-
#620
by
TheTraveller
on 15 Dec, 2016 05:31
-
I went all a-flutter with the Chinese press release like everyone else. Pro/con argument is perfectly fine and has been going on for the entire life of these threads. There is one thing that the Chinese have to do if they want the high ground or whatever they ultimately seek.
Show us the data, and share it openly.
Bob,
One of the rumours around was the Chinese had tested an EmDrive on their manned space station. Another was they had an EmDrive as one experiment on a 17 experiment satellite platform. So it seems there may be more than one EmDrive being tested in space by the Chinese.
I'm working my sources to get more information but please understand the official Chinese CASC/CAST EmDrive effort has been dark since 2010, when they replicated and verified Prof Yang's work in a lab in Beijing. I did report that source information event, which now appears to have been correct.
This other dark work also calls into doubt Prof Yang's latest EmDrive paper. I have been told that she or someone else using her email has written to several EmDrive developers to tell them her reported thrust was false and that it would be a waste of time and effort to continue their development efforts.
It would seem this action and "her" last paper can now be taken in a new light as intentional disinformation to stop Western EmDrive efforts.
-
#621
by
SeeShells
on 15 Dec, 2016 05:51
-
I did mine different by capturing and tuning the frustum mechanically and allowing the sidewalls to grow of shrink and still remain in lock.
My Best,
Shell
Does this mean that the changes in the sidewall dimensions due to heating do not cause a change in resonant frequency?
If you have the ends mechanically captured so the relative distance between them can not change, that suggests to me that any heating will result in a bulging of the sidewalls. I have the distinct impression that I am missing something.
Yes, you're missing something because i didn't explain it correctly, sorry. The small endplate isn't attached or soldered to the sidewalls and the sidewalls can slide past the endplate. This keeps the distance between the endplates the same but allows the cavity to expand and contract. The endplates are ceramic with bonded copper so they will not even warp.
Hope this helps.
My Best,
Michelle
-
#622
by
meberbs
on 15 Dec, 2016 07:26
-
This other dark work also calls into doubt Prof Yang's latest EmDrive paper. I have been told that she or someone else using her email has written to several EmDrive developers to tell them her reported thrust was false and that it would be a waste of time and effort to continue their development efforts.
It would seem this action and "her" last paper can now be taken in a new light as intentional disinformation to stop Western EmDrive efforts.
A different group working on the emDrive in no way changes that Yang did an experiment and realized her original one was flawed. You have called her newer paper rubbish, but never pointed out a single specific issue with it. If this other group replicated her original experiment, the reasonable conclusion without additional information is that they simply got the same result from the same error source.
Your claims of disinformation here (and with Boeing which you recently brought up) remain conspiracy theories with no supporting evidence.
I never said 2016 would be the era of flying cars. Please post that post.
What rq3 is referring to is your claim of free flying emDrive demos, just using a bit of exaggeration. You had said that Yang would demo one this year, when actually she had stopped all emDrive work before you even made those claims. This says something about the reliability of the rumors you keep posting from "sources."
-
#623
by
meberbs
on 15 Dec, 2016 07:48
-
You seem to think that physics is only theory. Physics involves both theory and experiment. Engineering requires known principles to work from, which the emDrive does not currently have.
Oh my. Truly I need to disagree with this. I have the highest respect for your contributions to this site and your broad depth of knowalage.
Realize, I couldn't have advanced as far as I have without using the daylights out of known principles and established science. Although the theory is elusive that doesn't mean the goal isn't. Everything we do as humanity is built upon the pillars of our known science and known science is used to discover the unknown to advance and grow.
Do I honestly know where this current endeavor will lead us? No, I can't and truly none can answer that question, if they are honest. There is so much more work to be done.
My Very Best,
Shell
Which part of my statement do you disagree with?
That physics involves both theory and experiment? I hope you agree with that part at least.
That engineering requires known principles to work from? This doesn't mean that engineers don't do physics experiments. It is actually pretty common in the engineering workplace to refer to running a battery of tests to determine the performance of something as a function of various parameters as running a physics experiment. Sometimes this is needed, and other times it is discouraged, because experienced engineers know a nominal value is good enough to work off of. For me there is a clear line here between this and standard engineering design work, and it is clear the emDrive is in this phase.
