-
#700 by Rodal on 18 Sep, 2016 18:00
-
The future is unpredictable. But we know from the past that the birth of the Space Age may be said to have begun when engineers and applied scientists in the 1920's and 1930's formed Rocket Societies: groups of people who associated for a common purpose: the conquest of Space.
Generally, the Rocket Societies hoped that technical solutions would fall into place. The early Rocket Society members were the most optimistic, perhaps you could call them naive, men and women.
The Germans, American and Russian Rocket Society groups developed the first static test stands for testing rocket engine performance. They developed cooling methods for long duration rocket engines: the regenerative method in which the liquid fuel is circulated around the rocket engine prior to entering the combustion chamber. The members of the Rocket Societies gained experience in handling liquid oxygen, how to utilize superlight-superstrength materials for rocket combustion engines, and the development of pumps.
The Soviet Gas Dynamic Lab produced and tested an electric rocket motor in 1929 (!), a rocket which had such small thrust, that could only be used for space applications (not for military purposes). Goddard test ion propulsion with experiments in 1916-1917.
See:
Prelude to the Space Age: The Rocket Societies, 1924-1940
It is in the public domain here:
https://archive.org/stream/preludetospaceag00wint#page/n15/mode/2up
An article in the New York Times on January 13, 1920 stated:QuoteThat Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
Later, the NYT retracted this: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/new-york-times-nasa-youre-right-rockets-do-work-space
To go from the rocket societies of the 1920's to the reality of the Space Age in the 1960's it took 40 years of some of the fastest and most revolutionary development witnessed by humanity, a great deal of it accelerated by defensive needs due to WWII and the Cold War.
When will the dreams of space breathrough propulsion become reality? Impossible to predict. But the inability to predict the future did not deter groups of optimistic men and women back in the 1920's and the dream to make it happen will persist, because that is the nature of mankind: to look into and explore the unknown.
-
#701 by TheTraveller on 18 Sep, 2016 18:04
-
If the EmDrive didn't work, Boeing had 2 years of hands on time to find that out. I highly doubt Boeing would have awarded SPR a contract to build & supply the Flight Thruster if Boeing was not 100% certain that both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives worked as claimed.
No offense meant here TT, but Boeing has gone on the record for denying continued involvement with SPR, which immediately pits their word against Shawyer's (through you). What all of us still lack is evidence that's stronger than the posts you've made to this forum. This is also true of Seashells; we've placed varyingly large amounts of trust in both of you that you're not just pulling our collective legs, because at this point, we still have not seen experimental demonstrations to cite.
Boeing made that statement shortly after Prof Yang stated Roger had assisted her. It is my understanding they were a bit upset with Roger. I believe what was stated was “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says.
Have never read Boeing stating the Flight Thruster did not work.
BTW the dates and events I quoted are public knowledge. -
#702 by SeeShells on 18 Sep, 2016 18:29
-
You're correct, although all I ask is this requires some faith on my capabilities as a engineer and builder.
I've posted pictures of my lab, test stand builds, drives, electronics and detailed out the directions I'm taking in my testing and why. The one time I was open on the first powered tests last December when saw a thrust anomaly I faced a month of heat. Critical that I didn't do it this way or that way. It wasn't nice, nothing was gained. I Figured out it's not good science to provide cannon fodder for either side of the debate before your done. When I have assured myself I've met my own engineering standards and even many critics by providing the best I data and build I can, then will I release it. This project deserves it, no it demands it.
Dr. Rodal has done something and has some test data he and Heidi Fern have worked to get, should we have demanded he openly share his preliminary testing and data? Or EagleWorks (we know why they have elected to be quiet) to share all of theirs as they test? I'm aware of several tests going on that they have elected not to post or publish anything because of the sensitive nature of this.
Openness has its pitfalls. That said I try to be as open and as helpful as I can without adding gas to the fires on either side.
My Best,
Shell
Added: I'm sorry I can't scratch your itch for more right now.
Sorry for putting you on the spot like that. Honestly, I should be a lot more fair. You and Dave have both shown your apparatuses, as has Dr. Tajmir, and both Dave and Tajmir (among a few others) have shown their data and seem to replicate some of Eagleworks' data in whole or in part, though ambiguities remain - and those ambiguities are the bane of our collective existence. I have faith that you're doing your best to be honest and truthful with your experiments and data; you wouldn't be attending that propulsion conference to discuss your results otherwise!
It's ok, I very much appreciate your honesty.
I'm looking forward to this advanced propulsion workshop next week. Since I'm "poking a stick" at almost every theory out there it will be good to have all the players in one room and be able to fine tune my tests after all is said and done.
My Best,
Shell -
#703 by meberbs on 18 Sep, 2016 18:54
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
...
The next step is waiting for more data, either the EW paper in December, or a much promised rotary demo.
While it may seem pessimistic to some here, I doubt the EW paper will be the conclusive data people hope for, it will likely continue the trend of thrust being too close to the level of the noise or potential error sources to be definitive. I also for a variety of reasons sincerely doubt that the rotary demo will come to fruition.
One of the problems with ideas like this is that they should be relatively simple to show if true, but very difficult to completely disprove. Disproving it would require basically a setup with all error sources accounted for sensitive enough to measure the thrust from thermal radiation, while being able to show that it was in resonance with a reasonable Q. Under these circumstances, the longer this goes with the existing pattern the more likely this is all just a wild goose chase.
I am still watching, since I wish that this would work, but that is more consideration than most scientists would give at this point, and that is quite reasonable of them. Despite the huge promise of such a technology, the lack of any significant investments in it is an indication of the very, very tiny chance that it works when you consider all of the prior knowledge from all of the science done before this. -
#704 by Star One on 18 Sep, 2016 19:29
-
Please forgive the layperson ignorance of my question - this is definitely a thread where I can offer no input, but one I find extremely fascinating.
That said, my question is, with all the tremendous potential and anticipation, and with powerful statements like, "this will change everything - will change the world - will disrupt human destiny and lead us into the stars" (<- I'm paraphrasing a bit here). But with all this, what exactly is the next step?
...
The next step is waiting for more data, either the EW paper in December, or a much promised rotary demo.
While it may seem pessimistic to some here, I doubt the EW paper will be the conclusive data people hope for, it will likely continue the trend of thrust being too close to the level of the noise or potential error sources to be definitive. I also for a variety of reasons sincerely doubt that the rotary demo will come to fruition.
One of the problems with ideas like this is that they should be relatively simple to show if true, but very difficult to completely disprove. Disproving it would require basically a setup with all error sources accounted for sensitive enough to measure the thrust from thermal radiation, while being able to show that it was in resonance with a reasonable Q. Under these circumstances, the longer this goes with the existing pattern the more likely this is all just a wild goose chase.
I am still watching, since I wish that this would work, but that is more consideration than most scientists would give at this point, and that is quite reasonable of them. Despite the huge promise of such a technology, the lack of any significant investments in it is an indication of the very, very tiny chance that it works when you consider all of the prior knowledge from all of the science done before this.
And now you're going to far in the other direction, in spite of what you said in your first paragraph.
Is it impossible for people to not immediately slide to one side or the other in this business.
Yes I am sceptic to a degree but it seems like a lot of people either leap straight on the EM drive bandwagon or it will never work bandwagon without actually waiting for any actual data.
By the way if I see yet another person predicting what the EW paper is going to say or not say....!!! -
#705 by chucknorris101 on 18 Sep, 2016 22:06
-
I'm sure someone has said this before but to reiterate, most people including myself are frustrated with TT because its a constant 'trust me' and 'I have all the answers but I can't share them which for any theoretical prospect typically does more harm than good at this stage.
I won't try to restrict you, TT, but it might be best for everyone's sanity if doubters are ignored or otherwise addressed with facts that can be shared and have been verified (no the rotary demos and previously published papers are not facts, no matter how many times they get posted over and over again). I want to believe there is something to this but if i see that @!&$ slide or graph one more time as verified proof I will have an aneurysm. These facts may need to wait for peer reviewed papers to be released. Its fine for doubters to exist, they don't impact whether or not the effect exists. Shells seems to have the right approach in not wanting to talk about it much at all until its completed.
And science definitely takes time, it sounds like SeeShells has torn down and is rebuilding her entire rig to make sure the data she does have is legitimate. (And while I give that it is a private company, we havent seen near anything like this from Shawyer, just repeated statements to trust) which is the best thing to do.
Right now all we can have faith in is Shells' and other (non-Shawyer since he cant share anything) experimenters integrity, which so far we have no reason to doubt. -
#706 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 09:09
-
Ah, Carl Sagan and his series "Cosmos"...
Yes, skepticism is healthy and a vital part of the scientific method !
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
In 1999, Skeptical Inquirer magazine named their top ten and other notable skeptics of the 20th Century.
....
Carl Sagan
.....
Brings back good memories : I recall, as an adolescent, being immensely fascinated by those tv-serie.
I still recall the scene where he walks through a (scale) model of the library of Alexandria.
It was really the first time that science was brought in an understandable way for a wider public.
Maybe I don't do him justice enough (for his other work), but personally, I'd consider the popularization of science as his most important achievement.
Now, many years later and with hindsight, i can say that, he, as no one else, understood the importance and the need to get a wider involvement of the public. To help people understand the importance of science and to find the right marketing strategy for science...
I don't have many hero's.. but... he comes close...
-
#707 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 09:11
-
It would appear Roger is moving to set the record straight on the Boeing Flight Thruster saga as the just received email from Roger states:Quote
Hi Phil
I notice that there has been some discussion on the NSF forum about the Boeing EmDrive connection.
I have been invited to do a filmed interview by a media organisation next week, covering my side of the EmDrive story. The interview will be done with an agreed script, as the topic is regarded as sensitive by those organisations that matter on both sides of the pond.
However the Boeing story is well documented, and these documents will be released into the public domain in due course. My comments on Boeing in the interview will be as the script notes below:
We were then invited by Boeing to take part in a technology transfer, which was carried out under a Technology Assistance Agreement (TAA) set up by the US State Department. Boeing offered a small contract payment, to be followed by a lucrative licence agreement. The UK MoD agreed to an export licence, and we designed, built and tested a Flight Thruster for use on a test satellite. The thruster gave 18 grams of thrust.
All design data was transferred to Boeing and the contract was completed by July 2010. We waited for them to sign the licence agreement, which had been prepared by Boeing’s lawyers and agreed by SPR. However, once the test data was confirmed, it all suddenly went quiet and we have heard no more from Boeing since then.
Feel free to share the above.
Best regards,
Roger -
#708 by Star One on 19 Sep, 2016 09:25
-
Well that can be read either way. Either the way Boeing have put it in the public domain that they ended their interest as there was nothing in the technology. Or the alternative version is that they didn't end their interest but didn't want their continued interest known publicly for whatever reason.
Does this actually get us any further forward though, because this has always been the two alternative narratives when it comes to this particular topic? -
#709 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 09:34
-
Well that can be read either way. Either the way Boeing have put it in the public domain that they ended their interest as there was nothing in the technology. Or the alternative version is that they didn't end their interest but didn't want their continued interest known publicly for whatever reason.
Does this actually get us any further forward though, because this has always been the two alternative narratives when it comes to this particular topic?
You have Roger stating Boeing confirmed the thrust before they turned out the lights.
There is more to come. This story is not yet fully told. There is more to be revealed in the interview.
Just sent to Roger:QuoteRoger,
As you are opening this up to public debate, can you supply EW with a Flight Thruster?
If not, what about just the specs and they will build it.
For sure they have the Rf system to drive it and do freq tracking.
Please consider doing this.
Best regards,
Phil -
#710 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 09:42
-
Hmmm.... I think we should stay clear from drawing conclusions based upon such (commercial) deals.
There is often more at play than pure functional issues. We simply do not have enough information what really happened...
Are there smokescreen? and who puts them up? with what agenda? who tells half-truths? and is a half-truth a lie?...all hard to say...
Restructuring, budget cuts, personal internal conflicts, etc.. there is so much that can go wrong in a large multinational environment that a failed deal does not automatically mean a technology is a failure...
It is more satisfying to know that Roger Shawyer is actively reading comments inhere and is prepared to occasionally comment, be it it through the "hand" of TT .
I can understand his reluctance to directly communicate, as one should not underestimate the needless hostility that some people manifest.
added:
18gf... that is ALOT...
wished we could see that confirmed in other ways then from cryptic, stylized graphs. -
#711 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 09:46
-
Hmmm.... I think we should stay clear from drawing conclusions based upon such (commercial) deals.
There is often more at play than pure functional issues. We simply do not have enough information what really happened...
Are there smokescreen? and who puts them up? with what agenda? who tells half-truths? and is a half-truth a lie?...all hard to say...
Restructuring, budget cuts, personal internal conflicts, etc.. there is so much that can go wrong in a large multinational environment that a failed deal does not automatically mean a technology is a failure...
It is more satisfying to know that Roger Shawyer is actively reading comments inhere and is prepared to occasionally comment, be it it through the "hand" of TT .
I can understand his reluctance to directly communicate, as one should not underestimate the needless hostility that some people manifest.
Point being Roger has upped the stakes and has for the 1st time publically stated Boeing took delivery and confirmed the thrust.
Yes what happened after the thrust confirmation event may have other factors in play but that does not reduce what Roger has publically stated about Boeing confirming the 18 grams of Flight Thruster thrust. -
#712 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 10:04
-
BTW I have offered my spherical end plate frustum design to EW for their consideration as their next build.
It should generate Flight Thruster like performance but at the 2.45GHz their existing Rf system can drive.
-
#713 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 10:11
-
....
Yes what happened after the thrust confirmation event may have other factors in play but that does not reduce what Roger has publically stated about Boeing confirming the 18 grams of Flight Thruster thrust.
Sure, but that brings us back to the wise words of Francesco Nicoli :Quotebut only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.No surprise he isn't on that panel.
The fact that Roger Shawyer says that Boeing confirmed it is simply not enough as evidence that it works. Words have no scientific meaning... experiments and their data however DO...
So, what is needed to convince me and soooo many others here on this forum, is footage and data of a working 18gf device.
Why should we believe R.Shawyer on his word on something so controversial as the EMdrive (that is in APPARENT conflict of CoM) ?
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
-
#714 by Gilbertdrive on 19 Sep, 2016 10:34
-
AFAIK,
Shawyer has:
- NO valid theory
- NO publicly verifiable & falsifiable experimental results
but only claims. SO, everything boils down NOT to Science, but to FAITH in the man who makes the claim.
No surprise he isn't on that panel.
---
Besides, honestly, i think this behaviour is rather stupid.
IF EM drive works for real, but someone else develops the theory or shares the conclusive results first, hw won't get any merit for it: it will be someone else's name that goes through history (more precisely, the name of the person who does the first public & accepted demostrations, along with the names of those publishing the precise theoretical explanation of what's happening in the drive).
IF EM drive doesn't work, everybody will call him a scammer even if that wasn't his purpose to begin with.
From any point of view, it's a very suboptimal line of action. With his behaviour, Shawyer is locking himself out of the benefits its invention may produce either way.
If the emdrive appears to work, I hope that the name of the person that has discovered the phenomenon (I am not sure it was Shawyer, it seems there were other experiments before) will be remembered. No only the name of the scientist that made the right theory. Of course, the person who will provide a correct theory, maybe a general theory comparable with GR, maybe a theory that explain the cosmological data, will merit his name to be known, as Einstein, Plank, Feynman, etc.
But the person who made the physical invention still merit to be known. We still remember Ampere, Faraday, Volta, despite they have no explanation of the phenomenon. They did not knew the electron.
The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
-
#715 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 10:39
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes? -
#716 by Gilbertdrive on 19 Sep, 2016 10:41
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work. -
#717 by TheTraveller on 19 Sep, 2016 10:44
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work.
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black. -
#718 by Gilbertdrive on 19 Sep, 2016 11:16
-
Is that denial? nope , that is skepticism...
I'll welcome the EMdrive with open arms (damn! it would spark such an enormous revolution!), when there is more evidence for it then "hear say"and fancy graphs...
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
You should remove Yang form the list. She nullified her previous work.
Her results have been verified in another Chinese lab. There is a lot more to that story, like the Boeing story that is yet to be told. I'm informed she has not retired and is engaged in cryo EmDrive work. Seems Boeing/US is not the only country to take it's EmDrive work black.
Since she published the nullification with peer-review, and the other information are not published, I maintain that she should not be in the list, we should wait she publy something else.
That is not an attack against the emdrive, just a try to be accurate
-
#719 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 11:46
-
Let's go over the list in "scientific/skeptical modus" ?
I know people that have read the EW paper and they tell me it works.
Shall I discount what they tell me until I read the paper myself?
I have measured thrust.
Dave has measured thrust.
Jamie has measured thrust.
Paul has measured thrust.
Shell has measured thrust.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Roger has measured thrust.
Yang has measured thrust.
Tajmar has measured thrust.
4 others have measured thrust
I'm in regular contact with them all.
Shall I discount what they show & tell because it is not in front of my eyes?
I have measured thrust.
Possible, that is indeed what you said, but we didn't see much recorded data inhere.
We have only your word...
Dave has measured thrust.
Dave deserves a huge credit for his openness and straightforward reporting.
Sadly, his reported results still hoover way to close to the "background noise" and spark too much debate whether or not there was a force
Jamie has measured thrust.
Possible. As far I know he is still the process of refining his setup and testing. Too early to make a conclusion yet
Paul has measured thrust.
Possible. That is indeed what Paul March said "and yet the thrust remains". We'll see when the peer review has been publish what the comments and remarks will be, before accepting this as proof.
Shell has measured thrust.
Possible. Shell did report "something", but could not back it up with data. Sadly , she got a lot of FLAK for it. I understand and respect her reluctance to release more info, before she feels confident enough in her testing setup.
Iulian has measured thrust.
Possible, but the setup was very crude and controversy around buoyancy/Lorentz forces remained a heated discussion point. He needed better results to mount above the background noise.
Roger has measured thrust.
Possible, but the posted video has some issues that need to be addressed. For the rest , we only have streamlined graphics, intended for pitching rather then data obtained directly from the experiment (Like Dave did)
Yang has measured thrust.
Yes? NO ? The mystery wrapping around Yang's result only get thicker by the day, invoking "black programs" etc to either discredit or validate (depending from the side you're taking it) her results.
I'm really not sure what to think about it. Is there deliberate disinformation? maybe, maybe not?
Tajmar has measured thrust.
hmmm.. NO...
dr.Tajmar said that it was inconclusive and that his initial testing warranted further, more in depth investigation. He did neither disprove nor validated the EMdrive...He needs more testing...
4 others have measured thrust
No info = no conclusion
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result.
Mulltron has NO thrust
Mulltron produced a very detailed test result that resulted in a NULL result.
Emmett Brown NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
RFplumber NULL test
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
What I observe, as most of the active readers on the NSF forum , is that we have a lot of potential and intriguing results that really need more in depth research. But there is no bull's-eye yet...
So touting all these tests as "EM victories" seems definitely premature...
It doesn't mean the EM effect can't be real, only that the evidence for it does not weigh heavy enough to be conclusive. I hope you understand the important nuance...
(edited for adding NULL result tests to the list)
