http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published
Interestingly there seems to be an implied criticism of the EM drive subreddit for deleting an article in this one.
Not the EmDrive subreddit, the Physics subreddit. The article deleted was:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leak
I shared the article to r/Physics. The mods deleted it and messaged me: "Sorry. But we consider the EM-Drive to be unscientific."
I guess if EmDrive research gets a Nobel Prize in Physics, some professional skeptics will still be saying things like that...
I took a look at the linked articles and some of the links within those and find some of the statements and conclusions to be problematic.
Take the following;
The problem is that while the existence of the quantum vacuum has been experimentally proven to exist,
A statement made without reference. There are experiments were the results and conclusions are attributed to one or another characterization of the quantum vacuum or zero point energy/field, but none that I have seen that prove the existence of the whatever definition of vacuum energy, quantum vacuum or the composition of any zero point filed.., is.... And to be honest the same seems to be the case for Woodward's Mach Effect.
Virtual particles are called virtual for a reason.., though they are useful components within the larger context of quantum theory, they are inherently unmeasurable. That same applies to much of the EM spectrum associated with the quantum vacuum.., though an argument could be made that the very real detectable background EM radiation the universe offers up, is at least a component of vacuum energy... And where the Mach Effect is involved until there is some consensus defining the mechanism(s) of inertia and gravitation as a functional component of the Mach Effect, it again is an untested.., and perhaps untestable model.
The brass ring in science has come to be so closely associated with a focus on the theoretical side of the process of advancement, that connecting the theory/model to some direct experimentally provable test, seems often forgotten and the underlying assumptions along with any engineering success assumed, accepted as proof of theory. That is the same mistake it seems, from where I sit, that Shawyer has made. His error just seems more obvious because he began from an engineering standpoint rather than, an interpretation of established science... Or so it seems.
I am not here trying to say or even imply that the theoretical models presented by either of the primaries involved are not accurate theoretical descriptions, just asserting that what I have seen, does to me seem to rise to the level of proving the underlying model.
A theoretical model can be a useful and successful tool in the design and development of a successful engineering model, without the theoretical model itself being an accurate description of reality (nature).
For the time being and especially where DIYs with limited budgets and physical resources are concerned, it would seem far more productive to chase the engineering, than attempt to design for the purposes of testing one or another theoretical/model. Once any experimenter developers an EmDrive system that generates thrust sufficiently above the noise, systemic and experimental error, there will be time enough to chase down the underlying mechanism. A task made far easier given data supporting an indisputable thrust.
And all of this rambling from one who has always been more interested in the theory and theoretical physics than the dirty work of experiment and practical applications. A dreamer of sorts rather than a builder, at least where science is concerned.
The quantum vacuum is an integral part of the theory of quantum electrodynamics. QED may be the dominant theory but it is not the only theory. The quantum vacuum is inferred from experimental results but those results may be explained in other theories also. So, I agree, the quantum vacuum is more widely assumed than proven to exist.
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power,
I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Is new talk of interstellar drive too good to be true?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113253-is-new-talk-of-interstellar-drive-too-good-to-be-true/
Final NASA Eagleworks Paper Confirms Promising EMDrive Results, Proposes Theoretical Model
https://hacked.com/final-nasa-eagleworks-paper-confirms-promising-emdrive-results-proposes-theoretical-model/
Final version of NASA EMdrive paper confirms 1.2 millinewtons per kw of thrust which is 300 times better than other zero propellent propulsion
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/final-version-of-nasa-emdrive-paper.html?m=1
The second story is mine, thanks for sharing.
The first story (New Scientist) ends with: "In truth, until there is real scientific evidence on the table for others to pore over, critique, test and reproduce, the vast majority care little about the claims of interstellar revolutions. And for those who are not scientists, but who dream of interstellar flight and galactic colonisation, and wonder what to make of all of this, remember the old adage: 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"
The thing is, real scientific evidence that EmDrive works IS on the table, and has been there for quite some time. The NS writer is making, perhaps intentionally, some confusion between EmDrive and "warp-drives," FTL and all that. But even if we are talking of "magic" FTL propulsion, the conclusion is defeatist. I would add a few words to the conclusion:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but we should do our f## best to find out.
That old adage is really a matter of perspective. Nobody ever explains why getting thrust from microwaves in a cavity is more "too good to be true" than pumping energy out of the ground or getting it free from the sun or any number of other things we take for granted. Someone famous once said "nothing is too good to be true".
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
I took that into account when I calculated the time needed to create a new big bang. I considered a constant thrust in the reference frame of the ship. Of course, the thrust decrease in the departure reference frame. Also I used relativist formula for Kinetic energy, that is not the square of the speed for relativistic speeds.
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe 
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
Indeed. Wikipedia editors censor emerging ideas and concepts. One of my hero's, Randy Mills of Brilliant Light Power has been harshly censored, they delete all his data and papers, as well as supporting comments by other scientists, and only allow criticism of his ideas because he's not "mainstream". They don't have to have a page but if they do have a page they should allow it to be fair.
Thanks for the clarification. Should a mod really be deleting things like that?
No, but "politically" biased mods, militant protectors of mainstream "consensus" against the highly imaginative "fringes," do delete things like that all the time. Max Plank said that science advances one funeral at a time, and he was right.
Painfully, Wikipedia is still deleting these kind of innovations, a clear example is what some Wiki users are doing to MiHsC theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiHsC
Did you actually read that page? There were all of 3 keeps, only one of which was by a registered user.
That registered user at the end said:
Regardless, I would now concur with jps and friends that *even if Mike is right*, we absolutely do need a great many more secondary sources to say so before we give MiHsC wikipedia's imprimatur, and that yes, under the circumstances it would be really quite difficult to get some wording in there that actually managed to achieve NPOV. And NPOV is not really something we're allowed to fudge, even if we all agreed that it was worth doing, which I very much doubt is going to happen. Does that all sound about right?
The result of the discussion was based on the fact that not enough physicists were finding the theory worth discussing to consider it a notable topic, regardless of whether said physicists found the theory to be correct or not.
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
Here's the Hackaday article on the EW's paper publication.
http://hackaday.com/2016/11/19/em-drive-paper-published-by-eagleworks-team/Looking at the comments if I see another person going on about have they eliminated every possible source of error, that's such an open phrase that you could be trying to resolve that for an infinity of time. Also a lot of the time such commentators never even come up with any suggestions of what these errors are meant to be, it's like they are just parroting others.
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
Lucky timing when I checked for new posts, and I don't think there is a warning if you are replying to a post that was deleted as you type. I have a response here since you responded, but if you would rather drop it, just delete your post, and PM me and I'll delete my responses as well.
Equivalent units do not make things equal, or even proportional. For example, I can travel down the highway at different speeds in my car, but my choice of speed does not have any effect on the speed of Pluto relative to the sun.
In this case it is obvious velocity has no effect. An object in orbit (~7 km/s) and a object at the same altitude with (temporarily) no velocity relative to the earth both have the same potential energy, just very different kinetic energies.
In fact, it depends on how the Emdrive works.
If it gives constant thrust for constant imput power, there is a fundamental difference with all other energy sources, that have a limited flux, or are in a limited quantity.
With an emdrive that gives me constant thrust of 1G for constant imput power, I can create a new big bang in around 256 years (256 years for me, not for the universe), and so I can create a new universe far bigger than the actual one.
At the opposite, if the emdrive steals energy somewhere, and has limitation for the thrust relatively to what it is stealing, it is still new physics, maybe a new kind of energy (for example Quantum Vacuum) still very very good, but, IMHO less "too good to be true"
You forget that constant electrical input power on the ship may not necessarily be seen as constant power by an observer watching it accelerate. Assume a potential energy dependent on relative velocity squared.
Well g-whiz, isn't a potential energy based on velocity squared "gravity"? hehehe
No, where did you get that from? Gravitational potential energy is mgh in a constant field and proportional to 1/R for to masses separated by a distance R, no velocity involved.
