Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.com
Latest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
This release is more disruptive than anything in the last 100 years of the quickly throw mass away propulsion industry.
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU. No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.
Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU.
Mathematically impossible, this has been explained to you before, since there is no special reference frame, and thermal energy and electrical energy from the batteries do not change with frame, but kinetic energy change does, if they happen to balance in one frame, they will not in another. This is not a problem for actual rockets because the difference in the kinetic energy of the rocket and what is expels is constant. But even simpler is the issue you keep ignoring with conservation of momentum:
No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.
Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
I replied to your previous set of questions that revolved around your misunderstanding of Newton's laws. I had follow up questions for you (that I originally asked years ago) You still haven't answered those simple questions.
Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.
There are certain things that are definitions, or mathematical or logical facts, such as 1+1 = 2.
Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.com
Latest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
Thanks The Traveller. Do you know how Roger has been getting on with his superconducting efforts?
Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.com
Latest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
Thanks The Traveller. Do you know how Roger has been getting on with his superconducting efforts?
Roger tells me his Luna PSV project is work in progress as attached.
For those with EmDrive understanding, there are interesting data presented there.
The upper crew module can be removed and replaced with a cargo module.
Some of which will be discussed in his 2019 IAC paper:
"EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission".
Should be an interesting read.
These are some of the more interesting CAD plans from the recent release in my opinion.
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows a "baseplate error correction" being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor (~75,000). This tolerance is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive.
These are some of the more interesting CAD plans from the recent release in my opinion.
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows an "error correction" baseplate being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor. This is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive.
Hi Jamie,
I'll get a clarification from Roger & post his reply.
Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
The internal photons and their momentum are part of the universe.
As the EmDrive accelerates and gains momentum, the internal photons lose the momentum gained by the drive and their wavelengths increase.
Thus universal momentum is not altered & CofM is conserved
Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
The internal photons and their momentum are part of the universe.
As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.
(This specification is not required, but it makes the explanation simpler, since you have refused to recognize the half dozen other ways to explain this, and you just repeat claims that the photons in a moving cavity have net momentum in the opposite direction of what they actually do.)
As the EmDrive accelerates and gains momentum, the internal photons lose the momentum gained by the drive and their wavelengths increase.
Just as wrong as the last time you claimed this. See my previous response that covered this in detail. (And while you are at it read and respond to those simple questions I asked.)
As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.
Invalid model.
Momentum is transferred from the photons to the accelerating EmDrive every time the travelling waves reflect off the end plates. Happens in real time.
As the EmDrive gains momentum, the internal photons lose a balancing amount of momentum and their wavelengths increase. Again CofM occurs & momentum is transferred on each end plate absorb & emit event. Standard radiation pressure physics.
As for energy, as the EmDrive accelerates and it's KE increases, the total energy stored inside the cavity decreases, resulting in an energy division. Some goes into KE and some is radiated away as waste heat energy.
Input Rf energy = Gained KE + waste heat radiated energy.
BTW the loss of cavity energy to KE also drops the Force generated as the KE drain drops cavity energy, which causes the Force generated to drop.
So no OU operations here. Just energy conversion Rf > photons > some % to KE > what is left is radiated away as waste heat.
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.
Here Roger explains how the Reaction Force is measured on the attached Test Rig.
Note that cavity thermal expansion is used to trigger Force generation.
Ie, no initial acceleration, no Reaction Force will be generated.
During a test run, because there is no thermal compensation in the flight thruster design, the walls of the thruster will expand.
The large difference in spring constants of the suspension spring and the electronic balance, mean this wall expansion will cause the centre of mass of the thruster to move.
The movement is recorded as an increase in the pre-load, measured on the electronic balance.
The acceleration in this movement, caused by the Reaction force, is measured as an increase or decrease in the pre-load depending on the attitude of the thruster.
Thus with the thrust vector down, (as illustrated in fig 5.5), the Reaction force is up, and the pre-load increase will be slightly decreased.
As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.
Invalid model.
I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.
Most of the rest of your post is repeating things such as your completely backwards claims about what direction something moves when it is pushed on, and generally ignoring my last couple of replies to you.I already explained that even if you make up numbers that balance energy in one frame, they will not work in literally any other frame, and no frame is special.
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.
There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment hasproduced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
Details of some of the ways the experiment can be wrong will have to wait until you answer the simple questions that you have been avoiding for years, and I re-asked at the end of my recent post that you ignored. If you don't first understand how forces work, it will be impossible to explain to you the problems with Shawyer's setup.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1981848#msg19818481
I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.
I'm dodging nothing, while you dodge that happens in real time, during each photon end plate absorb & emit event. As per attachment.
Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?
What I have explained to you is
the momentum transfer from the trapped photons to the increasing EmDrive momentum and their increasing wavelengths happens in real time, every time the photons are absorbed & emitted at the end plates. So why do not comment on this? Why ask questions about what happens when the cavity stored energy is turned into waste heat? Maybe because it destroys your failed model?
Nothing is about what happens after the stored cavity energy decays so why are you going there? Your model is wrong.
Anyway I doubt you and I will every agree on theory so let's agree to disagree and move on.
What we have before us is experimental data. Do you accept the results? If not why?
This thread feels like reading the script of an absurdist play.
These are some of the more interesting CAD plans from the recent release in my opinion.
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows a "baseplate error correction" being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor (~75,000). This tolerance is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive.
Hi Jamie,
Roger replied about page 55. Was done to correct a machining error. Replications can use the earlier paged dimensions, pages 6, 47-54 as the build goal.
I'm informed +-50 micron tolerance, about human hair diameter, is fairly easy to achieve with any decent machine shop.
I'm making enquiries about getting a Flight Thruster cavity replicated.
Plus can source a 100W 3.85GHz Rf amp and freq tracker.
Are you interested in testing it as per Roger's requirement of using a precursor cavity acceleration?
If so have a few ideas of others ways to cause the external force that causes internal Doppler shift, triggering self acceleration.
In the end, the viability of the EmDrive is about experimental data.
Now Roger has opened the door to others doing high fidelity replications of the drive and the test rig.
Let the test data set us free.
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.
There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment has produced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
The experimental results have nothing to do with theory, yours or Roger's or mine.
Experimental data has been published showing a very clear and high thrust value, 170mN at 450W input.
Please explain, not using theory or lack of it, how this large thrust value was obtained.
And if as you suggest it is from from failed experimental data or technique, how that occurred.
Not fair to wave your hands and claim it can't be real as you do not agree with Roger's theory.
The data is data.
Either explain how the error occurred or accept the data as valid.
Theory has no part in the experimental data.
I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.
I'm dodging nothing, while you dodge that happens in real time, during each photon end plate absorb & emit event. As per attachment.
You are aware there other posters can read the post history right? I previously answered your inside-out explanation of forces with the correct description, and even included a link in case you somehow couldn't find it one page back on the thread. On the other hand you have not answered any of my questions.
Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?
It has everything to do with the conversation. A before and after sum of momentum is the simplest way to see if momentum is conserved. It avoids all of the little tricks you keep hiding behind while ignoring my explanations.
What I have explained to you is the momentum transfer from the trapped photons to the increasing EmDrive momentum and their increasing wavelengths happens in real time, every time the photons are absorbed & emitted at the end plates. So why do not comment on this?
I did comment on this already. Why do you keep ignoring my post where I answered all of your questions on this topic?
Anyway I doubt you and I will every agree on theory so let's agree to disagree and move on.
Can't do that, because the problem isn't "theory" but you not reading my posts, and not understanding the definition of terms under discussion such as "force." With a setup like Shawyer's it is easy to get wrong answers if you don't understand what force is.
What we have before us is experimental data. Do you accept the results? If not why?
I accept the results from the experimenters with a setup that is not extremely error-prone and have demonstrated that they understand which direction something moves in when you push on it.
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU.
Mathematically impossible, this has been explained to you before, since there is no special reference frame, and thermal energy and electrical energy from the batteries do not change with frame, but kinetic energy change does, if they happen to balance in one frame, they will not in another. This is not a problem for actual rockets because the difference in the kinetic energy of the rocket and what is expels is constant. But even simpler is the issue you keep ignoring with conservation of momentum:
No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.
Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
I replied to your previous set of questions that revolved around your misunderstanding of Newton's laws. I had follow up questions for you (that I originally asked years ago) You still haven't answered those simple questions.
Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.
There are certain things that are definitions, or mathematical or logical facts, such as 1+1 = 2.
Sometimes 1+1 is not equal to 2. Occasionally our definitions are incomplete. Also, it's a fact that sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts such as the effect of two half critical masses separately and then together!
Sometimes 1+1 is not equal to 2.
Never true. it is the definition of the numbers 1, 2, and the + operator.
Occasionally our definitions are incomplete.
Sometimes true, but Shawyer and TT do not propose any change in physics, they just do the math wrong, often by flipping signs on forces. They are not proposing extending the definitions.
Also, it's a fact that sometimes the sum is more than the parts such as the effect of two half critical masses separately and then together!
No, the energy released comes out of their original masses. If you want to make the colloquial phrase scientifically accurate, "the sum is more useful than the parts." (Unless you are trying to talk about something like human emotion, which is not a scientifically conserved quantity, and does not combine arithmetically, but that would be WAY off topic.)
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.
There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment has produced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
The experimental results have nothing to do with theory, yours or Roger's or mine.
Shawyer's apparent inability to understand what a force is is relevant when discussing his experiments.
Experimental data has been published showing a very clear and high thrust value, 170mN at 450W input.
Please explain, not using theory or lack of it, how this large thrust value was obtained.
You appear to be asking for a "theory that is not involve theory." Ignoring that contradiction, I already explained that motion due to thermal distortion is a problem with the setup, Shawyer even states that it exists in what you quoted, but he does not do anything near sufficient to adjust for this.
I cannot explain anything in any more detail to you than that because any more detailed explanation would involve the word force. You repeatedly have ignored my attempts to get you to answer questions that would resolve the issues with how you distort this word.
