-
#1480 by Mark7777777 on 12 Sep, 2017 09:10
-
Thank you for your explanation.
-
#1481 by PotomacNeuron on 12 Sep, 2017 11:47
-
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree. -
#1482 by flux_capacitor on 12 Sep, 2017 12:02
-
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.
Demonstrating that the EmDrive works with a 2-meter wide (6.5 feet dia.!) copper cavity on a rotary test rig—?!
Last year you promised everyone to quickly build and share publicly this KISS rotary test rig:
which obviously is not similar to a space-grade thruster. Not need to resort to the difficulties to build a cheap and effective (at the same time) KISS thruster. You don't have to build dozens of cheap replication platforms, only one, more precise and at a higher unitary cost, for your own public tests.
Then and now, "due to the NDA you signed"
you say you will demonstrate publicly and "share with NSF" this kind of design instead:
Which length the support beam will have… about 8 to 10 meters? Do you own a aircraft hangar next to your house or something?
Please explain why the first KISS design would bother the unknown leading space industry firm you would be in contract with, but not the second one? (!!!)
This is like the inventor of the helicopter deciding to prove the world his invention works but not before a completed AH-64 Apache has been built
"I have this in my garage…"
"… but I won't show you until it gets like this:"
"because the NDA I signed with the US Army prevents me to show my current design."
What puzzles me besides such unnecessary technical complication is that you seem to relate your legal ability to show a working EmDrive, i.e. outside the scope of any NDA you signed, with the SIZE of the cavity.
The size of an object has nothing to do with NDAs, copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.
If NDA restrictions are not about the size of the cavity but its operating frequency (which are both related): if you really signed an NDA preventing the development of any other S-band thruster (I don't know why you would have shot yourself in the foot like this), there are ways to build smaller or bigger cavities before going Church Bell Size.
I fail to understand the logic, and why you doesn't show a basic test rig demonstrating a copper frustum with spherical end plates rotating, a simple model that would have nothing to do with your "professional NDA-protected secret space-grade EmDrive". Besides the fact it will make20182019 a very interesting year. -
#1483 by Mulletron on 12 Sep, 2017 12:16
-
TT let's see a scan of your NDA, properly redacted of course.
-
#1484 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 12:56
-
I fail to understand the logic, and why you doesn't show a basic test rig demonstrating a copper frustum with spherical end plates rotating, a simple model that would have nothing to do with your "professional NDA-protected secret space-grade EmDrive". Besides the fact it will make
20182019 a very interesting year.
I can't engage in S band or higher EmDrive R&D outside my contract. Which is why I decided on building a 500MHz EmDrive in a public way.
There are other designs that fit the 500MHz, Df 0.7725 form factor other than the one you nicely imaged.
However as freq drops, cavity size grows and Q grows. I'm sure you understand that 500MHz cavities will be larger than 2.45GHz S band thruster.
BTW your 2 chopper comparison is in no way correct. Both the S band and 500MHz thrusters are the 1st example, just the 500MHz cavity is physically much bigger but that biggness comes with 500K room temp Qu which is not to be ignored. -
#1485 by tleach on 12 Sep, 2017 13:02
-
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.
And many others, I'm sure, but jeez guys, cut Phil a little slack. If you want to see a working EM drive, build one yourselves or just sit back and waiy patiently. No need to get nasty
Lots of clues and recipies and ideas have been postex in these fourms and they tend to converge on similar designs, which are the same shapes Phil has been pushing all along. -
#1486 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 13:02
-
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.
Of course you do not agree.
How can you as you do not accept any of the existing test data has any validity? Plus neither you nor Meberbs has ever built an EmDrive, following the rules, so you reject something you have never done based on no physical experience.
Cool. -
#1487 by flux_capacitor on 12 Sep, 2017 13:14
-
There are other designs that fit the 500MHz, Df 0.7725 form factor.
However as freq drops, cavity size grows and Q grows. I'm sure you understand that.
I perfectly understand but we are not talking of a working air or space thruster here, but a public demonstrator.
We would all love to see a working EmDrive levitate or go through the roof for sure.
Proper Df, respecting the "cutoff rule", using shaped end plates, polished surfaces for high Q, narrow bandwidth, with pulsed operation, proper Tc filling time, etc: I understand all this.
