-
#3260 by Star One on 25 Nov, 2016 17:15
-
It looks like the main lines of attack on the paper are in the area of methodology which appear to be a function of the budget available to EW.Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell -
#3261 by meberbs on 25 Nov, 2016 17:21
-
I don't have any of the sims on my computer, and there are tricks and challenges to using them as discussed by others here. I am not going to spend the time going through all of that, maybe one of the modellers here could if any of them have any patience left for you. As far as making sure it is compatible with Cullen's equations: The sims all use Maxwell's equations which Cullen's equations were derived from. So they are consistent with Cullen's equations by default. Cullen's equations, as explained many times, are for a constant area waveguide, not a tapered resonator, so the answer will probably be somewhat different than by applying Cullen's equations in a situation that they don't apply to.While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
That is entirely backwards. The sims are perfectly capable of providing a way to calculate the forces on each end plate and the sidewalls, and they all will show a larger force on the large plate than the small one, balanced by the force on the sidewalls.
While the distance between the nodes of the standing wave increases towards the small end, "distance between nodes of a standing wave" is not the definition of guide wavelength, and is only meaningful at discrete points, not in the continuously varying way that you use guide wavelength. The models can't provide an answer when you don't have a fully defined question, and you have never properly defined guide wavelength in this context.
Good to know the sims can model the forces. Care to do that and share the data? Plus be sure the equations used to calculated the radiation pressure are compatible with the equations of Cullen.
Since all the sims are just an application of Maxwell's equations, if you give me the dimensions of a frustum with spherical endplates (preferably one that has been built/analyzed already), I could calculate the forces directly from the analytical solution as Egan did. I have offered similar before, but you have never responded with dimensions. The only reason I am willing to spend the time to do this is I would like the practice with Bessel functions, and this would give me a reason to use them.
As the radiation pressure drops much faster than the diameter drop, going from big to small, it is not possible for the sum of all the forces to equal zero.
The second half of that sentence does not follow from the first half at all. (hint:the pressure on the sidewalls is not constant, and there is no reason to expect it to be.) I have shown that before but you seem immune to logic. -
#3262 by zen-in on 25 Nov, 2016 17:27
-
...
I remember those graphs because the reverse response was so much less than the forward response. If I'm not mistaken that was also when your group started to mitigate the Lorentz error. My conclusion then and now of the reverse graph is that it is due to magnetic interaction. It is the only "thrust" waveform that has the characteristics of a second order step response. There is a fast rise/fall time and an overshoot with ringing. That type of response curve has not been seen again in your results. The second graph is a first order step response; ie:thermal. In a vacuum or low pressure atmosphere the time constant is longer. It would be useful to see a lot more data, even families of plots. For example what would the plots look like if the pressure was stepped down by powers of ten (logrithmically), with everything else the same? My guess is the time constant of the step response would increase as the pressure decreased. Another experiment I have been asking all the em-drive dy people to do is to heat up the Copper cone with resistive heaters and collect data as if it was an RF input. No one has done that yet. I'm sure the EW team has the resources to do this.
The more things you change in an experimental setup the more information you get from your experiments. For example what would happen if the EW team redesigned the mounting hardware that holds the Copper cone on the TP arm. If they could design it so that the CG vs displacement test using the 10 gram weight no longer caused a significant change in displacement how would that affect later tests? It would be interesting to see. I know the EW team has done excellent work and are only interested in finding the truth so I assume they will eventually do some of the things I have suggested.
Zen-in: Please remember that I no longer work at the Eagleworks (EW) Lab and I do not have access to this EW copper frustum test article any longer. I was also working under the direction of Dr. White who did not give me the freedom to pursue a number of tests and thruster optimizations I would have liked to have pursued in the latter part of 2014 till the time I left the EW lab, so a lot of the tests you suggest were thought of, but could not be pursued due to the demands of upper NASA/JSC management. That will change when I get into my new home lab that I will control.
Best, Paul M.
I understand. I should have directed my questions to Sonny White, even if he doesn't read this forum. It is good to hear you are continuing this research under your own direction. I look forward to seeing your results. -
#3263 by Star-Drive on 25 Nov, 2016 17:40
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M. -
#3264 by Rodal on 25 Nov, 2016 21:04
-
...
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
-
#3265 by SeeShells on 25 Nov, 2016 21:12
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.Quotebut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
-
#3266 by Star One on 25 Nov, 2016 21:21
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.Quotebut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
I am afraid that the reputation pre-existing on the EM drive may have counted against it here. -
#3267 by Rodal on 25 Nov, 2016 21:22
-
...
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
It is good to know the real situation, as it shows the truth. Contrast this with articles about the EM Drive being tested in the X-37B without any evidence or justification (why use something as valuable as the X-37B which has other purposes
)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
and people that post about Boeing going "dark" with the Shawyer project, when the evidence (and the people at Boeing) points otherwise, as to what really happened.
Wonder whether Cannae will really test theirs into Space (hopefully soon), and whether they will make the information available real time...
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/ -
#3268 by zellerium on 25 Nov, 2016 22:22
-
...
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?
HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.
The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:
1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.
2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
I'm using the newest version of ANSYS HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd.
I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output -
#3269 by Bob Woods on 25 Nov, 2016 22:51
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research. -
#3270 by ChrisWilson68 on 25 Nov, 2016 22:58
-
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
That's not a realistic view of the situation. Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.
First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money. To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk. To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive. To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.
Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway. So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests. So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.
You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
-
#3271 by OnlyMe on 25 Nov, 2016 23:01
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?
It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.
With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.
Shell
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.Quotebut none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.