Also, I know of no potential energy dependent on v^2, making an assumption that one can exist is a good way to end up in a contradiction. As I understand special relativity though, The potential energy in say a rapidly moving battery is proportional to gamma, basically increasing with the effective mass (mass energy equivalence and such). The energy associated with this either would have to be stolen from somewhere else, or would be present in the original system's battery when it was at rest, and just converted to another form.
Damn you're fast! I deleted that post because I didn't want to debate it. Since you asked,
g = m/s^2
h = m
g*h = (m/s)^2 = v^2
Gravitational potential is proportional to this velocity squared.
Lucky timing when I checked for new posts, and I don't think there is a warning if you are replying to a post that was deleted as you type. I have a response here since you responded, but if you would rather drop it, just delete your post, and PM me and I'll delete my responses as well.
Equivalent units do not make things equal, or even proportional. For example, I can travel down the highway at different speeds in my car, but my choice of speed does not have any effect on the speed of Pluto relative to the sun.
In this case it is obvious velocity has no effect. An object in orbit (~7 km/s) and a object at the same altitude with (temporarily) no velocity relative to the earth both have the same potential energy, just very different kinetic energies.
Gravity acts at the speed of light. Since you change the centre point of mass of the earth when you drive your car, you change the gravity relative to pluto. This effect is very very very tiny and we can't measure it, but it doesn't mean there is no effect at all
I am pretty sure it could be calculated even if its almost neglabile, somewhere at the x-th order it's there.
Yeah it's nitpicking
but based on already known physical facts
#Sorry couldn't resist. If it is consent to delete this column of posts I will delete this too
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
...
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
After reading your and White et.al.'s AIAA article, (PhD University of Connecticut) astrophysicist recants and now says that
he would like to see the EM Drive tested in Space:
<<I’ve been pretty critical of this experiment from the get go, and I remain highly skeptical. However, even as a skeptic I have to admit the work is valid research. This is how science is done if you want to get it right. Do experiments, submit them to peer review, get feedback, and reevaluate. For their next trick the researchers would like to try the experiment in space. I admit that’s an experiment I’d like to see.>>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/11/19/nasas-physics-defying-em-drive-passes-peer-review/#4394778476e2
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
At the same time, anyone looking to build one needs to know how to work with high power electronics. Safety first!
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Thank you for taking the time to address these particular concerns, Mr. March.
My friend's primary concern is that the experiment has not controlled for a variable that could nullify the hypothesis that EM Drive produces thrust. Specifically, the published experiment doesn't control for the hypothesis that the geometry affects thrust independently of the resonance mode itself.
The experiment that was not included in the paper absolutely helps the argument that EM Drive is functional. The stakes being as high as they are, any significant gaps where the eternal skeptics can poke holes in the evidence shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Here's when I step in again and suggest that rather than pushing for more data from the original team, anyone looking for answers initiate their own experiment. This is what science is all about, a step is made and others follow and help the broader community understand, enhance or debunk prior efforts. We owe a great debt to him and ew for being visionaries and not afraid to tackle the edge of classical physics. It's up to us now to continue the research...the torch is being passed to us, lets roll...
At the same time, anyone looking to build one needs to know how to work with high power electronics. Safety first!
Absolutely. There are a select few public figures in the united states, shell, monomorphic, Paul and myself who possess the knowledge and skill specific to the design, construction and testing of the emdrive. We all hope that we will not be the only ones in the weeks and months to come. We unofficially consider ourselves as a builders alliance or guild but don't waste time on formalities. We respect and trust each other and would welcome others such as mulletron and zellerium whom are now on a temporary hiatus. We always caution those considering a build to gather knowledge first. Even with my high power RF background, I studied for months before announcing a build on nsf. The device is dangerous if mishandled. Page 1 of each thread makes that crystal clear. We need labs to sign on for further testing. All of us could help them facilitate the experiment depending on our available time to consult, finish our own experiments and have a life.
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have the position sensor at the big end side and the capacitor force sensor on the small end side as shown in Fig 2. I will read the paper again to see if that is stated.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
