-
#2500 by Star One on 07 Nov, 2016 19:37
-
As repeated many times before, the "Boeing took the emDrive black" is just a conspiracy theory, and there is evidence against it since they still would have needed further SPR contracts to use the data.Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole.
Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
Your claim that Yang's paper was somehow a secret signal, is just silly, and makes you guilty of ignoring experimental data, like you like to accuse others of. 3rd hand anonymous sources do not somehow override published data.
All of the recent statements about X-37B and Chinese experiments are based on pure speculation and "sources" that appear to be 3rd hand or more. Most likely these may involve mis-translations, or misunderstandings of taking "electric propulsion" to mean emDrive rather than ion drive.
"His theory has been through several academic and industry groups" No evidence has ever been provided that it has, and his theory is internally inconsistent, and I know of no way to rescue it. Some other theories around here that have been proposed are at least plausible, but his is not.
Can we all calm down a little bit, take a few steps back and separate out the facts from the speculation, hyperbole, and crystal ball like statements about future events?
But on the other hand I suspect you have no evidence to definitely say that there aren't elements of truth in this, especially in the case of the Chinese. -
#2501 by Nerm999 on 07 Nov, 2016 19:47
-
It was some pun from my part about the situation (but with real information in my post). To be more serious, I think we can discuss anything here, providing we don't directly link to any protected material. The discussion will be harder to follow without pictures, but we can make similar pictures from scratch if necessary. It will also be harder to follow without direct quotes of the paper, but we can express the same meanings with our own different words. When you just talk about a theater movie, or film a remake of your own, you don't infringe any copyright rules
I also suspect that some news included in the bunch of information released then deleted, especially pictures and movies, will not be discussed in the EW peer-reviewed paper, that may focus only about torsion pendulum tests.
So I think the paper will exclude any mention to an air bearing rotary test rig integrating power supply and showing plotted acceleration for hours; a teeter-totter balance with magnetron; and the very interesting new fact that an anomalous force not only still exists without a dielectric near small end, but also the fact that the force reverses when a dielectric is either placed (detected force vector big to small) or removed (vector small to big).
Ah, I missed the original post, and just saw the paper. Did the post actually have movies of the rotating rig? Are they still on the internets somewhere? -
#2502 by flux_capacitor on 07 Nov, 2016 19:57
-
It was some pun from my part about the situation (but with real information in my post). To be more serious, I think we can discuss anything here, providing we don't directly link to any protected material. The discussion will be harder to follow without pictures, but we can make similar pictures from scratch if necessary. It will also be harder to follow without direct quotes of the paper, but we can express the same meanings with our own different words. When you just talk about a theater movie, or film a remake of your own, you don't infringe any copyright rules
I also suspect that some news included in the bunch of information released then deleted, especially pictures and movies, will not be discussed in the EW peer-reviewed paper, that may focus only about torsion pendulum tests.
So I think the paper will exclude any mention to an air bearing rotary test rig integrating power supply and showing plotted acceleration for hours; a teeter-totter balance with magnetron; and the very interesting new fact that an anomalous force not only still exists without a dielectric near small end, but also the fact that the force reverses when a dielectric is either placed (detected force vector big to small) or removed (vector small to big).
Ah, I missed the original post, and just saw the paper. Did the post actually have movies of the rotating rig? Are they still on the internets somewhere?
Yes, and yes
Search for a recent article of IBtimes, to begin with. -
#2503 by meberbs on 07 Nov, 2016 20:11
-
SPR's lack of a follow on Boeing contract and Yang's paper are evidence.
As repeated many times before, the "Boeing took the emDrive black" is just a conspiracy theory, and there is evidence against it since they still would have needed further SPR contracts to use the data.Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole.
Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.
Your claim that Yang's paper was somehow a secret signal, is just silly, and makes you guilty of ignoring experimental data, like you like to accuse others of. 3rd hand anonymous sources do not somehow override published data.
All of the recent statements about X-37B and Chinese experiments are based on pure speculation and "sources" that appear to be 3rd hand or more. Most likely these may involve mis-translations, or misunderstandings of taking "electric propulsion" to mean emDrive rather than ion drive.
"His theory has been through several academic and industry groups" No evidence has ever been provided that it has, and his theory is internally inconsistent, and I know of no way to rescue it. Some other theories around here that have been proposed are at least plausible, but his is not.
Can we all calm down a little bit, take a few steps back and separate out the facts from the speculation, hyperbole, and crystal ball like statements about future events?
But on the other hand I suspect you have no evidence to definitely say that there aren't elements of truth in this, especially in the case of the Chinese.
Also, I do not have any evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist. This does not mean that we should be repeating a 3rd hand story about a guy who swears he saw bigfoot, and treating it as proof of bigfoot's existence.
I just want the parade of rumors being treated like facts to stop. -
#2504 by Monomorphic on 07 Nov, 2016 20:12
-
Sorry, but I made a scaling mistake on my previous image so I deleted that post. The difference between 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz is pretty substantial!
Here is the revised image showing the different scales. All three cavities are designed to resonate at mode TE013 but at specific frequencies. The smallest is C-band at 5.8Ghz, the next is S-band at 2.4Ghz, and the largest is at the requested 900Mhz. All dims are in cm. So a 900Mhz TE013 emdrive has a major plate diameter of ~85cm and would be ~67cm in height.
-
#2505 by FattyLumpkin on 07 Nov, 2016 20:19
-
Monomorphic, can you please tell us what the calculated "Q" is for each of these cavities.
THNX FL -
#2506 by Rodal on 07 Nov, 2016 20:37
-
The reasons why not to use the X-37B have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much higher priority projects for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a regular rocket launch.There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit). The X-37B capability to bring back things from Space is a very unique capability that presently has no equal. There are several much higher priority projects (to the USAF) that can really benefit from this unique capability of the X-37B. -
#2507 by RotoSequence on 07 Nov, 2016 20:43
-
I stated that <<There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.>> the reasons why not to use the X-37B for this have nothing to do with the size of the X-37B cargo bay. Instead they have everything to do with the fact that there are much better things for the US Air Force to use the X-37B for than to be transporting an EM Drive to Space, instead of just sending the EM Drive on a Space-X or another rocket flight.There is no overwhelming reason I know of to test the EM Drive in the X-37B, and there are many reasons why it would not be a good use of the X-37B.
Pardon? Where does that line of logic come from as it makes no sense?
The X-37B has a big cargo hold. An EmDrive is not very big or massive plus the ship has the required cryo to cool a high thrust cryo drive down.
Why do you need to recover the EM Drive ? Why do you need to use the X-37B for this?(The purpose of the X-37 B is to bring back things from orbit).
Off the top of my head, I would imagine the same reason ATK liked to look at the Shuttle SRBs after recovery: post flight analysis. I'm not sure why they'd need to send it all the way to space for operational and life cycle testing instead of just leaving it in a vacuum chamber for a while, though. -
#2508 by rq3 on 07 Nov, 2016 20:49
-
Another hypothesis by the same engineer about the use of sapphire in Shawyer's news design, that I summarize below:
First, as a side note on dielectrics: according to TheTraveller, dielectrics used by Eagleworks are PE discs and this kind of plastic dielectrics has NEVER been used by Roger Shawyer, even in its early designs. The dielectric Shawyer used in his experimental thruster, before he completely dropped those in successive hollow frustum designs, was in fact a very high Q ceramic resonator. The ceramic resonator at that time was not intended to introduce a lossy mechanism or shift the operating frequency within the frustum. It was a high Q (of around 100,000) ceramic rod resonant at 2.45 GHz with the outer end silver plated (to act as a reflective end plate) and axially adjustable in and out of the frustum until the inner end becomes resonant with the TE012 internal frequency, tuned to wave front interface to the frustum standing wave. That was completely different from the direction followed by Eagleworks with the PE discs.
Sapphire resonators
Sapphire resonators achieve enormous Q of 109 at 10 GHz frequency with low phase noise when cooled by closed cycle pulse tube cryocooler at a temperature of 6 K.
That would explain the cavity filling 5 τ of 1 second. This cavity filling time plus discharging time of total 2 seconds appears inappropriate because the YBCO together with the silver plated mirror could only reach a Q of about 106 and never reach the maximum Q value of 109. But sapphire could be excited with subharmonic frequency. Once filled, the stored energy would be fed from the subharmonic of the 10 GHz sapphire resonator, at 5 GHz or so, extending the "ringtime" (radar talk) of the frustum.
This is just an idea put in the air.
These are great ideas, and also point to why Shawyers latest patent, showing a YBCO superconductor on a sapphire substrate is....odd, as I've pointed out previously.
Sapphire is a superlative high frequency dielectric. It exhibits a very flat and stable epsilon (dielectric constant) over the frequencies of interest, and over temperature (to a point). It is somewhat commonly used to make variable VHF-UHF-uwave capacitors.
Having said that, the YBCO is INSIDE of the patented cavity, shielding the Al2O3 (sapphire) substrate from providing any dielectric effect. Unless Shawyer is relying on the poor performance of YBCO under RF conditions to "leak" (which it will) into the sapphire? Interesting idea, if so, but bass-ackwards engineering. There are much better methods of getting Q enhancement with sapphire/superconductor resonance.
@Phil, you might suggest to Roger that he retain the sapphire substrate, but apply niobium to the EXTERIOR surface, with the niobium wrapped around the sapphire disc edges so that it makes DC/RF contact with the walls of the frustum large end. The downside is that he will need helium cooling and the sapphire would have to be VERY thin, the upside is that with the proper Al2O3 thickness, he will establish Q enhancing resonance between the inductive niobium and the capacitive sapphire. He might even consider his present scheme, but with the YCBO replaced with niobium, anodized to replace the sapphire with niobium oxide (also an excellent microwave dielectric). Yes, it's a three (or 5) layer approach, and would require an oxide layer of about 3 microns (my back of the envelope calculation), but should boost Q to roughly 1x10^12 at the large end (if niobium/Al2O3 or niobium/NbO2 resonance is achieved).
>Edit: clarified superconductor/oxide layers -
#2509 by oyzw on 07 Nov, 2016 23:37
-
The satellite was launched last week....
I recall that you were the first one to post at NSF the rumor about the Chinese testing the EM Drive in orbit.
Both statements say the Chinese are testing EmDrives in space. I expect IBT would have checked with other sources. It may be that the Chinese are doing BOTH experiments.
Oyzw also reported Prof Yang had retired and the Chinese were no longer funding EmDrive research? My sources suggest Prof Yang never retired and is engaged in EmDrive research, which with 2 reports of Chinese EmDrives would suggest Oyzw's earlier comments were not correct.
Likewise the US maybe testing EmDrives along with Ion drives.
According to your source in China, approximately when was the EM Drive launched into orbit by the Chinese?
Thank you.
Don't have that info. Was just informed it had happened, which would be before I posted the info.
For the record, you posted this information on October 23, 2016:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1602565#msg1602565
So the Chinese launch was some time earlier. -
#2510 by oyzw on 07 Nov, 2016 23:38
-
Professor Yang did not retire, but emdrive's research and development work was handed over to another team two years agoThis is very similar information to what the IBTimes is now printing...did the IBTimes get this information from you?
I'm not their source. I have also heard this from several sources, plus you now have Oyzw telling you of other EmDrive launches and that Prof Yang did not retire. Seems he was fed false info to spread on NSF. -
#2511 by oyzw on 07 Nov, 2016 23:43
-
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole.
Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen. -
#2512 by oliverio on 08 Nov, 2016 00:04
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
There is nothing new in the Next Big Future article.
I am sorry but NBF has the paper (first link in their article).
I saw the Next Big Future article first and downloaded the paper just in case it disappears, then I came here to see what you guys say. Is the leaked paper the same paper that will be published in AIAA’s Journal of Propulsion and Power in December? Or a draft version?
How close is the paper to the final version that will be published? Note that I'll write about this today, so thos in the know might prefer not to answer. At the same time, now that the paper is out, it will be all over the press in the next few days, there's no way to put it back in the box.
