-
#2360 by TheTraveller on 07 Feb, 2017 18:30
-
Again, this seems rather disingenuous since I've already explained to you that I do not have any reason to believe that the emdrive.com domain is being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Interesting as there is only one other person, that I know of, that has publicly stated the site www.emdrive.com is not being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Have you also made this claim on Reddit?
BTW what does my name appearing on Paul March's list of DIY EmDrive experimenters have to do with NASA spending tax payer funds on Dr. White's (who is a NASA employee) PhD research project, which he called EagleWorks? -
#2361 by WhatAFeynDay on 07 Feb, 2017 18:45
-
Again, this seems rather disingenuous since I've already explained to you that I do not have any reason to believe that the emdrive.com domain is being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Interesting as there is only one other person, that I know of, that has publicly stated the site www.emdrive.com is not being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Have you also made this claim on Reddit?
BTW what does my name appearing on Paul March's list of DIY EmDrive experimenters have to do with NASA spending tax payer funds on Dr. White's (who is a NASA employee) PhD research project, which he called EagleWorks?
This is the part where you say I must be IslandPlaya so my posts should be discounted or ignored. I am not, nor does it make any difference from where these questions come from if they are valid questions.
Who is in control of the emdrive.com domain is very relevant here because it's the mechanism through which you have achieved much of your gravitas.
Enough gravitas that Paul March has included your claims in his presentations, presentations which are intended to relate research activity at Eagleworks, a NASA-affiliated research facility which my tax dollars, as minuscule as they might be, helped to fund.
Personally, though, I live very close to Cape Canaveral. I have been watching launches from the Cape since I was a small child. My uncle actually was part of an engineering team which developed battery monitoring hardware for Apollo vehicles, and we are always talking about the need to get more funding to NASA. That's why I am dubious of the fact that someone can make claims such as the claims you have made and have them included in a NASA-affiliated facility's work product, without ever having provided a single shred of evidence of those claims actually being real. That is very troubling to me, especially considering the fiscal scrutiny which NASA will surely face in the coming years.
I'll leave it at that, since I'm sure everyone else here is as tired of my complaints as I am of making them. -
#2362 by TheTraveller on 07 Feb, 2017 20:32
-
Again, this seems rather disingenuous since I've already explained to you that I do not have any reason to believe that the emdrive.com domain is being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Interesting as there is only one other person, that I know of, that has publicly stated the site www.emdrive.com is not being administered by Roger Shawyer.
Have you also made this claim on Reddit?
BTW what does my name appearing on Paul March's list of DIY EmDrive experimenters have to do with NASA spending tax payer funds on Dr. White's (who is a NASA employee) PhD research project, which he called EagleWorks?
This is the part where you say I must be IslandPlaya so my posts should be discounted or ignored. I am not, nor does it make any difference from where these questions come from if they are valid questions.
Who is in control of the emdrive.com domain is very relevant here because it's the mechanism through which you have achieved much of your gravitas.
Enough gravitas that Paul March has included your claims in his presentations, presentations which are intended to relate research activity at Eagleworks, a NASA-affiliated research facility which my tax dollars, as minuscule as they might be, helped to fund.
Personally, though, I live very close to Cape Canaveral. I have been watching launches from the Cape since I was a small child. My uncle actually was part of an engineering team which developed battery monitoring hardware for Apollo vehicles, and we are always talking about the need to get more funding to NASA. That's why I am dubious of the fact that someone can make claims such as the claims you have made and have them included in a NASA-affiliated facility's work product, without ever having provided a single shred of evidence of those claims actually being real. That is very troubling to me, especially considering the fiscal scrutiny which NASA will surely face in the coming years.
I'll leave it at that, since I'm sure everyone else here is as tired of my complaints as I am of making them.
You overestimate my involvement with EW, which has been:
1) Tried to broker a deal to get Roger assisting EW. Never happened. Don't know why. Roger did provide some of his unpublished research documentation to EW.
2) When Paul reported basically only thermal effects in the early EW vac work, I did a atmo vs vac analysis with my spreadsheet and found the vac resonance would go up approx 600kHz. Suggested to Paul to do a vac vs atmo S11 VNA scan. He was very surprised to find vac resonance was 660kHz higher. Which was outside the then phase lock loop freq adj capability. So Paul was correct and the early vac results were just thermal. Paul then applied "Kentucky Windage" to the phase lock loop system and achieved vac resonance. The in vac paper was the final result. So I guess you could blame me for being one of the enablers of the vac peer review paper.
3) Suggest to Paul that a lowest reflected power freq tracker would be much better than the phase lock loop. EW then build such a tracker and found it was a much better tracker of thruster freq.
For sure each of those involvements did cause EW to alter how they spent some of the money NASA had already allocated to Dr. White's PhD sandbox. I see all those interactions as being beneficial.
BTW why do you believe Roger is not in control of the www.emdrive.com web site? If not Roger, who do you believe is controlling it? -
#2363 by D_Dom on 07 Feb, 2017 20:59
-
Be excellent to each other and stay on topic. Read your text before posting, if it deviates from "Space Applications of EM Drive Developments" find another forum.
-
#2364 by WhatAFeynDay on 07 Feb, 2017 21:04
-
You overestimate my involvement with EW, which has been:
1) Tried to broker a deal to get Roger assisting EW. Never happened. Don't know why. Roger did provide some of his unpublished research documentation to EW.
Why are you acting as a middle man between Roger Shawyer and a NASA-affiliated research facility? By your very own assessment, you are very involved. Why?
Again, because of claims you have made, claims to have produced ~8mn of thrust from an emdrive you claim to have constructed. An emdrive which nobody has ever seen, and for which you have provided no dataset to verify even the slightest iota of its existence. It's absurd, frankly, that I even need to spell this out, but I do so for the benefit of anyone who has not been following along.
Are you employed by Roger Shawyer in a public relations capacity?2) When Paul reported basically only thermal effects in the early EW vac work, I did a atmo vs vac analysis with my spreadsheet and found the vac resonance would go up approx 600kHz. Suggested to Paul to do a vac vs atmo S11 VNA scan. He was very surprised to find vac resonance was 660kHz higher. Which was outside the then phase lock loop freq adj capability. So Paul was correct and the early vac results were just thermal. Paul then applied "Kentucky Windage" to the phase lock loop system and achieved vac resonance. The in vac paper was the final result. So I guess you could blame me for being one of the enablers of the vac peer review paper.
Is this 'Kentucky Windage' something like the 'microwave black magic' which you claim makes the emdrive defy known physics?3) Suggest to Paul that a lowest reflected power freq tracker would be much better than the phase lock loop. EW then build such a tracker and found it was a much better tracker of thruster freq.
For sure each of those involvements did cause EW to alter how they spent some of the money NASA had already allocated to Dr. White's PhD sandbox. I see all those interactions as being beneficial.
Again, your own words show a level of involvement which is very unusual. How many other NASA-affiliated research facilities do you imagine operate this way, via freelance engineers acting as middlemen to the IP's inventor?
Your involvement in Eagleworks' activities arises from your claims, claims which remain unsubstantiated.BTW why do you believe Roger is not in control of the www.emdrive.com web site? If not Roger, who do you believe is controlling it?
So you have no problem speculating about the numerous "black budget" reasons why several governments are covering up their own emdrive research initiatives, but you find it impossible tp believe that someone might squat a domain and pretend to be someone they are not? If Shawyer does control the domain, that still only makes its information as reputable as Shawyer's claims. In other words, so far not very reputable. -
#2365 by TheTraveller on 07 Feb, 2017 21:55
-
You overestimate my involvement with EW, which has been:
1) Tried to broker a deal to get Roger assisting EW. Never happened. Don't know why. Roger did provide some of his unpublished research documentation to EW.
Why are you acting as a middle man between Roger Shawyer and a NASA-affiliated research facility? By your very own assessment, you are very involved. Why?
Again, because of claims you have made, claims to have produced ~8mn of thrust from an emdrive you claim to have constructed. An emdrive which nobody has ever seen, and for which you have provided no dataset to verify even the slightest iota of its existence. It's absurd, frankly, that I even need to spell this out, but I do so for the benefit of anyone who has not been following along.
Are you employed by Roger Shawyer in a public relations capacity?2) When Paul reported basically only thermal effects in the early EW vac work, I did a atmo vs vac analysis with my spreadsheet and found the vac resonance would go up approx 600kHz. Suggested to Paul to do a vac vs atmo S11 VNA scan. He was very surprised to find vac resonance was 660kHz higher. Which was outside the then phase lock loop freq adj capability. So Paul was correct and the early vac results were just thermal. Paul then applied "Kentucky Windage" to the phase lock loop system and achieved vac resonance. The in vac paper was the final result. So I guess you could blame me for being one of the enablers of the vac peer review paper.
Is this 'Kentucky Windage' something like the 'microwave black magic' which you claim makes the emdrive defy known physics?3) Suggest to Paul that a lowest reflected power freq tracker would be much better than the phase lock loop. EW then build such a tracker and found it was a much better tracker of thruster freq.
For sure each of those involvements did cause EW to alter how they spent some of the money NASA had already allocated to Dr. White's PhD sandbox. I see all those interactions as being beneficial.
Again, your own words show a level of involvement which is very unusual. How many other NASA-affiliated research facilities do you imagine operate this way, via freelance engineers acting as middlemen to the IP's inventor?
Your involvement in Eagleworks' activities arises from your claims, claims which remain unsubstantiated.BTW why do you believe Roger is not in control of the www.emdrive.com web site? If not Roger, who do you believe is controlling it?
So you have no problem speculating about the numerous "black budget" reasons why several governments are covering up their own emdrive research initiatives, but you find it impossible tp believe that someone might squat a domain and pretend to be someone they are not? If Shawyer does control the domain, that still only makes its information as reputable as Shawyer's claims. In other words, so far not very reputable.
My test data has been published.
No I'm not employed by Roger Shawyer in any capacity. We do exchange emails and I pass on useful EmDrive information he has shared.
There are documents on the EmDrive web site that are unique to that web site and clearly are produced by Roger Shawyer. All I can see in your suggestions that Roger is not in control of the web site is an attempt to discredit the web site and it's documents.
For the record, do you accept the results of the NASA peer reviewed paper and that their EmDrive build9 does produce a Propellant Less Force in vac? Or do you see EW and their efforts to develop the EmDrive, as a space drive system, as a waste of tax payer funds? -
#2366 by WhatAFeynDay on 07 Feb, 2017 22:32
-
My test data has been published.
No I'm not employed by Roger Shawyer in any capacity. We do exchange emails and I pass on useful EmDrive information he has shared.
There are documents on the EmDrive web site that are unique to that web site and clearly are produced by Roger Shawyer. All I can see in your suggestions that Roger is not in control of the web site is an attempt to discredit the web site and it's documents.
For the record, do you accept the results of the NASA peer reviewed paper and that their EmDrive build9 does produce a Propellant Less Force in vac? Or do you see EW and their efforts to develop the EmDrive, as a space drive system, as a waste of tax payer funds?
I tend to believe analysis of the Eagleworks paper I've read elsewhere which concludes:
- EW proposed model does not work
- EW data contains unaccounted errors up to 38-40 uN
- EW data avoided quantifying critical error contributions which could add more uncertainty
- A new model using transients and a thermal heating profile fits their data better than the model presented by Eagleworks
And yes, I consider experiments motivated by youtube videos and conjecture, as opposed to sound theory, to be a waste of taxpayer funds.
-
#2367 by Star-Drive on 07 Feb, 2017 22:42
-
To whom it may concern:
I found Phil Wilson's suggestions and correspondence via NSF.com to be useful in my research work at the Eagleworks Lab while I was employed there. Phil and many other folks on this NSF.com EMdrive forum like Dr. Jose' Rodal, Seashell, X_Ray, Monomorphic and Dave D. have been a great resource to all of us who are trying to figure out how these EMdrives might work and how to go about optimizing them. And price for their services can't be beat either...
Best, Paul M. -
#2368 by LowerAtmosphere on 07 Feb, 2017 23:56
-
Well he has a point when you consider just how a few bosons, quarks and leptons make up our entire existence. Apples, Oranges and Bananas if you will. Additions and subtractions within multidimensional space are all these little logical building blocks do, and yet their combinations led to not only bizarre distributions of matter to anti-matter but also leads to fascinating things like your neural synapses which are firing in a logical sequence right now. Physics without a bit of existential philosophy is rather dry, perhaps you should shuffle your emotions
CP (charge-parity) violation was discovered in the 60s, and awarded the Nobel prize in 1980, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
P.S. what explains charge polarity violation possibly being proven in the past weeks and what does this imply about virtual pairs?
M.LeBel is making claims that simply have no basis and do not make any sense. It is interesting how the universe seems to have only a limited number of fundamental particles, and you can discuss the implications of that, but saying "everything is just time" does not make any sense at all. M.LeBel has posted his theories multiple times, and has never managed to even explain how the most basic electrodynamics makes sense in them.
I agree. Also I need to clarify. Quite strong evidence for CP violation was just recently discovered at the LHC for baryons in matter and antimatter. The implications are not entirely significant for the EM Drive but are quite important for cosmology. It is just curious as to how this result ties into the quantum foam and the broader understanding of physics. https://phys.org/news/2017-01-source-asymmetry-antimatter.html -
#2369 by Tcarey on 08 Feb, 2017 03:24
-
So you have no problem speculating about the numerous "black budget" reasons why several governments are covering up their own emdrive research initiatives, but you find it impossible tp believe that someone might squat a domain and pretend to be someone they are not? If Shawyer does control the domain, that still only makes its information as reputable as Shawyer's claims. In other words, so far not very reputable.
If someone decided to squat on the emdrive domain name they did it very early in the game. This is from ICANN WHOIS for that website.
Important Dates
Updated Date: 2002-08-16
Created Date: 2002-08-16
Registration Expiration Date: 2017-08-16
https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=emdrive.com
Thank you to all of the DIY people that are spending time and treasure on investigating this. I made small contributions to Shell and Dave and wish I could do more. No matter what the outcome of these experiments it has been a joy to be "a fly on the wall" and observe the process. Keep after it and get the answers!
-
#2370 by meberbs on 08 Feb, 2017 04:44
-
Cool, I hadn't seen that result. It still is early, had the significance isn't high enough for them to claim discovery yet, but it seems like this might be the first thing out of the LHC I consider "new physics." For the Higgs, we knew it should be there and were just trying to pin down the mass. In this case the standard model doesn't predict the new result (if I read that article right), although cosmology tells us there should be something like it. I don't have enough of the right background to understand the real implications, but I would guess it can be added to the standard model fairly simply, but it might have a significant effect on early-universe models.Well he has a point when you consider just how a few bosons, quarks and leptons make up our entire existence. Apples, Oranges and Bananas if you will. Additions and subtractions within multidimensional space are all these little logical building blocks do, and yet their combinations led to not only bizarre distributions of matter to anti-matter but also leads to fascinating things like your neural synapses which are firing in a logical sequence right now. Physics without a bit of existential philosophy is rather dry, perhaps you should shuffle your emotions
CP (charge-parity) violation was discovered in the 60s, and awarded the Nobel prize in 1980, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
P.S. what explains charge polarity violation possibly being proven in the past weeks and what does this imply about virtual pairs?
M.LeBel is making claims that simply have no basis and do not make any sense. It is interesting how the universe seems to have only a limited number of fundamental particles, and you can discuss the implications of that, but saying "everything is just time" does not make any sense at all. M.LeBel has posted his theories multiple times, and has never managed to even explain how the most basic electrodynamics makes sense in them.
I agree. Also I need to clarify. Quite strong evidence for CP violation was just recently discovered at the LHC for baryons in matter and antimatter. The implications are not entirely significant for the EM Drive but are quite important for cosmology. It is just curious as to how this result ties into the quantum foam and the broader understanding of physics. https://phys.org/news/2017-01-source-asymmetry-antimatter.html -
#2371 by Amit on 08 Feb, 2017 13:33
-
Is something similar likely to be happening in the emdrive?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc36KONVP5U&feature=youtu.be -
#2372 by Rodal on 08 Feb, 2017 13:48
-
Is something similar likely to be happening in the emdrive?
The problem with the analogy with a fluid medium is that according to mainstream science, in outer space, there is no "medium" to push on or pull from, in empty space, according to mainstream science there is no "medium" that can be used for propulsion, as the quantum vacuum is immutable and not degradable, and very much unlike the fluid medium which is subject to viscosity, vorticity, dispersion, flow separation into laminar and turbulent regions, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc36KONVP5U&feature=youtu.be -
#2373 by X_RaY on 08 Feb, 2017 14:09
-
I am inclined to agree with you.Is something similar likely to be happening in the emdrive?
The problem with the analogy with a fluid medium is that according to mainstream science, in outer space, there is no "medium" to push on or pull from, in empty space, according to mainstream science there is no "medium" that can be used for propulsion, as the quantum vacuum is immutable and not degradable, and very much unlike the fluid medium which is subject to viscosity, vorticity, dispersion, flow separation into laminar and turbulent regions, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc36KONVP5U&feature=youtu.be
But let's get the mind open for possible modifications of the QV as suggested by Dr. White. Till now we miss something to describe the universe completely. Call it ΛCDM, MOND, WIMP,s* or whatever..
Not one of the theories can describe the universe without assumptions (only with the well known universal constants, or without some kind of fine tuning).
*dark matter candidate -
#2374 by SeeShells on 08 Feb, 2017 14:16
-
Is something similar likely to be happening in the emdrive?
The problem with the analogy with a fluid medium is that according to mainstream science, in outer space, there is no "medium" to push, there is no "medium" that can be used for propulsion, as the vacuum is immutable and not degradable, and very much unlike the fluid medium which is subject to viscosity, vorticity, dispersion etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc36KONVP5U&feature=youtu.be
I'm keeping an open mind to the ability of the Quantum Vacuum to be mutable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Quantum Fluctuation even though small, set up the large scale structures in the universe and even in quantum field theory, fields undergo quantum fluctuations.
Whether this could lead to the EMDrive using either Pilot Wave Theories, Virtual Particles or Mass Fluctuations, still presents questions that need further vetting. Just like the tests of the MEGA drive theories of Dr. Woodward who has also seen an thrust like effect, they also need to further test.
Maybe it is smarter to say that it's highly unlikely and further data and testing is needed.
I've even been waiting to find out if antimatter falls up to add another theory. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/04/30/antimatter-up-down/
I hope to be able to add to this need for data starting in early spring as currently at 8750Ft in the Colorado Rockies it's snowing like crazy and my new lab is on hold.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#2375 by OttO on 08 Feb, 2017 14:52
-
Interesting at least for the analogy
Is the electromagnetic field in a medium a fluid or a wave?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arbab_Arbab/publication/307936080_Is_the_electromagnetic_field_in_a_medium_a_fluid_or_a_wave/links/582e046f08ae102f072db41b.pdf -
#2376 by Rodal on 08 Feb, 2017 15:14
-
Interesting at least for the analogy
Is the electromagnetic field in a medium a fluid or a wave?
... [snip due to overly long url that modifies the page width]
Please note that the author of the paper (http://bit.ly/2lkFjlo) models the electromagnetic "fluid" as:
1) Incompressible (no volume changes)
2) Irrotational (no vorticity)
3) Inviscid flow: no viscosity (he models it as an Euler fluid). Eq. (33) shows that the "fluid" the author models is dissipationless. Hence NO ENTROPY CHANGE.
The author shows that in a medium that is free from moving charges (current) the electromagnetic fluid flows dissipationless and frictionless. There are no moving charges in empty space. The author considers "friction" inside a material (like copper, where we know there is dissipation, which is responsible for the finite Q), but not in empty space (the interior volume of the EM Drive).
Hence, the author's model is not something that can be used for space propulsion in analogy with a submarine, or in analogy with a sailing vessel, or in analogy with an airplane, or in analogy with a helicopter. There is no viscosity, vorticity, dispersion, flow separation into laminar and turbulent regions, in the author's model.
There is no degradation of the "electromagnetic fluid" he is modeling.
The author's model does not come close to what Dr. White claims for the Quantum Vacum. -
#2377 by Monomorphic on 08 Feb, 2017 15:41
-
I completed the first "powered" test with the new battery and solid-state RF setup. Power into the cavity is a feeble 15dBm or 0.031Watts. That is a very small amount of power and even with a perfect cavity, would only expect to see a maximum of ~10uN according to Shawyer's theory.
During the first RF on, I kept the cavity at maximum resonance where reflected power was its lowest. The second time I varied the frequency across the resonance band. I started at max resonance, adjusting down until off resonance and then back through max resonance and up until off resonance and back down to max resonance. The interesting thing is the little "forward thrust" blip while I was adjusting the frequency. I plan on repeating this but starting off resonance lower, move through max resonance, and end off resonance higher.
It will be very interesting when I get the new amps in the next few days and I can increase RF power by 6,000% or more.
-
#2378 by PotomacNeuron on 08 Feb, 2017 16:10
-
I completed the first "powered" test with the new battery and solid-state RF setup. Power into the cavity is a feeble 15dBm or 0.031Watts. That is a very small amount of power and even with a perfect cavity, would only expect to see a maximum of ~10uN according to Shawyer's theory.
During the first RF on, I kept the cavity at maximum resonance where reflected power was its lowest. The second time I varied the frequency across the resonance band. I started at max resonance, adjusting down until off resonance and then back through max resonance and up until off resonance and back down to max resonance. The interesting thing is the little "forward thrust" blip while I was adjusting the frequency. I plan on repeating this but starting off resonance lower, move through max resonance, and end off resonance higher.
It will be very interesting when I get the new amps in the next few days and I can increase RF power by 6,000% or more.
Good job. I suggest you to add a D/A channel to monitor the power amp supply current (add a small resistor on the power lead; measure its voltage drop; plot it together with your force measurement). -
#2379 by Monomorphic on 08 Feb, 2017 16:29
-
Good job. I suggest you to add a D/A channel to monitor the power amp supply current (add a small resistor on the power lead; measure its voltage drop; plot it together with your force measurement).
The ADC is not attached to the torsional pendulum. It sits outside the draft enclosure and records the two laser displacement sensors outputs to another computer. I could add a second ADC to the torsional pendulum to monitor the power amp's supply voltage. I have a second ADC that is sitting unused. Let me work on getting higher RF power first, then I will look into this.
