-
#1360
by
Monomorphic
on 19 Aug, 2019 23:29
-
-
#1361
by
meberbs
on 20 Aug, 2019 00:15
-
Last time I checked on EM drive development (probably 2 years ago by now), people were finding that when you started running them on internal power sources the thrust largely disappears. The consensus was that the EM drive was interacting with the magnetic fields created by having a high voltage power line running through your whole setup.
Has this been disproven? Has anyone demonstrated a 100% internally powered EM drive that consistently produces the same amount of thrust as ones with external power sources?
If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
-
#1362
by
Asteroza
on 20 Aug, 2019 00:59
-
https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019
Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop 2019
SESSION TWO: ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY & MISSIONS
Keynote 2: Alan Costley, “Development for Faster Fusion at Tokamak Energy”, Tokamak Energy Ltd.
Speaker 8: Angelo Genovese, “Laser-Powered Electric Propulsion Precursor Mission”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 9: Ryan Weed, “Antielectron Propulsion”, Positron Dynamics, USA.
Speaker 10: Rob Swinney, “Project Icarus Fusion Starship Concept Design Solutions”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 11: Charles Swanson, “Direct Fusion Drive for the Gravitational Lens Mission”, Princeton Satellite Systems, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Fusion, Antimatter Catalysed Fusion, Laser-Electric Propulsion, Precursor Missions.
Speaker 12: Jeremy Munday, “Engineering Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations”, University of Maryland, USA.
Speaker 13: Harold ‘Sonny’ White, “Dynamic Vacuum Propulsion”, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, USA.
Speaker 14: Heidi Fearn, “Advances in Mach Effect Gravitational Assist (MEGA) Drive Experimentation”, CSU Fullerton, California, USA.
Speaker 15: Mike McCulloch, “Quantised Inertia, Propellant-less Thrust and Interstellar Travel”, Plymouth University.
Speaker 16: Philip Lubin, “Directed Energy – The Path to Interstellar Flight”, University California Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Quantum Vacuum, Mach Effect, Inertia Drives.
Excerpt from Dr. "Sonny" White's presentation NASA's EAGLEWORKS
With 100% efficient system, thrust to power will be 6.3 uN/W, or 1900x photon rocket
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d0e42c39b82000117afa5/1562185304980/13_White_EW_June_2019_White.pdf
Shell
With all the phonon/acoustics talk from Dr. White, I'm going to drag out a link I posted
upthread in reply 901
The gravitational mass carried by sound wavesWith all the talk on acoustics/phonons though, I wonder if other acoustic properties/techniques are transferable, perhaps from the realm of thermoacoustics? Maybe acoustic metamaterial lenses?
The above pictured Casimir array is probably amenable to semiconductor manufacturing techniques. I wonder if you could print it onto a flexible substrate/thin film, and slap that on the back of a solar sail material lined with flexible PV cells on the other side...
-
#1363
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Aug, 2019 03:41
-
Seems Roger has built a new balance beam for his current Flight Thruster tests.
-
#1364
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Aug, 2019 03:47
-
If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
So for the record, to be very clear, you do not accept there is any validity to any of the test data Roger has produced using his various EmDrive devices?
If so how do you explain the published results?
-
#1365
by
meberbs
on 20 Aug, 2019 04:32
-
If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
So for the record, to be very clear, you do not accept there is any validity to any of the test data Roger has produced using his various EmDrive devices?
If so how do you explain the published results?
Has he published any results where he has demonstrated that he understands the definition of the word force? What little that Shawyer has meaningfully shared has been experiments that easily could be entirely due to one error source or another, but he generally doesn't share the kind of specifics needed to fully assess that.
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it, and to the extent he has shared details for replications of his device, no one has ever built a device that comes close to the thrust levels he claims.
-
#1366
by
Bob012345
on 20 Aug, 2019 16:19
-
Last time I checked on EM drive development (probably 2 years ago by now), people were finding that when you started running them on internal power sources the thrust largely disappears. The consensus was that the EM drive was interacting with the magnetic fields created by having a high voltage power line running through your whole setup.
Has this been disproven? Has anyone demonstrated a 100% internally powered EM drive that consistently produces the same amount of thrust as ones with external power sources?
If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My
perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
-
#1367
by
meberbs
on 20 Aug, 2019 16:55
-
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
-
#1368
by
Bob012345
on 20 Aug, 2019 17:20
-
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it
seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
-
#1369
by
Star One
on 20 Aug, 2019 17:56
-
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
I am glad for posters such as yourself as I’ve now found I have to ignore certain posters on this thread so strong are their inherent biases be it for or against the EM drive.
-
#1370
by
Bob012345
on 20 Aug, 2019 18:03
-
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
-
#1371
by
meberbs
on 20 Aug, 2019 18:32
-
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
Einstein and Bohr would have been debating subtle aspects of a new theory, not which direction something moves when you push on it. Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force. If you have a suggestion on another way to state this fact that doesn't lessen the fact that Shawyer is 100% wrong based on the very definitions of the words he using using, please share it.
-
#1372
by
Bob012345
on 20 Aug, 2019 18:33
-
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
I am glad for posters such as yourself as I’ve now found I have to ignore certain posters on this thread so strong are their inherent biases be it for or against the EM drive.
