EM Drive System No Longer Further Confirmed

Except what you're saying is "We don't know -how- this thing works, so it obviously doesn't work because the theories that haven't be disproven don't fit the standard model.."

Do you even read what other people write? I have never denied that this thing produces thrust. It clearly does, to claim otherwise would be delusional. The part that I'm skeptical about is the source of the thrust. We don't know what's causing it. So it's probably a bad idea to draw "all of physics is wrong" as conclusion.
 
oh quit being such a big baby "Waaah the mean people are telling me that this can't possibly be totally right because it would completely overturn everything the past 2000 years of science has told us about how the universe works as we understand it and violates the second law of thermodynamics and means you can beat fucking ENTROPY".

Good god every time someone points out how this isn't nearly enough evidence to prove its a TRUE reactionless drive or that the people trying to explain it are using pure made up bullshit you just whine whine fucking whine.

Only whining here is you.

This thing working means that we are missing some property/edge case/condition, and that there is an explanation. If it breaks the standard model, then that just means that the standard model is the general model, and not the full one, since most predictions and laws pan out. We've known for some time that at some point it turns to bullshit because it doesn't quite fit the universe and can't connect a set of laws to the rest of the work. This thing working just gives us a better idea of where.

THE EM DRIVE WORKING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL EXPLODE INTO UNREALITY TOMORROW. It means that we have more to learn and more experiments to run, so start acting like a scientist instead of a republican and start modifying your views to figure out where the anomalous data fits in.
 
Only whining here is you.

This thing working means that we are missing some property/edge case/condition, and that there is an explanation. If it breaks the standard model, then that just means that the standard model is the general model, and not the full one, since most predictions and laws pan out. We've known for some time that at some point it turns to bullshit because it doesn't quite fit the universe and can't connect a set of laws to the rest of the work. This thing working just gives us a better idea of where.

THE EM DRIVE WORKING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL EXPLODE INTO UNREALITY TOMORROW. It means that we have more to learn and more experiments to run, so start acting like a scientist instead of a republican and start modifying your views to figure out where the anomalous data fits in.

I never denied that? and I distinctly remember the scientist who tried to explain why it was a reactionless drive was pointed out in the thread to be using debunked bullshit.
 
So, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this drive (however it works) is still producing tiny amounts of thrust. As in small enough to be next to useless.

Is that wrong?

(Note this doesn't mean we might not figure out how it works and improve on the system. Just that right now it isn't going to be terribly useful.)
 
I never denied that? and I distinctly remember the scientist who tried to explain why it was a reactionless drive was pointed out in the thread to be using debunked bullshit.

Uh, yes you have denied it. You've just spent the last page helping another guy make everybody facepalm.

So, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this drive (however it works) is still producing tiny amounts of thrust. As in small enough to be next to useless.

Is that wrong?

(Note this doesn't mean we might not figure out how it works and improve on the system. Just that right now it isn't going to be terribly useful.)

It's producing thrust at twice the rate of an ion thruster. This test article is TINY. 'Most lamps/Alarm Clocks/desktop speakers are bigger' tiny. It's a little 5x6x10 (ish?) one. The equations/algorithms suggest that with 100 kw it'll produce a lot more.

In fact the simulation for the 100W run predicted only ~50uN for our pure RF system with dielectric, while the 10kW run predicted a thrust level of ~6.0 Newton without a dielectric in the cavity. And at 100kW-rf it was now up to ~1300 Newton, but the input power to thrust production nonlinearity was starting to taper off around 50kW. Of course these Q-V plasma thrust predictions are based on the Q-V not being immutable and non-degradable, a feature we admit is not widely accepted by the mainstream physics community, at least at the moment.

Due to the above non-linear thrust scaling with input power predictions, we have started the build up of a 100W-to-1,200W waveguide magnetron RF power system that will drive one of our aluminum RF frustum cavities. Initially the test rig will follow Shawyer's first generation test rig that used a tetter-totter balance system in air only to see if we can generate similar thrust levels that Shawyer reported using a hermetic sealed box, which were in the ~16 to 300 milli-Newton range dependent on the Q-Factor of the frustum.
 
Last edited:
THE EM DRIVE WORKING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL EXPLODE INTO UNREALITY TOMORROW. It means that we have more to learn and more experiments to run, so start acting like a scientist instead of a republican and start modifying your views to figure out where the anomalous data fits in.

That's a nice strawman you've build there.

So, how about we start acting like scientists and not draw conclusions before we have all the data. The very foundation of science is the scientific method. You make an observation, build a hypothesis to explain it, try to disprove the hypothesis and if nobody can disprove your hypothesis you win the nobel prize.

So, we have an observation: A metal box produces thrust if you point a microwave at it.
So far the actual scientists have been throwing hypotheses at it and trying to disprove them.
Hypothesis: Thrust is due to atmosphere. Disprove by running in a vacuum. Conclusion: 80% of the thrust is gone.
Hypothesis: Magnetic interaction with the test rig. Disprove by magnetically shielding. Conclusion: No effect.
Etc etc.

You guys are doing the unscientific thing here. You say "It is clearly reactionless thrust because the scientists haven't found a mundane explanation yet". Do you see how this is unscientific? There is absolutely no evidence in favor of reactionless thrust here, there just isn't any against it yet.
 
Uh, yes you have denied it. You've just spent the last page helping another guy make everybody facepalm.

No I denied the "OMG THIS TOTALLY MUST BE A TRUE REACTIONLESS DRIVE NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT TOTALLY BREAKS ALL KNOWN PHYSICS AND FUCK THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE CAUSE THEY'RE TOO DOGMATIC/CLOSEMINDED" sentiment that Fivemarks keeps giving off not that we need more tests or anything like that.
 
Nah. Vorpal's one of those "If the results don't fit what I predicted in my hypothesis, then the results are obviously wrong and should be abandoned, and the experiment modified till I get the results I predicted" types.

That's a wonderful mischaracterisation of everything he's said in this thread.

I'm genuinely curious why you're behaving like this

That's not how fucking science works you goddamned idiot. If you observe something in an experiment that proves previous theoreis wrong, and then other experiments match the results you got, You don't go "Well this says that what we thought we knew was wrong, and that just can't be true!"

and this

We need Vorpal to show up and wank off his "I'M A PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIST SO MY WORD IS LAW HERE" boner.

And for people who buy that to hold their mouths open for the money shot.

When what Vorpal said was "Do more experiments to rule out experimental and procedural error. Until that is done you can't actually look into the root cause of this properly"

Like seriously dude get some perspective here.
 
So if this turns out to break physics I can be a wizard?
 
So if this turns out to break physics I can be a wizard?

Technomancer maybe.

You could strap one of these EM drives to a big wheel and spin it. If you get it spinning fast enough the added kinetic energy from the EM drive will be greater than the electric energy you have to pump into it. Hook up the wheel to a generator that feeds the EM drive and you have free infinite energy. This can be used for lots of fun projects. Hoverboards, flying cars, bombs that take out the solar system. The applications are endless!
 
Technomancer maybe.

You could strap one of these EM drives to a big wheel and spin it. If you get it spinning fast enough the added kinetic energy from the EM drive will be greater than the electric energy you have to pump into it. Hook up the wheel to a generator that feeds the EM drive and you have free infinite energy. This can be used for lots of fun projects. Hoverboards, flying cars, bombs that take out the solar system. The applications are endless!

*Rubs forehead.* Look, just because we can't find the reaction yet doesn't mean that there isn't one. There will be an upper limit to this, and thermodynamics are almost certainly still going to be a thing. Crazy stupid things like this make no damn sense whatsoever.
 
*Rubs forehead.* Look, just because we can't find the reaction yet doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Of course there is a reaction. The drive produces thrust, clearly it's doing something. But just because we don't know how the black box produces thrust does not mean we are free to blame magic and fairy dust.

This whole thing reminds me a lot of the FTL neutrino debacle back in 2011. Lots of people get very excited. Every time the scientists rule out a source of errors people start shouting "Physics is wrong! We can make star trek happen!". Until finally the scientists find the cause and the whole thing falls apart in a big cloud of disappointment and smug "I told you so"s.

There will be an upper limit to this.

How is the EM drive supposed to know where the upper limit is? The problem with reactionless thrust is in the reference frames.

Suppose a 1kg drive works as advertised and for simplicity converts 100% of the provided electrical energy into kinetic energy.
Say we stand next to the drive and feed it 500 joulles. That's enough to speed it up by 10 m/s. So we see the drive accelerate from stationary to 10m/s.

Now lets put it on a train moving 1000m/s. You again feed it 500 joulles. Now this is only enough to accelerate it by sqrt(2*500500J) - 1000m/s ~ 0.5 m/s. So now that same amount of energy is only enough to accelerate your drive by half a meter per second.

This leads to a paradox. If you stand on the train next to the drive it's supposed to accelerate to 10m/s relative to you. But if you stand on the station it is supposed to accelerate by 0.5m/s.

This is because the kinetic energy of an object is entirely dependant on the reference frame you choose to use. There is no preferential frame of reference, so the drive does not 'know' how much it is supposed to accelerate.
 
I might add that if people expect anomalous activities to be firmly identified one way or another, in the near future, they're probably going to be in for disappointment. IIRC we still haven't pinned down the anomalous activities from the infamous cold fusion experiments over a quarter century later. Though these days they call it low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) to avoid both the stigma and implications of the original term.
 
