-
#720 by Star One on 19 Sep, 2016 12:02
-
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
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...
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result. Forgot his name.. need to look it up
I kind of half expected another paper from Tajmar by now, what with his declaration of continued testing? -
#721 by Tellmeagain on 19 Sep, 2016 12:14
-
If I remember correctly, it was Mulletron
There are several.
BTW, there are two "Paul"'s. one is Paul March, another is the South Africa High school student who won an South African competition. -
#722 by JaimeZX on 19 Sep, 2016 13:17
-
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.
Careful, Phil. I took a TON of ehm.... "flack" on this forum for suggesting such a thing a few months ago.
-
#723 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 13:22
-
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.
Careful, Phil. I took a TON of ehm.... "flack" on this forum for suggesting such a thing a few months ago.
suggesting is one thing, knowing is another...
I have no problem with speculative rumors as long they're not presented as "the truth" and it remains VERY clear that they're ONLY rumors, nothing more.
-
#724 by SeeShells on 19 Sep, 2016 13:42
-
I'll be leaving in a bit to attend the Advanced Propulsion Workshop and will not be posting next week.
Before I go I need to clarify just what it means to advance this idea of electromagnetic propulsion. First and foremost data is king. Innuendos, hearsay or boasts do nothing to get us to the stars.
"To the stars". Some will take that that this drive works and some will understand what it means. Long after we're gone the only thing that will survive is the solid data we gather. Innuendos, hearsay or boasts will fade into history, but if we do it right we may have a small chance. This drive may not be the path we need to take, the jury is still out and the only way, the only way to know for sure is doing the finest, repeatable engineering that can be done. Everything else is just hot air and nobody gains and this goes for both radical sides of the fence of believers and deniers.
I dearly want our children to have the stars and it HAS to be done right, otherwise this first small step can turn out to be a stumble. If the drive is not what some claim, we pick up the pieces and do something else. If it's real, then we lay the foundations for our children and their children. Either way, we still are laying foundations. Simple as that.
My Best,
Shell
PS: Off to do a Vulcan mind meld with everyone I meet this week... we'll see how that goes.
-
#725 by Tellmeagain on 19 Sep, 2016 14:09
-
...
If I remember correctly, it was Mulletron
Honesty also forces me to tell that we had a DIY tester inhere that had a null result. Forgot his name.. need to look it up
Also Emmett Brown and RFplumber (both on NASAspaceflight.com) got null results.
Emmet Brown test, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454408#msg1454408
also several pages of discussion after that.
RFplumber test, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546
"These are all present. Yet there is no thrust. Sorry."
-
#726 by rfmwguy on 19 Sep, 2016 15:12
-
Thank you for a nice summary and kudos. I would only modify it by saying I measured 18.4 mN of torsion beam displacement force on Gen II, but it was not repeatable/consistent. While this is well over what Mr Li would predict for Lorentz, his guidance on my build did lead me (and him) to consider Lorentz force to not be a factor, certainly shy of 18.4 mN. However, sporadic test results due to magnetron heating/drift/degradation limited me to state that 18.4 mN was the highest displacement force but its unsustainable. Gen III, when I get around to it, will be self-contained and solid state. Thanks.
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) -
#727 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 15:40
-
rfmwguy,
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated... -
#728 by Tellmeagain on 19 Sep, 2016 15:44
-
Thank you for a nice summary and kudos. I would only modify it by saying I measured 18.4 mN of torsion beam displacement force on Gen II, but it was not repeatable/consistent. While this is well over what Mr Li would predict for Lorentz, his guidance on my build did lead me (and him) to consider Lorentz force to not be a factor, certainly shy of 18.4 mN. However, sporadic test results due to magnetron heating/drift/degradation limited me to state that 18.4 mN was the highest displacement force but its unsustainable. Gen III, when I get around to it, will be self-contained and solid state. Thanks.
Thanks Rfmwguy. DC Lorentz force might not be a factor in your experiment. However, The best way to address that is to quantify it. I learned the lesson from crackpot_killer's criticism to my own experiment. An easy way to do that is to short the 3 leads at the magnetron's end to create a loop, run 500mA DC through the loop from the power supply side, and measure the force. -
#729 by Tellmeagain on 19 Sep, 2016 15:51
-
rfmwguy,
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated...
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result. -
#730 by A_M_Swallow on 19 Sep, 2016 16:36
-
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:
QuoteHi 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
This is not the first time that a US Defense company has approached a British company with two contracts - a big one and a little one. The little one transfers the propitiatory information, allowing it to be reverse engineered. The big contract disappears. (There are variations.) -
#731 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 17:09
-
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
I'm fine with an incomplete or hurried text/article, if it wasn't for inappropriate use of the word "trend".
That made me react, because it was clearly a biased way of formulating.
It was however the perfect excuse to stand up for neutrality in this bizarre case of a "propellantless engine", so I hold no grunge...
The point is how to weigh all these DIY results : there is a minority of tests that are most certainly negative and there is a majority of "possible positive".
Do the 100% null results count for more then the uncertainty of all the APPARENT positive tests? hard to judge... -
#732 by Tellmeagain on 19 Sep, 2016 17:19
-
That non-believer on reddit you referred to might be me. I post that post in a hurry and (cherry-) picked some facts, most were from memory, just to prevent the post from being deleted by the modulator. It suffered being not complete as a result.
I'm fine with an incomplete or hurried text/article, if it wasn't for inappropriate use of the word "trend".
That made me react, because it was clearly a biased way of formulating.
It was however the perfect excuse to stand up for neutrality in this bizarre case of a "propellantless engine", so I hold no grunge...
The point is how to weigh all these DIY results : there is a minority of tests that are most certainly negative and there is a majority of "possible positive".
Do the 100% null results count for more then the uncertainty of all the APPARENT positive tests? hard to judge...
"Trend" is about null results are more recent and positive tests are older. -
#733 by Mezzenile on 19 Sep, 2016 17:57
-
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)
Of course no firm conclusion can be drawn from a statistically non-significant result obtained from only one experiment. But things may become different when we are considering several experiments conducted on a similar subject and facing so, roughly, the same sources of uncertainties. If we could have at our disposition a Bayesian statistic model of the whole set of experiments, this would help us to interpret with an increased confidence the meaning of a set of individualy non-significant/weakly-significant results.
Bayesian analysis is a kind of meta-analysis in which you combine observed data with your prior belief about something and end up with a posterior belief. In short, it's a way to update your belief.
May be the Wikipedia definition will provide a better understanding :QuoteBayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
Now the difficulty would be to construct the common Bayesian model of all the experiments reported by TheTraveller !!
-
#734 by rfmwguy on 19 Sep, 2016 19:36
-
rfmwguy,
Yes, as I mentioned somewhere else, every presentation I've ever done to senior engineering managers or board of director types always involved a high confidence factor or it was never presented. EW has gone to extreme lengths to get that CF and I hope Paul's presentation goes well. I am sure it will, they took Mr Li's advice from his paper and doubled their efforts to resolve unwanted Lorentz forces.
The problem is that the lack of repeatability of your results and the apparent interference of other factors make it so that doubt remains... And a good science experiment needs proof beyond doubt, no?
I really do appreciate your public effort very much!!! Your epic journey almost got me in to building one myself, but as I"m seriously lacking on the electronics side, I thought it is wiser not to get started....
Anyway, we have to be careful not to see patterns where there are in fact none. As long there is doubt, the EMdrive should be denied recognition, however painful it might be. Simply because it's controversial nature : exceptional statements need exceptional proof.
I very much want this EM effect to be true, but not at the expense of truth...
In all honest, I'm growing tired of the cherry picking on both believers and non-believers of the EM effect...
Where is the honesty of presenting ALL results, not just those that fit their own point of view
I had an outburst like that too on reddit, on the cherry picking of a "non-believer". So yeah, I shoot on both sides because both sides excel in telling half-truths...
From my angle, there are enough intriguing results that warrant an in depth research in the EMdrive.
That is until it is entirely proven the results are false, OR, until a working model can be showed and replicated...
Its been a difficult journey, with many obstacles, but so far its been educational; both with technology and with human nature aka Egos. Guess I'm one of the few people who has experimented with the thing and even more rare, one who has been transparent. I'm not sure the science community is willing to embrace transparency; showing all the results (even the failures) as they occur. While I understand the commercial nature of that decision, some of it might just be insecurity. Me? Nothing to loose and if I helped others along the way, all the better.
Don't give up on building one yourself. Partner with someone with high voltage/RF experience and have some fun. Just be aware it can be dangerous if someone without experience tries to get involved without the proper help.
p.s. There are enough test stands out there that you could design and fabricate one, then let someone else power it up. -
#735 by Flyby on 19 Sep, 2016 19:38
-
What all we need is a calm, clear head, but above all, a few passionated engineers and a few brilliant minds that discuss theoretical possibilities.
Those last 2 elements are what sets the NSF forum apart from all other -pointless- bickering forums :
Without the regular feedback from the DIY people and the fascinating -hard to follow by times- theoretical contemplations, by dr.Rodal, dr Frasca, Todd Desiato, and others, This forum would quickly degrade in a meaningless brawl of pro and con EMdrive. It is the hardcore science inhere that makes this forum worthwhile following on an almost daily basis for me.
The least we can do, as bystanders, is attempting to preserve the climate of cooperation and respectful disagreement iow, guard the professionalism and not spoil it for those that do have a real contribution to make. -
#736 by rfmwguy on 19 Sep, 2016 19:56
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
-
#737 by Monomorphic on 19 Sep, 2016 21:29
-
New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
I was in Estes Park yesterday. Stopped by The Stanley and asked if the conference was being held there. Turns out it is being held at the YMCA. Unfortunately I had to fly back today and couldn't change my schedule to attend. Doh! -
#738 by rfmwguy on 20 Sep, 2016 00:11
-
Not to fear...there is an emdrive hardware expo in the works...will keep people advised once it shapes up more than general chatter. Seems like the organizers will be insisting on proof of a legitimate design/build/test, which is probably a good thing. Not going to be a centauri deams type of thing from what I gather. An interesting year ahead for all of us I suspect...Locale? East Coast.New EmDrive article on conference: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-controversial-space-propulsion-will-be-discussed-by-scientists-actual-conference-1582115
I was in Estes Park yesterday. Stopped by The Stanley and asked if the conference was being held there. Turns out it is being held at the YMCA. Unfortunately I had to fly back today and couldn't change my schedule to attend. Doh! -
#739 by LowerAtmosphere on 20 Sep, 2016 00:20
-
Hello All,
My previous post regarding a complete cavity computer simulation using a sort of deterministic Heim/Broglie-Bohm theory interpretation of the drive was not very popular. This is understandable. Regardless, at this critical stage of the development we need to discuss the key practical factors which would move the drive from the region of skepticism into reality. For this we need a "high" thrust frustum which goes beyond simple modifications of material or EM source.
I have been hard at work brainstorming possible improvements to maximize the thrust of the cavity. My latest preferred idea on a high Q thruster is based on the wave-cancelling theory of propulsion shared by our Finnish friend Dr. Kolehmainen. I also appreciate the more prevalent spacetime warp theory as being an additional factor in thrust creation as this has been extensively discussed in previous papers and has solid theoretical support.
The idea: A lattice of quantumly entangled photons in an easily permissive pseudo-metallic structure, or maybe some sort of metallic electromagnetic conductors to channel photon cloud movements. This structure would also have a cooling consideration as entanglement and heat don't like to mix - there are potential Infra absorbents for the outsides which could be used including Aerogel. Introduction of microwave EM, or alternatively injection of high energy pulse lasers would be most efficient as fuel (note here theoretical discussion of high energy pulse lasers on creating negative energy densities). The entanglement and channeling of photons would amplify the tunneling effects per the QV theory and also ensure more destructive interference per the prevailing wave-cancelling theory.
It is also possible to combine this with an open cone cavity as shown before. The open cone cavity could provide equivalent propulsion, and perhaps bonus collimated photon propulsion, with resonance still occurring if the walls on the sides of the cone provide deflection back towards the narrow end, or if there is an unusual (Cannae style) geometry. The channeling of photons within the metallic lattice is simply an abstraction of the existing "loop" designs. The entanglement is arguably the most important aspect of this advanced experimental design as multiple groups could be "merged" continuously to provide the destructive cancellation (here we could also envision two opposing EM injection points?).
If this sounds too complex and fantastic for you then let me summarize and add this key takeaway: Q may represent resonance, but resonance does not necessarily imply thrust. For thrust to occur, most theories rely on the energy density (read: imbalance) of the electromagnetic fields. The best route to improve thrust then is focusing on internal geometries, especially focusing on photon channeling for the maximum density of the photon clouds. In other words the frustum should not be empty just for the sake of better resonance, as others have noted.
