.....
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works. We have been through this cycle many times already. Unless you have conclusive evidence you can provide, then please stop repeating this claim as a fact.
......
While I don't think it is meaningful to say anything about the Shawyer/Boeing deal, simply because there is way too little information publicly known, I do question your remark above.
The new test's done by the NASA Eagleworks team may not yet have been perfect (as some were eager to point out on the reddit forum and reach the sigma 5 standard, which is considered to be proof in a scientific environment....
BUT,
it most certainly delivered such a jaw-dropping and intriguing result that it is now absolute necessary to spend more energy/money into the research this observed phenomenon. The test performed was certainly of a high enough standard to warrant additional effort. That, I'm very positive about it.
From my perspective , this leaked testing info tilted my opinion from a maybe/maybe_not (50/50) towards a "probably yes" (say 90/10). Definitive? nope, not yet, but "highly probably" for sure...
Also, the leaked info most probably did some damage to the people involved , like Eagleworks crew, but at the same time, it forces everybody into an accelerating forward direction because the only way to keep an advantage in this race is to keep improving. The more development is happening around the world the faster it will percolate into our daily lives...
So while i do not approve what Phill did ( I have a less flamboyant/assertive communication style), I do understand his motivations, especially with the bad medical news he received. In fact, it triggered a personal question for me, of what I would do if I where in his shoes...
You know, a man/woman can do strange things when faced with his/her own mortality...
The recent revelations on possible deliberate disinformation campaigns really come as punch in the face, even if I had it taken into account somewhere in the back of my head...
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew scepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew skepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
The results obtained from the EW team are good enough to
continue and intensify the research on the
EMdrive.
I can understand it does not yet meet the extremely high standards (sigma 5) needed to be considered scientifically accepted, but i do not understand people that continue to claim it is a waste of effort.
There is "something" going on that needs to be investigate further...
The chances that it is a mere measurement error were significantly reduced (but not zero). Research should only stop when it becomes100% clear what is the real cause of the observed force(s)...
Instead of turning it into a pissing contest on the EW crew, they would do far better to offer help in order to iron out the points they're criticizing...
I see really no point in discrediting Dr White's and P.March's experimental effort and reputation, just because they do not like their physics hypothesis. Seriously....
BTW I've been offer YBCO with 3uOhm Rs at 3.85GHz at 77K (LN2). Can make a really nice 10^8 frustum with that! More than enough thrust to levitate. With 3 could levitate me and all the support systems for several hours. Might need to add a heated pressure suit & Oxy tank to make LEO or higher still.
Good, but take care Phil.
There seems to be a heavily negative stance over there, I knew skepticism is usually good a position to start with something like this. But is there a case of going too far when decent experimental data appears.
The results obtained from the EW team are good enough to continue and intensify the research on the
EMdrive.
I can understand it does not yet meet the extremely high standards (sigma 5) needed to be considered scientifically accepted, but i do not understand people that continue to claim it is a waste of effort.
There is "something" going on that needs to be investigate further...
The chances that it is a mere measurement error were significantly reduced (but not zero). Research should only stop when it becomes100% clear what is the real cause of the observed force(s)...
Instead of turning it into a pissing contest on the EW crew, they would do far better to offer help in order to iron out the points they're criticizing...
I see really no point in discrediting Dr White's and P.March's experimental effort and reputation, just because they do not like their physics hypothesis. Seriously....
They seem to favour still spinning the line that it's all explained as experimental error, even applied to the latest results.
...
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.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
1701B fine leak test capable
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.
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.
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.
As an engineer that has built EmDrives, I strongly disagree.
It is VERY important to get the EmDrive back so as to evaluate how the drive ages and changes after lengthy operation in space. Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination are just a few of the issues necessary to answer by having returned space operated EmDrives.
As you point out, it is only the X-37B that has that capability.
Why use a unique asset like the X-37B to <<evaluate... Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination >>, these
interior surface effects can all be studied in a vacuum chamber on Earth. The purpose of studying the effect on the Hall Thruster recovered by the X-37B is to look at the effect on its long-term exposure to
exterior surface
impact from micro-debris on low earth orbit, where the debris is densely populated (as is well documented on solar cell surface damage, for example). Also exposure to
high energy particles in Space. EM Drive experimenters claim that the EM Drive is a closed cavity able to self-accelerate without exhausting any propellant, hence there should not be any critical issues with exterior surface damage for such a concept. No way for micro-debris and high energy particles to enter an EM Drive cavity that is supposed to be closed.
... crap like "They are testing EM Drive on the X-37B", which is total nonsense and the X-37B IS what we cover here, so we'd know.
well said
Why use a unique asset like the X-37B to <<evaluate... Interior surface change due to vac & heating, plus possible thin film delamination >>, these interior surface effects can all be studied in a vacuum chamber on Earth. The purpose of studying the effect on the Hall Thruster recovered by the X-37B is to look at the effect on its long-term exposure to exterior surface impact from micro-debris on low earth orbit, where the debris is densely populated (as is well documented on solar cell surface damage, for example).
There actually are a few problems that could come up from trying to develop an EM Drive test article meant for ultra high vacuum. A UHV chamber system needs to be baked out at above 100 degrees Celsius for several hours for out-gassing; polymers are a no go, necessitating ceramics be used in their place. Special glues are also required. Screws, blind holes, and welding processes other than electron beam, laser beam, and gas tungsten arc welding are unacceptable due to the potential for impurities and trapped gasses. All said and done, building an EM drive that was suitable for ultra-high-vacuum chamber operation for the sole purpose of representative operational life testing might be inordinately difficult, unless it's engineered start to finish with UHV chamber testing in mind.
EDIT 2: How do you test a pressurized gas system that's meant for space operations? These questions are starting to need the expertise of NSF's experienced space ops folks if I want to do better than guess.
...
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.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
You have never explained why it displaced a similar amount in tests with a working and a broken magnetron. I don't know whether the broken magnetron test moved due to thermal convection, thermal expansion, Lorentz forces or other, but since the displacement was similar, the most logical conclusion is that the displacement in the tests with a working magnetron was likely due to the same (non-emdrive) effect.
That does not, however, allow for crap like "They are testing EM Drive on the X-37B", which is total nonsense and the X-37B IS what we cover here, so we'd know.
You know about EVERY device that is carried and tested on the X-37B?
Amazing, especially as most are classified.
We know enough here to know that a claim that it definitely is being tested on there is nonsense, because even if it was, the information that it was would be very well controlled, just like all of the other payloads that we have absolutely no information on.
There can be wild speculation on the possibility of one being on the X-37B, but that is not how it was being discussed here by some. Plus wild speculation is generally not helpful except in threads that are specifically for wild speculation.
I would like to point to a report I found online called:
*** On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive *** ( published online 7 June 2016 )
Link to source location:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Link to the full PDF:
http://scitation.aip.org/docserver/fulltext/aip/journal/adva/6/6/1.4953807.pdf?expires=1478605721&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=22EEC29C17DA4A01654F383981E20F3A
It provides a expanation on how EM-Drive thrust is generated.
I have not seen anyting like this on these forums.
Hopefully some here can respond to this.
They claim that the EM drive consumes free energy in the form of propellant electromagnetic fields by pairing photons with opposite phases to non-polarized expellant.
91.2 μN with 16.9 W at 1932.6 MHz corresponding to the first TM211 mode in the tapered cavity having a quality factor of about 7320
Is it correct that that is 5.396 mN/kW, that’s 4.5x higher then the 1.2 mN/kW from the other report.
The mode EW used was not the one with the highest specific force that being 21.3mN/kWrf or 55.4uN @ 2.6Wrf, TE012, 1,880.4MHz as attached.
The test mode was one highly isolated from other modes, so mode swapping would not occur.
You also need to factor in that when the small end dielectric was removed and the EmDrive retuned, the generated force
swapped from big to small to small to big. Can that theory explain this force direction change? Can any theory explain this force direction change.
What this force direction change does is to clearly show the generated forces is not thermal nor Lorentz. Sure there are both effects present but they are
NOT what is generating the measured force.
...
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.
You might want to review some of my 1701A data Zen. The heavy mass of copper on my torsion beam displaced far too quickly as copper absorbs and radiates heat several orders of magnitude greater than the measured displacement rate. For me, this eliminated thermal signatures as a cause. It did not, however, confirm any other particle or wave theory. Whatever the cause, I know it was not a thermal signature.
You have never explained why it displaced a similar amount in tests with a working and a broken magnetron. I don't know whether the broken magnetron test moved due to thermal convection, thermal expansion, Lorentz forces or other, but since the displacement was similar, the most logical conclusion is that the displacement in the tests with a working magnetron was likely due to the same (non-emdrive) effect.
The vid link above was the new and final magnetron. The displacements were not the same as the magnetron failed to lock in later pcm tests moving from wax to another material. The general slope was similar but not the bumps. This I attribute to frequency staying high with high reflectivity and mag core heating. There were no appreciable deviation to the thermal slope during power on conditions in later tests. Failure occurred while evaluating new pcm. This caused me to scrap the mag entirely. The pcm experiments were a failed attempt to reduce the thermal slope as indicated in the vid.
To all,
I've build 2 labs and I'm currently doing my 3rd. I've built 3 different frustums and currently on my 4th. Each step has been to refine my data, narrow the error and enhance the thrust anomaly. You all have been following me for the last 1-1/2 years and watched and even commented on the advances and failures. This last effort will be able to provide very clear and concise testing data. This was done without embracing theory, other than Maxwell's and a few others. I've seen anomalous thrusts without anything other than the copper and microwaves, I've seen anomalous thrusts with dielectrics, I've seen anomalous thrusts with a kitchen sink PZT approach.
The first powered on pretest last year (December) I exceeded the load cell in my small digital scale in a powered jerk action and delightfully turned antennas and magnetrons into matchsticks. Before the smoke cleared I interestingly a saw a large impulse from the system before failure. This is truly where it started. This was my "that's interesting" moment.
This last build, in a new lab and with a new device, when I'm done I'll have no qualms of it passing my peer reviews in independent testings and labs, if it shows real thrusts. I know it needs to be done and that it is a step in the process. If I find out what I've been seeing is a build or test bed error, I truly win and can go back to sitting in my hot tub more than I do now and fully retire. If it's truly a propulsion-less device, we all win big time and the hot tub time will have to wait.
There is a lot of critical debate going on and it's a good thing, there is nothing wrong with it. It's driven me to spend thousands of hours, refining the builds and the test stands. I've been building things for over 50 years, building them to work and understanding why they work has been the hallmark of my life. This is no different.
Oh, one other thing. If you think me, 67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!
My Very Best,
Shell
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020
Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed in the sims before. The Q should be very high.
1) What is the numerical analysis package you are using ? (FEKO, etc.)
2) What numerical technique are you using to solve the equations? (Finite Element Method?, Boundary Element Method?, Finite Difference Method Space Domain?)?
3) What is the type of solution method?
A) Is it an eigensolution to the eigenvalue problem where there is no antenna in the model?
B) Or a steady state solution using an antenna and a spectral method to obtain a solution?
C) Or a transient solution using an antenna and a Finite Difference Time Domain to obtain a solution?
D) If you used an antenna, with a spectral steady-state solution or a transient Finite-Difference-Time-Domain solution, what was the type of antenna and where was it located?
4) What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model? Are you assuming a perfect conductor?
If not, how are you modeling an imperfect conductor like copper?
5) How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?
6) How are eddy currents calculated in the model?
Thanks
To all,
Oh, one other thing. If you think me, 67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!
My Very Best,
Shell
I admire your dedication to this testing. I never seen anything like that before :-). What is admirable is also that you are able to "keep your cool" in all this informations and news coming in and do the rigid and great scientific work.