I might add that if people expect anomalous activities to be firmly identified one way or another, in the near future, they're probably going to be in for disappointment. IIRC we still haven't pinned down the anomalous activities from the infamous cold fusion experiments over a quarter century later. Though these days they call it low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) to avoid both the stigma and implications of the original term.

While anomalous, as said, it's a PREDICTABLE anomalous. As in, the formula developed by Eagleworks predicted within a unit the results of the latest test. Meanwhile, the cold fusion experiments couldn't be properly modeled, as far as I know. That's why everyone is calling this confirmation. It matches the results, it's third-party confirmation by someone who tried to disprove it, and more importantly it shows that the effect can be predicted, including (currently theoretically) up to useful scales.
 
So what I got through all the arguing is "Additional SCIENCE needed until we figure out what's going on", with the latest SCIENCE having eliminated several possible explanations.
 
While anomalous, as said, it's a PREDICTABLE anomalous. As in, the formula developed by Eagleworks predicted within a unit the results of the latest test. Meanwhile, the cold fusion experiments couldn't be properly modeled, as far as I know. That's why everyone is calling this confirmation. It matches the results, it's third-party confirmation by someone who tried to disprove it, and more importantly it shows that the effect can be predicted, including (currently theoretically) up to useful scales.

The Paper said:
The difference in thrust was 49 μN which led to 24.5 μN for each direction that is about 25% of the thrust prediction according to Shawyer and our measurements with the knifeedge setup before.

This isn't as predictable as you seem to be trying to paint it. Their two different tests on the same device gave considerably different results.

They also detail the curious behavior where the measured thrust in the control test (should have been 0 thrust) in the torsion pendulum was correlated with the temperature of one component. That control test also produced more thrust than either of their torsion pendulum tests (that's the test type NASA was doing) so thermal effects can't be ruled out in their torsion pendulum tests. The knife-edge test is more in line with the predicted values, but the knife edge tests use up and down test configurations and sideways null where the torsion pendulum uses left and right test configurations and an upwards null configuration. In both tests, the upwards configuration produces the largest displacements, which is curious.
 
Could you stop wasting our time with already debunked stuff? Vorpal among others covered this repeatedly.

Uh, that's not what I'm talking about.

Tajmar Experimental results
  • Cavity Length(m) = 0.0686
  • Big Diameter(m) = 0.0541
  • Small Diameter(m) = 0.0385
  • Dielectric = None
  • Frequency = 2.44Ghz
  • Input Power = 700w (output of magnetron)
  • Pressure = 4×10-6
  • Q = 20.3 (seems like this was measured and calculated after they finished all reported testing)
  • Force (mN) = 0.02
This information and more is on the eagleworks forum now.
According to 'Tron' on the eagleworks forum: McCulloch's formula F = 6PQL/c * ( 1/(L+4wb) - 1/(L+4ws) ) predicts unless I'm mistaken 0,019 mN for those numbers. I think it's remarkable.

Eagleworks came up with a formula model that predicts the thrust that a device of given dimensions should produce. This formula predicted .019 mN, while the actual results were .02 mN. Which points that the formula is fairly close to accurate, and with refinement will become exactly accurate.
 
Uh, that's not what I'm talking about.



Eagleworks came up with a formula model that predicts the thrust that a device of given dimensions should produce. This formula predicted .019 mN, while the actual results were .02 mN. Which points that the formula is fairly close to accurate, and with refinement will become exactly accurate.

I can't find 0.02 mN anywhere in the paper. They measure 0.229 mN in the knife edge test (they say they expected 2*98 μN, not sure where that came from) and 24.5 μN in their torsion pendulum tests, but the control torsion pendulum test produced a larger signal than either of the experimental tests so they draw no conclusions from that test. It is also worth noting their knife edge null test produces a ~125 μN signal (value estimated from a figure).

Edit: Before I make a fool of myself, the paper being discussed is by M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler, correct?
 
Last edited:
This isn't as predictable as you seem to be trying to paint it. Their two different tests on the same device gave considerably different results.

They also detail the curious behavior where the measured thrust in the control test (should have been 0 thrust) in the torsion pendulum was correlated with the temperature of one component. That control test also produced more thrust than either of their torsion pendulum tests (that's the test type NASA was doing) so thermal effects can't be ruled out in their torsion pendulum tests. The knife-edge test is more in line with the predicted values, but the knife edge tests use up and down test configurations and sideways null where the torsion pendulum uses left and right test configurations and an upwards null configuration. In both tests, the upwards configuration produces the largest displacements, which is curious.
Not that I'm taking sides in the debate, but that was actually a misunderstanding in the first thread on the topic: They measured that thrust in the null test, which was testing a specific configuration. The control test had no thrust. The two tests got mixed up by some of the first articles and repeated since then.
 
Back
Top