The consensus is no. It is very likely not the same paper that will appear in the AIAA journal.
At the very least, this is an "early draft;" this much was said by TheTraveller when he leaked the paper to NSF and Reddit. This means it could be anything from a trashed version to a near-copy, but the truth is likely somewhere between.
Additionally as several posts here have mentioned, much of the "leaked content" is not new, dating back to 2014-2015, and leading users to suspect that we do not have the current sum of research by Eagleworks.
I encourage everyone to give Nasa and Eagleworks the professional benefit of the doubt: let them do their jobs, we already have a scheduled release. There is no academic that wants their drafts thrown around as current work (sounds like a bad dream).
Thanks Oliverio. Can I quote you?
Only if you want to quote a speculative layman, though my information is correct.
To whomever claimed that this recent paper was leaked by Thetraveller under the claim that it is a recent draft, I beg to differ. His claim was that the paper consisted of an early draft. If you doubt this, I am sure the Unedit Reddit tool can display the leaked post. -
#2513 by spupeng7 on 08 Nov, 2016 00:05
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Your argument that time and space do not exist is fascinating. Lao Tzu would not agree because it is the space inside the jug that we store things in and time surely is the sequence we live amongst. The sense of unreality you are dealing with probably comes from the lack of suitability of purely linear time to anchor an appreciation of electrical dynamics against. Only complex time is adequate for that.
Complex time allows an immediate interaction of all charges with all other charges by electrical interaction. Complex time also has the real component of separation which we perceive as distance. Clock time is the real component of complex time and it is useful because it helps us to navigate the nearly flat surface upon which we live but complex time is necessary to describe location within the constantly evolving electrical interconnection of everything.
It is the real component of complex time which we measure with the clock and its rate is dependent upon location. Location is dependent upon perspective due to the evolution of the separation between charges with acceleration of the observer and the direction of electrical interaction is dependent upon perspective as well. We learn this from relativity.
If you look to four dimensional space to fashion an explanation for emdrive thrust the alternatives are either to accept Shawyer’s explanation that the constancy of the speed of light circumvents the conservation of momentum or you conjure an explanation involving a local reaction with virtual particles which have been invented or tailored for the purpose. Neither is adequate.
In my opinion the emdrive employs an asymmetry of current density, amplified by resonance, interacting electrically with the remote universe. This is not apparent within a visualization built in Euclidian space any more than it becomes apparent with the study of General Relativity. Special Relativity is however, the fundamental reality upon which a simpler understanding of the action of the emdrive can be developed.
-
#2514 by SeeShells on 08 Nov, 2016 00:13
-
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.Reading this thread is like following Alice further down the rabbit hole.
Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
Boeing took the EmDrive black as did the Chinese with that BS final paper of Prof Yang. Any experienced EmDrive builder would know it was BS, which I think was her intent to send a signal.
So governments have lied as have many individuals.
Bottom line is the EmDrive has worked since Roger invented it. His theory has been through several academic and industry groups, so it is also correct.
It has taken some time for the penny to drop that the EmDrive works as Roger claims. Might take a bit more time until the theory penny drops but it will happen.QuoteThose are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
True. I never thought otherwise. I've monitored what I release here because of it.
Shell
PS: That said, thank you for your input and honesty. -
#2515 by rq3 on 08 Nov, 2016 00:22
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
Your argument that time and space do not exist is fascinating. Lao Tzu would not agree because it is the space inside the jug that we store things in and time surely is the sequence we live amongst. The sense of unreality you are dealing with probably comes from the lack of suitability of purely linear time to anchor an appreciation of electrical dynamics against. Only complex time is adequate for that.
Complex time allows an immediate interaction of all charges with all other charges by electrical interaction. Complex time also has the real component of separation which we perceive as distance. Clock time is the real component of complex time and it is useful because it helps us to navigate the nearly flat surface upon which we live but complex time is necessary to describe location within the constantly evolving electrical interconnection of everything.