Thanks! And I have to constantly try and keep myself from just believing what I want to be true as I so want
some form of propellent-less propulsion to pan out.
-
#1373
by
Bob012345
on 20 Aug, 2019 19:25
-
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
Einstein and Bohr would have been debating subtle aspects of a new theory, not which direction something moves when you push on it. Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force. If you have a suggestion on another way to state this fact that doesn't lessen the fact that Shawyer is 100% wrong based on the very definitions of the words he using using, please share it.
Yes, "
Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force." is a
lot better than "
Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it" The former is more about his ideas being wrong and the latter is more about his person. Make it about his ideas and not about his mental capacity or character. Saying someone has a "complete lack of competence" is too personal even if they really do. And please don't take it as a personal affront if someone here doesn't always accept your arguments. Thanks.
-
#1374
by
Monomorphic
on 20 Aug, 2019 21:28
-
"Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong..."
is a lot better than
"Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence..."
I'm sorry, but who made you the thread moderator? Is this really what we are arguing about now?
I think both of those clauses are essentially the same and you would still be complaining even if meberbs used the first one.
-
#1375
by
Star One
on 20 Aug, 2019 21:42
-
"Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong..."
is a lot better than
"Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence..."
I'm sorry, but who made you the thread moderator? Is this really what we are arguing about now?
I think both of those clauses are essentially the same and you would still be complaining even if meberbs used the first one.
They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
-
#1376
by
Monomorphic
on 20 Aug, 2019 21:53
-
They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
I disagree. If one can't get a basic concept right, one shows a complete lack of competence.
The mods aren't going to ban meberbs and he isn't going to change. There's really no point in all this constant complaining. Let's argue the merits please.
-
#1377
by
Monomorphic
on 20 Aug, 2019 22:09
-
The real story here is that we have now seen the first of Dr. White's newest work with the Casimir force.
White is now claiming that a 1cm x 1cm array of tapered Casimir cavities can produce up to 0.11 uN of thrust if enhanced with an external B field. I have several questions such as can the B field generator be attached to the Casimir array, and wouldn't that be like pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps?
It seems as if this is all theoretical now as the individual Casimir cavities produce too tiny a force and there are no thrust balance measurements included.
It seems Dr. White has abandoned the Emdrive in favor of this new method. Does this mean the Emdrive rotary test rig experiment was a failure?
-
#1378
by
meberbs
on 20 Aug, 2019 22:14
-
They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
I disagree. If one can't get a basic concept right, one shows a complete lack of competence.
The mods aren't going to ban meberbs and he isn't going to change. There's really no point in all this constant complaining. Let's argue the merits please.
Star One does have a point in there being differences between the 2 statements I made, but this thread is not the place to discuss whether those differences are meaningful. I have previously asked people to PM me if they have specific suggestions to improve the tone and civility of my posts, and PM is the appropriate place for meta-discussion like this. I am certainly willing to learn and improve my method of communication, but I won't stop pointing out mistakes I see, and only clear data or well founded theory will change my views of propellantless propulsion devices. At least 5 posts including this one I am writing are off topic, so lets just move on and take any further discussion of this to PM.
-
#1379
by
Vesc
on 20 Aug, 2019 22:51
-
The real story here is that we have now seen the first of Dr. White's newest work with the Casimir force.
White is now claiming that a 1cm x 1cm array of tapered Casimir cavities can produce up to 0.11 uN of thrust if enhanced with an external B field. I have several questions such as can the B field generator be attached to the Casimir array, and wouldn't that be like pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps?
It seems as if this is all theoretical now as the individual Casimir cavities produce too tiny a force and there are no thrust balance measurements included.
It seems Dr. White has abandoned the Emdrive in favor of this new method. Does this mean the Emdrive rotary test rig experiment was a failure?
Been away a very long time. I lost interest in EMDrive when it occurred to me it might be just another form of electromagnetic drive with the Earth's Geomagnetic field acting as the field coil with the EMDrive frustrum as the armature. In truly empty space with no background B field, you get.... nothing. Well you get emitted IR from the hot frustrum. This does have application for satellite station keeping in a strong planetary magnetic field, but you'd get more thrust out of a true electromagnet. I suspect this still might not compete well with existing Hall effect thrusters. Anyway where were the control studies using Helmholtz coils to neutralize the Earth's magnetic field?
That being said and putting EMDrive aside, Sonny White is a totally different story. Tinkering with "vacuum dynamics" is fascinating to me big time. And yes I think Casimir Effect drives deserve their own threads. I don't expect high volume in them. Not yet anyway... ;-) Considering hydrogen atom orbitals follow acoustic dynamic pathways derived from Schrodinger Eq. but not part of the Copenhagen Interpretation is way, way out there. And probably right on the timeline of comparative 20th Century vs 21st Century physics. How can this not be exciting? Even if it turns out to be complete bunk. And if we're pushing against the fabric of space-time, would this create a wavelike wake that could distort atomic orbitals "behind" the active thrusters as further proof of an effect? Weird stuff. Reminiscent of Mills' hydrino theory which I never put much stock in. But this seems... very, very different....
