-
#80
by
Star One
on 27 Aug, 2016 09:25
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). 
Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Hooray at long last. Thank you for that news. I wonder how long this news will take to spread wider online.
-
#81
by
bmcgaffey20
on 27 Aug, 2016 13:16
-
With this peer reviewed success, we should be putting more projects like cannae in the sky soon no??? Onward and outward or what???
-
#82
by
ThereIWas3
on 27 Aug, 2016 13:36
-
If the effect is finally accepted as real, even if just 1mN/kW, then a lot more researchers will start digging around the edges, trying to increase efficiency.
That is, provided the Eagleworks paper provides enough detailed information so that others can replicate the experiment.
-
#83
by
francesco nicoli
on 27 Aug, 2016 14:04
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
-
#84
by
Star One
on 27 Aug, 2016 14:20
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
I am not sure if it's diplomatic for you to ask that.
-
#85
by
Mezzenile
on 27 Aug, 2016 15:09
-
The paris are open to guess which items are covered in the new test report/paper of Eagleworks
:
1 - Emdrive effect shown to exist in vacuum condition.
2 - Emdrive thrust measured for a superconductive cavity.
3 - Emdrive effect shown to exist for a configuration which includes the power supply of the microwave generator.
4 - Emdrive thrust investigated for various RF input power and various electro-magnetic modes configurations.
5 - Emdrive thrust shown to exist in free fall condition (no acceleration).
6 - Statement that no Emdrive effect could be detected in a clean vacuum environment.
-
#86
by
jstepp590
on 27 Aug, 2016 15:30
-
Uh actually I was not debating anything.
It's a rough crowd here. Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors. The first one to do so wins. They do like debating tho!
Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Most of the designs here are closed cavities. No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.
For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device. Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.
I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey. Thanks for posting.
Sure no problem, drill sergeants took care of any sniveling I had a long time ago so my feelings are not so easily hurt. I love to argue as well, if I am qualified to, which on these subjects I am not. I am an IT contractor, not an engineer or physicist. I have given money to Shell and do what I can to help because space has always been my dream. If anyone building these in Albany NY would like a motivated assistant to help them do their build I am absolutely jumping up in the air waving my hands!
I just really love learning new things, which I have here almost every day.
I simply wanted to make sure that people saw the article so that we were not missing anything. I do not fully understand the explanation of it given in an article I read, about photons pairing and leaving the frustum as an exhaust that they had to use an interferometer to detect. I will let others here that are qualified decide the value of the article.
BTW, congratulation to the Nasa Eagleworks team on their peer review!!! The detected thrust is nowhere near what the original EMDrive claims were, but if the effect is real then I have every confidence that some of these intellectual heroes will find ways to maximize the effect.
Back to lurking...
-
#87
by
dustinthewind
on 27 Aug, 2016 15:50
-
Considering anti-matter in the Quantum Vacuum and the possibility its presence may slow down time and then paralleling it to the Polarizable vacuum theory where when time slows down things become more massive as the QV decreases in energy. Condensed negative energy in a positive energy region?
Now consider that charging a capacitor may polarize the Quantum Vacuum and that the negative side of the capacitor would attract positive protons and positive electrons but the protons are more massive. The reverse for the positive side of a capacitor. They may induce a gradient of energy density in the QV which changes the mass of light or associated charges but the question is what magnitude.
The thought occurred to me, "what if due to the shape of the frustum and the changing magnetic field inside caused free electrons to be pushed to one side of the cavity making the cavity some what of a capacitor. The question being what if we purposely separated charge between the back and front of the frustum or a cylinder. With repeated reflections of light inside and some changing mass of said light was induced.
In the least it introduces another parameter to test that could possibly have an influence on the magnitude of thrust if there is any. How it might be done is using a TE mode so that current follows a circular path. Put a dielectric ring between the two sides of the cavity maybe making 3 sections - top, mid and bottom and separate charge between the top and bottom. There should still be plenty of free charge to reflect light in the two sides of the cavity so that isn't an issue.
Any thoughts on the matter? Could we test it as a parameter?
Now that I think of it, it may be difficult to set up any electric field inside the cavity as the cavity tends to shield everything inside.
-
#88
by
chucknorris101
on 27 Aug, 2016 19:03
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
-
#89
by
Star One
on 27 Aug, 2016 19:36
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
-
#90
by
Gilbertdrive
on 27 Aug, 2016 19:43
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results
-
#91
by
bmcgaffey20
on 27 Aug, 2016 20:14
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even. Orrrrrr..... they've discovered something, and they just don't know everything about it and need more money and more experiments in order to fully discover its potential. Doesn't mean the door has to be closed though, so we just don't know yet.
P.S. I think the leak happened right here. Just sayin'.
#popcorn
-
#92
by
Star One
on 27 Aug, 2016 20:21
-
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?
Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.
Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results
But even positive results would be no good if it didn't bring any funding.
-
#93
by
Bob Woods
on 27 Aug, 2016 23:39
-
So after, what, 17 months, 8 threads and 3.5 million+ folks reading here I guess we all have to wait a while longer
Anybody want to opine how long before the paper is released, since I have no idea? Are we talking another month or two?
-
#94
by
Chrochne
on 28 Aug, 2016 09:27
-
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published. I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail). Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Thank you for the news Dr. Rodal. Whatever the results are, lets hope it will also help to decrease that war between supporters of this device (like me I know...)and the critics.
Dr. Rodal any idea if Paul March still visits this forum? Can he tell us which journal it will be published in?
-
#95
by
Slyver
on 28 Aug, 2016 09:35
-
While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even.
If they show compelling evidence of any force greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket without discernible reaction mass, it could be enough force to shatter the earth (It would be earth shattering). What it is capable of lifting at our current tech level is far down the list of what is important.
-
#96
by
TheTraveller
on 28 Aug, 2016 11:14
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com2016 is such an interesting year for the EmDrive.
-
#97
by
Chrochne
on 28 Aug, 2016 11:37
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
-
#98
by
TheTraveller
on 28 Aug, 2016 11:41
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
The attached will explain.
I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward, more papers will be shared.
-
#99
by
Chrochne
on 28 Aug, 2016 16:21
-
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com
Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.
It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
The attached will explain.
I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward, more papers will be shared.
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations
Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
I just really love learning new things, which I have here almost every day.