It is the real component of complex time which we measure with the clock and its rate is dependent upon location. Location is dependent upon perspective due to the evolution of the separation between charges with acceleration of the observer and the direction of electrical interaction is dependent upon perspective as well. We learn this from relativity.
If you look to four dimensional space to fashion an explanation for emdrive thrust the alternatives are either to accept Shawyer’s explanation that the constancy of the speed of light circumvents the conservation of momentum or you conjure an explanation involving a local reaction with virtual particles which have been invented or tailored for the purpose. Neither is adequate.
In my opinion the emdrive employs an asymmetry of current density, amplified by resonance, interacting electrically with the remote universe. This is not apparent within a visualization built in Euclidian space any more than it becomes apparent with the study of General Relativity. Special Relativity is however, the fundamental reality upon which a simpler understanding of the action of the emdrive can be developed.
I suspect that you are right. I suspect that a perfectly cylindrical cavity would thrust as well (or as poorly) as any other shape. I suspect that if that is so, for maximum thrust, the cylinder must be perfectly reflecting at one end, and optimized to leak energy at the other end in a manner that maximizes resonance, while maximizing leakage (impedance match to free space, which I have mentioned before). I suspect that the thrust signatures observed by various experiments are a result of the leakage (RF, infrared, evanescent waves, other; pick one) from one end interacting with the external universe in some method heretofor unrecognized.
I also suspect that I'm completely wrong. -
#2516 by WarpTech on 08 Nov, 2016 01:26
-
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Frustum size scales linearly with the frequency, so it's really easy to figure that out. I've not done that, but i have confirmed in FEKO that it scales linearly.
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
Roughly speaking, .001" would be ~200kHz, and .00001" would be ~2kHz.
Does anyone know of an example of a resonant cavity that is driven by a repetitious impulse, rather than a sine wave? Like a Tesla coil spark gap. I'm working on a way to do this, to avoid the high cost and low power of the RF amplifier.
-
#2517 by RotoSequence on 08 Nov, 2016 03:29
-
How much does it hurt to have three decimals of precision (+/- .001) in a 900 MHz cavity instead of five?
Frustum size scales linearly with the frequency, so it's really easy to figure that out. I've not done that, but i have confirmed in FEKO that it scales linearly.
Different question - how much does a given cavity's resonance change with tolerance? Are we looking at a few kilohertz for every hundredth of a millimeter? Every thousandth?
Roughly speaking, .001" would be ~200kHz, and .00001" would be ~2kHz.
Does anyone know of an example of a resonant cavity that is driven by a repetitious impulse, rather than a sine wave? Like a Tesla coil spark gap. I'm working on a way to do this, to avoid the high cost and low power of the RF amplifier.
Which means that even an Invar alloy cavity will de-tune itself by a few kHz to a MHz just from thermal creep if you let it get hot enough. Good to know
-
#2518 by zen-in on 08 Nov, 2016 03:38
-
...
You're close to the truth. Those are used to mislead and deceive. R & D improvement work has never been stopped, all the information provided on this forum are carefully studied and adopted by these teams.
I just see a lot of misinformation being thrown about. There has never been a verifiable em-drive thrust. Everything I have seen shows a 100% thermal signature. While I am sure you are well intentioned and trying to be sincere it is well known that the Chinese government does not tolerate spies. If there really was a breakthrough all attempts would be made to prevent you from reporting anything about it. -
#2519 by giulioprisco on 08 Nov, 2016 04:08
-
What has always bothered me about our understanding of gravity is that we invoke the concept of space-time curving. Words have exact meaning, and they are pointers to reality. "space" is an abstract concept. It is defined as the the absence of something or a sum of coordinates in 3-dimensional space. There is nothing in the physical universe called space. "time" is an abstract concept. It is defined as a relationship between events. There is no physical thing in the universe called time. There is no such thing as space-time.
While I don't disagree with Einstein, the words used to describe his equations are the wrong words. If something is being warped, it's not space-time, and I suspect it's much simpler to comprehend.
A very Machian point of view, shared by many physicists e.g. Rovelli and (perhaps not anymore) Smolin. And of course Woodward.
Everyday seems more and more unbelievable...but the more I read...
