Drive
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has provided to the electromagnetic relativity drive design proposed by Roger Shawyer; and from what budget funding has been drawn. [103254]
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 27 November 2006]: Awards have been made to Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd from the DTI’s Small Firms and Enterprise budget.
July 2001—£43,809 paid.
A feasibility study into the application of innovative microwave thruster technology for satellite propulsion. The study involved development of an experimental thruster followed by independent tests and evaluation.
August 2003—£81,291 total grant awarded, £68,399 paid to date.
A follow-on from the above project, to design and develop a demonstration model engine. To be tested on a dynamic test rig, to demonstrate continuous thrust and the conversion of thrust into kinetic energy.
Both grants were awarded against the criteria of the DTI’s Smart scheme that was designed to help fund pioneering and risky R and D projects in small and medium enterprises. Highly qualified technical experts and academics carried out an assessment on behalf of the Department. -
#2184 by Gilbertdrive on 30 Oct, 2016 11:19
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed.
-
#2185 by meberbs on 30 Oct, 2016 14:33
-
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed.QuoteThere is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed. -
#2186 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 14:34
-
Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed.
Not correct.
The 1st funds were for the Experimental EmDrive and to do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 2nd round of funds were to construct the Demonstrator EmDrive and do static Thrust force generation tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
The 3rd round of funds were to construct the Rotary test rig and conduct dynamic Reaction force generation / acceleration tests, which was verified as working as claimed.
Each funding program was self contained and the claimed results had to be verified.
Have you read the 2 test reports and the independent review's comments? -
#2187 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 14:50
-
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed.QuoteThere is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed.QuoteThe reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive
Really? When did he say that?
Here is what he said:Quote5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new approach to a theory of operation is welcome and could be developed into an alternative explanation of operation and derivation of the performance predictions.
Work on the design has progressed well and the development model constructed is much more practical and robust than the experimental model.
This has allowed a much more rigorous test program to be undertaken.
This more extensive test program allows a more direct measurement of performance but in doing so it has raised a few more detailed questions on the operation of the thruster and the test rig.
As I mentioned in my report on the experimental engine an independent test to verify the measurements is an essential part of the review. This has still not been carried out.
The development of an alternative test method was started but was not successfully completed. This should be pursued.
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design
work is undertaken.
There are two possible next steps in the design program which could be taken in parallel.
These are the development of an experimental supeconducting engine and the development of a space qualification engine with a view to an in orbit demonstration. It is recommended that before either of these steps is undertaken a feasibility study is made. The cost of development, qualification and production of a space qualified engine should also be estimated.
As I read his comments, he seems to be suggesting the next steps are building a superconducting EmDrive and the development of a space rated EmDrive plus on orbit testing.
As I seem to remember Roger did build a space rated Flight Thruster, built a superconducting EmDrive and arranged via Boeing to do an on orbit test. Would seem someone followed the reviewers very positive advice.
Here is the bottom line you refuse to accept.
The EmDrive works.
Accept that fact and get over it.
December is not that far away..................... -
#2188 by meberbs on 30 Oct, 2016 15:01
-
The review conclusions from one of the 2 reviewed papers:Was good enough for the UK gov to award Roger more funding to build the rotary test rig.
They funded him to make more tests. It confirms that the first tests were enough interesting to call more tests, but not enough strong to go directly to the application. It means that more tests were needed.QuoteThere is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is no justification for (n), which should have its own section in the main text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.
The reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive. As Gilbertdrive said, the next step was more tests because it was clear that their were unexplained error source in the data, so more tests were needed to figure out if there would be any signal with the errors removed.QuoteThe reviewer is pretty clear that these tests are far from conclusive
Really? When did he say that?
Here is what he said:Quote5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new approach to a theory of operation is welcome and could be developed into an alternative explanation of operation and derivation of the performance predictions.
Work on the design has progressed well and the development model constructed is much more practical and robust than the experimental model.
This has allowed a much more rigorous test program to be undertaken.
This more extensive test program allows a more direct measurement of performance but in doing so it has raised a few more detailed questions on the operation of the thruster and the test rig.
As I mentioned in my report on the experimental engine an independent test to verify the measurements is an essential part of the review. This has still not been carried out.
The development of an alternative test method was started but was not successfully completed. This should be pursued.
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design
work is undertaken.
There are two possible next steps in the design program which could be taken in parallel.
These are the development of an experimental supeconducting engine and the development of a space qualification engine with a view to an in orbit demonstration. It is recommended that before either of these steps is undertaken a feasibility study is made. The cost of development, qualification and production of a space qualified engine should also be estimated.
Here is the bottom line you refuse to accept.
The EmDrive works.
Accept that fact and get over it.
December is not that far away.....................
You apparently don't understand the words in the quote I posted.
To repeat:QuoteThe thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
This means that this reviewer sees issues with the test data that call into question the validity of the results. This is what "not conclusive" means. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, but it means it is wrong to conclude that it definitely works from this data.
The results quoted in (j) and (m) are not supported by predictions, see Section 4.3. In Section 4.4 I also point out some apparent anomalies in the thrust measurements which are not explained n the text.
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude. -
#2189 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 15:05
-
YBCO on Sapphire at 3.85GHzQuote
7.SUPERCONDUCTING DEMONSTRATOR PROGRAMME
The first phase of this programme was an experimental superconducting thruster. This low power, HTS device operates at liquid nitrogen temperature, and is designed for very high Q and consequently high specific thrust.
Image Fig 12 attached
Fig 12 Experimental Superconducting Thruster
Fig 12 shows the thruster, which operates at 3.8 GHz, and was designed using an update of the software used for the previous S band designs. Super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates.
Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x10^6 being measured.
Fig 13 shows the surface resistivity of the superconducting thruster based on specified manufacturer’s data, updated for the measured data.
Image Fig 13 attached
Fig 13 Surface Resistivity
This data is from Roger's 2009 paper, so by 2016 and the new patent, I expect his knowledge of YBCO on Sapphire in EmDrives is well advanced.
-
#2190 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 15:08
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................ -
#2191 by meberbs on 30 Oct, 2016 15:16
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive. -
#2192 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 15:20
-
Interesting Blast from the Past
Seems that when a dielectric is added to the small end of a TE012 resonant cavity, the distribution of the 2 x 1/2 guide waves changes 180 deg.
In a non dielectric frustum the longest guide wavelengths exist at the small diameter end but when a dielectric is inserted there, the longest guide wavelengths move to the big diameter end as attached.
This guide wavelength swap causes a swap in the radiation pressures on the end plates and in the Thrust force vector direction as per the Purple arrows.
There is experimental data to show this does in fact happen.
-
#2193 by Gilbertdrive on 30 Oct, 2016 15:23
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
When EW paper is published, we shall probably all open the champagne. There is a big difference saying that no proof has be published, and saying that it is false.
If the emdrive is proven to work in december, it will remains that Shawyer claims are not proof.
Also, in the text that you quote :Quote5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS(...)
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design work is undertaken.
That is exactly what I was saying...
If in a later report it was indicated by a third party that independent test verification had been adressed, please, tell me where. -
#2194 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 15:28
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive.
Conclusive?
EW / Paul's published and spoken results.
Dave's results.
Shell's results.
Iulian's results.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results.
My results.
3 others I can't share.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf -
#2195 by TheTraveller on 30 Oct, 2016 15:34
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
When EW paper is published, we shall probably all open the champagne. There is a big difference saying that no proof has be published, and saying that it is false.
If the emdrive is proven to work in december, it will remains that Shawyer claims are not proof.
Also, in the text that you quote :Quote5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS(...)
I would recommend that this question of independent test verification should be addressed before further design work is undertaken.
That is exactly what I was saying...
If in a later report it was indicated by a third party that independent test verification had been adressed, please, tell me where.
It is my understand that independent test verification has been done with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as part of the UK Gov's verification program.
I also understand Boeing did their own review and testing of those 2 EmDrives prior to signing the initial agreement with SPR back in 2007, 2 years before they awarded SPR the Flight Thruster build contract.
Plus Roger has stated Boeing did report to SPR that the Flight Thruster design they delivered to Boeing did met the contract conditions. -
#2196 by Rodal on 30 Oct, 2016 15:41
-
Interesting Blast from the Past
Yes, this (modification of the wave-pattern in the cavity) happens when a dielectric long enough is placed in a cavity, it also happens in a cylindrical cavity. I had posted a long time ago an exact solution for a dielectric in a cylindrical cavity, in discussions with Notsosureofit showing this behavior. This is a result of solving Maxwell's equations with a dielectric insert, but by itself it does not explain why the EM Drive should accelerate in Space with force/inputPower orders of magnitude larger than a photon rocket, the reason for which still remains to be proved.
Seems that when a dielectric is added to the small end of a TE012 resonant cavity, the distribution of the 2 x 1/2 guide waves changes 180 deg.
In a non dielectric frustum the longest guide wavelengths exist at the small diameter end but when a dielectric is inserted there, the longest guide wavelengths move to the big diameter end as attached.
This guide wavelength swap causes a swap in the radiation pressures on the end plates and in the Thrust force vector direction as per the Purple arrows.
There is experimental data to show this does in fact happen.
It does explain that the dielectric will modify the wave-pattern inside the cavity.