Or did you disagree with the part that the emDrive does not currently have known principles to work from? Engineering requires more detail than "place resonant RF into an asymmetric cavity and hope it moves." The data currently available is simply too scattered and noisy, where even if you assume that there is a force, there isn't enough information to create an empirical relation that would predict the practical force for a given setup (for example TE012 vs TE013 at the same frequency and power, with scaled cavity shape). If you have a relation and can show it fits most or all available data, please share it, but otherwise there are a lot of physics experiments that need to be done before emDrive is passed off to engineering.
-
#624
by
Choice777
on 15 Dec, 2016 07:55
-
Thanks guy for confirming my mini theory... That there is a dogmatic and very damaging culture of oppressive actions towards progressive experimentation.
The way i see it, once someone gets the Newton to kw high enough patents won't matter.
Everyone with a garage and enough money, will just make their own duplicated for personal use, strap a bunch of them onto a metal container and set off for the stars... Or at the very very very least go about mining the s... out of the solar system.
Patents don't mean anything when people build it for personal use.... It's gonna be "the exodus" to be remembered for effectively ever.
Yes... Multi trillion bucks industry overnight... Now if it's the Chinese or Brits or muricans who do it right first .. Doesn't matter. Everyone will just clone and copy cat the hell out of it... And rightfully so...i know i would be getting offoffis rock asap.
-
#625
by
qraal
on 15 Dec, 2016 08:12
-
The way i see it, once someone gets the Newton to kw high enough patents won't matter.
Everyone with a garage and enough money, will just make their own duplicated for personal use, strap a bunch of them onto a metal container and set off for the stars... Or at the very very very least go about mining the s... out of the solar system.
I hope they data share with the scientists, else it'd be a tragic loss of data.
Patents don't mean anything when people build it for personal use.... It's gonna be "the exodus" to be remembered for effectively ever.
Yes... Multi trillion bucks industry overnight... Now if it's the Chinese or Brits or muricans who do it right first .. Doesn't matter. Everyone will just clone and copy cat the hell out of it... And rightfully so...i know i would be getting offoffis rock asap.
I have to wonder if Bob Bigelow with his blow-up Space-Hotels doesn't have ambitions to sell to all those would-be space-miners.
-
#626
by
rfmwguy
on 15 Dec, 2016 10:52
-
You seem to think that physics is only theory. Physics involves both theory and experiment. Engineering requires known principles to work from, which the emDrive does not currently have.
Oh my. Truly I need to disagree with this. I have the highest respect for your contributions to this site and your broad depth of knowalage.
Realize, I couldn't have advanced as far as I have without using the daylights out of known principles and established science. Although the theory is elusive that doesn't mean the goal isn't. Everything we do as humanity is built upon the pillars of our known science and known science is used to discover the unknown to advance and grow.
Do I honestly know where this current endeavor will lead us? No, I can't and truly none can answer that question, if they are honest. There is so much more work to be done.
My Very Best,
Shell
Which part of my statement do you disagree with?
That physics involves both theory and experiment? I hope you agree with that part at least.
That engineering requires known principles to work from? This doesn't mean that engineers don't do physics experiments. It is actually pretty common in the engineering workplace to refer to running a battery of tests to determine the performance of something as a function of various parameters as running a physics experiment. Sometimes this is needed, and other times it is discouraged, because experienced engineers know a nominal value is good enough to work off of. For me there is a clear line here between this and standard engineering design work, and it is clear the emDrive is in this phase.
Or did you disagree with the part that the emDrive does not currently have known principles to work from? Engineering requires more detail than "place resonant RF into an asymmetric cavity and hope it moves." The data currently available is simply too scattered and noisy, where even if you assume that there is a force, there isn't enough information to create an empirical relation that would predict the practical force for a given setup (for example TE012 vs TE013 at the same frequency and power, with scaled cavity shape). If you have a relation and can show it fits most or all available data, please share it, but otherwise there are a lot of physics experiments that need to be done before emDrive is passed off to engineering.
