"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was. 
The problem with Shawyer is that it promises much for later, but doesn't give any product for now, and never published any vacuum test.
Also, making a working product doesn't make the theory true. For example, the Pantone device really lower fuel consumption, but the Pantone's Plasma theory is totally false.
There are many theories that can explain the Emdrive (MiHsC, Quantum Vacuum, etc)
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
Now, you got yourself a nice seismograph .... with all the noise that comes with it. I know. City is noisy and I pick up cars, trucks, school buses, construction a block away ...
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I guess the opposite is also true... if a new builder gets a null result, some people would spend hours trying to prove that his results are not conclusive, that there are errors in his tests, etc.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
The problem with Shawyer is that it promises much for later, but doesn't give any product for now, and never published any vacuum test.
Also, making a working product doesn't make the theory true. For example, the Pantone device really lower fuel consumption, but the Pantone's Plasma theory is totally false.
There are many theories that can explain the Emdrive (MiHsC, Quantum Vacuum, etc)
Of course a working EmDrive doesn't prove his theory is true. Neither does not having an accepted theory hinder commercialization of it. The academics will sort it all out while we fly to the Moon.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
I will say this here, the paper was well put together and focused on results not weighted down by theoretical discussions. This should be a clear signal to all camps that observations can precede conclusions on theories. Carving out real lab results first followed by additional testing to focus on a particular theory seems like the best way to deal with a controversial project. Rather than endless bickering about who's theory is right or wrong is pointless unless someone is willing to put a pet theory to a test. Let's agree that the device performed and move on to more tactical endeavors. Such as an experiment designed to prove a specific theory is right or wrong. Look at this as an astronomical observation. It's time for science to get together and explain the observations. It's not that difficult people.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
Well, what concerns me, this article is one of the (main) reasons my initial scepsis decreased from, say, 99.9% to 90% (so the chance I give that this effect is real, has in my opinion increased 100-fold). '-)
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
I'd rather have time to sit down and do a more detailed review, but to start with this is an experiment with thermal artifacts larger in magnitude than what is supposed to be the actual thrust. It is entirely possible that there are multiple thermal effects with different time constants, especially considering the multiple materials (metal and dielectric). It also looks like they don't understand all of the error sources. Looking at the error bars on the cumulative data graph, the error bars on the individual measurements are smaller than the actual measurement precision based on the point spread.
Big difference between this and a moon trip.
They came to a conclusion based on data. You are trying to suggest their data is worthless. It comes down to why should I put more weight to your armchair criticisms over their thoughtful work? Being a skeptic is easier than doing work.
Meberb's critique is not invalid. The experimental signal is still smaller than the noise component, and Egleworks has not wholly characterized 100% of the potential error sources.
Eagleworks has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect is real. However, they have substantially raised the bar on what would be required to disprove the effect.
No experiment ever characterizes 100% of potential errors. That's a strawman. No experiment is ever completely without doubt. The question is if we can take the NASA result as a reasonable certainty that this effect is really real or do we continue to debate it? If it is, NASA should commit major resources to study and optimize the effect by orders of magnitude if possible either themselves or by funding Shawyer and Fetta.
As a builder what is has done for me is to add weight to my own testing and at least make me feel that I wasn't chasing a red herring. That this effort wasn't a waste.
There are so many questions that still need to be answered and it going to take time. Will this truly become like mankind inventing fire or will it end up on the scrap heap of oh, that's interesting... Wherever it ends up, I'll say it has been a fun ride. . . hasn't it?
Shell
There is no way that.., either as EM waves or photons, microwaves can transfer enough momentum to the frustum to produce even the low end annomolous thrusts reported by some experimenters.
Ask any high Q accelerator cavity designed about the forces they need to deal with. Radiation Pressure forces that deform their cavities. Radiation pressures that build via (Q * Pwr).
The EmDrive is no different.
Standard Radiation pressure equation, F = (2 Pwr) / c
Add in Q, F = (2 Q Pwr) / c
Factor in increased guide wavelength inside a waveguide, F = ((2 Q Pwr) / c) (external wavelength / internal guide wavelength)
Nothing new here.
Please provide me a reference to any battery operated accelerator or even externally powered accelerator operating at microwave frequencies and the net resonant power levels involved in any published data for the EmDrives, being explored.
You seem to me to be trying to compare systems that are not even equivalent, other than in some general basic ways.
Not hearsay or theoretically upscaled projections, just real physical EmDrive systems that have been built, whose design and performance data has been publicly released or at least confirmed by a qualified independent testing facility.
If the EmDrive is a real source of useable thrust, which I believe it will turn out to be, it is already evident that what we know about the interaction between electromagnetic waves and a physical system (a resonant frustum) departs from the bulk of our past experience. An accelerator cavity does not. New physics or just a new application/understanding of existing physics, the two do not represent a like vs like comparison.
One thing that seems a clearly safe bet is that any thrust IS NOT the result of radiation pressure, as either EM waves or photons.
....
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
....
That seems to be an attempted argument from authority, citing an implied authority no longer able to respond, to your assumption.
I find it hard to believe that Newton had any opinions or ideas about the way Maxwell's work might fit with his own, given the difference in the historical time frame of the two.
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
Circular polarization helical antennas as described in Shawyer's recent patent do not resonate like quadrifilar or cloverleaf antenna. I can't find any of the familiar TE01x modes using a purely helical antenna.
Yes
This was evaluated earlier and painstaking confirmed by aero(using meep), somewhere in thread 3 if my memory serves and it has to do with the length of the wire compared to the local wavelength. At this time several kind of loop antennas and similar designs was in discussion to excite this field pattern..
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it. 
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
24586324292467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
The bottom of that bowl is flat, which will throw off your frequencies since it isn't a perfect sphere. A couple of months ago I designed a 5.8Ghz spherical end frustum using Copper hemispheres like these:
http://www.necopperworks.com/copperballs.htmlThe 16" and the 8" hemispheres would work perfectly. Circle of a sphere (spherical caps) the correct diameter would need to be cut from the hemispheres, but each hemisphere should yield 3 or 4 endplates each.
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
That's a pretty high mode. TE or TM? V/m up the middle, I assume it's TM?
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
I like it!
So I made a sphere of radius 2749/240 inches and cut it at 7.5 inches (did I do the math right? It looks pretty close...)
I put a copper plate on it and left the bowl stainless steel.
Here are the first 12 Eigenmodes starting from 2.4 GHz (I'm guessing you want to use a microwave oven magnetron?)
2400644080
2400846805
2439096216
2439343994
2445869115
2446058467
2458632429
2467518727
2467539775
2485758762
2488443199
2493716505
HFSS finds unique orthogonal modes at slightly different frequencies because of slight solver error, hence the duplicates.
I like the bolded one because its perfectly aligned with a typical magnetron frequency and you could electrically couple through the center of either end.
That's a pretty high mode. TE or TM? V/m up the middle, I assume it's TM?
Yes, TM... well atleast TM in the center. Sorry I forgot to put the vectors on
