Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11  (Read 198794 times)

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 1
Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it.  :P ::)

General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow. 

Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.

As for the mach effect thruster, it is also not doing well. Several high level physics heavy presentations, including one by Dr. Rodal, that make the claim that the mach effect thruster cannot work as Woodward describes and is likely a self-interaction effect. Tajmar's group thinks it doesn't work and will report tomorrow.  Then in my presentation I showed how Woodward's thrust signature can be generated in a simulation of the device using first principles and simple mechanics - and how everything equals out to zero at the end.  I was also able to build a crude 3 DOF device that produced the same "thrust" signature.
This test chart should be under the condition of increased torsional pendulum damping?

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 459
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...

Sounds rather typical. Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.    Richard Feynman

Offline MineCanary

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
As a longtime lurker, that's evidence enough for me to call it.  Emdrive doesn't work.  This is of course still wonderful science, as discovering what does and doesn't work are BOTH contributing to the body of knowledge of this wacky reality we live in.  Congrats and well done to all, especially Monomorphic who has kept us all 'in the passengers seat' during this ride.  It's been a great ride indeed!

Looks like its 'generation ships' to the stars.. or I wonder how cryogenics are going..

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 42
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...

Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable  way yesterday.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.

You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1858
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 409
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...

Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable  way yesterday.
There is no comfortable interpretation of that. If they had an emDrive that produced positive results, there wouldn't be much need to borrow an old drive from Shawyer. This restriction guarantees that under the assumption that the emDrive doesn't work, no one would be allowed to test Shawyer's device if their setup is capable of disproving it. If the emDrive did work, then this restriction is just a pointless obstacle, slowing down efforts to validate Shawyer's claims. Even if it wasn't meant as a request to fabricate data, it is a completely unscientific approach, and difficult to see why anyone would ask for that restriction unless they knew their device did not work and were trying to hide that.

Bottom line, the word "before" is important, and deserves to be emphasized. (Note that "after" would actually have been worse, since it would directly be a request to fake results if they came back negative.)

In contrast, we have examples such as the data being presented at the conference in Estes of people actually following good scientific process, and coming to unbiased results.

Offline TheTraveller

...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...

Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable  way yesterday.

In email corro with Roger about this. Was told what Jamie reported was accurate.

However.......

It is my understanding that Tajmar's group needed to show they had followed Roger advise, built an EmDrive and thrust measurement system as per what he shared. Once they had achieved that goal and measured thrust, he would then loan them an EmDrive to test.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • France
  • Liked: 788
  • Likes Given: 1055
Thank you PotomacNeuron. Yesterday I was disgusted too about Shawyer's behavior after I read that sentence like you at first glance, i.e. that the condition to loan that older thruster was that Tajmar had to report positive results of this old device BEFORE he could actually hold it in his hands. It was so nonsensical and unethical I was baffled. You restored the correct meaning, its more logic now.

However meberbs makes a point in that it is a faulty logic. He states that Shawyer only wants to loan devices that can be "proven to work" on badly designed test stands. According to meberbs, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would detect spurious forces where there are no genuine thrust. If so, Shawyer would obtain guarantees in advance that his own cavity, would show some "thrust" on Tajmar's test rig, whereas it is not true.

But TheTraveller has another point of view, where he assumes that Shawyer doesn't want to loan devices that could not be properly tested on badly designed test stands. According to TT, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would not detect any genuine thrust yet present, for lack of sensitivity or any technical "prerequisite" mandatory according to SPR theory.

These two points of view cannot converge.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 42
Thank you PotomacNeuron. Yesterday I was disgusted too about Shawyer's behavior after I read that sentence like you at first glance, i.e. that the condition to loan that older thruster was that Tajmar had to report positive results of this old device BEFORE he could actually hold it in his hands. It was so nonsensical and unethical I was baffled. You restored the correct meaning, its more logic now.

However ...

Years ago I tried to sell an imported product in the US. I asked somebody famous to review it. He promised not to say bad words about it, to my (a little bit) surprise. So I guess maybe it is a norm in business, though it might not be acceptable in science.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 459
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.

You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.

And even now, with only some vague descriptions of results of a few limited tests, our approach does not seem very solid.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.    Richard Feynman

Offline moreno7798

It would be interesting to hear from Dr. Harold White from NASA's Eagleworks.

I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car.

Yes, I built a little toy car out of some legos. It's not exactly friction free so occasionally it will move to one side or the other, but overall it stays in the same place. I also recorded the device in slow motion attached to some springs. If you watch the bottom right corner of the oscillator, you can see how it displaces to the right more than the left of equilibrium. This anharmonic displacement is at the same frequency as the oscillation, but it is only a 2 DOF oscillator. I think at least three masses are required for Mach/Henry Bull-like displacements, plus some other anelastic effects.



It is worth considering the inerter...




http://imik.wip.pw.edu.pl/zmitu/images/Publikacje/Seminaria/mechanika_energetyczna_zastosowanie.pdf
http://www.kms.polsl.pl/mi/pelne_18/01_18_49.pdf
Device for efficient self-contained inertial vehicular propulsion
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9995284B1/en?inventor=Gottfried+Gutsche

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 638
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.

You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.

And even now, with only some vague descriptions of results of a few limited tests, our approach does not seem very solid.

Given the lack of other clear results, if Tajmar or other professional team disprove it, my take will be that the phenomenon doesn't exist (any thrust is just noise) or it's too weak to be taken clearly and unmistakably out of the noise background.

Which for all purposes, will make it non existing for mainstream physics and stay on the fringe as long as such situation doesn't change.

Well, a pity. But this really wasn't an unexpected outcome.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2018 08:09 PM by tchernik »

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 66
But even if Emdrive does not work as intended, couldn't these 'artifacts', which were so difficult to get rid of, and which caused the apparent thrust, be used to propel LEO satellites (assuming that these artifacts are the result of interaction with Earth's magnetic field)?

Offline Donosauro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
But even if Emdrive does not work as intended, couldn't these 'artifacts', which were so difficult to get rid of, and which caused the apparent thrust, be used to propel LEO satellites (assuming that these artifacts are the result of interaction with Earth's magnetic field)?

The magnetic artifacts caused by interactions with the Earth's magnetic field were torques. Some satellites have used those for attitude control from the early days of artificial Earth satellites. Magnetic thrust forces would, sadly, be many orders-of-magnitude smaller.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1425
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3916
  • Likes Given: 1268
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 1
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.
The US Navy Emdrive also looks like the TE012 or TE013 module. The magnetic field is shielded by a magnetic conductive steel. Your cavity test has a force of 7uN, and my cavity has a force of only 0.7uN. The other conditions are the same, indicating that the source of force is not external interference, but the cavity itself. Professor Yang Wei told me that her whole thruster design is in accordance with Mr. Shawyer's suggestion that the direction of the cavity thrust is fluctuating. She provided the whole system to me free of charge, but I don't have a laboratory. I am considering further improving her thruster program.

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 1
Recently, with the in-depth analysis of Professor Yang Lan, I learned that her suspension oscillating thruster was directly guided by Mr. Shawyer during the design process. During the test period, the device was placed in multiple orientations, such as north and south. Things and so on. No significant differences were found in the thrust of the device.

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Liked: 777
  • Likes Given: 876
Unless someone can demonstrate a rebuttal, in the form of a device that shows a thrust signal, in an apparatus with as much attention to noise control as Monomorphic's has, I see little reason to hope that these tiny, errant signals are anything but noise.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1858
  • Liked: 1726
  • Likes Given: 409
...According to meberbs, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would detect spurious forces where there are no genuine thrust. ...

... According to TT, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would not detect any genuine thrust yet present, for lack of sensitivity or any technical "prerequisite" mandatory according to SPR theory.

These two points of view cannot converge.
As far as them being effectively opposite definitions, then that is correct that these points of view can't converge.

Really both validly describe a different type of "bad" test stand. TT's version of a bad test stand can be eliminated without first putting an emDrive on the stand though. The sensitivity of the measurement device to small forces is something that is measured by any good experiment to calibrate the instrument. (And Shawyer has claimed forces with even his early drives orders of magnitude above the sensitivities of recent tests.) Any "prerequisites" can be explicitly stated and accounted for. (e.g. if it needs an initial acceleration, a controlled "tap" can be generated, even if you decide to ignore accelerations from gravity and Earth's rotation for some reason.)

Tags: