-
#420 by edzieba on 19 Nov, 2020 16:05
-
'Commercial interests' would dictate actually showing that a device works at some point.
At the moment, we have a device that supposedly works but nobody is allowed see it, based on maths that supposedly works but nobody can show you (but are very willing to show maths that doesn't work once anyone else examines it). -
#421 by dustinthewind on 19 Nov, 2020 16:08
-
The shoe has been up there for 10 years. It has a better record at ignoring gravity than all EMDrive-type designs at this point.
Hi Edzieba,
Has been stated many times. Commercial interests restrict data release.
Those that deny what has been shared should prepare their responses upon commercial release.
Consider cavity trapped photons lose matching accelerated cavity gained momentum. CofM is conserved.
Increased cavity photon wavelength is the action, while accelerated cavity mass is the reaction.
Need to stop thinking about how mass to mass momentum transfer works as photons don't alter velocity but do alter wavelength when they lose/transfer momentum to mass.
Another thing to understand is the EmDrive uses fuel, being photon energy & momentum, which has much lower energy density than exothermic fossile fuels.
Fuel matters aren't the big obstacle. Maybe assume its nuclear powered or solar. Primarily its about eliminating the need to carry propellant. Maybe efficiency in converting the fuel to photons in your case, then efficiency in converting photon energy to propellant.
For those of us with scientific interests rather than corporate lets see what can be said. (what company by the way?)
Question 1.
For photons to lose energy/frequency h*df=dE to something and undergo a doppler shift they have to push against something that escapes the cavity f.dx=dE and most likely they have to do this over many cycles before being wasted as heat.
-What do you think the photons are pushing against that is escaping the cavity? This is fundamental to understanding then enhancement in my opinion. Being with out this, we are lost without a compass.
It can even be some chain of events which eventually leads to something escaping. For it to be efficient there should be some efficient conversion of momentum and kinetic energy to this escaping medium, in an asymmetric fashion so it escapes primarily in one direction. (I have in mind a few possibilities I have speculated on myself.)
Question 2.
How is it efficient if the wavelength changes to the point the wavelength no longer resonates in the cavity and is shunted to some resistance - wasted as heat?
What do you do with this changing wavelength? How much is used, how much is wasted as heat?
How much does the wavelength change from its original lambda? This would give you some estimate on the efficiency of the system - ratio of energy converted.
3. Do you have proof of this wavelength change? Does it match the power gained?
4. Are there in space tests?
5. Maximum Newtons of thrust? Above possible thermal, buoyant effects? -
#422 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2020 16:27
-
The shoe has been up there for 10 years. It has a better record at ignoring gravity than all EMDrive-type designs at this point.
Hi Edzieba,
Has been stated many times. Commercial interests restrict data release.
Those that deny what has been shared should prepare their responses upon commercial release.
Consider cavity trapped photons lose matching accelerated cavity gained momentum. CofM is conserved.
Increased cavity photon wavelength is the action, while accelerated cavity mass is the reaction.
Need to stop thinking about how mass to mass momentum transfer works as photons don't alter velocity but do alter wavelength when they lose/transfer momentum to mass.
Another thing to understand is the EmDrive uses fuel, being photon energy & momentum, which has much lower energy density than exothermic fossile fuels.
The claim that, “Commercial interests restrict data release.”, or in-other-words, NDAs stand in the way of releasing specific engineering data, even for the very earliest devices claimed to have been functional, has gotten so old it has become near ridiculous.
It seems not so long ago, and I could be wrong but.., you posted that the early NDAs covering Shawyer’s early design claimed to have been functional, had expired and the full specifications would be made public, yet those who would like to believe still wait holding their breath... Holding breath so long now I fear some are turning blue in the face.
Two further notes of mention;
Since you have been unable to present any fully functional design specifications based on the fantasy of a transfer of photon momentum, it would have likely been far more constructive to just focus on engineering specifications and leave the theory aside for discussion after a fully functional device has been produced for independent testing.
And second, what seems odd and of even greater concern to me is that, in every case where even small positive results have been claimed, instead of preserving that early even minimally functional device, for posterity, they seem all to have been dismantled and turned to scrap.
One further concern, it seems to me that so far from the detail provided there has been no two devices constructed and tested, where the specifications and testing methods were near enough to one another that they could be reasonably considered tests of the same physics, if any underlying physics exists. Just because a number of DIY attempts and even a few institutional groups have built a copper cans and energized them with microwaves, does not mean that without having begun from a functioning device, any of those even minor variations were testing a functionally equivalent device.
Even the two Chinese experiments back in 2015-2016? We’re so different in construction, they could not be realistically thought to be equivalent. And really the first test resulted in significant claims of success and yet was not available for retesting, in a manner that could confirm or refute the earlier results.in this case the issue is not whether the earlier results were flawed, rather it is whether running the experiment with a significantly different device and test bed, represents a test of any potential underlying physics. The results of the second test were evaluated on the basis of unproven theoretical assumptions. Both tests were flawed in different ways. And no test was conducted to prove that the exaggerated results of the first test were entirely the result of experimental design flaw.
This is devolving into a ramble, when at least part of what I was attempting to point out, is that without having begun with a functional device, or complete engineering specifications for one, most if not all of the attempts I am aware of, may not be testing functionally significant designs. It does not matter how you improve the test bed, if the device you are testing keeps changing, even in what seems insignificant ways, as long as there is not functional standard to begin with. -
#423 by OnlyMe on 19 Nov, 2020 16:35
-
The shoe has been up there for 10 years. It has a better record at ignoring gravity than all EMDrive-type designs at this point.
Hi Edzieba,
Has been stated many times. Commercial interests restrict data release.
Those that deny what has been shared should prepare their responses upon commercial release.
Consider cavity trapped photons lose matching accelerated cavity gained momentum. CofM is conserved.
Increased cavity photon wavelength is the action, while accelerated cavity mass is the reaction.
Need to stop thinking about how mass to mass momentum transfer works as photons don't alter velocity but do alter wavelength when they lose/transfer momentum to mass.
Another thing to understand is the EmDrive uses fuel, being photon energy & momentum, which has much lower energy density than exothermic fossile fuels.
Fuel matters aren't the big obstacle. Maybe assume its nuclear powered or solar. Primarily its about eliminating the need to carry propellant. Maybe efficiency in converting the fuel to photons in your case, then efficiency in converting photon energy to propellant.
For those of us with scientific interests rather than corporate lets see what can be said. (what company by the way?)
Question 1.
For photons to lose energy/frequency h*df=dE to something and undergo a doppler shift they have to push against something that escapes the cavity f.dx=dE and most likely they have to do this over many cycles before being wasted as heat.
-What do you think the photons are pushing against that is escaping the cavity?
It can even be some chain of events which eventually leads to something escaping. For it to be efficient there should be some efficient conversion of momentum and kinetic energy to this escaping medium, in an asymmetric fashion so it escapes primarily in one direction. (I have in mind a few possibilities I have speculated on myself.)
Question 2.
How is it efficient if the wavelength changes to the point the wavelength no longer resonates in the cavity and is shunted to some resistance - wasted as heat?
What do you do with this changing wavelength? How much is used, how much is wasted as heat?
How much does the wavelength change from its original lambda? This would give you some estimate on the efficiency of the system - ratio of energy converted.
3. Do you have proof of this wavelength change?
4. Are there in space tests?
5. Maximum Newtons of thrust? Above possible thermal, buoyant effects?
I have only one comment on this. Meaning I don’t disagree with your intent as a whole.
That said, about question 2, if heat dissipation is an issue, and assuming there is some even small potential electromagnetic driven acceleration, just design the drive as a whole such that the heat is dissipated in a manner that contributes to the desired acceleration. -
#424 by JohnFornaro on 19 Nov, 2020 17:56
-
Those that deny what has been shared should prepare their responses upon commercial release.
A lot of words have been shared, and a lot of ernest experimentation has been shared. Nobody denies that. What has not been shared is evidence or a mathematical theory and most importantly, a working model..
Now if somebody has a working device in secret, the first thing they would do would be to embargo that information.
I've already prepared my response:
See? What did I tell you? -
#425 by JohnFornaro on 19 Nov, 2020 17:58
-
...those who would like to believe still wait holding their breath... Holding breath so long now I fear some are turning blue in the face.
I know, right? They say they're gonna release the Kraken, but we haven't seen even a tentacle. -
#426 by Alex_O on 04 Dec, 2020 06:17
-
..The graph here shows the speed and acceleration plots for the famous Emdrive EW NASA report. Unfortunately, I do not have the initial digital data, I used software (from the Internet) to process the raster image from the report and there are errors (by line thickness)...
I'm trying to understand emdrive, but now I figured out how to ask. Let's say we turned on emdrive and it worked for 40 seconds. All parts got hot, experienced thermal expansion and something else.What happens if you turn off the power quickly and then turn it back on after 5 seconds? The copper parts and the balance arm have already warmed up, the heat trace on the thrust graph will no longer be visible on the acceleration graph? -
#427 by Alex_O on 04 Dec, 2020 06:31
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
I did the best I could with the information available at the time. I also confirmed using infrared camera that the cavity was heating as it would for the correct mode (then TE013). This is something we have not seen TU Dresden do to date.
I tested two cavities pretty thoroughly. One had the antenna mounted in the center of the small end (max H field) and the other had the antenna mounted in the same location Shawyer uses.
The big difference is that I did not use a teeter-totter balance like Shawyer, nor any "pre-load." The stop prevents the pre-load from moving the balance, so the claim that some initial acceleration is needed does not seem to be how the system reacts.
Do you have a work stand? Can you do a short experiment?
I thought that the thrust could be, but of a small value, below the elastic force of the torsion.
What if you conduct an experiment - shoot with low force on a spring? Catch a parametric resonance in the spring? First (for testing) use the voice coil from the calibration - turn it on and off quickly, at a certain frequency. After a short time, the spring will begin to oscillate at its own resonant frequency. Then, modernize the switching circuit of the microwave generator - so that the microwave can be sent to the resonator with short pulses, at the frequency of the parametric resonance. Something that looks like a resonant detector of gravitational waves in a certain limit (high sensitivity to small forces). -
#428 by TheTraveller on 18 Jan, 2021 15:38
-
#429 by X_RaY on 19 Jan, 2021 20:38
-
New video on www.emdrive.com
This is the same "magic happens in some way" nonsense that is supposed to work based on known physical principles that have been claimed over and over for years.
Roger Shawyer explains EmDrive fundamentals:
Thanks for the link, but unfortunately this latest "explanation" by the "inventor" is not helpful in any way. It shows no evidence that the device does what he claims.
ADD:
What is the result of your KISS thruster experiments? You announced sending some systems to naive testers, if I remember correctly. Is there a final result that is available to the public? -
#430 by JohnFornaro on 22 Jan, 2021 12:12
-
New video on www.emdrive.com
Roger Shawyer explains EmDrive fundamentals
Uhhhh.... No he doesn't.
06:15 Shawyer illustrates a "conventional rocket on a simple balance" He goes on to assert that "assuming the mass of the rocket is greater than the thrust" one will measure no difference in the balance reading.
First, a rocket whosethrust is less than its mass is of limited utility if one would launch out of a gravity well.
Second, when they do static testing, the scale is not at the back end of the rocket, it is at the nose end of the rocket, and they are able to measure the thrust fairly accurately. The EM drive that Shawyer presents does not, at least per information in the public realm, produce any measurable thrust.
08:36 "Some of the stored "input microwave energy" is converted into kinetic energy..."
This is the closest yet I have heard anyone describe the EM drive's claim in a straight forward fashion, as I have. The EM drive claims to convert electrical energy into directed kinetic energy.
10:22 It appears that the EM Drive will be a pulsed drive.
11:30 The bathtub analogy fails.
14:00 Shawyer proposes using EM Drive to launch huge solar shades, which will be used to destroy the Earth's climate. What's not to like?
As an aside, there is a very annoying volume artifact as he begins each paragraph. Plus he coughs a lot. -
#431 by Monomorphic on 22 Jan, 2021 23:10
-
New video on www.emdrive.com
Roger Shawyer explains EmDrive fundamentals:
Hello Phil,
As you can tell, people are frustrated with these presentations that do not seem to add much to what we already know. Please ask Roger if he will release some new videos of the Emdrive moving around on his linear air bearing.
I think he needs to show the public something provocative, similar to his original rotary test rig video, in order to raise the enthusiasm level back to where it was ~5 years ago. -
#432 by gaballard on 25 Jan, 2021 18:23
-
Popping back in for my yearly check-in...
My understanding is whatever "thrust" has been measured was a result of the EMdrive pushing against the magnetic field created by high-voltage electrical wiring being run across/into the experiment setup.
So, has anyone managed to show thrust with an EMdrive that has a completely self-contained power supply? -
#433 by X_RaY on 03 Feb, 2021 17:53
-
#434 by sghill on 04 Feb, 2021 13:44
-
FYI
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348913414_STRAIGHTFORWARD_EMDRIVE_SETUP_WITH_NASA-LIKE_CAVITIES
Cutting to the chase:Quote5. DISCUSSION
Thanks to the measurement protocol and Shaker configuration, the relative force is theoretically doubled
at cavity switch events. Then, the sensitivity of the whole experimental setup is reduced at 0.1 mN. In
Figures 6 and 7, the 1-second window after the tswitch mark corresponds to the period during which we
would expect a response from the balance that would be an EMDrive-like force signature. However, in
both runs, no force has been measured during this phase. Therefore, no EMDrive-like force has been
detected above the sensitivity of 0.1 mN.
In addition, an average RF power underestimated at 150W has been injected into our NASA-like
cavities that are built with the same materials. The same TM212 mode is powered inside, despite the
homothetic ratio. We have also demonstrated that they have electromagnetic characteristics similar to
those of the NASA cavity (Section 1). If we assume having also the same efficiency of 1.2 ± 0.1 mN/kW
[1], then each of our cavities could produce an EMDrive-like force of at least 0.165 mN. Nevertheless, we
do not detect any, whereas the sensitivity of our experimental setup is 0.1 mN at the switch moment. In
other words, each of the cavities would produce a force of 0.165 mN when fed at its resonant frequency.
At the moment of the switch, the relative force is doubled and would then be equal to 0.33 mN. However,
the balance has not detected any, even though it is perfectly suited to measure a force greater than or
equal to 0.2 mN.
8 Peyre et al.
6. CONCLUSION
First of all, the NASA Cavity design has been successfully replicated and manufactured in two units
with 0.5 mm-thick copper sheet. Despite the homothetic ratio, the TM212 resonant mode is properly
fed around 2.46 GHz. As for White et al. [1], the loaded Q-factors approx 7000 or a bit less, and the
best matching is at least −28 dB.
The sensitivity of the precision balance is 0.2 mN. Nevertheless, the Shaker configuration and
measurement protocol make it possible to create a relative force of twice the EMDrive-like force that
one cavity could produce. The sensitivity of the experimental setup can then quite safely be considered
at 0.1 mN. However, no EMDrive-like force has been detected above this sensitivity.
Despite all our efforts, we still work at the limit of the current precision balance’s sensitivity. In
this way, the last step of our EMDrive study. -
#435 by X_RaY on 04 Feb, 2021 21:30
-
Yes. Until I see other results that deliver the claimed thrust results in any way, I'm out. I am not willing to ride a horse that is actually dead. I and countless others have put many hours of work into the test without actually getting a positive result. Roger Shayer has been claiming his claims are true for decades, but no one seems to be able to replicate the effect as claimed? Given the efforts, that seems unlikely. I believe in the scientific method, not religion.
Shayer and/or the believing member that is active on this forum(...) should show once and for all that it works, or stop claiming it works. Otherwise it starts to get embarrassing. 
-
#436 by Amos on 05 Feb, 2021 02:33
-
It was fun while it lasted. I sure wish I hadn't breathlessly hyped EMDrive to my non-space-enthusiast friends, I ate some of the crow, the rest is up to y'all.
This whole saga would make a great book. -
#437 by Alex_O on 02 Mar, 2021 17:54
-
Upd, sorry, I need to think more, sorry
No, no Alex, you were right! The full book is indeed available for free in the section "books" on top of the URL you gave, split in 9 PDF files. They were created 15 and 16 September 2020 and I'm quite sure they were not there last time I checked… so either this is a coincidence, or Mr Reed heard of some discussion here and there…
..
About this incredible density and quality of such work (speaking of the form, not the substance as I don't have any opinion about the physics yet) I wonder if this is junk physics explained with garbage word salad, or if there is something "there" into this weird stuff. If this proves to be complete nonsense, I must admit I would never have seen such level of crafted crackpottery!
The full book with its clickable table of contents is available in one PDF at https://ayuba.fr/pdf/QWM.zip
Thanks for preparing the file, I have already looked at many pages in different files and am beginning to understand the basic ideas of Mr. Reed. I'll just say that I like the high level of preparation of the material in the book and presentations.
You can start your analysis of Mr. Reed's ideas with a short article https://www.academia.edu/11093756/Confinement_of_Light_Standing_Wave_Transformations_in_a_Phase_Locked_Resonator
Larry immediately reportsQuoteElectromagnetic resonant wave interactions in a phased-locked resonator at rest and in motion are compared. The origin of mass and inertia as a standing wave interaction in a phased-locked cavity as demonstrated in work by Jennison is reviewed and phase relationships illustrated. For matter (composed of resonant EM standing waves) in motion, the Lorentz contraction is interpreted as a physical wavelength compression due to variation in EM field energy density as measured by vacuum refractive index KPV. Dipole radiation emitted from a phase-locked resonator in motion is described. A graphical representation of Ivanov-LaFreniere standing wave transformations is shown. Experimental possibilities for potential phase conjugate wave phase-locked resonator development are discussed including inertia modification and propulsion.
However, I don't know what to do about it yet. To begin with, I started looking at Jennison's work (the file is attached) and suddenly realized that I did not understand what a phase-locked resonator is. The ideas about the radiation pressure of photons that have changed by the Doppler effect are somehow understandable to me, but I remember discussions with meberbs, for example here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1992196#msg1992196
or is it better here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1993307#msg1993307
But the phase-locked resonator seems to be very different, it has a tricky function - two em waves that move towards each other.QuoteFor a free-floating wave system consisting of two counter-propagating traveling waves in a phase-locked resonant cavity, application of an external force results in an imbalance of radiation pressure of Doppler-shifted waves causing the wave system to move as a whole in a stepwise series of velocity increments.
Pay attention to the term traveling waves. Shawyer also uses the term traveling waves in his explanations of emdrive in http://www.emdrive.com/dresden2018.pdf
He wrote directlyQuoteWhy are there no side wall forces? Thrust due to traveling waves not standing waves
But Shawyer never gives more detailed details of this physics (as well as the technical implementation).
While there is no good news, I would like to draw your attention to the term - traveling wave. I saw different ideas and learned something.
Two terms - the term traveling wave and the term - soliton. Could this be useful for an emdrive (or other engine)? We can watch several videos at once, look at the term soliton in different physical processes.
I will continue? It will be interesting?
-
#438 by rfmwguy on 03 Mar, 2021 17:31
-
Almost 5 years since my emdrive experiments. Looks like status quo on this propulsion idea. Did DARPA flush their testing? What about the nasa helical drive concept?
-
#439 by JohnFornaro on 04 Mar, 2021 19:41
-
Rfmwguy just had his post deleted mere minutes ago:
From that PDF, the Executive Summary:
All they did in the ES is talk about the materials they used in different designs, and a "number of tests to determine which design was better for force generation". Who knew aluminum and other stuff could create propellantless thrust with not even a hat tip to the geometry of those materials, or a summary of the principles involved.
"We may not yet have a space-ready device, but we are close to one."
The Introduction promises the kraken:
"The goal is demonstration of a propulsion system that, when scaled, is capable of supporting missions to the stars with travel times that are some reasonable fraction of a human lifetime."
They remind us that "accelerations that appear as the result of observer acceleration are not proper accelerations", in case we move away from the apparatus and are confused about whether or not the apparatus is itself moving.
They mention several of their collaborators and their various activities, some of which include modeling the behavior of the device.
They go on to touch on "spectator matter"; Brans’ spectator matter argument notes that .. it is possible to determine whether you are in a lab on the surface of the Earth, or in a rocket ship accelerating at one “gee” in deep outer space simply by checking the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles in your lab." This bit reminded me of my all too short discussion with the dearly departed meberbs about differentiating these conditions and the pertinence of violating the Equivalence Principle.
They mention Rodal's work which appears to suggest that the device might have a detectable effect in the vicinity of black holes. They do not mention the number of orders of magnitude difference between "elementary particles in your lab" and black holes.
While the "issue of whether inertia is a gravitational effect in general relativity is one of non-negligible contention", they do not mention the "negligible" thrust achieved by their device. But hey. "It looks to be a work in progress for at least several more months. Perhaps more."
"Mach effect impulse engines, however, do not violate the Equivalence Principle. Even with your impulse engine running, you still have to go look out a window to tell where you are." Certainly engines which do not exist do not violate physics. One is left to wonder how confident they are in the accuracy of their observations of "elementary particles in your lab" that they had previously held out to negate the need to "go look out a window". That was up to page eleven.
"Then there was the virus." But of course.
I skipped to Page 143, where they swiped my Acronym! MAGA.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48855.msg2007727#msg2007727
I prefer to call it the MAch Gravitational Anomaly [MAGA] effect
Shayer and/or the believing member that is active on this forum(...) should show once and for all that it works, or stop claiming it works. Otherwise it starts to get embarrassing. 