A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
"It is well known"
Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
The relevant assumptions are Maxwell's equations, so as I said, you need to propose a new theory of electrodynamics, otherwise you will keep getting the same results. It is not "dogmatic" it is simply a fact of what current theories predict. It is also a fact that we have no experimental evidence that Maxwell's equations are violated. (They have done an excellent job predicting emDrive cavity mode shapes and frequencies for example)
Scientists can sometimes disagree with what the same equations predict. Questioning the Maxwell equations is a red herring. You made a broad statement but clearly, you haven't tested all options. You might say you are extremely confident no exceptions will ever be found but you can't say absolutely. I'm not proposing a new theory, nor do I have to, that's not my interest or ability. I'm just saying I am unwilling to absolutely say no configuration could ever result in a net Lorentz force without deep thought as to what exactly defines the system being open or closed, what determines when a force is internal or external, causality, signal retardation and a host of other such issues. Thanks for the discussion.
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.
I carried out my own experiment in case you did not know. If there are problems in their experiment, like those in the NASA experiment and those in Tajmar's experiment, it is best for science's sake to correct them before them being published. Staying neutral does not mean being ignorant of potential problems. I am a good judge, because I am critical not for being critical, but for science's sake.
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.
I carried out my own experiment in case you did not know. If there are problems in their experiment, like those in the NASA experiment and those in Tajmar's experiment, it is best for science's sake to correct them before them being published. Staying neutral does not mean being ignorant of potential problems. I am a good judge, because I am critical not for being critical, but for science's sake.
I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Hi PN,
Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.
What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.
As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.
Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.
Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?
TT, I do not believe Mr. Shawyer's theory of accelerating cavity and force. After all, the earth is moving fast around the sun and the gravity is accelerating (Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration) the cavity.
PN,
Roger has stated several times that for a non accelerating cavity relative to the trapped photons, there is no generated Force.
He explains this in his 2013 paper as attached.
Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection.
As discussed with Paul March, the EW data is not that of an EmDrive as using continuous Rf, there is no Force generation with a non accelerating cavity. My suggestion to Paul was possibly Dr. White and the EW team had successfully built a QV thruster.
Yes what appears to be static Force generation is possible with a cavity on a test rig with a spring constant and pulsed acceleration that resulted from pulsed Rf. Roger covered this in some detail in his paper on the Experimental EmDrive which used 50Hz pulsed Rf from his magnetron that was driven by a 1/2 wave rectified dc supply.
The Navy test data, test rig design, it's stiffness, their cavity design and method of Rf application, etc will be interesting.
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.
I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
I received an email from Michael McDonald this morning in response to my inquiries. Coincidentally we will both be at the same workshop in November so I reached out to him over the weekend. He said they have not yet begun vacuum thrust tests and that "it has been all setup to this point." They hope to have preliminary results for the International Electric Propulsion Conference in October. Their experiment is an independent validation and verification of the results from White et. al.
Correction: They "hope to present at least a design paper at the International Electric Propulsion Conference in October..."
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.
I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.
Meberbs,
The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries.
To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.
Time will tell.
Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection.
No, this statement is just more evidence that you don't understand how forces work. With a constant force from a thruster, a torsion pendulum will oscillate around the equilibrium deflection point.
Meberbs,
The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.
To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.
Time will tell.
False, they have not performed tests yet. See Monomorphic's post above yours. It is clear from what they released and what Monomorphic said that Shawyer is not involved, and they are just independently attempting to replicate White et. al.
Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection.
No, this statement is just more evidence that you don't understand how forces work. With a constant force from a thruster, a torsion pendulum will oscillate around the equilibrium deflection point.
Meberbs,
The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.
To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.
Time will tell.
False, they have not performed tests yet. See Monomorphic's post above yours. It is clear from what they released and what Monomorphic said that Shawyer is not involved, and they are just independently attempting to replicate White et. al.
Please read what they wrote:
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
Meberbs,
Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.
I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.
Please provide me with the proof that he is not under the supervision. I will be glad to accept that.
No I do not have physics background, you are right there.
I read it.
Yes, they are neutral, that is why I question PotomacNeuron approach there. Because after his critic he will not be. I believe that true critic can be passed down only by the people that will actualy test this device. How can be so much people sure this can not work if they did not built it or test it on their own?
That, does not make any sense. In this case more than ever. Theory is no doubt important. But actual testing is the pure essence of physics.
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
Meberbs,
Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.
You must prove asymmetric boundary conditions between endplates and consistent phase shift.
Napkin note regarding arcing:
flows balance w internal oscillating field however impurities and anomalous shapes may tangle waves or divert them. Arcing then occurs across discontinuity in otherwise congruous and internal field coherent metallic lattice.
As coherency increases and resonance locks, discontinuities will hinder charge distribution along sidewall creating conflicting field lines among B field lateral component. So E field and B field lines diverge in walls increasing stress and shearing if at micro level. This will encourage arc from all closed path waves impacting both points of shearing. It is the kinetic impact of plasma arc and the higher absorption which can occur more often (more discontinuities in bigger surface area) which determines direction of thrust perhaps?
If true as said is a plasma globe shaped like a tapered cylinder. Higher flux tube density in the discontinuity region in the skin is important since it alters boundary conditions!
I'm not sure what your getting at. I'm talking about a phased array not a cavity necessarily (trying to keep it simple to begin with). Now its possible to extend this to a cavity but I wasn't going there. Here is an image of a time retarded phased array field and the forces induced on the phased array when the field was created. Notice how in a normal phased array the time retarded creation of the "charge separation fields" and "magnetic fields" create opposite forces on the phased array. Obviously magnetic or charge separation fields are stronger and the difference probably gives us the photon force.
Now the pure magnetic phased array no longer has this opposing electric force from charge separation. What happens?
If image of why such forces are induced in a phased array are needed I can link those. They are in my previous posts. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290
I was talking about the cavity resembling a phased array since that is where I thought you were going. Comparing the cavity to an LC circuit is a bad analogy for a number of reasons and the same might be said about a phased array. You would have to prove that the two endplates and walls share the same E field, which we know is very unlikely in most "high thrust" modes and due to multiple magnetic dipoles in the sidewalls. One solution is considering delocalized electrons in the interior though due to the relatively strong guide fields and oscillatory field it should form a permanent end-to-end arc to complete such a phased array style circuit. Hence why you would need to prove the phase and group velocity shifting between the two asymmetric ends, to compensate for the time retardation of the e- (presumably via walls) and match the difference in the net force. Think of this predictable phase shift as a result of the internal field oscillations as the overlapped field 'swings' back and forth based on the average of the most reflections on the various areas of each end (or put simply the interference pattern will always result from the sum of the coincident waves hence why proving the phased array interpretation of the cavity requires interpreting periodic phase shift).
The rest was more some thoughts I had regarding how the mere fact that there are more impurities (i.e. liquid droplets, metallic impurities (incl. oxidated states), organics, other compounds) in a larger surface area may be partially responsible for the thrust. If the thrust is composed of mainly the ions and electrons impacting the cavity walls then this should be more notable if one side has more impurities since the charge separation is greater turning each scratch, dust particle and/or rogue ion into a natural lightning rod and photovoltaic cell for both the internal microwaves and particle soup. Might be interesting to try a cavity with one side being partially doped or alloyed. Using irregular sized rings of alloy near the predicted modal peak(s) might impede the current and improve the likelihood of arcing in the big-endian direction. Again, these are all thoughts related to the phased array and assume that the wall is not made of discrete quanta which cannot communicate due to the strength and misalignment of the wall fields. Remember that the current in the walls will form loops in opposing directions near each modal peak, so single top to bottom mode cavities might be the only viable candidates for testing whether it is a phased array (also good support for why TM mode fails).
Please provide me with the proof that he is not under the supervision. I will be glad to accept that.
What do you consider "proof" for this? There is currently not a shred of evidence that Shawyer is involved with the Navy at all, and I just explained why this most recent information is evidence to the contrary. You have not provided any evidence to support your side. (Obscure hints by Shawyer that he is working with them don't count because he currently has no credibility.)
No I do not have physics background, you are right there.
I read it. Yes, they are neutral, that is why I question PotomacNeuron approach there. Because after his critic he will not be. I believe that true critic can be passed down only by the people that will actualy test this device. How can be so much people sure this can not work if they did not built it or test it on their own? That, does not make any sense. In this case more than ever. Theory is no doubt important. But actual testing is the pure essence of physics.
PotomacNeuron just reminded you that he has performed his own experiment, not that that is a requirement to be able to recognize flaws in someone else's experiment. The current available body of experimental evidence is not in favor of the emDrive working.
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
Meberbs,
Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.
Please read the bolded text:
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
One a NASA replicant cavity.
One cavity their design.
Each cavity has different geometries = different cavities.
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
One a NASA replicant cavity.
One cavity their design.
Each cavity has different geometries = different cavities.
I misread the grammar, as only applying to "their design" to the microwave circuit. That is the only sentence where they mention it. It is clear that they are focused on the replication of White et. al.
This experimental effort focuses on the cavity point design of White et. al from NASA JSC
Also, "own design" would say "Shawyer provided design" if he was providing the design, as it stands evidence remains that he is not involved.
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
Meberbs,
Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.
Again . . .
... as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries
Meberbs, I think you are coming close to stretching your interpretation of the Navy's own words . . .
