When we have a changing flux inside, we have an asymmetrical voltage potential, because the resistance around the small end is less than the resistance around the big end. This causes an E field, or differential voltage from the small end to the big end. Which is the same as a gravito-electric field times a coupling constant.
The changing flux inside, is flux lines participating in magnetic reconnection. Magnetic reconnection is very powerful. You get strong explosive reactions outside the Earths plasma sheath from magnetic reconnection. I am working on a paper about it and a few other things involved with it, that helps explain the high energy electron transport phenomena outside the bow shock. When the flux lines travel outside the cavity, they become disturbed. The flux lines are slightly separated into tubes from spinning vortices and geometries of the 'universes' EM fields impact on the em drives flux lines. Then as they come back through the cavity, the tapered end forces the flux lines to reconnect. Then energy is created from the reconnection. The energy has nowhere to go, so it 'pushes off' inside the cavity. But what do I know right? When I tried to explain all of this to those in a theoretical physics group. They became infuriated. Their brains popped. They kicked me out because I explained it all so simply. They claimed the video I showed you, had nothing to do with the EM drive. Now you know why you are getting anomalous reverse thrust at the cutoff.
Identify the energy (particle, field, wave, etc) which is equally present that passes through copper at sea level, LEO and GEO. Within this simple qualification, you will find the answer to what makes EmDrive a viable spaceflight engine, for it must be an open system and react with the relative conditions within the emdrive cavity. Warp tech is getting there imo.
I'm not sure this is meant to be cryptic or a riddle, but what has LEO or GEO got to do with it when we have no idea whatsoever if the emdrive works at LEO or GEO? It entirely possible that the effect is related to the Earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, and their strength at sea level.
It's simple. For the EmDrive to be a viable spaceflight engine, it has to work in all three locales. The correct theory will invoke an external energy present in all three (and elsewhere). I ran this thought experiment elsewhere and it solicited about 200 comments and narrowed down the possibilities rather quickly.
Considering the repetitive chat here about old classical ideas, thought I would suggest the important basics to keep the theory discussion moving forward, not circular.
Edit - China is first to claim EmDrive works in LEO by accounts here and elsewhere.
I haven't seen specific, clear statements that it actually works in orbit but rather statements about testing it in orbit. Does anyone know what results the Chinese will announce? Thanks.
Have learned that at the Dec 24-25 Chinese Electric Propulsion conference in Beijing, there is at least 1 presentation on the EmDrive as attached.
Rumour is Dr Chen Yue will announce the Chinese on orbit EmDrive results as a last minute addition to the conference.
Exciting times.
Potomac Neuron reports elsewhere that:
The session you highlighted (The only session about EmDrive) was for Professor Wang Xiaogang to scold EmDrive from CoM point of view. Prof. Yang and Dr. Chen will attend. It will be interesting. Hint --- Prof. Yang may not align herself up with Dr. Chen. It is in Harbin instead of Beijing.
Bold added for emphasis
Don't know whether this is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) or Prof Wang Xiaogang, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Computer Science. There is also a Dr. WANG Xiaogang Associate Professor of Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS.
China big country, many Professors named Wang Xiaogang ... Of those three, by discipline, most likely he is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU)
Maybe Potomac Neuron can clarify...and expand about the
scolding to EM Drive to be given at this conference by Wang Xiaogang
...
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Not true! If you read the requirements to publish in AIAA,
they do not allow you to use references that are unpublished, or email conversations, etc... They have very strict rules.
Have learned that at the Dec 24-25 Chinese Electric Propulsion conference in Beijing, there is at least 1 presentation on the EmDrive as attached.
Rumour is Dr Chen Yue will announce the Chinese on orbit EmDrive results as a last minute addition to the conference.
Exciting times.
Potomac Neuron reports elsewhere that:
The session you highlighted (The only session about EmDrive) was for Professor Wang Xiaogang to scold EmDrive from CoM point of view. Prof. Yang and Dr. Chen will attend. It will be interesting. Hint --- Prof. Yang may not align herself up with Dr. Chen. It is in Harbin instead of Beijing.
Bold added for emphasis
Don't know whether this is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) or Prof Wang Xiaogang, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Computer Science. There is also a Dr. WANG Xiaogang Associate Professor of Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS.
China big country, many Professors named Wang Xiaogang ... Of those three, by discipline, most likely he is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU)
Maybe Potomac Neuron can clarify...and expand about the scolding to EM Drive fans to be given at this conference by Wang Xiaogang
Affiliation is given as Harbin Institute of Technology, so it's most likely this person:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiaogang_Wang20Also, as PotomacNeuron wrote, the conference (actually The 12th China Symposium on Electric Propulsion Technology) is in Harbin, not Beijing.
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Could be mistaken but it seems that Paul mentioned in an earlier post that Shawyer wouldn't even give EW dimensional specs (at least at the time) and he (Paul) had to estimate dimensions from published photos. I don't think Shawyer was mentioned in the 2014 AIAA conference presentation paper either.
Have learned that at the Dec 24-25 Chinese Electric Propulsion conference in Beijing, there is at least 1 presentation on the EmDrive as attached.
Rumour is Dr Chen Yue will announce the Chinese on orbit EmDrive results as a last minute addition to the conference.
Exciting times.
Potomac Neuron reports elsewhere that:
The session you highlighted (The only session about EmDrive) was for Professor Wang Xiaogang to scold EmDrive from CoM point of view. Prof. Yang and Dr. Chen will attend. It will be interesting. Hint --- Prof. Yang may not align herself up with Dr. Chen. It is in Harbin instead of Beijing.
Bold added for emphasis
Don't know whether this is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) or Prof Wang Xiaogang, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Computer Science. There is also a Dr. WANG Xiaogang Associate Professor of Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS.
China big country, many Professors named Wang Xiaogang ... Of those three, by discipline, most likely he is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU)
Maybe Potomac Neuron can clarify...and expand about the scolding to EM Drive fans to be given at this conference by Wang Xiaogang
Affiliation is given as Harbin Institute of Technology, so it's most likely this person: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xiaogang_Wang20
Also, as PotomacNeuron wrote, the conference (actually The 12th China Symposium on Electric Propulsion Technology) is in Harbin, not Beijing.
As58,
Would assume Professor Wang Xiaogang wrote his paper and submitted it well before he knew of Dr. Chen's work and EmDrive test results.
Will be interesting to see if he presents his "scolding" paper after reviewing Dr Chen EmDrive results. Interesting Dr Chen is attending the conference and has apparently adopted a "we don't know why it works" approach, which may soften the critics into looking at the data and working on theory to explain the results.
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Could be mistaken but it seems that Paul mentioned in an earlier post that Shawyer wouldn't even give EW dimensional specs (at least at the time) and he (Paul) had to estimate dimensions from published photos. I don't think Shawyer was mentioned in the 2014 AIAA conference presentation paper either.
OnlyMe,
Prof Yang was mentioned in the 2014 paper but no mention of EmDrive, SPR nor Roger Shawyer was made in either paper.
Roger did tell me he sent NASA data but I don't know what he sent. Also said he offered NASA assistance as he did to Prof Yang and Prof Tajmar but NASA didn't accept his offer. Don't know why.
I haven't seen specific, clear statements that it actually works in orbit but rather statements about testing it in orbit. Does anyone know what results the Chinese will announce? Thanks.
Bob,
Have been told by a source I consider as my most reliable that the Chinese observed their EmDrive test unit to self accelerate while in space.
Doubt Dr Chen would have made his EmDrive announcement before he had that data.
Have learned that at the Dec 24-25 Chinese Electric Propulsion conference in Beijing, there is at least 1 presentation on the EmDrive as attached.
Rumour is Dr Chen Yue will announce the Chinese on orbit EmDrive results as a last minute addition to the conference.
Exciting times.
Potomac Neuron reports elsewhere that:
The session you highlighted (The only session about EmDrive) was for Professor Wang Xiaogang to scold EmDrive from CoM point of view. Prof. Yang and Dr. Chen will attend. It will be interesting. Hint --- Prof. Yang may not align herself up with Dr. Chen. It is in Harbin instead of Beijing.
Bold added for emphasis
Don't know whether this is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) or Prof Wang Xiaogang, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Computer Science. There is also a Dr. WANG Xiaogang Associate Professor of Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS.
China big country, many Professors named Wang Xiaogang ... Of those three, by discipline, most likely he is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU)
Maybe Potomac Neuron can clarify...and expand about the scolding to EM Drive to be given at this conference by Wang Xiaogang
...
This is him:
http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/personnel/fusion/xgwang.xmlHe is: professor of PKU; adjunct prof of USTC, Harbin institute of tech, zhejiang U and Northeastern polytech u.
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Could be mistaken but it seems that Paul mentioned in an earlier post that Shawyer wouldn't even give EW dimensional specs (at least at the time) and he (Paul) had to estimate dimensions from published photos. I don't think Shawyer was mentioned in the 2014 AIAA conference presentation paper either.
OnlyMe,
Prof Yang was mentioned in the 2014 paper but no mention of EmDrive, SPR nor Roger Shawyer was made in either paper.
Roger did tell me he sent NASA data but I don't know what he sent. Also said he offered NASA assistance as he did to Prof Yang and Prof Tajmar but NASA didn't accept his offer. Don't know why.
There are, it seems, a lot of NASA restrictions imposed on EW. EW could not even accept any private contribution of funds or equipment. Probably 2-3 threads back someone asked about contributing funds and.., I believe Paul posted it was not allowed under NASA regulations.
Roger, did have a lot of documentation on his cite, but nothing that appeared to me to have been peer reviewed by a major journal.., and nothing with sufficient design detail to replicate his work.
It is also important to remember that Dr. White was focused on exploring TM modes as they fit better with his Polarizable Quatum Vacuum theory. (That is my impression from some of Paul's comment.) Roger and everyone else it seems we're focused on TE modes.
Still, I suspect the influence of NASA regulations played the greater role, in not mentioning Shawyer... And it was my impression back in 2014 that it was the publication of Prof. Yang's 1st paper in a peer reviewed journal, that was the basis of EW adding the frustum design to their already existing plans.
Roger, at least at the time, had not published any experimental data that even rose to the level that much of the DIY builders have posted.
Have learned that at the Dec 24-25 Chinese Electric Propulsion conference in Beijing, there is at least 1 presentation on the EmDrive as attached.
Rumour is Dr Chen Yue will announce the Chinese on orbit EmDrive results as a last minute addition to the conference.
Exciting times.
Potomac Neuron reports elsewhere that:
The session you highlighted (The only session about EmDrive) was for Professor Wang Xiaogang to scold EmDrive from CoM point of view. Prof. Yang and Dr. Chen will attend. It will be interesting. Hint --- Prof. Yang may not align herself up with Dr. Chen. It is in Harbin instead of Beijing.
Bold added for emphasis
Don't know whether this is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) or Prof Wang Xiaogang, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Computer Science. There is also a Dr. WANG Xiaogang Associate Professor of Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS.
China big country, many Professors named Wang Xiaogang ... Of those three, by discipline, most likely he is Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU)
Maybe Potomac Neuron can clarify...and expand about the scolding to EM Drive to be given at this conference by Wang Xiaogang
...
This is him: http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/personnel/fusion/xgwang.xml
He is: professor of PKU; adjunct prof of USTC, Harbin institute of tech, zhejiang U and Northeastern polytech u.
Thanks for the clarification, that he is indeed Professor Wang Xiaogang from the School of Physics, Peking University (PKU) .
Please let us know any more information you receive about the scolding given by Professor Wang Xiaogang to the EM Drive proponents and any discussions reported from the conference.
It would be particularly interesting to hear any criticism by Peking University's Professor Wang Xiaogang of Dr Chen's methodology to test the EM Drive in Space, for a more balanced, objective view of what is going on.
PS:
WORLD RANK
(Prof. Wang Xiaogang)'s Peking University: 38 (#2 in China)
(Prof. Yang)'s Northwestern Polytechnic University: 568 (#40 in China)http://www.webometrics.info/en/Asia/China%20
It should be noted that in Roger's 2010 paper he did make mention of another Chinese lab replicating his EmDrive as attached and quoted:
EmDrive technology is now under development in China and the USA.
The North Western Polytechnical University in Xian took the basic theory from the SPR website, and developed their own theoretical model. Based on this, they have manufactured and successfully tested an S Band Thruster.
The work was then reproduced at a government research institute in Beijing.
Development work is now continuing on a 3kW Thruster.
Well we now know that 2010 replication was done by Dr Chen's team as reported by Roger, who probably as he did with Prof Yang, gave Dr Chen some assistance.
My next experimental run will be to excite a copy of the EW thruster in TE012 mode and TE013 mode and compare the force generated.
Frank Davies copper frustum modes overview from 2014 does not go higher than 2.5Ghz, and I have never seen any other analysis for modes like TE013 (though could have missed it).
I found TE013 in the NASA frustum at ~2.6266Ghz. FYI
Petty close to what i found some time ago.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1536095#msg1536095(you should know this post
)
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Not true! If you read the requirements to publish in AIAA, they do not allow you to use references that are unpublished, or email conversations, etc... They have very strict rules.
Roger, did have a lot of documentation on his cite, but nothing that appeared to me to have been peer reviewed by a major journal.
Roger Shawyer has published one peer-reviewed paper that would have satisfied this rule:
Shawyer, Roger (1 November 2015).
"Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe" (PDF).
Acta Astronautica.
116: 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002.
But with "first generation specific force of 300 mN/kW" and talks to push the efficiency "to a target of 10 kN/kW" with future superconducting versions, the NASA paper and its thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW may have looked off beam in comparison. Although Eagleworks campaign focused on tests in a vacuum and Shawyer never reported such tests. Whatever, it is common practice to cite prior work, especially from the inventor, when one publishes a paper.
Roger, at least at the time, had not published any experimental data that even rose to the level that much of the DIY builders have posted.
OnlyMe,
What I now know is that Roger gave NASA his 2002 Experimental technical report and probably the 2006 Demonstrator technical report, as attached, which have more than enough technical information for replication by the NASA team.
Please let us know any more information you receive about the scolding given by Professor Wang Xiaogang to the EM Drive proponents and any discussions reported from the conference.
It would be particularly interesting to hear any criticism by Peking University's Professor Wang Xiaogang of Dr Chen's methodology to test the EM Drive in Space, for a more balanced, objective view of what is going on.
Jose,
Due to the timing of Dr Chen's EmDrive information release, which Prof Yang was not aware of, I doubt Prof Wang Xiaogang knew of the Chen release. Which would suggest the "scolding" was directed to NASA and Prof Yang.
Doubt Dr Chen would have done the info release without the EmDrive in space data to back him up.
So now Prof Wang Xiaogang will be "scolding" Dr Chen's secret in space EmDrive test data that he didn't know about. If I was Prof Wang Xiaogang, I would be having a quiet talk with Dr Chen before "putting foot in mouth".
My next experimental run will be to excite a copy of the EW thruster in TE012 mode and TE013 mode and compare the force generated.
Frank Davies copper frustum modes overview from 2014 does not go higher than 2.5Ghz, and I have never seen any other analysis for modes like TE013 (though could have missed it).
I found TE013 in the NASA frustum at ~2.6266Ghz. FYI
Jamie,
NASA did do a TE013 analysis but they didn't show the resonant freq.
Maybe Paul could dig that up?
The frequency is right above the frustum in the pic 0.6893 GHz
a=1000mm
I don't know if this question has already been asked : Why does the paper "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" from NASA Team edited in the "Journal of Propulsion and Power" does not mention the name of Roger Shawyer as the person who discovered the EMDrive effect nor the name of James Woodward for its theoretical analysis and demonstration of the similar device : the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) ?
concerning shawyer: the nasa EMdrive has nothing to do with shawyer, especially from the theoretical perspective (that is where you cite things). Shawyer's results are uncorfirmed, unvalidedated, and unpublished. So no reason to bother citing them.
I do not agree. The fact only told us EW was not professional and nothing else.
Not true! If you read the requirements to publish in AIAA, they do not allow you to use references that are unpublished, or email conversations, etc... They have very strict rules.
Roger, did have a lot of documentation on his cite, but nothing that appeared to me to have been peer reviewed by a major journal.
Roger Shawyer has published one peer-reviewed paper that would have satisfied this rule:
Shawyer, Roger (1 November 2015). "Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe" (PDF). Acta Astronautica. 116: 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.07.002.
But with "first generation specific force of 300 mN/kW" and talks to push the efficiency "to a target of 10 kN/kW" with future superconducting versions, the NASA paper and its thrust-to-power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW may have looked off beam in comparison. Although Eagleworks campaign focused on tests in a vacuum and Shawyer never reported such tests. Whatever, it is common practice to cite prior work, especially from the inventor, when one publishes a paper.
The EW paper was submitted more than a year ago. It may have been an issue at the time, that Shawyer's paper was not published.... Yet?
)