EmDrive — A Challenge to Scientific Orthodoxy (Roger Shawer)

A reader forwarded to me a presentation by Roger Shawyer, the British inventor of the EmDrive, who reports he has been given permission by the UK Department of Defense to put this in the public domain. Mr Shawyer would like to have this presentation circulated as widely as possible.


Shrivenham presentation V.3
  • Chapman

    Today, that is on 6/26/2017, I simply do not believe Monkeys can talk.

    Mind you, it is not that I am philosophically or religiously AGAINST the concept, it is simply that my life experience, and my limited understanding of things zoological leave me with a conviction that “taking monkeys” is an eventuality that simply has not come to pass.

    On the other hand, if on the morrow I was to visit the local zoo and find myself bemused and entertained at the Ape exhibit, and if I were amusing myself by offering a banana to a particularly interesting female, and if I were to become perplexed at her refusal to accept my proffered tropical treat to such an extent that I was driven to ask myself outloud “now, why won’t she take this fine Banana?” only to be shocked by hearing a reply in perfect diction “BECAUSE I LOATHE BANANAS!!!”, well, rest assured dear friends that I would then become an instant believer!

    And yet… It is a strange quirk of mine – some unexplainable sense of curiosity – that my next logical thought would be to ask “How did this Ape acquire speech?” Not “did that just happen?” because I trust my eyes, and I just witnessed it. And I would not be hesitant to accept the fact, because a long life has led me to understand that there are stranger things in this world than my imagination could ever dream up! I am at peace with the unexpected, and accept such changes in easy stride. No, what happens is that I am then compelled to seek the cause OF the change.

    I do not demand proof, I seek answers.

    If my learned betters then tell me “it is a function of her vocal cords”, I would ask, “yes, but how did she GET vocal Cords?” I understand biology. I know what vocal cords are, and what they do. You do not need to explain sound as a waveform propagating through the atmosphere. I get all that. It is not the question, you see? I would be asking HOW the ape GOT vocal cords in the first place. There must have been some surgical intervention, or diabolical, and likely illegal, DNA Hanky-Panky going on. And even WITH the vocal cords, who took the time to attempt to teach an ape the King’s English, when they had no reason to suspect she may actually have a unique gift of speech in the first place?

    So again, I would implore my fellows “How did this Ape come to be capable of speech?” And someone might respond, “The speech center lies in the parietal lobe of the left hemisphere of the brain for right-handed persons and most left-handed. The area of the brain responsible for motor control of the anatomic structures is called Broca’s motor speech area”. To which I would become slightly aggravated and say, “Dammit man, how did the bleedin’ monkey ever GET a functioning “Broca’s motor speech area???”.

    I would be well on my way to a nervous breakdown at that point, and fighting to maintain my composure, when someone very well might then say, “well, lookit, maybe, just maybe, she simply doesn’t LIKE bananas! You ever think of THAT, smart guy?”

    At which time my skull would implode out of utter frustration over the fact that I was sure I was asking a perfectly reasonable question, and that there must surely be an answer, and yet not only was no one able to provide the answer I sought, but it was perfectly clear that no one was even understanding the relatively simple question I was asking. And it would infuriate me to have to recognize, at that moment, the undeniable fact that this MONKEY seemed to have better communications skills than I do!!!!!

    Does ANYONE OUT THERE understand my point???
    Am I alone in this frustration???

    • Chapman

      For the record, acceptable answers might include any of the following:

      Well, the ape underwent extensive stem cell transplants to the brain and throat, while also being subjected to direct electrical stimulation of the nervous system in an effort to force the development of the relative physical organ structures. From there it was just a matter of intense training and patience.


      We do not really know! She was acquired from a rescue shelter, and we have no knowledge of her early life and development. But one day she said NO, and we all took an interest and started reading to her, and, well, what can we say? Neat, huh?


      Actually, one of our female attendants is a Cultural Anthropology Graduate Student working on her Doctoral Thesis. She wanted to study the apes more closely, but did not have time to slowly become accepted by the troop alla Jane Goodall, so she just got an Ape suit from a local costume shop and hangs out in the cage on her lunch break. Sorry mate, but Sue was just having a little fun with you. Relax.

    • Martin Lund

      You have clearly gone off the rails. Please stay on topic. This thread is for the topic of EmDrive and not the evolution of talking monkeys nor bananas.

      • Chapman

        Quite so…

        And yet I wonder, if monkeys COULD talk, what they might have to say regarding photons in an EM Drive.

      • Chapman


    • georgehants

      Morning Chapman, you simply have to be prepared that your question is being answered without the use of the crude, ambiguous use of a human language.
      The apes communicate perfectly well with each-other or humans.
      Because we are so dumb that we cannot talk ape, whale or dolphin makes us the fools.
      When we learn some kind of positive, progressive, honest, peaceful communication with each-other we may begin to overtake the animal, insect, species.

      • Chapman

        Morning George,

        Point taken. Perhaps my efforts are simply being frustrated by the natural limits of what can be achieved through human verbal communication. But it is the only language in which I am trained, and the only tool at my disposal with which to pursue knowledge at this time!

        But I strongly suspect that the same questions expressed via telepathy, olfactory stimulations, tactile media, or even direct electronic transfer would still result in the same ominous silence…

        • georgehants

          Chapman, we can either work to advance our caring advancing existence or continue to F— up the World we have.
          It is the choice of each individual how they react to every situation.
          The World is ours to improve or destroy.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting paper from Dr James Woodward, developer of the Mach Effect Thruster:


    His conclusion match those of Dr. White:


    Which also match those of Shawyer:


    Being these is no CofE violation with propellant less propulsion (P-P) drives as KE or velocity gain is based on a reference frame and that reference frame may be any of an infinite number of reference frames. In the reference frame of the EmDrive, there is no KE gain and thus no CofE violation.

    Is it fun how a simple device like the EmDrive causes us to rethink and relearn stuff that we thought was cast in stone.

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    About my 5N/kW reference:

    That is based on my experimental data of 50gf at 100W.
    Have been in communication with Roger Shawyer for 4 years.
    Was of some assistance to NASA Eagleworks resolving some of their issues.
    Roger sent me the latest presentation to distribute.
    Frank was one of the recipients, which started this thread.

    Now doing EmDrive research on a commercial basis.
    Several patents and papers are in process, so disclosure is low.
    Goal is a non superconducting, non cryo Floater, based on a 100N/kW design.

    As some have pointed out 5N/kW is good enough to change space exploration.
    Could eliminate fuel on all satellites and enable 30 day trips to Mars.
    Getting to TRL 9 is NOT an easy, fast nor low cost process.


    Currently at TRL 3 or 4:


    • Martin Lund

      At this point, to fully convince me of the EmDrive effect, I would love to see NASA report a successful EmDrive replication attempt with 1+ N/kW to fully and indisputably eliminate any possible measurement errors or magnetic field / heat effects etc. causing movement.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Martin,

        As far as I know, Dr. White has moved on to other duties, Eagleworks is no longer funded and NASA has no interests in EmDrive.

        Would really like to be proved wrong but that is the feedback I get.

        • Martin Lund

          Hi Engineer,

          Why would NASA not be interested in the EmDrive effect? Isn’t it one of the goals of NASA to explore new propulsion technologies to advance space travel?

          If NASA was turned off by Eagleworks replication attempt then that is not a good sign that the EmDrive effect is real.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Martin,

            NASA is not one person but many, with many varied interests.
            NASA has a large investment in Ion Drives and other exotic propulsion tech.

            Would suggest the very low 1.2mN/kW specific force that Dr. White achieved was not enough to generate any serious interest. Ion drives are around 60mN/kW or 50 times more thrust / kW than what Dr. White achieved.

            Please do note the thruster Dr. White built was not a Shawyer EmDrive. He advised them to remove the dielectric but Dr. White needed it for his QV theory.


            Plus the thruster’s small end diameter was below cutoff, below the min diameter that Shawyer recommends.

            To me this says Dr. White was very lucky to measure any thrusts as he violated 3 of Shawyer’s design rules.

            1) Used a dielectric
            2) Small end diameter too small and below cutoff.
            3) Did not use convex small end and concave big end spherical end plates.

            Below is an early thruster design that meets all the Shawyer design rules.


            • Martin Lund

              Hi Engineer,

              I understand. As with any big organization there there are lots of politics involved that affects which projects get priority. Also, considering the current American anti-scientific administration, I bet funding is also troublesome.

              I wished they wouldn’t have violated Shawyer’s design rules. Imagine if they had reached a thrust effect of 100mN/kW or more then things might have been different. Especially, considering that the EmDrive effect is exhaust less as compared to e.g. the ion drive.

              You mentioned that you are doing commercial EmDrive research… I’m curious as to know what is the maximum thrust you have observed in your experiments at this point? Have you ventured into the 1+ N/kW range already or are you still in design stage?

              • Engineer48

                Hi Martin,

                Dr. White’s goal seemed to be to prove his QV theory, which needed a design that was non Shawyer. He predicted thrust should increase 4x power. The tests showed 1x or thrust scaled with power as Shawyer’s theory predicts and his tests support.

                So Eaglework’s tests were not designed to verify Shawyer’s test data and did not use a Shawyer design rules compliant thruster.

                As for my work, Shawyer is my Yoda & by following his breadcrumbs. My 1st successful thruster achieved 8mN at 95W or 85mN/kW, which was a long way below his 2009 Flight Thruster at 326mN/kW.

                My recent work has achieved 50gf at 100W or 5N/kW. I believe Shawyer and Gilo are into the 100s of N/kW with 1,000N/kW their goal. They, as are other teams I know of, are developing cryo LN2 and LH2 cooled superconducting cavities.

                I believe the Shawyer/Gilo thruster is a 900MHz design, which with a bigger cavity increases Q, which increases thrust.

                My focus is on low cost, 2.45GHz, simple copper thrusters that do not need cryo cooling as the cooling vastly increases design complexity, weight, cost & reduces overall system reliability.

                Goal is bolt on space rated P-P 5N/kW thrusters, with complete electronics, Rf amp, etc that can be switched on by the simple application of DC power and are TRL 9 rated. At around TRL 3 to 4 at present.

                • Martin Lund

                  Hi Engineer,

                  Those performance figures sound mighty impressive. If what you are saying is true then this thruster technology holds great potential for the future.

                  I assume an ideal cavity design based on high temperature superconductivity combined with a high density energy source (eg. LENR device) could potentially bring some amazing new modes of transportation (eg. flying cars).

                  Either way, I’m always a skeptic so I will be looking forward to the day when some of the work you mentioned becomes available for public scrutiny in the form of independent test reports etc..

                  I’m curious. Would it be possible to scale down this thruster technology so that it could be integrated in a cubesat (10cm x 10cm x 10cm). It could be a great way to demonstrate the technology in a real world scenario and the cubesat program is relatively cheap way for testing things in space.

                • Chapman

                  In regards to the QV theory, am I understanding things correctly that he is basically harvesting naturally occurring electron/positron pairs popping out of the ether and using them as propellent? Please, do not flame me, I know that is a simplified statement, but isn’t that the effect? And isn’t this basically a form of Hawking radiation? In the case of a black hole, the escaping member of the pair accounts for a loss of singularity mass, without the escape of any information, which was an astonishing revelation, while the drive unit uses the same particle resource as a pool from which to draw viable propulsion mass. Yes? Just wondering…

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Chapman,

                  All of Dr. White’s papers can be found and studied on the NASA paper server here:


                • Chapman

                  oops… dead link.

    • Toussaint françois

      Hi engineer48,

      What is your opinion on the work of Thomas Townsend Brown ?

      Have you heard of the work of Jean-pierre PETIT on MHD ?


      • Engineer48

        Hi Toussaint,

        Don’t know much about either.

  • Gerard McEk

    TheNewFire tweeted: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/emdrive-news-rumors/
    Has NASA leaked details about their tests on the EM drive?

  • Chapman

    For anyone else out there scratching their heads, feeling that the whole EM Drive thing seems like it should not be that difficult, and yet struggles with an uncomfortable feeling that comes on when just when you think you have it down, some bit of info comes along and makes you question if you missed something… I just want to assure you that you are not wrong. There are absolutely 100% contradictory info, diagrams, and statistics out there that start by saying the same thing, but then show something totally opposite of what you thought you understood.

    At first, you blame yourself, thinking “how could I have misunderstood everything so far? Where did I get THAT crazy idea?”

    Again – It ain’t YOU!

    Engineer got to the bottom of it by reducing everything down to the one simple fact, and that is “artificial Blueshift imposed upon a photon by a constricting waveguide”. Everything else is just a mathematical consequence of that simple action. No mystery physics. No obscure techno-babble required.

    There is no need to go on about Group Velocity, Radiation Pressure, Special Relativity, or even VG vs VC.

    So why was it so hard to reduce the nonsense, clear the deadwood, and just focus from the start with the relevant facts? And why is there ANY controversy at all?

    Let me show you something:
    This is from Wiki…

    And THIS:
    is from Engineer…

    Notice anything?

    And this is not by any means the only example I could provide. Everywhere you look, everywhere you go to seek enlightenment you find contradictory garbage that confuses the senses. There is a obsessive need out there to use arcane verbiage and obscure terminologies, as well as just flat out misrepresentations of actual core physics principles.

    You can even check out videos from seemingly learned sources like PBS SpaceTime and get your brain scrambled with utter nonsense and false facts.

    In the end, we all need to accept the ONE TRUE REALITY that seems indisputable:
    Most folks are full of Bovine Excrement.

    You just gotta screen out the crap, identify the sources and avoid them in the future, elevate your respect for those sources you have identified as dependable, and think everything through three times with a conviction that you are being lied to.

    Then, and only then, can you find peace, and maybe enjoy the camaraderie of a few other guys who have waded through the swamp of misinformation.

    So crack a beer, and take a deep breath.
    IT AIN’T YOU!!!

    • radvar

      Once again attempting to put BS above reason, and to position yourself as the master of BS, a now all too familiar power tactic. Let’s let the biggest loudmouth fly the plane.

      Reality is complicated. Over-simplifications lead to bridge failures.

      If you can’t handle it, admit that and at least get out of the way of people who are trying to work on it.

      So in fact it is “you”.

      • Chapman

        Sphincter still a little sore?

        Just get over it friend.

        • radvar

          Reported as offensive.
          Perfectly demonstrates the true level of your mind.

          • Chapman

            My friend, do you not see that it is you absolutely losing your mind?

            Don’t worry about the splinter in the eyes of others till you deal with the LOG stuck in your own! That is just good advice, regardless of your religion.

            It is YOU that is attempting to troll and annoy and insult ME, so get over yourself. Do not smack the fence if you don’t want to get bit!

            Do not go crying victimhood and get all weepy when you decide to go looking for a confrontation. If you are going to instigate a fight you have to man up and take your licks.

            I am willing to play with you, but you have to be a man about it.
            Stop whining…

            • radvar

              More reality distortion, since I have exhibited none of those characteristics.

              You don’t seem to be able to deal with reality very well. Your initial post was basically excusing yourself from not understanding the math. Your follow on post was an evocation of potty humor. Your third post is diversion from the first two posts.

              Further, encouraging people to drink beer instead of trying to think harder is exactly a corruption of truth-seeking, which needs to be opposed. You were not here in 2012 when there were many trolls every day. YOU should oppose corruption of truth-seeking.

              Another attribute of people who are obsessed with their personal sense power is that they refuse to be accountable for their own behavior.

              There can be peace here, however, it starts with your demonstrating some accountability, and first and foremost, apologizing for the incivility.

              • Chapman

                If you take a deep breath and count to 50, then re-read your own posts it will be evident, even to you, that you are being a monumental jackwad.

                The good news is that you can choose to stop at any time. Nobody is compelling you to get on the forum and flame people. It’s all you. You are shopping for your own straight jacket.

                • radvar

                  Your behavior still stands, and you’re still being potty-mouth.

                  Ok,so you apparently don’t know how to do this, so I’ll go first. If have flamed you, I apologize for any stress that has caused you.

                  However, my interpretation of your initial post and your general behavior in followup still stands. If you would like to defend your initial post more rationally, that’s your choice.

                • Chapman

                  And I, in kind, beg forgiveness for any offense.

                  But I too must stand by my original post, which was an assurance to all others trying to follow the EM Drive Physics that they really are seeing totally conflicting diagrams and force descriptions dependant upon the site or reference they are viewing.

                  I merely pointed out THAT fact, and the need to qualify the validity of each source and then just concentrate on the insights you can glean from those that prove valid.

                  And for this you come on and throw bucketloads of crap upon my head, accusing me of all sorts of things, and generally denigrating me? For what?

                  I apologize for upsetting you,
                  but you, Sir are utterly, completely, and TOTALLY insane.
                  Mad as a March Hare.
                  Nutty as a Payday candybar.
                  Bonkers as a LooneyToons Character.
                  Your mind is as twisted and distorted as Engineers Avatar!!!

                  But please, DO accept my humble apologies…

                • radvar

                  I accept your interpretation of your initial post. My response was wrong. I repeat my apology for having caused you any distress.

                  Since your last comment is laden with insults, not in the least humble, and again attempting to create a distorted view of reality to satisfy your agenda, I don’t recognize it as a sincere attempt to leave this in peace.

            • radvar

              Another diversion. Nothing to do with climate change. Everything to do with your distortion of reality.

    • Chapman

      If I may, please allow me to make a clarification regarding my post, lest I should be misunderstood…

      We are, in my humble opinion, blessed to have had Engineer with us to bring to light the simple underlying science behind this phenomena.

      My warning was in regards to the fact that even the Wiki page on the topic discusses the Casimir effect, quantum foam, and every other bit of advanced physics theory they could throw in, but never mentions the well documented waveguide function Engineer describes… AND, they show a diagram that totally inverts the momentum and force factors involved. Who ever edited the WIKI page on the subject knows less about it than YOU DO. And 90 percent of the articles and analysis I have tracked down are no better.

      That is what I was trying to get across. Once you “get it”, and see what is happening in the Drive, then just rest easy with that knowledge and tune out the nonsense published on the topic. Just because someone else writes that it is all about the quantum vacuum and virtual particles does not mean it is right, or that they know what they are talking about. Experience tells me to trust Engineer.

      I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am happy to celebrate the fact that we have, on this topic at least, one guy who DOES! And we are all better informed now thanks to him.

      If all we had to fall back on was Wiki, we would all still be confused about which direction the darn thing is even supposed to fly…

      • Martin Lund

        Hallelujah preacher Chapman! Amen!

  • Engineer48

    How to get to Mars, 100mkm away, in 33 days at 0.005g or 0.049m/s^2 acceleration and a mid way flip and burn to slow down.


    With at 100t ship (50% ISS) and an EmDrive at 5N/kW or 0.5kgf/kW, that needs 0.98MW of Rf.
    Very doable with a LENR electricity generator.

    • Gerard McEk

      5N/kW seems quite high, compared to the existing test results. Any proof that this is feasible?

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The NASA Eagleworks paper stated 1.2 mN/kW. I do not see where 5, or .5, or .4 N/kW is shown as likely. Tests on less accurate measurement rigs would be suspect. A number of 5 mN/kW may be plausible, but no more without good data. this is 0.005 N/kW. A 100,000 kg spacecraft would have an acceleration of 0.00000005 m/s2 for this thrust per kW power. To get 0.005 g’s acceleration (0.049 m/s2), you would need 980 mW, not 1mW.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Leonard,

        From my analysis, the Eaglework device used a dielectric and was apparently built as a test of Dr. White’s QV thruster theory. As such it was not an attempt to replicate Shawyer’s work. In fact no where in any of Dr. White’s various papers is Shawyer, SPR or EmDrive mentioned. Prof Yang’s Chinese work is mentioned.

        In one of the IBT interview videos, Shawyer did mention he had supplied data to NASA but I have never seen it mentioned.

        Bad form that.

        Shawyer’s 2009 Flight Thruster achieved a measured 0.326N/kW with a cavity Q of 50k.

        Both Dr. White & Shawyer have stated higher cavity Q increases the specific force. Shawyer states it is linear. Dr. White believes ^2.

        Shawyer’s latest patent uses a YBCO coated cavity that is LN2 cooled and from calculation has a Q in the 100 of millions.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Leonard,

        At 5N/kW & 980kW = 4,900N

        4,900N / 100,000kg = 0.049m/s or 0.005g

        Then 100mkm with midway flip & burn = 33 days.

  • Zephir

    This is principle of photon rocket, not EMDrive thruster.
    It’s not based on radiation pressure by [reflection or absorbtion](http://i.imgur.com/M23eT4i.png),
    but by redshifting due to polarization.