EMDrive replicated 3 times, confirmed by NASA ?

Maybe some remind about EmDrive strange engine, using no fuel to eject.
I have followed that fringe research since few years with skepticism but hope on my Scoop.it .

The inventor, Roger Shawyer, created a company and move to China to work with Ms Yang Juan in the Chinese school of Astronautics.
The chinese team have made test that looked good, and described them in a nice FAQ and Wired covered that success.

There was few articles but it called for few reaction .

Anyway Shawyer still published. last year he published for IAC13 : THE DYNAMIC OPERATION OF A HIGH Q EMDRIVE MICROWAVE THRUSTER, and he is planned for IAC2014 with a paper entitled "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe" at Toronto in September 2014.

I started to be skeptical seeing nothing better than paper...
An then today Wired publish that article : Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive.

That simply explain that a US scientist, Guido Fetta, has built a similar thruster, asked Nasa to test it out. The test results, are positive, and ther were presented on 50th JPC in Cleveland yesterday.

NASA thus confirm with that article: Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

Guido Fetta have a company "Canae LLC" proposing this Q-Drive alias "Canae Drive"

The theory is disputed, and they prefer to consider that it is simply reaction against the virtual particle of crowed void, and even more wisely prefer to avoid theory and consider evidences. I sign too on that phenomenological approach.

If in the same year we have EmDrive/QDrive and LENR, that would be "la fête du slip" for space probes and Mars travel.

It is not antigravity, but if you follow the computation (much more questionable than his tiny results) it could make cars fly. just need a superconductor cavity to support a ton. moving consume energy, but staying just need refilling the cavity with microwave.

http://www.emdrive.com/2Gupdate.pdf

at IAC he presented explanation on how are the limit to acceleration possible with emdrive
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13poster17254.pdf

I hope his computation are good. for now we only have tiny measurement, just fantastic for satellite positioning (satellite get dead when they lose propellant, despite they have energy with the sun for decades).

Quote from elkoko

all very cool! Taking a ticket for Mars soon!

Yes seems much easier if confirmed. at least will be cool for long life satellites, for space probes, an why not for flying car.
Shawyer and Yang Juan see even a solution for space launching... I'm more skeptical, except as a device to prevent falling, while a powerful engine push from time to time.

This article on NextBigFuture give much more details on what the Chinese and Sawyer are preparing already :
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/…or-emdrive-with-nasa.html

Quote

Prototype C-band emdrive (The emdrive has been funded by China and could be a breakthrough in space and terrestrial propulsion or it is a one to two million dollar scientific mistake.) [by the cinderblock in the background it appears to be less one foot tall]

Quote

SPR ltd is working on a superconducting demo which should be 100 times more powerful than the first version and provide 30 newtons of force instead of 315 milli-newtons. China is also building a large S-band thruster.

the photography are from that document
http://www.emdrive.com/2Gupdate.pdf

On E-cat world Christophe Calder noticed the claim of EmDrive inventor that he is in contract with a US Aerospace company...
I see candidate... Probable Lockheed Martin as they are often in fringe science like LENr or aneutronic fusion... Why not Boeing?

Quote from "Christopher Calder on E-cat world"

At the SPR Ltd site - http://emdrive.com/ it states that -

The EmDrive version of this technology looks like the most powerful. A US company is already working with the inventor. A higher power version with LENR as a power source would be a fun toy for NASA. Why use solar panels? Why not use a LENR reactor?

What you say remind me the warning of Michel Vandenberghe.
It is very hard to kill your own market, your investments...
anyway you have to do it to survive. so best is to give the job to an innovation division, to develop the new market in a sandbox where nobody will backstab you.

Quote from "Rends"

The answer is, they have all made giant investments, spend millions, or billions of own, or in the case of Boeing additionally public money in R&D and infrastructure and it is not easy for those who are responsible for all the investments to tell their shareholders, that they where wrong and the other technology is much better, so the investment was in total grab and it would be better to buy a licence for some more millions, or billions. No shareholder wants to here such a message and no CEO will ever say this!

it does not seems related as far as I see...

popelantless and antigravity, like free energy attract crasy scientist, but sometime it is by such crazy characters that the breathrough happend.
F&P were badly treated also because at that period there was similare free energy fan investigating cold fusion and Pd electrolysis... add to that the old alchemy...

the worst enemy of science is trying to protect good science from bad science. like for Press, nobody knows for sure who is right or wrong, and even you can be right for a bad reason...

about the claim of NASA and fetta, the point about the "null" test that worked anyway, there is a nice comment on reddit that explain well wthat it was a theory failure, not a blank false positive

Quote from "skpkzk2"

I'm using the term null test differently than the paper. When I say null test, I mean the RF load that was supposed to not do anything to prove that the testing apparatus was not the cause of the anomalous readings.

The paper refers to the symmetric test aparatus as the null test, because it was meant to test a prediction of Fetta's theory on how the device produces thrust (that the force is produced by an imbalance of the lorentz force caused by the asymmetric chamber). This test seems to indicate that Fetta's theory is incorrect (or at the very least innacurate). Dr. White's theory on how thrust is produced however predicted that both test articles should produce thrust, which they did.

I'm not saying that the abstract is wrong, I'm saying it is incomplete and that quote, taken out of context, implies the opposite of what actually happened.

Now the debate on this subject is not over. Fetta sticks to his theory, and is planning on publishing a paper in the next few months (probably around october) on the subject. I do not speak to the validity of either side's claim, I'm merely stating that the issue is different from the one /u/IsTom thinks it is.

Display More

on ECW I also listed the results of Shawyers and fetta in theor test:

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf

about shawyer result:

In 2003, he developed the first emdrive. Its diameter is 160mm, and its microwave power consumption is 850W. Using a balance beam method, the obtained actual thrust value was measured at 16mN. In 2006, Roger Shawyer developed a second emdrive. Its diameter is 280mm, and its power consumption is 1200W. Using horizontal and hanging measurement programs to measure the thrust, the obtained actual thrust value was 250mN. In 2007, Roger Shawyer carried out dynamic testing in a low-resistance suspended rotating platform. The results of the experiment were that when the second emdrive consumed microwave power of 1000W, thrust reached 287mN and the 100kg air suspension platform was accelerated to 2cm / s.

so 16mN/0.850kW=20mN/kW

250mN/1.2kW=200mN/kW

287mN/1kW

"The measurement results show that when microwave output power P = 300W, thrust reaches the first maximum value, approximately 310mN. Subsequently with an increase in power output, the thrust declines. When the output power is 800W, the thrust is minimized at 160mN. After the increase in output power, thrust increases, and with the maximum output power of 2500W, the maximum thrust reaches around 750mN. With the microwave output power at 80-1200W, the thrust measurement results show that the thrust direction is still from the large end of the microwave cavity towards the small end. Figure 4 (b) shows the experimental measurements. The measurement results show with the microwave output power at 300W, thrust reaches the first maximum value, approximately 270mN. Subsequently with an increase in power output, the thrust declines. When the output power is 600W, the thrust is minimized at around 180mN. After the increase in output power, thrust increases, when the output power is 1200W, the thrust is maximized at around 250mN."

310mN/300W=1033mN/kW

160mN/800W=200mN/kW

750mN/2.5kW=300mN/kW

270mN/300W=900mN/kW

180mN/600W=300mN/kW

250mN/1.2kW=208mN/kW

from q-drive/canae drive

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

40uN/28W=1.4mN/kW

91uN/17W=5mN/kW

so it is 200 times less effective than Sawyer

for shawyer the Q factor is the key... the two design are very different about the Q factor it seems.

Shawyer just published an interview on his site
http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html

and 2 other parts in the playlist

what is funny of the news on Nasa/Fetta/canae Drive/EmDrive is that it is spreading like Ebola on the planet...

by Comparisons the E-cat tests or all the huge news we had sinec 2 years have clearly been blocked.
I'm afraid that the future newsbomb we will drop will be ignored.

teh Nasa paper is on libertarian news
http://www.libertariannews.org…FTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

they tested a blank as a resistor.
They also tested an emdrive equivalent, with a performance that is not as good as what Yang Juan report...
about 5mN/kW (instead of 200-1000mN/kW, especially if you consider that the Chinese counted the total power of the magnetron and not only the one are resonance frequency).

NextBigFuture makes an article about that paper
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/…ive-and-emdrive-test.html

the data seems clear, with some mnon linearities but with clear relation between poer and force.

Wired make an article that answers many question and it seems quite positive:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar…out-nasa-impossible-drive

• there remind that the "null drive" is not a blank, and that if it works like the normal drive it mean the theory of Fetta is wrong, not that there is an artifact.
• They confirm that unlike initial abstract, the paper says it was done in low pressure. many artifact discussed are addressed, like electrostatic...
• They remind that EmDrive style reactor was tested too (with a much lower efficiency than Chinese test,even considering the power).
• They explain that there is 3 theories, by Shawyer (relativity), by the Chinese team (Maxwell equations), and by Nasa (virtual particles).
• They consider that there is 4 experiment of that kind, and that one can consider it as a confirmation.

now add a LENR reactorof 1kWth/kg with turbine of 300We/kg... 150W/kg... no shielding, and probably even lighter when LENR is mastered and turbines are high-tech.

2MW mean 13tons of E-cat+turbine
but if you choose to dedicate half od the vehicle as engine, 45tons, it propose 7MWe which allow to go very fast...

the main problem I see is that shawyer says thatone cannot accelerate much if the Q-factor is high , thus with strong force... it is not magic... but there is hope!