Let me ask you a very specific emdrive question, one I've asked elsewhere of other skeptics. In fact, every skeptic here is welcomed to answer as postings here are drifting aimlessly:
Assume 3 hollow copper cavities, one at sea level, one in LEO and one in geosynchronous earth orbit. Name all the particles/fields that could ingress the cavity in each reference frame.
I'll wait.
-
#627
by
as58
on 15 Dec, 2016 11:46
-
... I had academics work for me and I fired them because they very high paid ...
We must be living in different worlds.
As VP of Engineering, I am often the one that the BizDev guys call "negative" because I can quickly analyze what they are considering and tell them flat out when it will or will NOT work. My boss doesn't like negative employees. People who do not "believe" are let go, because belief is part of what drives performance. I learned that while I could say "that won't work", my advice is better received when I say; This can work if we do "this" or "that", and show them what needs to happen to make it work, rather than being negative and saying it won't work. My point is, there is no room here for negative input. If you don't believe it will work and have nothing constructive to add, don't say anything. If you have suggestions that can move this ball forward, we're all happy to take that suggestion and put it to the test.
As you have probably guessed, my opinion is that nothing can be done to make emdrive work because it is a fundamentally flawed idea. Do you think that people like me (I don't think I'm the only one) should leave?
-
#628
by
flux_capacitor
on 15 Dec, 2016 11:59
-
Next week China will hold space electric propulsion technology seminar, some professors of the academic community will focus on critical Emdrive technology, it is learned that Dr. Chen Yue may be present. Mr. Phil, Mr. Paul! Please contact Dr. Chen Yue and need your support.
I look forward to more evidence like that. Call it skepticism or conspiracy theories, but where are the
pictures and
articles in the various
Chinese newspapers from all the
journalists who attended the
CAST press conference?
Where are the professional references, academic web pages and personal CV of such important people as the
"head of the state-owned China Academy of Space Technology's communication satellite division" who "leads a dedicated team on the EmDrive and has national support since 2010" (Dr Chen Yue) and the
"chief designer of the China Academy of Space Technology's communication satellite division" (Li Feng)?
It is rather dubious to have on one hand a "press conference of no less than the Chinese JPL" (CAST is the main subordinate of CASC, the Chinese NASA) in the capital, Beijing; and on the other hand only one article in Chinese with no pictures and two names with high ranking job titles claimed, but that nobody can verify in practice.
Oh, and there is nothing about this EmDrive research and that "official press conference" on the CAST website neither. You know, the PR stuff that any firm actively puts on its official page when one want to promote and spread particular news.
Just search on the original Chinese version with Google Translate:
http://www.cast.cnSearch the News and Media sections. Nothing.
Search for 陈粤 (Chen Yue).
Nothing.
Search for 李峰 (Li Feng).
Nothing.
Can somebody know why the CAST press conference is not even on the CAST web site? And why two bigwigs of the company are absent in the organization?
-
#629
by
SeeShells
on 15 Dec, 2016 12:06
-
You seem to think that physics is only theory. Physics involves both theory and experiment. Engineering requires known principles to work from, which the emDrive does not currently have.
Oh my. Truly I need to disagree with this. I have the highest respect for your contributions to this site and your broad depth of knowalage.
Realize, I couldn't have advanced as far as I have without using the daylights out of known principles and established science. Although the theory is elusive that doesn't mean the goal isn't. Everything we do as humanity is built upon the pillars of our known science and known science is used to discover the unknown to advance and grow.
Do I honestly know where this current endeavor will lead us? No, I can't and truly none can answer that question, if they are honest. There is so much more work to be done.
My Very Best,
Shell
Which part of my statement do you disagree with?
That physics involves both theory and experiment? I hope you agree with that part at least.
That engineering requires known principles to work from? This doesn't mean that engineers don't do physics experiments. It is actually pretty common in the engineering workplace to refer to running a battery of tests to determine the performance of something as a function of various parameters as running a physics experiment. Sometimes this is needed, and other times it is discouraged, because experienced engineers know a nominal value is good enough to work off of. For me there is a clear line here between this and standard engineering design work, and it is clear the emDrive is in this phase.
Or did you disagree with the part that the emDrive does not currently have known principles to work from? Engineering requires more detail than "place resonant RF into an asymmetric cavity and hope it moves." The data currently available is simply too scattered and noisy, where even if you assume that there is a force, there isn't enough information to create an empirical relation that would predict the practical force for a given setup (for example TE012 vs TE013 at the same frequency and power, with scaled cavity shape). If you have a relation and can show it fits most or all available data, please share it, but otherwise there are a lot of physics experiments that need to be done before emDrive is passed off to engineering.
One point we agree, that the data is scattered and
noisy. This whole subject has become like a Western salon, with everyone hollering louder to be heard above the din of bad music and fights over who's horse is faster.
Where we disagree is how we see the data through the din. Gems of data are out there and have been all along, just enough to build, coupled with solid physics and engineering rules.
Let's compare another project I worked on and eventually received patents where there was no theory. I was told by many that I couldn't do it because the theory wasn't there. I was told that there was no theory in fracture mechanics that could be used to model how to control the fracturing of a silicon or GAS wafers in specific areas called streets on the wafers. I was told by the large chip makers, that even to try without any theory would be just wasting my time. They were wrong. Using standard physics and engineering skills we could separate over 100,000 chips (die) on a wafer in a split second.
Tell me, what's different? The simple spreadsheet I've attached is a very small sample of data gleaned, it even shows usable data above the salon fight noise.
You see, there shouldn't be this divide between physics and engineering. You don't have data? Well it's up to engineers to get that data for you develop better theories to pass back to engineering. This is a joint effort, not a salon fight.
My Best,
Shell
-
#630
by
Flyby
on 15 Dec, 2016 12:26
-
Shell, it is with both perplexity and at the same time, amusement, I'm looking at this "clash" between engineers and theoretical physicists...
I see some similarities with the mild animosity that exists between architects and structural engineers...
While engineers fulminate that architects are totally clueless on how to build their "creative ideas", architects roll eyes as engineers seem oblivious to esthetic and social aspects of architecture...
However , the best architecture is realized when both professions meet each other, when you have an architect with structural insight, and an engineer sensitive to esthetics.
Like wise , I do think that you need an engineer with appreciation for theory and a physicist with engineering insights to achieve true greatness...
-
#631
by
flux_capacitor
on 15 Dec, 2016 13:08
-
I can understand if they want to open the information tap very slightly so only one drop of news can come out to the West.
But then why does a search of a satellite division bigwig such as 士范本尧 (Shi Fan Yao) return
this pageWhile at the same time there are absolutely no information whatsoever about Dr Chen Yue and Li Feng in the same organization chart at CAST… I'd like more concrete evidence about them than non-professional email addresses and a newspaper article. Sure for now we have one
poster paper abstract from an international conference in 2013 with the name Chen Yue. This is far from proving he is the team leader of a state-funded satellite EmDrive development division since 2010.
i don't say this isn't the case. But the evidences are scarce.
-
#632
by
toloverufan
on 15 Dec, 2016 13:55
-
I'm noticing a lot of back and forth between certain members that would probably be better off in PM (You know who you are). Can we stop with the arguing about whose ideas are best, or who did, or didn't do what at some unspecified time in the past? The threads are for discussing theory and data, not clashing egos.
-
#633
by
JonathanD
on 15 Dec, 2016 14:18
-
Yes, you're missing something because i didn't explain it correctly, sorry. The small endplate isn't attached or soldered to the sidewalls and the sidewalls can slide past the endplate. This keeps the distance between the endplates the same but allows the cavity to expand and contract. The endplates are ceramic with bonded copper so they will not even warp.
Hope this helps.
My Best,
Michelle
Just curious, if the small endplate isn't sealed to the sidewalls, how do you prevent all the RF from leaking out?
-
#634
by
TheTraveller
on 15 Dec, 2016 14:20
-
Yes, you're missing something because i didn't explain it correctly, sorry. The small endplate isn't attached or soldered to the sidewalls and the sidewalls can slide past the endplate. This keeps the distance between the endplates the same but allows the cavity to expand and contract. The endplates are ceramic with bonded copper so they will not even warp.
Hope this helps.
My Best,
Michelle
Just curious, if the small endplate isn't sealed to the sidewalls, how do you prevent all the RF from leaking out?
Same way the microwave ovens prevent microwaves leaking out but allow you to see in. A gap way smaller than the cutoff dimension for the freq and excited cavity mode. Cutoff dimension is a size that will not allow the photons to propagate through.
Roger physically tuned both the Experimental end Demonstrator EmDrives using length adjustable end plates. Experimenter at the big end and Demonstrator at the small end.
-
#635
by
WarpTech
on 15 Dec, 2016 14:21
-
... I had academics work for me and I fired them because they very high paid ...
We must be living in different worlds.
As VP of Engineering, I am often the one that the BizDev guys call "negative" because I can quickly analyze what they are considering and tell them flat out when it will or will NOT work. My boss doesn't like negative employees. People who do not "believe" are let go, because belief is part of what drives performance. I learned that while I could say "that won't work", my advice is better received when I say; This can work if we do "this" or "that", and show them what needs to happen to make it work, rather than being negative and saying it won't work. My point is, there is no room here for negative input. If you don't believe it will work and have nothing constructive to add, don't say anything. If you have suggestions that can move this ball forward, we're all happy to take that suggestion and put it to the test.
As you have probably guessed, my opinion is that nothing can be done to make emdrive work because it is a fundamentally flawed idea. Do you think that people like me (I don't think I'm the only one) should leave?
In my world, the engineers have enough confidence to SELL a product before the design has even been conceived of, and promise a 6 month delivery date, and do it! I can tell you, I have started from scratch to fulfill contracts to build stuff that has never been built before and delivered.
My opinion is, if you have nothing to contribute constructively, then yes. It wastes time for the rest of us to keep trying to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced, and to defend our position every time the skeptics play their superiority card.
-
#636
by
as58
on 15 Dec, 2016 14:45
-
The different world part was meant to refer to 'very highly paid academics'. That doesn't agree with my experience...
My opinion is, if you have nothing to contribute constructively, then yes. It wastes time for the rest of us to keep trying to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced, and to defend our position every time the skeptics play their superiority card.
I have criticised your theory. Would you prefer I didn't do that? Unfortunately, I'm afraid the criticism cannot be all constructive; I don't see anything useful coming out of your theory.
And while I may be unwilling to be convinced, you and most other emdrive believers don't seem that willing to be unconvinced either.
-
#637
by
WarpTech
on 15 Dec, 2016 14:54
-
The different world part was meant to refer to 'very highly paid academics'. That doesn't agree with my experience...
My opinion is, if you have nothing to contribute constructively, then yes. It wastes time for the rest of us to keep trying to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced, and to defend our position every time the skeptics play their superiority card.
I have criticised your theory. Would you prefer I didn't do that? Unfortunately, I'm afraid the criticism cannot be all constructive; I don't see anything useful coming out of your theory.
And while I may be unwilling to be convinced, you and most other emdrive believers don't seem that willing to be unconvinced either.
I would prefer that you fully understand the theory before you criticize it. That makes being constructive about it a lot easier. So far, you have not demonstrated that you even understand my theory.
-
#638
by
as58
on 15 Dec, 2016 15:06
-
I would prefer that you fully understand the theory before you criticize it. That makes being constructive about it a lot easier. So far, you have not demonstrated that you even understand my theory.
Does anyone understand it, even you? Some pages back we went through the 'CM violation due to dissipation' arguments and thanks to meberbs that was cleared. Yet as far as I understand, your theory still claims that thrust can be obtained from dissipation. Can you tell what dissipation means in your theory?
-
#639
by
rfmwguy
on 15 Dec, 2016 15:15
-
The different world part was meant to refer to 'very highly paid academics'. That doesn't agree with my experience...
My opinion is, if you have nothing to contribute constructively, then yes. It wastes time for the rest of us to keep trying to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced, and to defend our position every time the skeptics play their superiority card.
I have criticised your theory. Would you prefer I didn't do that? Unfortunately, I'm afraid the criticism cannot be all constructive; I don't see anything useful coming out of your theory.
And while I may be unwilling to be convinced, you and most other emdrive believers don't seem that willing to be unconvinced either.
Might I help you some. Begin with the basics and answer this simple question:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1394048;image
