Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Seriously? How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws? A few examples:
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction. Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.
- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense. How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?
- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment? What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?
etc etc.
The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.
It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.
While the physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
You simply ignored most of the original post. Also, Compton effect does not somehow save conservation of momentum in the emDrive. (I'll skip the energy explanation for now, because if you don't get the trivial momentum issue, then you won't get the marginally less obvious energy issue.)
Start with an emDrive which is not moving (0 momentum), turn it on, wait a while, turn it off, wait for all internal RF to die out. If the device is moving, it has momentum, when before it had 0, meaning conservation of momentum is broken unless it interacted with something else (which would require new physics to define that something else). You can't say this momentum came from the photons, because the photons were generated by the device, and have since been absorbed.
Yes, radiation pressure is a thing, but the said radiation is not leaving the cavity. To repeat an analogy I used previously, you saying that radiation pressure conserves momentum in answer to questions about momentum conservation is equivalent to saying 1+1+1+1 = 5, and arguing that this is correct because 1+1=2.
Meberbs,
The EmDrive works.
Nothing leaves the cavity other than IR photons generated by ohmic heating in the cavity surfaces and some reflected Rf which is thermalised in a dummy load.
The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
During self sustained cavity acceleration, the internal photons are red shifted with lost photon energy equal to cavity gained KE.
As cavity gained KE is sourced from cavity energy, force is reduced as cavity KE gain increases. Force during acceleration is not constant.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Fair enough:
- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in
translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.
Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4
working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).
The EmDrive works.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.
The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Between the broken promises, increasingly fantastic claims, and a seemingly permanent inability to provide evidence that a development effort is being made, it has become very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt.
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
That's is the normal nature of human things, including R&D. That's why the length of waiting lines never follows a steady average, and when you most need a taxi in NYC they are all occupied
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Seriously? How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws? A few examples:
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction. Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.
- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense. How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?
- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment? What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?
etc etc.
Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Fair enough:
- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.
Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4 working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).
FC,
I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.
Do hope what I share is of value.
Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.
What we need is more data. Page after page debating theories and tips for optimizing systems, but no conclusive proof EM drives work. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, you need to show some proof. Let's see some test runs and results. Not just one run and change the configuration, but several runs to build up statistical significance. Then change the orientation of the drive and do another series. Let's see some real experimentation and results above the signal-to-noise level.
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
That's is the normal nature of human things, including R&D. That's why the length of waiting lines never follows a steady average, and when you most need a taxi in NYC they are all occupied
And here I am happily retired and you remind me of my LeanSixSigma days. No fair!
The EmDrive works.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.
The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
Meberbs,
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Between the broken promises, increasingly fantastic claims, and a seemingly permanent inability to provide evidence that a development effort is being made, it has become very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt.
Hi RS,
If what I share is of value to you in furthering your understanding of why and how the EmDrive works, that is good.
We expect to be able to offer a complete bolt on TRL 9 EmDrive system product in a few years. Roger/Gilo Industries, the Chinese or one of 5 other groups I know of may beat us to the market.
Both Roger and I will continue to work with Jamie as his work should deliver the proof you all seek. That is as long as he doesn't get sucked by commercial interests that are starting to realise EmDrives do work and can be designed to replace all existing Ion Drives. Lot of money in the Ion Drive market.
Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.
What we need is more data. Page after page debating theories and tips for optimizing systems, but no conclusive proof EM drives work. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, you need to show some proof. Let's see some test runs and results. Not just one run and change the configuration, but several runs to build up statistical significance. Then change the orientation of the drive and do another series. Let's see some real experimentation and results above the signal-to-noise level.
It's a lot more complicated than that when some folks make a career out of throwing water on good data and keep moving the bar. The charge that there no good data for EMDrive Mega drive is wearing thin.
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand.
What do you think "open system" means?Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)
P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
Seeing the flurry of interesting media evidence emerging from China, actual experimental data by some brave experimenters and news of more institutional replications, I'd encourage everyone to reduce the noise in the channel to a minimum.
If someone doesn't understand or agree with someone else, that's perfectly fine, please just try to avoid repetition of the same ideas again and again.
This channel is a really valuable venue where lots of us can find a condensed view of everything Emdrive, and we should try to keep it as clean as possible.
Thanks and keep up the good posts!
The EmDrive works.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.
The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
Meberbs,
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
TT,
One of the problems with this argument is that whether you are talking about photons as bouncing balls or even EM waves, transferring momentum to the walls of a container, no one has shown how the net transfer of momentum can wind up as anything but null.
There have been several theoretical speculations that move deep into New Physics, incorporating everything from manipulating mass and/or inertia, spacetime curvature, even the quantum vacuum, but until a well funded lab that is not behind a "cone of silence" has a functional device to work with, there is little chance, that if an EmDrive does work, how it works will be nailed down and publicly published.
More to the point of your argument and present with significant certainty, since you can't or won't provide design detail of any of your as yet publically unproven drives, maybe you could just explain exactly how you have measured and proven how EM radiation pressure is the underlying mechanism. Not how you speculate or imagine it to be, how you have measured and proven it.
Even if you have a funtioning device you are unwilling to unveil, how have you measured the "photon" momentum transfer you claim, as the functional mechanism of operation, should not be covered by an NDA.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Fair enough:
- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.
Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4 working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).
FC,
I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.
Do hope what I share is of value.
I'm sure there are more than few well qualified people on this Forum that would gladly sign
any NDA to visit your lab and see for themselves how the 55N/kW drive works. There
always seems to be something that "prevents" you from providing any real evidence. I personally do not know any person that did not take a single picture or a video while doing some engineering work, you are the only one. Moreover, this might be an unpopular opinion, but from all your posts across years, I deducted that most likely you did not make a single build, ever, let alone make one that produces any thrust.
On the EMDrive it self - is it possible that when frequency matches certain cavity diameter/shape, a region of space within the cavity is under such stress that space becomes
very slightly bent? Could even tiniest space curvature result in uneven net force on either end?
I finished the new calibration arm.
This replaces the more cumbersome version mounted on the tripod and also adds a dual function of RF on/off logging to the Analogue Digital Converter (ADC). Since the RF system is isolated on the torsional pendulum, but the ADC logging system is off the pendulum, properly logging RF on/off has been tedious as before I was doing so manually. This new system uses a 2.4GHz antenna positioned very close the the frustum. The small bit of RF leaking out during tests is detected using an RF power detector and sent to the ADC. I also have the ability to amplify this leaked RF signal if necessary. This basically finishes the planned alterations for the torsional pendulum test stand. Now I'm just wrapping up the wiring for the new 30W amplifier.
I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.
Do hope what I share is of value.
It is difficult to understand why Roger would help breed a competitor (you, TT) and potentially lose his first to market position. Does he not have to answer to his investors and partners?
This replaces the more cumbersome version mounted on the tripod and also adds a dual function of RF on/off logging to the Analogue Digital Converter (ADC). Since the RF system is isolated on the torsional pendulum, but the ADC logging system is off the pendulum, properly logging RF on/off has been tedious as before I was doing so manually. This new system uses a 2.4GHz antenna positioned very close the the frustum. The small bit of RF leaking out during tests is detected using an RF power detector and sent to the ADC. I also have the ability to amplify this leaked RF signal if necessary. This basically finishes the planned alterations for the torsional pendulum test stand. Now I'm just wrapping up the wiring for the new 30W amplifier.