Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    How about another EMDrive turned horizontally? Or does it only thrust against gravity (like my floor)?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: tinkerSo he claims...at a wopping 3 tons/kilowatt. Anti-gravity here we come.


    He doesn't claim anti gravity any more than a wall is antigravity.

    If he tries to get lift in a gravity well by increasing energy to his device it collapses and he falls down instead.

    I don't know what would happen if his car 'drove' over an earth equivalent of a mascon it would probably fall again.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinHow about another EMDrive turned horizontally? Or does it only thrust against gravity (like my floor)?


    In a strong gravity well it wouldn't work.

    Mind you for trains it would be magic, as they could by levitated with out an expensive track, although the carriages and contents would have to be accurately weighed and no throwing stuff out the window or pooh on the 'track'.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    OK, I got it. This is a device that produces thrust, as long as it's on its test fixture and is measured properly. The levitate-an-elephant-with-a-nine-volt-battery claim is an extrapolation from data gathered upon the test fixture and ground up in the mill of the claimant's theoretical framework, balled up with a little spit and stuck to the wall for inspection.

    Where have we heard something like this before?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    The way I understand it is that when placed on the floor it can generate a 10 N upward force if loaded with 1 kg. My kitchen scales do that too.

    Is the claim that it can do this without any physical connection to the load?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Well it also needs a very efficient cooling system as microwaves tend to heat the device that needs to be superconducting to be efficient.

    That is why Shawyer reckons it would be handy in the Skylon space plane, all that lovely cold liquid hydrogen to keep it cool.
  2.  
    I thought it was its own load.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Sorry?
  3.  
    No need to apologize, I know it isn't your fault.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    But it is I didn't understand your comment.
  4.  
    Posted By: TrimBut it is I didn't understand your comment.

    Ah, then that's my fault for not being clear. Sorry.

    The Shawyer device has never been observed to lift any load other than itself, I believe. And the lifting that has been observed isn't actually _lifting_ anything, it is only a potential lift force, a measured force exerted by the device on its test fixture.

    Am I right? If not, what's the maximum sustained altitude attained by a free EMdrive device?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    That is true I don't know what the secretive Chinese lot have done but they seem pretty keen, as far as I know Shawyer hasn't got the funds to build a superconducting 'Q' version, maybe he should try crowd sourcing it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinthe lifting that has been observed isn't actually _lifting_ anything, it is only a potential lift force, a measured force exerted by the device on its test fixture.


    That sounds significant if true. I assume you mean that the weight force the device exerts on its mount is reduced when it operates?
  5.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokinthe lifting that has been observed isn't actually _lifting_ anything, it is only a potential lift force, a measured force exerted by the device on its test fixture.


    That sounds significant if true. I assume you mean that the weight force the device exerts on its mount is reduced when it operates?

    Isn't that the claim? Where else does this experimentally derived thrust figure come from?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokinthe lifting that has been observed isn't actually _lifting_ anything, it is only a potential lift force, a measured force exerted by the device on its test fixture.


    That sounds significant if true. I assume you mean that the weight force the device exerts on its mount is reduced when it operates?

    Isn't that the claim? Where else does this experimentally derived thrust figure come from?


    I dunno. I thought you knew. Does anybody know?
  6.  
    You don't seriously expect me to read the papers, do you?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou don't seriously expect me to read the papers, do you?


    Somebody has to, and it isn't going to be me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Shawyer does and some Chinese.

    No lift is generated in a strong gravity well like Earths.

    A large 'Q' version it is claimed could hold a weight in a fixed position in said gravity well until the power was turned off.

    You can always Google emdrive if you want to find out more.

    Here one from Wired.

    EmDrive: China's radical new space drive.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou don't seriously expect me to read the papers, do you?


    Somebody has to, and it isn't going to be me.


    Andrew you are 'it' .
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou don't seriously expect me to read the papers, do you?


    Somebody has to, and it isn't going to be me.
    The mathematics have been examined and found badly wanting. IIRC the first glaring error is that he failed to account for the incident angles. He supposedly treated his tapered surface as perpendicular to the ends when calculating his reflections.