Shell
Shell,
The whole warp drive issue was/is a long shot, way out on the boundaries of the edges of the known..., but the word phrase association with popular sci-fi TV, you know "... to boldly go where no man has gone before." would be enough to give it some popular public support for a small budget. It is a publicly romantic concept.
As soon as you start in with the EmDrive, which at least at present does not look like a path to warp drives and "beam me up Scotty" technologies, you begin to step aside, from the romanticized public support of all but the hard core readers of discussion groups like this.., and risk attaching your name and taxpayer monies to research that may not enjoy the same level of public tolerance, especially in the current economic environment.
Start pumping out some data, run a self contained drive on a magnetic or air bearing turn table up to a credible momentum.., post pictures of the hole in your ceiling caused by the new piece of space junk NASA just started having to track, and institutional and public funding will begin to take on a different attitude.
IOW as you say, "all data is good data".... but a hole in your roof and a report of a flyby from the ISS, would be a whole new ball game.
It is one thing for NASA to quietly fund cutting edge research, of low percentage concepts, because there is always that small chance that something will come of it.., until the public exposure reaches a level where it is no longer a quite process and the the prospects of useable results appear to be an undefined number of years in the future rather, a clearly established timetable.
While it does not appear anyone has yet demonstrated thrust levels that would excite the average "Joe" on the street or in congress, public exposure already has or is very near headline status, of research that has not yet matured sufficiently to justify, the budgets it needs and deserves, in the minds of the average taxpayer.., think about it, how much has the public awareness of the Eagleworks lab, warp drive research and EmDrives grown in the last couple of years? We don't have a Carl Sagan today, who can reach the public the way he did so well in the past, and the few popular figures who might have taken his place today seem to have chosen or been seduced by roles of celebrity....
So we all must just wait for data.............., hint, hint, hint. We don't even need a flying drone, a self contained remote controlled model boat, powered by an EmDrive would be enough. Think cargo ships whose primary power is a pebble-bed reactor and a series of EmDrives. -
#3272 by ChrisWilson68 on 25 Nov, 2016 23:08
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
-
#3273 by Star One on 25 Nov, 2016 23:32
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
If we are going to talk about pure utility the argument could be made that throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money down the black hole that is the National Ignition Facility, something that is probably never going to produce a useful form of Nuclear Fusion isn't the best of investments. -
#3274 by rfmwguy on 25 Nov, 2016 23:46
-
The advanced propulsion initiative within NASA seems like it's been gun-shy ever since the millions spent at GRC with Millis' group."...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
If we are going to talk about pure utility the argument could be made that throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money down the black hole that is the National Ignition Facility, something that is probably never going to produce a useful form of Nuclear Fusion isn't the best of investments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program
JPL has branched into earth science and what remains appears to be mission control and conventional propulsion. Something this new is probably best in the private sector. However...
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html -
#3275 by rq3 on 26 Nov, 2016 00:22
-
...
Shell:
From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program. The civil-servant outfit Dr. White works for, NASA/JSC/EP4 used free-to-them JSC division's civil-servant's part-time labor when needed, or civil-servant/college sponsored student co-op help during the first ~3 years of the lab's existence to help with the EW lab buildup and calibration. They re-hired me in May 2011 from a layoff status that started back in December 2010 when I got laid off from the Orion project, as only a part-time, temporary employee with NO benefits with just enough $$ in the EW pot to cover my base NASA 40 hr/wk contractor salary for the first three years, and then less as my time was scaled back down to ~24 hours per week max for the last ~18 months I worked at the EW. And I was also expected to buy small parts out of my own cash reserves as well, so you do the math. It appears that most managers at JSC wanted what the EM-drive thruster technology could provide them, but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development. However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.
Best, Paul M.
It is good to know the real situation, as it shows the truth. Contrast this with articles about the EM Drive being tested in the X-37B without any evidence or justification (why use something as valuable as the X-37B which has other purposes )
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test-futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289
and people that post about Boeing going "dark" with the Shawyer project, when the evidence (and the people at Boeing) points otherwise, as to what really happened.
Wonder whether Cannae will really test theirs into Space (hopefully soon), and whether they will make the information available real time...
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
Dr. Rodal, you're out of the loop. The Vulcans arrive 15 minutes after the Cannae cube-sat is activated.
-
#3276 by InterestedEngineer on 26 Nov, 2016 00:53
-
...snip...
The doorway to a levitator is again open.
YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.
Phil
Since by GR in the frame of the frustum it can't tell the difference between actual acceleration or being in a gravity field, shouldn't you experience the drop in Q if you try to accelerate in the same axis as earth's gravity?
Seems to me to be a good test of whether it's something acting on an external entity (QV vacuum, Rindler horizons, what have you) versus Shawyer's theory: Just change the axis of thrust in relation to the earth's gravity. If there is an acceleration related behavior per Shawyer then you would see a drop in Q in the vertical axis and not in the horizontal axis. All without the complexity of having to have actual movement. (assuming you could keep everything else the same of course).
-
#3277 by Bob Woods on 26 Nov, 2016 01:26
-
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.
Dave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html
I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from.
Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained. -
#3278 by InterestedEngineer on 26 Nov, 2016 01:30
-
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view
See what you think?
As a former test engineer at a test and measurement company, I find the measurement and statistics comments to be pretty good feedback. Can't speak to the RF or mechanical side of things at all.
If there is access to the raw data for the graphs, I'd be happy to try and calculate some of the items they are requesting. (e.g. the time ticks issue, "Don't "see", compute the correlations between your data and the model to prove it.")
Given your time, budget, an political constraints it's good start. Thanks! -
#3279 by OnlyMe on 26 Nov, 2016 01:31
-
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.
When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.
The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.
The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.
True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
)