" EmDrive Test No.03 Success, I have thrust !!! "

[Slider2732]

Main question...what the blazing saddles is going on there ?


In summary, for those who may not be able to view videos at the moment -
It would appear that the guy has created a magnetron and copper bowl device, that creates thrust, or antigravity.
A scale is shown, along with how it measures, how it is connected to a pivot and the readings from that scale form the test results.
It does seem, that the unit creates a negative number on the scale, when powered up.

Theories include the heating of any water molecules within the chamber, which would turn to gas and...reduce the weight. However, when he releases the power switch, the reading shows a fast return to the non powered weight.
All may not be quite as simple as it looks.

My own opinion, is that the eagerly awaited 'upside down' test will reveal a few things about the device. He intends to invert the system and look at the measurements. It may be noted that within the comments under the video, he says he will be performing the test within the next couple of hours, which was posted some hours ago.

Your thoughts ?

[Chet K]

I can't see the Vid ,do you have a link...?
thx

Chet K

[Slider2732]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ

^ there you go, sorry about that

[BEP]

I suggested control tests to eliminate the possibility of RF energy messing with his scale and spring tension.

The RF shield shown will only have minor counter effects upon the functioning of either.

[Slider2732]

I still don't see an update from him...hmmm.

Yeah, I noticed several people on the video page mentioned him frying himself, regardless of that shield. It's a precarious setup, but still fascinating as to what may be happening.
Ideally - set up experiment ready to run, close the metal door behind himself as he exits the Faraday cage, switch on !
Or - set up experiment ready to run, go into main part of house and switch on the webcam to watch through, switch on !

[BEP]

He doesn't appear to understand that just sticking a metal plate in the path or simply enclosing the energy in a well sealed canister is going to stop much of the RF energy.

A true Faraday cage is not a simple device.

Example: a single layer container housing the output of an RF transmitter will not prevent the energy from radiating outwards just because it has soldered seams.
That 'resonant cavity' <?> of his would probably do a fairly good job of protecting something inside of it but not things outside of it unless it is more complex than it seems to be.

There is more to microwave oven design than having a good seal when the door is closed.

In short, he may be suffering the ill effects of high energy RF exposure and doesn't feel up to making another video.

[PhysicsProf]

Yikes!

I have read about a scientifically conducted expt where momentum was evidently not conserved, using microwaves in a cavity... will have to re-find.

[Allcanadian]

www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

Well it would seem that once again most all the experts have been made to look like cavemen in light of new facts. However it does not surprise me in the least because as I had mentioned on a few prior occasions I have seen the advanced version of these propulsion systems in action first hand.

You know I have to wonder... how many of the resident experts in the forums said this could never be done?, not in a million years and yet here we are. Unless of course we believe some pseudo- expert on some internet forum must somehow be more intelligent than all those brilliant scientists in all those countries who have now proven this as a fact. It would seem these same people keep saying it cannot be done over and over and then it is done despite their supposed theories of how the laws of physics are supposed to work according to them.

The thing to keep in mind here is that MIT have an LED proven to operate at 230% efficiency, Nasa now has a EM freaking warp drive proven to work... now what do you suppose is possible considering these facts?. I mean no offense to the supposed internet experts but they would seem to be losing all credibility at an astounding rate. Most everything they have been claiming would seem to be falling apart at the seams. As I have been saying for many years now the problem was never science and technology but psychology. The older generation is seldom if ever willing nor really able to let go of the past and they will continue to argue nothing can ever change even when it is all around them. It is a sorry state of affairs more so when others who have not done the actual research buy into their outdated beliefs.

There is one fact here and that is that change is inevitable and some of us are going to see some of the most bizarre shit you cannot even imagine in the next 50 years. It is coming with or without our consent and really we have two choices...we can cling to the past and remain part of the problem or we can move forward and become part of the solution.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.

AC

[Allcanadian]

Now for a few facts, Does the picture below look familiar?, it should because the setup in the youtube video is identical to the setup Nasa and most everyone else is using to research this new technology. More info can be found here--http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.3880, at the Nasa propulsion forum. It is also interesting to note that in the Nasa forum there are actually people debating the real issues relating to why this works and how to improve upon it which is a refreshing change of pace.

The thing to remember here is a phrase by Albert Einstein...the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. In effect there are many supposed inventors making claims of rights to technology however if we follow the time line we most always find they borrowed the idea from someone else. Most often they have done nothing other than produce a slight variation of the invention and then made the false claim that in fact it was all their idea. Me I can generally smell BS a mile away and it never takes more than an hour or so to determine where they got the idea from and from whom they got it.

In any case your looking at the future gentlemen and as I said in my last post this technology is going to go ballistic within the next ten years or so.

AC

[evolvingape]

The thing to keep in mind here is that MIT have an LED proven to operate at 230% efficiency

Incorrect. This article gives us the background:

http://www.zmescience.com/research/led-over-100-percent-efficiency-mit-94323/

MIT physicists have been testing a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.

The LED produces 69 picowatts of light using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.

However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

One of google's top picks that mash up above is..

An LED that has an electrical efficiency of more than 100% ? Erm.. NO!

it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

When the electrical efficiency reaches unity (100%).. it_cools_down.. the closed system is confirmed to top out at 100% unity. Input from a second system (environmental heat IN) is made possible by this cooling, and the closed thermodynamic system becomes an open thermodynamic system. You now have Pin 1 + Pin 2 = Pout 1, which in the case of the LED is interestingly light and operating at a COP of 2.3, not 230% efficiency.

I see you have answered my post to A.King on the COP>1 thread, interestingly you have identified the erroneous paragraph.. but for the wrong reasons! Your intuition serves you well young Padawan 

[Allcanadian]

@Evo

I read the full article as well so it's not as if your telling me something I don't already know and understand probably better than you do.

We could argue semantics all day but I think we both know exactly where we would end up. The fact remains that people are saying some things cannot be done and that they are impossible and then when someone does succeed they say... Oh but that's different now that I understand. Do you see the problem here Evo?, the impossible relates directly to their opinion and not reality.

To be clear the critics said under no circumstances can an LED put out more light relative to the electrical power input and now we know they are wrong because there are instances when they can. It does not matter where the extra energy comes from only that it does but the critics argue there can be no extra energy and obviously they are wrong. The critics also said under no circumstances can a closed box produce a motive force without ejecting mass and they are also wrong on that point as well.

My point is the critics are saying something cannot be done --- under any circumstances --- when they don't really have a clue what all the infinite number of possible circumstances could be.

AC

[Slider2732]

The thought of the experimenter becoming ill through using the device is quite troubling. Hope it's not the case.

It can be imagined that he used a regular magnetron, from a regular microwave. Would it not make sense to build the lightest possible version of this same equipment ?
Both copper and magnetrons are hardly light objects....or does it not matter ? I mean, if the scale is being zero'd out then I see that point of view, but for a greater effect then surely the lighter the gear the more powerful the 'reaction' when it takes place.

I'm happy to see positives and negatives regarding this video, much better than fully one or the other way.
Thanks all so far.

[BEP]

I have concerns for anyone possibly receiving RF burns.

They can be very damaging and may not be painful until well after the exposure.

Hopefully, that isn't the case.

I'm hoping his absence is due to him incorporating controls in his experiments to satisfy himself that his claim is valid. Controls for experiments should be part of any attempt to prove something new. It is also a good thing to do for the old dogma.

The laws of physics are just observations open for correction when something different is observed.

[Farmhand]

If the scale is actually reading correctly (which I doubt) then I would say that he is seeing a negation of the effect of gravity on the device, not necessarily "thrust".

If the device is exhibiting thrust then operating it in other orientations should produce different effects (movement or weight gain/loss depending on the orientation and support) as well. And if it is the scale affected by the device then it would not be observable with a mechanical scale or at least it should be almost unaffected.

I can't hear the video so I'm not sure if he is seeing a weight gain or loss.

Just turn it upside down and if the same effect is had then it is not thrust. Simple as that isn't it ?

..

[BEP]

Farmhand,

Does the scale appear to be attached to the lever? If so, I don't see it.

If it isn't attached then how would the rising lever 'pull' on the scale to make the reading negative?

Maybe, he is setting the scale up to show a difference in weight by zeroing the scale before applying power?

In any case, the positive NASA results from their vacuum tests look promising.

[Grumage]

Guys.

The DUT is attached to a beam pivoted at the remote end. His scales, placed under the beam closer to the DUT. He shows that an object weighs, from memory 3 grams directly but weighs more when placed on the DUT, because of the extra leverage.

On power up a decrease in weight is shown, suggesting that the DUT is creating an upward thrust.

I personally would have liked to see the underside of the device, is it sealed ? It might simply be that the bottom is vibrating rapidly and creating a pressure wave in the surrounding air. As WaveWatcher has pointed out a vacuum would be the best medium in which to test such a device.

Cheers Grum.

[evolvingape]

@Evo

I read the full article as well so it's not as if your telling me something I don't already know and understand probably better than you do.

We could argue semantics all day but I think we both know exactly where we would end up. The fact remains that people are saying some things cannot be done and that they are impossible and then when someone does succeed they say... Oh but that's different now that I understand. Do you see the problem here Evo?, the impossible relates directly to their opinion and not reality.

To be clear the critics said under no circumstances can an LED put out more light relative to the electrical power input and now we know they are wrong because there are instances when they can. It does not matter where the extra energy comes from only that it does but the critics argue there can be no extra energy and obviously they are wrong. The critics also said under no circumstances can a closed box produce a motive force without ejecting mass and they are also wrong on that point as well.

My point is the critics are saying something cannot be done --- under any circumstances --- when they don't really have a clue what all the infinite number of possible circumstances could be.

AC

I have never made any of the claims that you claim the critics have made.

You have demonstrated that you have no idea what my position on these matters actually is, by attempting to refute me with my own arguments! (hilarious.. )

Discussion on this topic with you is pointless from my perspective as you have shown you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.

[Allcanadian]

@Evo

I have never made any of the claims that you claim the critics have made.

You have demonstrated that you have no idea what my position on these matters actually is, by attempting to refute me with my own arguments! (hilarious.. Grin)

I wasn't referring to you or any of your supposed claims and I'm not sure why you assumed I was.

Discussion on this topic with you is pointless from my perspective as you have shown you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.

On this I think we can agree because you keep taking everything out of context and it's hard to hold a rational conversation when the other person feels compelled to turn everything into a pissing contest. My point was that many people are jumping to conclusions because they believe the circumstances involving many technologies cannot change. They are making assumptions, taking things out of context and speculating on things they obviously do not understand which is all too human regardless of one's occupation. There in lies the problem doesn't it?, everyone thinks they are always right but they are seldom if ever absolutely right in every respect. We are not perfect and we will never be perfect despite what some may believe.

Me I'm a train wreck out in left field...I have no problem with that but I am determined to do better and my heart is in the right place and if you have a problem with that then it's your problem not mine.

AC

[evolvingape]

@Evo
I wasn't referring to you or any of your supposed claims and I'm not sure why you assumed I was.

You never specified accurately who it was you were referring to, so thankyou for clearing that up, in my case anyway.

On this I think we can agree because you keep taking everything out of context

Please provide an example to back up your statement.

[Allcanadian]

@Evo

You never specified accurately who it was you were referring to, so thank you for clearing that up, in my case anyway.

Yes I have a bad habit of making a general statement then trying to justify what I said with examples and so forth not really directed at anyone. I have noticed many times people believe this justification of my thoughts was directed at them by their responses however it was not my intent. I tend to ramble...

"On this I think we can agree because you keep taking everything out of context"
Please provide an example to back up your statement.

I don't think we need to go there and I think we both can agree that bantering back and forth using a he said/she said mentality is pointless. Maybe we could apply this thought---"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.
Personally I find it a little strange that so many in the forums must always digress to debating what they said or what they think someone else said at which point the conversation has no real point. It always seems to turn into a pissing contest to see who can out do the other which is kind of comical but it gets old fast... kind of like our conversations.

AC