One could further modify the wave-pattern by using a multi-layer dielectric, or a functionally-graded dielectric with electric permittivity changing in the longitudinal direction.
So if somebody has a theory to explain acceleration of the EM Drive in Space without any dielectric, this would show that a dielectric could make the force bigger, or smaller, zero, or change its direction, depending on the placement, dimensions and material properties of the dielectric. -
#2197 by meberbs on 30 Oct, 2016 15:46
-
There is still no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. Your continued insistence that people have blind faith is simply rude.
There has been conclusive evidence since 2002.
Your continued insistence that there is no proof is very hard to understand.
Will be interested to read your comments in December................
You are the only person on this forum who thinks that. (Seriously, I don't remember anyone else claiming conclusive evidence exists) You might want to reconsider your definition of conclusive.
Conclusive?
EW / Paul's published and spoken results.
Dave's results.
Shell's results.
Iulian's results.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results.
My results.
3 others I can't share.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf
EW / Paul's published and spoken results. - not conclusive, this has been discussed thoroughly (Dec. data yet to be seen)
Dave's results. - He would agree not conclusive, and I would point out the accidental control test indicates possibly a null result (but not conclusively null)
Shell's results. - She is not comfortable with her results yet and has not shared them to do thorough test first. (Which is quite reasonable)
Iulian's results. - I haven't seen these.
Prof Tajmar's atmo results. - Shown to be probably convection or similar based on the vacuum results. Also, he straight up says that his results are inconclusive
My results. - which you have not shown even a single picture of your setup. Also, you have raise the bar on yourself significantly for me to trust your results, because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what a force is, and are either unable or unwilling to answer 2 simple questions about force balances.
3 others I can't share. - doesn't help.
The soon to be published EW vac results, which as per Dr. Rodal's leak claim a consistent 1.2mN/kWrf - wait until these are released
A series of inconclusive results does not make anything conclusive. -
#2198 by Gilbertdrive on 30 Oct, 2016 16:30
-
It is my understand that independent test verification has been done with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as part of the UK Gov's verification program.
I also understand Boeing did their own review and testing of those 2 EmDrives prior to signing the initial agreement with SPR back in 2007, 2 years before they awarded SPR the Flight Thruster build contract.
Plus Roger has stated Boeing did report to SPR that the Flight Thruster design they delivered to Boeing did met the contract conditions.
These independent verifications tests were not published, Boeing tests were not published.
I don't means that it doesn't exist a proof somewhere. I means that these proofs were not shown or published. So, from my viewpoint, since I do not work for Boeing, it is not proven. I still wait conclusive data to be published. I hope it is for december, but my hopes are on EW, not on Shawyer. -
#2199 by Bob012345 on 30 Oct, 2016 17:45
-
Not the electrical power, the mechanical power which is F*v such that the thrust then remains constant.It could be laser powered. Then, for power in interstellar space, it could use a magnetic loop and draw off a tiny fraction of its kinetic energy via interacting with the interstellar medium.
Shawyer claims that the Emdrive gives constant thrust for constant imput power. So, as it has been shown earlier, if it works like this, you can get far more Kinetic Energy (in any inertial reference frame) that the RF imput of the frustrum.
Nukes would be helpful, but aren't an absolute necessity. If you're doing more than ~0.04 c your kinetic energy is more than any fission reactor could *ever* supply.A hypothetical emdrive solar powered craft could accelerate as it traveled towards the outer solar system. But when it got too far from the sun the solar arrays would generate less electricity? An interstellar craft would have to be nuclear powered?
This point has not been proven, because no experiment has ever shown thrust bigger than P/V (P the electrical power and V the speed in the laboratory reference frame)
But, the opposite has also not been proven. Maybe the Emdrive is stealing energy to something else in the universe. For example stealing Kinetic Energy to other bodies, as it is for Gravity Assist. Or stealing Energy to the Quantum Vacuum, or beyond he Rindler Hoziron.
With the hypothesis of The Traveller, a thrust of 1t/Kwrf, a small interstellar probe would be OK with a Pu238 RTG, or several ones for a big probe. The RTG of the Voyager probes was 470W. A few of these would be OK.
But, before dreaming of tons of thrust for flying car and interstellar travel, a proven thrust of 10 grams, comparable with Ion Thrusters, would already be a revolution.
Some toy electric airplane motors deliver about 0.088N/W (27oz for 85W). Given an initial thrust of about 7.5N, the thrust doesn't diminish by a factor of 10 as the plane picks up speed of 10m/s then 20 as the speed gets to 20m/s. It's constant up to and at the equilibrium with the drag. But if the air had zero drag, the acceleration would be constant.
The Shawyer probe is powered at about 200KW with about 30KW going to RF power. The Cannae probe has less than 100W RF power.
