NASA: EM drive paper to be published in peer reviewed journal

    • Official Post

    the article is published in JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER
    http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.B36120
    http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120


    • Official Post

    There are some serious/curious anomalies in the results, which is probably why the paper's authors emphasise the need for more testing. For example the effect doesn't seem directly proportional to power. The 80 watt output is almost the same level as the 60 watt one. In some cases the output level even poorer (Fig. 9, Fig. 18). On one hand this is evidence against a Joule heating created artifact, for I would expect that to increase with increasing applied power. Nevertheless, it's pretty odd behaviour, even for something as odd as a propellantless rocket.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    There are some serious/curious anomalies in the results, which is probably why the paper's authors emphasise the need for more testing. For example the effect doesn't seem directly proportional to power. The 80 watt output is almost the same level as the 60 watt one. In some cases the output level even poorer (Fig. 9, Fig. 18). On one hand this is evidence against a Joule heating created artifact, for I would expect that to increase with increasing applied power. Nevertheless, it's pretty odd behaviour, even for something as odd as a propellantless rocket.


    It might be due to the saturation of the vacuum at the 60 watt level. A test that varies the size of the vacuum enclosed by the device at constant power output might show a correlation between the volume enclosed and maximum thrust produced. Even the vacuum has limits.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    There are some serious/curious anomalies in the results, which is probably why the paper's authors emphasise the need for more testing. For example the effect doesn't seem directly proportional to power. The 80 watt output is almost the same level as the 60 watt one. In some cases the output level even poorer (Fig. 9, Fig. 18). On one hand this is evidence against a Joule heating created artifact, for I would expect that to increase with increasing applied power. Nevertheless, it's pretty odd behaviour, even for something as odd as a propellantless rocket.


    Yes, this is a problem I think. I observed this in analyzing data from previous tests of the EM drive. Input power is not associated with the output thrust. The only significant predictors are the size of the small end and size of the big end. One would expect input power, frequency, Q, and so forth to be significant predictors.


    Perhaps it is a real effect that doesn't scale, or it is an undiscovered error. It is probably the latter give the high degree of variability in thrust results and certain other trials showing null results.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    For example the effect doesn't seem directly proportional to power.


    I have been thinking about how completely we linearize the physics of which we are familiar. In reality, everything is nonlinear - nothing is linear. Our mathematics has a hard time modeling the nonlinear, so we naturally restrict our thinking to linearity (like looking where the light is shining). Whether physics demonstrates nonlinearity depends on the small range in which we observe and how closely we measure. Nonlinear effects are generally small in the regions where we experience them because we endeavor to keep them small - except where we don't. For example, in an RF mixer we do the opposite - we drive the transistor into nonlinearity and as a result we get mixer products. What can happen when we drive the field density very high and with the right excitation - is Shawyer thrust a result of that? It is probably the exploration of the nonlinearities that will expand our understanding of the physics around us.

    Quote from BobHiggins

    I have been thinking about how completely we linearize the physics of which we are familiar. In reality, everything is nonlinear - nothing is linear. Our mathematics has a hard time modeling the nonlinear, so we naturally restrict our thinking to linearity (like looking where the light is shining).


    Maybe it would be better to say there are no perfect linear relationships--similar to the way it is inaccurate to say the world is "round." I don't think you are suggesting that statistical linear relationships do not exist in physics.


    I am not restricting my thinking to linear with the EM drive. There doesn't seem to be a non-linear relationship either. Maybe there has been too much variation in the technique utilized, but the most likely explanation is that there is an unknown error. Hopefully, that will be disproven, but it likely has a low probability of being a real effect related to being unexplained by conventional physics and the lack of expected relationships between the variables.

    I'm not overly convinced. The thrust is still small enough to be measurement errors. Also is 1.2mN/kW sufficient for anything useful? Is this scalable i.e. more power = more thrust? If it scales is it linear i.e. will 1MW product 1.2N of thrust?


    I believe they have plans to stick this in space and see if run. If this works it will be way more convincing.

    • Official Post

    Many questions around that.


    I've been told the key argument for allowing peer review of that paper was a rotary test with the Emdrive turning. This eliminate many claims of artifact by balance dilatation.


    One problem reported is that Harold White did not collaborate with shawyer who may be more advanced. It is not only in LENR that scientists don't collaborate well.


    Another, and this paper shows the problem, is that scientists start to speculate about theory, and even be convinced of a pet theory, before they have good database. It is not specific to LENR.


    About non linearity, LENr is a good reference. One possibility is that the reason of the non-linearity may not be because of a non-linearity, but because of unexpected change in the device/setup.


    If you think in term of McCulloch MiHsC theory, you can even make the emdrive effect be reversed by changing the frequency.
    A slight thermal effect may change the resonance frequency, thus the behavior of the EmDrive.


    Note that one key feature of latest EmDrive patent by Shawyer is controlling resonance frequency by a phase change measurement.


    It is a mess, it may even be wrong, but all I can say is that there should be budget, up to much more than what we put ins predictable experiments like ITER, gravitational waves, LHC, dark matter detectors.


    When you see a pretended scientists cry us a river for research on EmDrive or LENR to be stopped, you know there is a huge problem.


    I'm the first to bash pseudo-science, but this is just early science, in fact real science/.


    what we often call science today is just engineering, the result is quite predictable.

    • Official Post

    The IBT article said that a version of EMdrive was already being tested in space, by both China and the USA, It even claimed It was in the secret spacecraft of NASA.


    The link was posted elsewhere in one of the EMdrive threads.


    Edit to add the link where this is stated. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space…rious-x-37b-plane-1590289

    The EM Drive just gives the military industrial complex an opening to start testing an exotic propulsion technology without having to acknowledge they've already had such systems for many decades. Although their technologies probably did not incorporate cone shaped cavities with microwaves bouncing in them, asymmetrical capacitor based propulsion systems have been around for a very long time. And that's really what the EM Drive represents -- an asymmetric capacitor. Many, although probably not all, of the UFOs that have been caught zipping around in our skies utilize these reactionless drives that manipulate the aether, and, hence, gravity.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    The EM Drive just gives the military industrial complex an opening to start testing an exotic propulsion technology <b><i>without having to acknowledge they've already had such systems for many decades. </i></b>Although their technologies probably did not incorporate…



    ???


    Can You prove these statements? Which UFO's ? Which military industrial complex ? Did You watch too much "CUBE" ?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.