These are "Roger's bread crumbs" you claim to follow carefully to build a "proper EmDrive". Otherwise the force is too small, or inexistent, like the Eagleworks frustum. Right?
Following these rules allows you, as you claim, to build any EmDrive, including 2.45GHz ones, with very high specific thrust forces.
Despite the Q factor increasing with size (I do agree), as you obtain so much stronger forces than any other lab including Eagleworks, you don't have to make a giant cavity with a very high Q to enable "the thrust signature to be clearly out of the noise". Cavendish setups can very well demonstrate the tens or even hundreds of millinewtons you claim to achieve with small copper cavities.
Therefore, with the knowledge and skills you acquired during the past three years, no need for a very expensive bell-sized EmDrive on a giant rotating test rig inside an aircraft hangar to demonstrate the "Shawyer effect".
Only a small test rig, efficient, not cheap but doable, will do the trick.
QED -
#1488 by Mulletron on 12 Sep, 2017 13:16
-
If I had a guy working for me and I had him sign a nondisclosure agreement, I certainly wouldn't allow him to post ANYTHING about the subject on a public forum that would help anyone else. None of this makes sense what's going on here.
-
#1489 by PotomacNeuron on 12 Sep, 2017 13:20
-
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.
Of course you do not agree.
How can you as you do not accept any of the existing test data has any validity? Plus neither you nor Meberbs has ever built an EmDrive, following the rules, so you reject something you have never done based on no physical experience.
Cool.
The best experiment until 2015 was the 2014 EM experiment and the 2014 Tajmar experiment. I worked with many of my precious hours to show that the 2014 EW experiment had missed the Lorentz force. I pointed out what Tajmar missed in his experiment. So I have valid reasons to reject the EW 2014 and the Tajmar 2014 experiments. Yang rejected her own experiments. I do notice at least three other experiments that do not show thrust. I spent hours to help one experimenter to find why Lorentz force caused "thurst" in his build. This caused his recall of 1mN thrust (I forgot the name. He is a physics student in a university). I have done more than many on this forum. Right, I have not built an EmDrive. It is you or others who believe it works that bear the burden to prove it works. Unfortunately, until now, there is no experiment that shows it works. -
#1490 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 13:20
-
Only a small test rig, efficient, not cheap but doable, will do the trick.
.
QED
I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster, ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.
I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer. -
#1491 by mclumber1 on 12 Sep, 2017 13:31
-
I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster, ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.
I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
I think others have asked you this, but why would Shawyer share (almost exclusively) with you both build data and "bread crumbs" on how to construct a thruster? You are a competitor to him at this point, I would think that would mean he would shut you out of all further information about his technology.
Because of this (among other reasons), people are beginning to question your credibility. -
#1492 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 13:34
-
If I had a guy working for me and I had him sign a nondisclosure agreement, I certainly wouldn't allow him to post ANYTHING about the subject on a public forum that would help anyone else. None of this makes sense what's going on here.
That is because you have no idea of what we have developed. What I talk about here is yesterdays news. Nothing new has been revealed.
My NDA does not restrict me talking about the past or from commenting on what Roger shares. I consult to my client and have licensed them rights to certain unique technology I developed, that is well beyond what is shared from the past. -
#1493 by flux_capacitor on 12 Sep, 2017 13:41
-
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust.
There are no other examples of working EmDrives:
- all EmDrives publicly known to date, from Eagleworks to TU Dresden through DIYers, develop so little thrust that the measured force can still be mistaken with thermal or EM effects. Or the cavity develops a force of the same magnitude as the axial one, but laterally (Tajmar) which ruins the whole demonstration.
- Yang Juan withdrawn her prior very high thrust measurements, stating that when the energy source is moved onto the setup (admittedly a much lighter and lower power one) and is not external anymore, the thrust force almost disappears within the noise i.e. below the resolution accuracy of her torsion pendulum. And yes I agree the setup described in her last paper was poorly designed and could not detect a force even if it was present due to the stiffness of the three steel wires, but precisely this fact alone highlights how the thrust produced is so low. A problem of low specific force you claim to have overcome.
- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup.
- Eagleworks' rotary test rig leaked video is also plagued with spurious forces that are not related to the cavity, according to Paul March himself.
- All EmDrives developing a very high specific thrust that may exist at SPR, private aerospace companies, army labs, etc… are kept secret, so that no EmDrive has been definitely proven to work yet. This fact alone demonstrates the whole problem. If the technology was already "demonstrated" outside of small circles, the race would currently be in the industry, not done secretly in private and defense R&D labs.
You seem to not understand the necessity to demonstrate the EmDrive validity to the general public and wider science circles outside the circles of "people in the know" of which you became a part of.
Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
We already know that you are a believer. The purpose of a public demonstrator on a rotary test rig is not intended to prove the EmDrive is working to you of course, but to everyone else. -
#1494 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 13:51
-
I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster, ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.
I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
I think others have asked you this, but why would Shawyer share (almost exclusively) with you both build data and "bread crumbs" on how to construct a thruster? You are a competitor to him at this point, I would think that would mean he would shut you out of all further information about his technology.
Because of this (among other reasons), people are beginning to question your credibility.
Roger has never shared core tech with me. Never. Told me to buy a good microwave engineering text book and start reading. Which I did. Laid out a few bread crumbs for me to follow but that is it. He sometime gives me pre notice of stuff he is posting on his website site, like the builders guide that is now on the EmDrive web site.
Roger is going for really high Q superconducting heavy mass lifters, while I, well my client, focuses on 0.4N/kW Ion Drive replacement satellite thrusters, so we do not compete.
And yes Roger tells me nothing about what he and Gilo Industries are doing. We do however stay in contact and exchange external news stories.
Mary-Ann from IBT talks to Roger a lot more than me and gets all the really hot stuff. Sometime iI learn more from Mary-Ann than Roger.
Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW. -
#1495 by meberbs on 12 Sep, 2017 14:01
-
TT does not deserve any slack at this point. He has broken an absurd number of promises, made ridiculous claims, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic physics, refusing to answer even the simplest of questions that show the inconsistency of his claims.Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.
And many others, I'm sure, but jeez guys, cut Phil a little slack. If you want to see a working EM drive, build one yourselves or just sit back and waiy patiently. No need to get nasty
Lots of clues and recipies and ideas have been postex in these fourms and they tend to converge on similar designs, which are the same shapes Phil has been pushing all along.
Speaking of inconsistency, when exactly was this newest supposed NDA with nonsensical restrictions signed?
I am not sure what you mean by clues and recipes converging, since really they are just all copying what Shawyer originally did. -
#1496 by Rodal on 12 Sep, 2017 14:04
-
...
With one important diverging line of development: the Chinese resonant cavities for Space tests are not following Shawyer's prescriptions, for example concerning the geometry and the nature of the electromagnetic fields inside the cavity.
I am not sure what you mean by clues and recipes converging, since really they are just all copying what Shawyer originally did. -
#1497 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 14:06
-
Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.
I did ask Roger if he could get permissions to share the Demonstrator detailed rotary technical report as he did the static test. He went away and tried. Told me a few weeks ago that it was not available for public release.
Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?
Why not contact Gilo Industries Group and ask them when they plan to do a public demo as they now own Universal Propulsion, the once JV between SPR and Gilo Cardozo? -
#1498 by Rodal on 12 Sep, 2017 14:07
-
...
He would not agree to meet with Jamie even in a restaurant or a pub, but it was OK for the MOD to show his workshop to TV cameras to the entire world, in the Project Greenglow TV program?
Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
-
#1499 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 14:15
-
...
He would not agree to meet with Jamie even in a restaurant or a pub, but it was OK to show his workshop to TV cameras to the entire world, in the TV program?
Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
Jose,
I talked with Mary-Ann who did the at length interview and the guy who directed project greenglow. In both cases what they could and could not show nor say was controlled by the UK MOD. Mary-Ann told me she had to go through a security check and every question she asked Roger and his reply was agreed in advance. Said many times Roger answered too much and many retakes were required to keep his replies as per the preagreed script.
I'm sure Jamie will confirm what I shared. I really did give it my best shot to get them together for a chat.
BTW what they showed as Roger's workshop was his storage area. We saw nothing new, none of the cryo work. None of the test rigs. Only old stuff in storage.
The flat sided thruster Roger put on the air track was vintage 2007. 1st C band build after the Demonstrator.
you say you will demonstrate publicly and "share with NSF" this kind of design instead: