EM Drive

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

tokamac
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby tokamac » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:59 pm

GIThruster wrote:I wasn't referring to Eagle's recent work. I was referring to Sonny and Paul's work several years before there was an Eagleworks. To the best of my knowledge however, Eagle has not had any positive results that did not vanish when the coupling problem was solved, part from those generated by the switching transients with the QVT work. That is explained by Woodward's theory, not the QVF model.
OK. You were talking about Sonny's experiments on the "Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster" or Q-thruster. They indeed got null results with DC and get some thrusts signatures with the switching transients ("unintentional" AC) which I agree would be some clue that Woodward's theory involving Mach's principle is correct over White's theory involving compressible quantum vacuum fluctuations. But I didn't talk about this, I was referring to other ongoing experiments at Eagleworks where they try to replicate several experiments made elsewhere. Sonny White gave a hint to this in a 2013 presentation ("microwave thruster device" p.40) where he summarized various field propulsion techniques as multiples aspects of the same Q-thruster physics (which I think they are not). Anyway, it's still too early for this, so wait & see.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby GIThruster » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:15 pm

Actually no, not the MLT that Sonny renamed the Quantum Vacuum Thruster and pretended produced reliable thrust in order to get funding for his lab. I'm talking about the Shawyer Resonator Sonny and Paul built with Gary Hudson's money back in 2007-8. They got no thrust. They said it was because they could not pull hard enough vacuum in copper, and that may have been true, but it's not what they were saying beforehand, and Sony just ALWAYS has an excuse. Look at what happened with the laser interferometer.

How pathetic to rename an instrument just because you've come up with a novel application. People use interferometers for all kinds of things and don't add their name to it. The issue though, was that Sonny designed an experiment, and used a laser that ought to have given him 4 orders magnitude more resolution than his model said he needed. When it didn't work, he claimed the laser was broken and ordered another, much more expensive one that provided several more orders magnitude resolution. It also did not work, and yet he reported those findings as "non-null".
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:30 am

GIThruster wrote:Links aren't working for me either but it does look like an improved version of Shawyer's EM Drive. Amazing to me folks still don't get that this violates' conservation.

Some of the links on the site may not be working but the video's for the most part are available here.

http://vimeo.com/cannae/videos

that includes what seems to be the second introduction video that I would imagine should be on the NUMERICAL METHOD AND THEORY page that currently errors out, along with a video of their successful experiment thats described in the first introduction video.

I was able to find some interesting information about what they have been up to via their updates page (http://www.cannae.com/updates).

That lead me to discovering that Cannae got NASA EagleWorks to carry out some tests on their device; you can find the short description/abstract here

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 006052.pdf

Did some more sleuthing and I believe the reason the entire nasa eagleworks paper isnt available is because both eagleworks and cannae are presenting their results at AIAA Propulsion Energy 2014 on 30th July 2014.

The Cannae paper is called "Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant" and the EagleWorks paper is called "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum". Unfortunately I run into a wall after that, since it looks like the preceedings are only available to those who have registered, if I had a cool grand burning a hole in my pocket I would probably register just so that I can read those papers. I can only hope the entire EagleWorks presentation will be available on ntrs.nasa.gov after the conference is over.

Seems like a comprehensive description in Patent speak can be found here also

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&h ... 22&tbm=pts

I mean really why put together such a slick website completely devoid of useful information... I had to hit up vimeo, ntrs.nasa.gov, aiaa-propulsionenergy.org, and google patent search to get a solid picture of what this company is alleging.

Updated: enabled the paper names as links.
Last edited by birchoff on Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

tokamac
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby tokamac » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:32 pm

Eagleworks' paper "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" is presented today at the 50th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland. The abstract talks about experiments made at NASA JSC since January 2014 on both the Cannae drive and the EmDrive:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

Experimental results:
• Eagleworks' Cannae drive: 40 µN of thrust at 935 MHz and 28 W of input power (specific thrust of 1.428 mN/kW)
• Eagleworks' EmDrive: 91 µN of thrust at 1933 MHz and 17 W of input power (specific thrust of 5.353 mN/kW)

So with 3.75 times less specific power in these tests, the Cannae Drive does indeed produce thrust, but it doesn't seem an "improved version of Shawyer's EmDrive".

All this was (very) low power tests. The following test campaign in fall 2014 will focus on high power experiments (several hundreds of watts, matching Shawyer's experiments from 2002) once Eagleworks has upgraded their equipment.


The abstract of Cannae's paper "Numerical and Experimental Results for a Novel Propulsion Technology Requiring no On-Board Propellant" also presented today at the same conference is available at:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-3853

I'll try to find the complete papers and post their URL here, if they are made available.


EDIT: An article has a direct link to the the full NASA paper (second link, after Wired):

Last edited by tokamac on Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:47 pm

Yeah I am too impatient to wait on the papers actually being freely published somewhere when all i need to do is drop 25 bucks to get the ability to read them. That price is too low to prevent my impulse shopping menatility from taking over.... so I shall be spending the evening doing some light reading.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:32 am

Read both papers from AIAA and as a by stander with nothing to loose if this turns out to be fraud, or poor experimental protocol. It would seem like between the testing carried out by Shawyer, Yang Juan, Guido Fretta/Cannae, and Eagle works labs. It would be very hard to put forth a convincing argument that a propulsion device that doesn't push propellant, as we currently understand it in the known state of the art, out the tail end is not possible.

In short this evidence more than meets my criteria to consider that there is actual smoke here that requires further inspection. Which makes me glad that Eagleworks plans are to build what they call a "breadboard test article" that can be shipped to other locations that are equiped to do "independent verification and validation (IV&V) of the technology"; i.e. JPL and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. After they complete their next test campaign.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:35 am

Also for those interested looks like Shawyer will be publishing a new paper at IAC 2014 called "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe"

The link below is to the session it has been slotted into

http://www.iafastro.net/iac/browse/IAC- ... aper.21913

Skipjack
Posts: 5948
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby Skipjack » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:15 am

More complete abstract here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052

This part makes my alarmbells go off:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:39 am

Skipjack wrote:More complete abstract here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052

This part makes my alarmbells go off:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).



No your not the only one. This bothered me enough when I found it a few days ago that I bought their paper on AIAA; and it turns out that the abstract on ntrs.nasa.gov is misleading. The quote you are referencing from the ntrs.nasa.gov abstract is referring to two devices that cannae provided to EagleWorks for their test campaign. One had a set of slots in it and according to Cannae's proposed theory would produce thrust and according to the Eagleworks paper did. While the other device didnt, this is the "null" test article. this null test article was what Cannae though should be a null test article not what EagleWorks thought was a null test article. So in addition Eagleworks included a 50 ohm resistive load to verify no significant systemic effects.

So basically the eagleworks testing invalidated what Cannae thought is the reason for the thrust.

Carl White
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby Carl White » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:49 am

From http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 :

Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure.

Why at ambient?

vernes
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: EM Drive

Postby vernes » Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:07 am

I noticed this article:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... pace-drive

Couldn't find it here through a quick search so I thought I'd just post it.

Skipjack
Posts: 5948
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby Skipjack » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:42 pm

birchoff wrote:
Skipjack wrote:More complete abstract here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052

This part makes my alarmbells go off:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article).



No your not the only one. This bothered me enough when I found it a few days ago that I bought their paper on AIAA; and it turns out that the abstract on ntrs.nasa.gov is misleading. The quote you are referencing from the ntrs.nasa.gov abstract is referring to two devices that cannae provided to EagleWorks for their test campaign. One had a set of slots in it and according to Cannae's proposed theory would produce thrust and according to the Eagleworks paper did. While the other device didnt, this is the "null" test article. this null test article was what Cannae though should be a null test article not what EagleWorks thought was a null test article. So in addition Eagleworks included a 50 ohm resistive load to verify no significant systemic effects.

So basically the eagleworks testing invalidated what Cannae thought is the reason for the thrust.

Could also indicate a problem with the test setup. I noticed in the video Cannae posted that their power supply is not getting accelerated with the thruster. Not sure whether that was the same in the eagleworks setup, though.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:30 pm

Interesting... I skimmed through the Cannae test setup in the eagle works paper and it looks like the only thing on the torsion pendulum is the Cannae drive cavity. from the electrical schematic included it also looks like the power supply was outside the vacuum chamber. Again this is my guess from what I am reading because it is not clearly called out.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby GIThruster » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:59 pm

The media is picking it up now. If Sonny can't produce replication, this is going to go very badly for NASA.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/nasa-reveals- ... socialflow
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: EM Drive

Postby birchoff » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:19 pm

And honestly I kinda think they would(edited) deserve it. I would expect that if a paper covering this kinda upending of the accepted norm was going to go out with NASA's name on it in any way, shape or form. They would at least do an internal review. I would also find it hard to believe that any potential issues with their replication would be obvious ones, if there are any.

That said though I would like to see Eagleworks follow through with their plan of building an article that could be validated at JPL and JHU Applied physics lab. And all results from any additional testing should be published and peer reviewed. Character assasinations are not neccessary just let reality (experiments and their protocols) speak for themselves.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests