backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 110 comment(s) - last by William Gaatje.. on Oct 10 at 6:45 AM

Mr. Shawyer claims his new drive will put existing ion drives to shame. Rejected by the Australia, Britain, and U.S. firms, he's developing his ideas in China.  (Source: New Scientist)

A prototype of the drive is seen here. It uses a tapered cavity to supposedly produce thrust. Despite scathing criticism in the research community, China is investing big in the technology, hoping it will give them a military edge.  (Source: Wired)
The saga of Mr. Shawyer's space engine continues to take wild turns

DailyTech has reported on plenty of exotic propulsion technologies.  From plasma engines to laser engines, the field of space propulsion is full of quirky ideas, many with big financial backing from NASA.  Thus it takes a really strange idea to stand out.  The story of Roger Shawyer and his "direct electricity" rocket is such a story.

Roger Shawyer began his career entirely within the system.  He worked his way up through the ranks and eventually became a senior aerospace engineer at Matra Marconi Space (later part of EADS Astrium) in Portsmouth, UK.  There he supervised the design of radar and communications systems.  Mr. Shawyer even served as a consultant on the Galileo project, Europe's satellite navigation system.

Then he came up with an idea that many would call crazy.

He drew up plans for an exotic space engine unlike any the world had seen.  It would use a relativistic trick, first envisioned by Allen Cullen in the 1950s, to convert electricity into microwaves, which would then provide a supposedly incredible thrust.  At Astrium, his outlandish ideas were met with scorn.  He recalls, "I was told in no uncertain terms to drop it.  This came from the very top."

So Mr. Shawyer went rogue, leaving his cushy desk job to design his engine, the EmDrive on his own.  Reportedly he succeeded.  In September 2006, he announced he had created a 9 kg prototype which consumed 700 W of power and outputted 88 millinewtons of force.  Then in May 2007, Eureka carried news that Mr. Shawyer claimed to have upped his rocket's capacity to 96.1 millinewtons on 300 W (an over 100 percent performance boost), and better yet the new rocket was capable of continuous operation and its microwave generator did not burn out like the last.

Mr. Shawyer claimed his device worked based on a tapered cavity.  Microwaves bouncing inside this cavity would normally cancel out forces in Newtonian mechanics.  However, Mr. Shawyer believed under Einstein's relativistic mechanics, the taper would cause force to build on one side.  And he claimed to have proof of it.  Further, by limiting microwave conversion to heat, by lining the cavity walls with superconductor, Mr. Shawyer said he could produce a 30 N thrust on a single watt, increasing the prototype's efficiency by nearly 100,000 times.

Criticism was quick to come, though.  Mr. Shawyer's papers and prototypes had not been reproduced or peer reviewed, fueling skepticism.  Worse yet, John Costella, a theoretical physicist and electrical engineer who works for the Australian Department of Defense, whose Ph.D. is in relativistic electrodynamics, the field that Mr. Shawyers research draws upon, blasted the drive in an article in the magazine New Scientist, after Mr. Shawyer submit a paper for it.

Professor Costella stated in his scathing review, "It is well known that Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' violates the law of conservation of momentum, making it simply the latest in a long line of 'perpetuum mobiles' that have been proposed and disproved for centuries.  His analysis is rubbish and his 'drive' impossible."

Ostracized in the U.S., in Europe, and in Australia, Mr. Shawyer turned to a country with ambitious space goals of its own and a penchant to think outside of the box -- China.  Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR), Mr. Shawyer's company, has worked out a lucrative new deal with the Chinese government to develop the tech.  What's more, Chinese physicists assisting Sawyer claim they are developing theoretical simulations that will "prove" the drive works.

Mr. Shawyer recently was interviewed by Wired magazine's "Danger Room" column and stated, "NPU started their research program in June 2007, under the supervision of Professor Yang Juan. They have independently developed a mathematical simulation which shows unequivocally that a net force can be produced from a simple resonant tapered cavity.  The thrust levels predicted by this simulation are similar to those resulting from the SPR design software, and the SPR test results."

He goes on to say that the Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) in Xi'an, a leading government controlled Chinese university is manufacturing a prototype of his device.  Professor Yang confirmed this, stating, "I could confirm that our mathematical simulation gives the results Dr. Roger Shawyer told you. Now we are submitting our result to a journal. It is now under the consideration of the editor.  We also developed a tapered cavity and are preparing an experiment which will be completed at the end of this year."

The new drive, if it indeed works, would not help with launching objects into space.  What it would be useful for is in-space propulsion.  Most sci-fi writers envisioned "sublight" engines, and the direct electricity drive would do precisely that.  If the Chinese get it working, it will give them a distinct military edge in space.  A flight to Mars might take only 41 days.  Further, it will cut the weight and costs of satellites approximately in half, as satellites require heavy boosters to maintain orbit.  In short, the drive would revolutionize much of spaceflight and give China the dominance it dreams of -- if it works.

Mr. Shawyer says he would like to deal with the U.S. as well, but says communications have died.  He states, "the flight thruster program is on hold for the present. [O]nce the U.K. government had provided an export license for a U.S. military application, the major U.S. aerospace company we had been dealing with stopped talking to us."

Meanwhile he and the Chinese are awaiting the peer review of their research.  And the real test will not be in the response, which has already evoked mixed opinions, but simply whether the prototypes work -- and whether China's expensive and radical gamble in one man's rebellious dream has paid off.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sad
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 9:33:24 AM , Rating: 3
That we here in the US wouldn't at least consider the proposal. Sometimes wild ideas are those with the most promise.




RE: Sad
By Zurtex on 9/25/2008 9:42:28 AM , Rating: 4
Erm... science is all about peer review and reproducibility. Not magical one-off examples.

Science community is there to scrutinise, criticise and try and prove new theories wrong. So if the theories flourish under this environment they are well tested.


RE: Sad
By daniyarm on 9/25/2008 11:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's why science has sucked in the last decade because all scientists do is try to prove themselves wrong. Science is just as bad as politics these days, you just can't stand out and make bold statements, because your peers will end your career. It's just not competetive any more. History has thousands of examples when one person is right and all others were wrong and it took years, sometimes centuries for others to come onboard.


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/25/2008 12:38:33 PM , Rating: 4
Actually the problem is quite the opposite: Science has not been self-critical enough. The past four decades has seen the rise of theories that are unable to be disproven, resulting in a slowing in scientific discovery. Prime examples are so-called theories like Intelligent Design in biology or String Theory in physics. Neither provides any method of disprovability, and as a result they are not testable, yet resources are wasted on them rather than on theories that actually have disprovability(and thus, provability).


RE: Sad
By Sandok on 9/25/2008 12:53:00 PM , Rating: 5
Intelligent Design is not a biological theory... It's the Church's "theory" on how we came.

Nothing scientifical about it, unless you consider a theologist a scientist ;)


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/25/2008 1:33:35 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely agree, however resources are being wasted debunking it on a regular basis, both in science and in politics. And it is no more disprovable than other more mainstream 'theories' like String Theory, which is also not disprovable.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
String theory is provable...just not at the energy levels we currently control. Perhaps the next iteration of the world's largest supercollider will get us there.


RE: Sad
By homebredcorgi on 9/25/2008 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 3
But is string theory disprovable by experiment? THAT is the problem. Every time you don't get the result you are looking for you just chalk it up to not having enough energy in your experiment. This is basic scientific method stuff and string theory has thrown it out the window.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 4:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
The LISA satellites could potentially prove or disprove string theory. There are a few other experiments with promise as well.

If nothing else, building colliders closer and closer to the planck energy will eventually either prove string theory, or force us to abandon it altogether for lack of proof.


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/25/2008 5:37:28 PM , Rating: 3
It has been decades and we are no closer to any proof of string theory. It not made a single useful prediction, ever. Furthermore, you keep talking about higher energies being required, but the energy levels being talked about by string theorists are along the lines of 'colliding galaxy a with galaxy b', not something that can be done in a super collider or by our species probably ever.

It makes NO predictions, and without predictions it is not disprovable. Any theory that has no mechanism to be disproved is NOT a scientific theory, by definition. String 'theory' would more accuratly be labeled 'String Conjecture'.


RE: Sad
By inighthawki on 9/26/2008 7:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody ever said string theory is "right". It, like many other tings, are still theories which are just wandering out there, which happen to explain how things work. This i why its called a theory, because it hasnt been proven yet.


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/26/2008 7:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
Technically everything in science is a 'theory' because nothing is ever considered 100% proven. After all, just because something works perfectly, is predictive and has practical applications does not mean that we fully understand the reasons why, even if our theory fits to a tee. The most famous example of this is Newtonian Physics, which worked perfectly for centuries, made accurate predictions, and was used extensively in practical applications. However once Einstein's theory of general relativity came along, Newtonian physics was placed in a larger context, and while it was not necessarily 'wrong' it was incomplete.

This is why scientists no longer label theories as 'laws' as they once did. It has become clear that even when a knowledge base seems complete, a more complete understanding can change our perspective of that knowledge base, and while it does not necessarily render it false, it does open new possibilities as well as demonstrate areas where that theory is not applicable.

Science never tries to 'prove' anything. Science can only disprove, what fails to be disproven is what stands. Much like Sherlock Holmes' approach to mysteries, disprove all options, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable it may seem, is the truth.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/26/2008 11:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "It has been decades and we are no closer to any proof of string theory"

It's not correct to say string theory hasn't advanced in the past 30 years. M-Theory alone was a substantial revisement, and led to many new insights into the theory.

While no direct proof has been found, one has to remember that's due in large part because we know very little at present about the ramifications of the theory. . . primarily because the theory still isn't mathematically complete. When the final holes are filled in, there will be many more predictions the theory makes, predictions we can test here in the real world.


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/26/2008 7:23:03 PM , Rating: 5
Not to point out the obvious here, but I find it ironic that you so staunchly attack global warming, a theory with observational evidencce, predictions and data to back it up(even though it has problems and is incomplete, no doubt), but you defend just as staunchly a theory that does not even meet the scientific definition of theory(disprovability, most importantly).

Everything I have ever seen you complain about with GW, from science departments having their funding dependant upon towing the line, to ignoring the lack of predictions, it not being based on any observable evidence, to changing the criteria when anything dosen't line up applies far more strongly to String Theory than it ever has to Global Warming.

I'm not trying to bash you here, but I strongly suggest you think about the inconsistancy in your position. I'm in favor of good science, and while I do generally believe in GW I also believe that a lot of the science that supports it is shaky or poorly constructed. I could never defend a theory like ST which does not even meet the basic criteria of the term 'theory' in the first place.


RE: Sad
By William Gaatjes on 9/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sad
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2008 6:25:59 AM , Rating: 1
I stepped on some toes here i see . :) Oh well, the truth hurts as much as a lie i guess.


RE: Sad
By William Gaatjes on 10/10/2008 6:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
Even if Al Gore is just another guy who wants to make a buck, i say use him since he has influence. Politics people. It is big picture time. Do not only look at the girl with the big mammaries when there is much more information in the background.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 10/1/2008 3:10:06 AM , Rating: 1
> "I'm not trying to bash you here, but I strongly suggest you think about the inconsistancy in your position"

I saw this post a bit late, but I'm going to reply anyway. First of all, if you believe I'm "defending" string theory, you're mistaken. In fact, I myself have on these pages pointed out numerous problems with it.

What I'm defending here is the truth. String theory is as of yet an incomplete theory: it therefore makes very few predictions. From a strict basis of mathematical elegance, it's incredibly compelling...but it's just as important to remember that countless lifetimes of work have been devoted to it, without one single experimentally validating result. It is more than reasonable for people to begin questioning whether or not it is-- and will always be-- a dead end.

On the other hand, the theory of CAGW is a 'complete' theory. As such, it makes a great deal of predictions. Those predictions, however, have been continually violated by real-world data. None of the basic tenets of the theory have come to pass-- the tropospheric signal continues to diverge from surface temperatures (it should be roughly 1.3X as strong according to theory), polar amplification is seen only in the NH (Antarctica remains on a long-term cooling cycle), GCMs continally mispredict the future even five years in advance and remain perpetually unable to explain any of the past climate shifts. And perhaps most telling of all, there has been no statistically significant warming trend for the past 15 years (and a cooling trend over the past 8). Advances in paleoclimatology have repeatedly downgraded the forcing effects of CO2 on climate, and demonstrated utterly that CO2 lags temperature rises, making it a cause, not a primary effect.

Finally, the strongest evidence in favor of AGW (the simple negative proof that we didn't have any better factor to explain non-TSI based temperature changes) has now been invalidated by the work of Svensmark, Usoskin, and other solar physicists.

Yet despite all these setbacks, the theory is continually patched up. While it admittedly fit the facts fairly well circa 1995, it's a laughingstock circa 2008.

So comparisons between the two situations are entirely off base. String theory may or may not be a colossal waste of time. But it is not yet being contradicted by real-world data. Nor does string theory threaten the entire economic prosperity of the modern world, through ill-advised attempts to dramatically restrict and reduce industrial activity.


RE: Sad
By danrien on 9/25/2008 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I take offense when people say the 'Church', as if they're talking about every church on earth. In fact, the generally accepted "Church", the Catholic Church, funded the initial research into the Big Bang theory and also accept Evolution as the most probable version of the history of species on earth.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 4:24:27 PM , Rating: 3
> "the Catholic Church, funded the initial research into the Big Bang theory"

No. A Catholic Priest (Lemaitre) was influential in the early theories about the Big Bang. But claiming the Catholic Church "funded the initial research" is a considerable stretch. Unlike GTR and other theories which were largely the work of one person, Big Bang cosmology is a synthesis of a large number of people. Furthermore, Lemaitre published his theories on his own recognizance, and was not specifically funded to perform any research on cosmology.

Finally, though Lemaitre published his works in the 20s, The Catholic Church didn't offically recognize the Big Bang as a probable explanation for the origin of the universe until the 1950s.


RE: Sad
By Parhel on 9/25/2008 5:53:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Catholic Church didn't offically recognize the Big Bang as a probable explanation for the origin of the universe until the 1950s.


Neither did anyone else, though. There was still considerable debate among scientists on Big Bang theory well into the 1960's and beyond.


RE: Sad
By Parhel on 9/25/2008 5:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Catholic Church didn't offically recognize the Big Bang as a probable explanation for the origin of the universe until the 1950s.


Neither did anyone else, though. There was still considerable debate among scientists on Big Bang theory well into the 1960's and beyond.


RE: Sad
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/26/2008 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Catholic Church didn't offically recognize the Big Bang as a probable explanation for the origin of the universe until the 1950s.


Wow. If this is true then I completely disagree with your point, suggesting that they are somehow at fault for being late to the game. I find it rather progressive of them that they would concede the point. For some reason, perhaps lumping all of the denominations together, I thought they were still big proponents of intelligent design and nothing else.

Then again, the whole "maybe we were wrong before" idea kind of flies in the face of infallibility.


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 10/1/2008 2:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "I thought they were still big proponents of intelligent design and nothing else."

To the Catholic Church, the Big Bang is **proof** of intelligent design. In their opinion, it's how God created the universe.


RE: Sad
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/25/2008 1:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
I concur with Reflex. See Schon for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6...


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 3
Interestingly enough, there have been several Schon-like cases of data handling in the climatology field. Mann's bristlecone-based hockey-stick work and subsequent obfuscation of the resultant investigation, some of the research the IPCC used to discount UHI (urban heat island) effects, archived data used for conclusions lost when independent researchers attempt to verify results, etc. There's been little serious investigation of possible malfeasance in such cases, however. . . the usual explanation of "oops" somehow always seems to have sufficed.


RE: Sad
By mattclary on 9/26/2008 8:42:42 AM , Rating: 3
You know, it's funny, when I read the article and they said they have produced mathematical models to confirm this, I also thought of climate change. LOL


RE: Sad
By masher2 (blog) on 9/26/2008 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 3
It's a good analogy -- a model (climate or otherwise) merely confirms the assumptions built into it. That's why modelling "proves" this drive works, as well as why climate modelling-- which lacks the majority of the actual factors which drive climate-- "proves" that CO2 is the primary affect on word temperatures.


RE: Sad
By Methusela on 9/30/2008 11:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
..."proves" that CO2 is the primary affect on word temperatures.


All this hot air is making for QUITE the heated debate, eh?


RE: Sad
By nomentanus on 9/25/2008 4:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
No science shouldn't be identified with peer review. Actually, science has it's roots in the REBELLION against peer review. That's why the original Royal Society (actually disbanded and replaced in 1813) had Francis Bacon as its mascot and adopted the slogan "On the word of no-one". An equally good slogan for real science would be "if the experiment works, buddy, it works; no matter what anybody bloody says." As Jane Jacobs pointed out, we tend now to use the word science to mean its opposite, mere authority and tradition: a kind of sloppiness that has a high price tag.


RE: Sad
By iNGEN on 9/27/2008 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hell yes!


RE: Sad
By Spuke on 10/1/2008 4:27:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually, science has it's roots in the REBELLION against peer review.
Well, if that's the case, I have this model that proves that black people used to have tails but that the "tail gene" went dormant when they started mixing with Caucasians.


RE: Sad
By CommodoreVic20 on 9/25/2008 11:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
Some if not all of the greatest scientific break throughs in history were first shun as crazy impossible ideas. As a matter of fact all human knowledge including everything the scientific community works with, was discovered through the experimentation of novel, crazy impossible ideas, that were surely initially met with skepticism.


RE: Sad
By Reflex on 9/25/2008 12:36:30 PM , Rating: 4
Not true at all. While the public has often laughed off crazy ideas, the scientific community has not. So-called 'breakthroughs' are typically the result of decades if not centuries of research. For instance, while relativity upended the Newtonian model of physics it was not a new idea, it was nearly three centuries old before Einstein created the mathematical proof of it, and it was questioned for decades after practical applications had been created based on it. This is how strong science is built.


RE: Sad
By Solandri on 9/25/2008 2:17:24 PM , Rating: 5
I'd further characterize it as, 99%+ of "crazy, impossible" ideas turn out to be crazy, impossible ideas that you never hear about again. The fact that a few pan out is no reason to stop labeling most of them as crazy, impossible ideas.


RE: Sad
By 16nm on 9/25/2008 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
In some ways, this makes me think of Faraday. The science community of his time thought he was a total nut. They laughed at his idea and, luckily, he was able to prove it without the aid of his peers.


RE: Sad
By Risforrocket on 9/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sad
By MrPoletski on 10/2/2008 7:35:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and throughout history it has ridiculed and rejected 'outlandish' theories whether they turned out to be correct or not.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good safety net to stop science filling up with bull. All the ideas stamped into the dirt by fellow scientists that are actually worth something come back out the dirt - because they can - because they are actually a good idea.

We shall have to see if this drive is credible. The proof is in the pudding.


RE: Sad
By Goty on 9/25/2008 9:47:31 AM , Rating: 3
His device was given a look, but there's the one small problem of violating one of the most basic conservation laws in physics.


RE: Sad
By niva on 9/25/2008 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
If he is correct it won't be violating the laws of physics. Sometimes our understanding of how these "laws" work and interact, esp when working with superconductors, is very limited.


RE: Sad
By MozeeToby on 9/25/2008 2:28:53 PM , Rating: 4
I'm willing to admit that we've got some, even a lot of our physical laws not quite perfect yet. But the one subset of laws that seams to hold up the best are the conservation laws, and when you think about it, they make sense.

You can't create energy out of nothing. Period. If his theory worked, you could, in theory, produce more kinetic energy than you expended. In fact, you would have to in order for his engine to work.


RE: Sad
By 16nm on 9/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sad
By jconan on 9/26/2008 1:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
the hunch was the big IF it worked? apparently no one wants to back it up and fund the bulk of the test. they somehow conned china into doing their test. hopefully it'll work or that was some trick like those cloned korean embryos.


RE: Sad
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/25/2008 12:19:46 PM , Rating: 4
"I can not change the laws of physics!"
--Scotty


RE: Sad
By quiksilvr on 9/25/2008 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 5
"In this house we obey the laws of THERMODYNAMICS!"


RE: Sad
By chris2618 on 9/25/2008 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
i love it when homer comes out with things like that


RE: Sad
By Risforrocket on 9/26/2008 2:45:55 AM , Rating: 3
You are an idiot.

I say this because you have so well deserved such a criticism. You apply an accepted law without consideration of the pre conditions required for it to be true.

There is no place in our 4-space wherein there is a closed system. Therefore, any such claim is irrelevant.

Energy is always conserved. His device cannot violate that. Your point of view is pathetically common.

Take this and learn from it. It's time for some real science.


RE: Sad
By Zirconium on 9/25/2008 10:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes wild ideas are those that are most retarded. Just because someone says they have a good idea, doesn't mean they actually do. Here is his paper, go peer review and consider it:

www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyerthe ory.pdf

I'm at work (do you work? you seem to post a lot), so I can't do more than a cursory glance. One weakness I see right away, and I MIGHT BE WRONG, is that he ties the thrust of the object to its velocity. This strikes me as incorrect, since the microwaves are emitted in the same inertial reference frame as the waveguide, so the relative velocity will always be 0.

Furthermore, the guy is British. The problem with him not selling it to the US is not so much based on the merit of his idea, but that he needed to get a license to export it. FTFA:

quote:
the flight thruster program is on hold for the present. [O]nce the U.K. government had provided an export license for a U.S. military application, the major U.S. aerospace company we had been dealing with stopped talking to us.


RE: Sad
By lamestlamer on 9/25/2008 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 4
His design misinterprets group velocity to be actual photon velocity. The cavity is filled with microwave photons that all go the speed of light, and all conserve their own energy. They exert a balanced radiation pressure on the cavity walls, due to the evidence that photons have never been detected to propagate in violation of conserving energy/momentum. His machine should simply sit there. Any other behavior I'd chalk up to experimental error

If his device works, then he will have disproved Quantum Electro Dynamics, which is the most complete and accurate theory of modern science. Since his design is based on classical electrodynamics and special relativity, which are limit subsets of QED, the only conclusion you should reach is that he has made an error in calculation. Any new physics that allow for such a device would need experimental evidence before a coherent theory could be described.

I get many emails looking for peer reviews of perpetual motion machines. Almost all of them misconstrue electromagnetism to come to their concluded abilities. This is no different.

I'm ashamed that DailyTECH even reports on this tripe. I half expected that this was a new Gerald Bull type space gun article (which is a great idea and a shame that it has never been put into use).

Here is a silly device to rack your brains on:

1: Electrolysis water and produce hydrogen @ 100% efficiency.
2: Fill tethered buoy on the ocean floor with hydrogen.
3: Allow buoy to rise while the tether turns a generator.

Assuming a weightless tether, weightless buoy skin, zero pressure differential across buoy skin, a perfect generator on the tether, constant gravity, and constant water density. How high must the buoy reach for break even energy and for what reason is this scheme irrelevant.

ROT13 Reason scheme doesn't work:
Fbzr bs gur raretl pbfg bs cebqhpvat ulqebtra vf gb birepbzr cerffher, nffhevat gung gur nzbhag bs raretl lbh jbhyq trg sebz gur onyybba fpurzr jbhyq bayl pbire gur rkprff raretl erdhverq gb cebqhpr ulqebtra tnf ng gur fgnegvat cerffher, abg rira gbhpuvat gur nzbhag bs raretl erdhverq sbe gur Erq-Bk rdhngvba.


RE: Sad
By bobsmith1492 on 9/25/2008 11:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
So sad... why, if it weren't for our pessimistic attitude, we'd have $20 electric cars powered by cold fusion reactors or, better yet, our cars would run on water.

Crazy ideas are fine but when they don't work, they don't work. Period.


RE: Sad
By Solandri on 9/25/2008 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That we here in the US wouldn't at least consider the proposal. Sometimes wild ideas are those with the most promise.

I used to work at a company that did SBIRs (small business innovation research) for the military. The government (usually military) comes up with an idea that they think merits some work, and will fund it. All a business has to do is write up a proposal to develop the idea that meets their approval (in fact, a lot of the SBIRs are based on ideas the businesses have pitched to the govt). Trust me, there are lots of crazy ideas that get funded. It's essentially the government's shotgun approach to finding new ideas that work. Fund a bunch of ideas that could lead to something big, and if one turns into a multi-billion dollar industry the program has paid for itself.

Most of the proposals get $100k or so for a year or two, and are killed off as unviable. The proponents them usually go on a campaign to try to resurrect it as their lifetime gravy train. The smarter ones dream up a new harebrained scheme which sounds plausible enough to warrant another $100k for another year.


RE: Sad
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2008 5:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Whats sad is that a crackpot with no scientific proof is so obsessed with his stupid idea that hes willing to sell himself and the world out by going to China.

I mean what is this, scientific blackmail ? " Fund my idea or I'll give communist an edge ! "

Sad.


Resonance is the key as I see it
By SiliconJon on 9/25/2008 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 1
We have a long way to go due to a largely untapped area of resonant frequency utilization, and once I saw that mentioned I did not think this guy to be guaranteed a lunatic.

Aside from loving the sight of scientist with closed minds stating something to be positively impossible being proved wrong, as eternity will forever endure, we are still primitive in our understanding of how things truly work as we continue to make "astonishing" discoveries thought impossible in the recent past.

Using resonant frequencies, once we understand how truly fundamental they are, is an even less mature science than so many others. There's plenty of room to explore it left...




RE: Resonance is the key as I see it
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 10:58:49 AM , Rating: 5
> "we are still primitive in our understanding of how things truly work"

Respectivelly, I think you're missing the point. There are two ways to prove something works -- the experimental and the theoretical. The experimental approach just gathers data. You build an engine and it works, voila! The theoretical works from the other side-- you build a set of equations which proves something *should* work.

This chap has chosen door #2. But the issue with the theoretical approach is that it depends on our current understanding of the universe. Now, look at his paper. Relativity changes as a lot in classical mechanics, but it doesn't change conservation of momentum. He draws a lot of force diagrams, then somehow sums them up to violate conservation of momentum.

I know this is bunk. One day, maybe we'll find out conservation of momentum can be violated somehow. But we'll never prove it can be violated from simply massaging current classical and relativistic equations, because they *already* demonstrate otherwise. If it ever happens, we'll prove it by seeing data that can't otherwise be explained by anything but that violation...not from a silly hodgepodge of equations thrown together by an ex-engineer.


RE: Resonance is the key as I see it
By Amiga500 on 9/25/2008 11:14:58 AM , Rating: 1
Something to debunk conservation of momentum?

How about the expanding universe theory. :-)

Our knowledge of the wider universe is pathetic. We've very little idea of how things work.

I think it is unbelievable that some actually view now as the peak of our civilisation.


By ChronoReverse on 9/25/2008 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that he's taking a set of rules that say that momentum is conserved and from that came up with something where momentum isn't conserved.

The best this can do is show there's a contradiction in the existing rules and that it's a flawed description of the universe.

If the conservation of momentum is to be debunked, something real would actually have to be observed demonstrating that and repeated and vigorously tested. A lot of physics relies on conservation of momentum to hold true and if it doesn't... well a lot of things are broken.


By fibreoptik on 9/25/2008 11:56:48 AM , Rating: 3
Don't call him an "ex-engineer". Just because you (and many other people) don't agree with his wild theories, does not make him less of an engineer - or NOT one at all.


RE: Resonance is the key as I see it
By William Gaatjes on 9/27/2008 10:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
i found that interesting too about the resonance cavities. Especially in the original NS article.

Now i have not read the paper of this guy and it is not my field of expertise but is it not possible that gravity on earth has something to do with limiting noticing the effects ?

I know a lot of experiments where done in the ISS what the effects of a lack or at lest a wekened gravity does to materials, biological systems and so on ? I have never found much information on that kind of research.
I am still wondering for example how atom structures would form with no gravity. I know that on atom scale gravity does not mean much but it is still there as another factor in some equation and therefore cannot be set to just" add 0" or just "multiply by 1".


By William Gaatjes on 9/27/2008 10:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
Woops my "a" key got stuck in my head.


By William Gaatjes on 9/27/2008 11:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
Or for another example, how much does the earth electromagnetic field have an influence. These experiments are not talked about much.

Maybe sooner or later we find out that our future spaceships need not only a artifical gravity field but als an artificial earth like magnetic field. We and everything on it are maybe more bound to this planet then we now realize.


The Hallmark of the Crackpot
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 10:12:59 AM , Rating: 4
They always justify their failure as due to corporate desire to protect inefficient processes:
quote:
Shawyer argues that for companies investing billions in rockets and launch sites, a new technology that leads to fewer launches and longer-lasting satellites has little commercial appeal
The truth is that any company which could offer longer-lasting satellites would demolish its competition. If this technology actually worked, those companies would be clamoring for it.

The sad truth is that it doesn't, and it won't. There have been literally thousands of such perpetual-motion machines proposed in the past.




RE: The Hallmark of the Crackpot
By Reflex on 9/25/2008 12:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe its nationalist of me, but I honestly hope guys like him go to China. I enjoy watching them spend their research budget on crackpot theories and dead ends. Reminds me of how the US fed all sorts of fantastical war machine designs to Russian intelligence via 'leaks' that ultimatly did not work, but were close enough to reality to soak up millions in Soviet R&D without any payoff.

Let China spend thier money chasing the seemingly plausible.


RE: The Hallmark of the Crackpot
By Fireshade on 9/26/2008 6:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
Nationalist as you may be, just be careful what you wish for...
If the governmental funds in China dry up, it might stop lending money to the USA... ouch! ;)

In July 2008 the biggest chunk of public debt is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list ($593 billion), followed by China ($518 billion).
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt


RE: The Hallmark of the Crackpot
By Reflex on 9/26/2008 7:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
As absurd as it may sound, the fact that Bush has doubled our national debt in the past 8 years means that those two together only account for slightly more than 10% of our national debt. Personally I wish they would stop lending us money, it might force Congress and the President to re-institute PAYGO, which is the only policy post WW2 that ever resulted in a balanced budget.


RE: The Hallmark of the Crackpot
By Suntan on 9/25/2008 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, something doesn’t make sense. The guy says he has one that works. I’m guessing the first thing the people at whatever satellite company he talked to would say something like, “Ok, let’s see it work, then we can talk…”

-Suntan


Probably is cold fusion all over again
By phxfreddy on 9/25/2008 9:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
...but either way it does not matter. Point developments like this do not make dominance in technology.

Fact is though if the microwaves don't escape either end momentum is required to be conserved. Equation looks like this:

No photons shooting out one end = no change in system

The Chinese are being cold fusioned and it should be funny to watch this unfold.

Afterall...this guy could have demonstrated his model to any round eye he wanted. If they saw Newtons of force the discussion would be over in the time it took to realize there as a force involved.

On a final note it is dismaying how many and how much western scientist are worried about reputation and peer pressure. ( a bad form of peer review ). It is this that allows the hoax that is global warming thrive and grip and entire government and technically untrained populace.

To any of your hardcore holdouts: I am an RF / microwave design engineer. I can tell you somewhere along the way someone closed off an X band tapered horn and did not see anything or this would have been discovered about 50 years ago!




RE: Probably is cold fusion all over again
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
t is this that allows the hoax that is global warming thrive and grip and entire government and technically untrained populace.


No its more that they want grant money. Not because they're afraid their colleagues will disparage them. There's far more grant money for pro-GW studies than against. Even if the study has nothing to do with GW, they'll add to the name of the study "in regards to Global Warming" to the end cause it'll get them funding. A researcher even admitted this in The Great Global Warming Scandal.


By phxfreddy on 9/27/2008 10:25:10 AM , Rating: 3
When I said untrained populace .... I was talking about the people in the general population who make up the congregation of Jerkhovah Witnesses Church of Global Warming. The ones who are feeling increasingly irrelevant in this world of globalization and increased technology they do not understand.

To quote a recent study "Liberals Fear Emptiness" and since they are the predominate members of the Church of Latter Day Global Warming I suggest they are using MMGW to form community in our country where community is hard to come by.


By mattclary on 9/25/2008 10:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I thought one end was open! If both ends are closed, this is bunk!


Rejected By World, Rogue Inventor...
By fishbits on 9/25/2008 10:22:19 AM , Rating: 5
"Rejected By World, Rogue Inventor ..."

Sounds like the start of a supervillain's career!

Poor guy should have had the foresight to say his design derived propulsion from dark matter and/or dark energy. There's a LOT less scrutiny when you invoke these to balance equations to your liking.




By NicePants42 on 9/25/2008 12:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
"So, the Transmatter Ray is at 75%, but more importantly, the EmDrive is almost up. This is the one. Violates conservation of momentum. EmDrive. Tell your friends."


By AssBall on 9/25/2008 4:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
If it can warm up my pizza and make popcorn, I might get one.


Um... I must be missing something
By Jellodyne on 9/25/2008 11:23:24 AM , Rating: 3
OK, so microwaves bouncing off the small end produce less force than the ones bounceing off the big end. Presumably because some of them ar bouncing off the tapered sides instead. But the ones bouncing off of the tapered sides must produce force as well. Granted much of this will be cancelled out by the opposite side, but they're not parallel, meaning the resultant force force vecror from the sides will be in the same direction as that off of the small end. I imagine the resultant force of the sides + small end = exactly the force on the large end, right?

While we're doing bad engineering, why would he not completely minimise the force on the small end by using a cone instead of a truncated cone? Then you've got no small end at all.

I think we can let the Chinese have him.




RE: Um... I must be missing something
By MozeeToby on 9/25/2008 2:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
If (and that's a big if) I understand his theory of operation, he is applying the theory of relativity to the relative velocities of the group velocity of the radiation and the wave guide. Group velocity is the same phenomenon that is responsible for all those 'faster than the speed of light' reports that the media loves so much even though nothing is moving faster than the speed of light at all.

His theory is that the group velocity will be much, much higher at the narrow end of the cone than the wide end. So much faster that if the group velocity was a phsical thing, it would be carrying more energy at the narrow end than the wide end due to relativity.

The problem with this is that group velocity isn't a thing as such, it's just an interference pattern in the radiation. Applying the theory of relativity to it is incorrect. The radiation carries the same amount of energy regardless of it's group velocity and will always tranfer equal amounts forward and backward inside the cavity.


By phxfreddy on 9/27/2008 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
There are many things in nature we do not understand. The point I tried to make previously is this is very easy to test and PROBABLY has been already! Tapered waveguides where not hard to come by back in the day of radars being put together with TWT's and waveguide.


This explains a lot...
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/25/2008 11:43:23 AM , Rating: 3
Turns out before working for EADS, this guy's name was Wile E. Coyote, and he designed a sailboat propelled by a fan pointed at the sail. Needless to say, his superiors at ACME, Inc. were not pleased, and the rest is history.




RE: This explains a lot...
By Ruleke on 9/25/2008 7:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
You just made me laugh... ever heard of Newton's 3rd law ? It's actually an easy thing to set up and test yourself. Wile E. Coyote could teach you some tricks :)


Could it be working but...
By Zshazz on 9/25/2008 5:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not by the mechanism he describes? Perhaps he actually "stumbled upon" some other effect.

It's entirely possible that he made this drive and he *thinks* it works in one way, but it actually works in a totally different way. Until it's discovered exactly how it works, then it will either look impossible or might "disprove" some laws of physics until we discover that it actually doesn't work that way.




RE: Could it be working but...
By JustTom on 9/26/2008 12:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
The real test is whether his experiments are reproducable. Anyone remember the cold fusion fiasco?


Video
By Isochroma on 9/25/2008 7:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
For those skeptics, here's the EmDrive in action :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs




RE: Video
By SpaceJumper on 9/26/2008 7:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
The EmDrive was not in a vacuum chamber. It could be using the surrounding air as the propellant. He should give it a try in a vacuum chamber (at least 5*10^-6 torr).


Nuclear thermoelectric
By FishTankX on 9/26/2008 2:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
If i'm not wrong, the power source for the majority of long distance probes is thermonuke. A hot slag of PU-238 hooked up to peltiers run in reverse to generate electricity from heat. Casini, voyager, they all get about 300 watts off these cells.

However, it seems like the easiest way to do this would be to power it with solar cells, with thermonuke backup. Why not just have a 700w solar aray and hook it up to the magnetron? Then use a thermonuke backup for when something obscures your view of the sun. This seems like fairly basic stuff...




RE: Nuclear thermoelectric
By SpaceJumper on 9/26/2008 8:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
The power generator may not be the conventional nuke. The new technology could be using the Helium 3 as fuel. Helium 3 is none on earth but plenty on the moon. A space shuttle load of Helium 3 could power US energy needs for a year.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006...
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture2...


Interesting
By rupaniii on 9/25/2008 1:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
When you stop assuming all factors are in your head it gets interesting.

There might be some very valid geometrical issues with the cavity that can cause the energy conservation and compression.
Beyond me entirely, but, not all mathematicians take into account all factors when claiming they can 'outright' disprove things.




RE: Interesting
By SpaceJumper on 9/25/2008 3:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure this drive will work but I am not ready to discount it. A heated black panel in space can propel the spacecraft by releasing its heat energy. Microwave is not that far from the thermal wavelength. Microwave seems to travel freely in space. Microwave can not just travel without any medium in between; a medium is required to propagate that electromagnetic energy. The medium could be the so call the mysterious dark matter; the dark matter may not be stopping the microwave efficiently and let it rides through. I believe one component is missing; the missing component if discovered could bridge the gap between the microwaves and the dark matter.
If the microwave pushes against the dark matter, the spacecraft will move.


Vacuum Tests
By SpaceJumper on 9/25/2008 10:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
Were the thrust tests done in a vacuum chamber?
The microwave could be moving the air molecules as thrust.
If the He3 used as the propellant, He3 is plenty on the moon, the emdrive could be producing a lot of powers.




Micro-Drive
By Suntan on 9/25/2008 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Make me a bag of popcorn... ...warp factor 7!

-Suntan




Floating cars here we come.
By WikiChici on 9/25/2008 7:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
5th Element style!!!

On a more serious note if his technology actually works it will be one of the biggest breakthroughs in modern propulsion techniques.

Cant wait to see some video's of this actually working.

Go China, Floating red battle stations!




Nuclear thermoelectric
By FishTankX on 9/26/2008 2:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
If i'm not wrong, the power source for the majority of long distance probes is thermonuke. A hot slag of PU-238 hooked up to peltiers run in reverse to generate electricity from heat. Casini, voyager, they all get about 300 watts off these cells.

However, it seems like the easiest way to do this would be to power it with solar cells, with thermonuke backup. Why not just have a 700w solar aray and hook it up to the magnetron? Then use a thermonuke backup for when something obscures your view of the sun. This seems like fairly basic stuff...




I'll give you an equation ...
By lco45 on 9/26/2008 4:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
(guy says he has something cool that shouldn't work but does)
+
(guy won't let anyone look at it or test it)
=
(guy is sad man who wishes he was one of the greats of science, but unfortunately isn't)




Simplicity..
By FishTankX on 9/26/2008 7:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just go solar/thermonuke? Would keep the engine fed with electricity under all circumstances.




gyroscopes
By William Gaatjes on 9/27/2008 10:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
Some poster named Lubomir Lubenov in the NS article mentioned Otis Carr.

It's funny both inventors have a connection to gyroscopes.

fun site :

http://keelynet.com/gravity/carr3.htm

But somewhere i have the feeling they misplaced the effect with this effect used by these builders.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/liftbldr.htm

Great stuff to tho...




Prediction
By BansheeX on 9/26/2008 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 1
Mick's next article: Strange forest slug discovered to produce slime with high ethanol content. Could power the universe, slug farmers lobby for 1 trillion dollar subsidy package.




This man is crazy...
By MC17 on 9/25/08, Rating: 0
Long extension cord?
By Fnoob on 9/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Long extension cord?
By Radnor on 9/25/2008 9:49:23 AM , Rating: 4
Of Course you, in you infinite wisdom, never heard of:

Stirling Engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

With a heat source inside the ship (read nuclear) and a cold source (read freaking huge outer space), his propelling system is good to go. Just attach a developed Stirling Engine.

He's thinking out of the box, and basically i think it is quite doable. Many times the correct solution is the simpler.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Fnoob on 9/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Long extension cord?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Long extension cord?
By Radnor on 9/25/2008 11:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
From what Ive understood from the working of that "drive", he needs a constant (electric) power supply. A Stirling Engine, or a variation of it would suffice. Something that would turn mechanical into electric.

2 cents really.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Smartless on 9/25/2008 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 5
And I still think that wikipedia picture of the Stirling engine should be rated R.


RE: Long extension cord?
By LeftSide on 9/26/2008 9:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Pink - Hot cylinder wall

Did they have to lable that part Pink Hot Cylinder Wall?


RE: Long extension cord?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/25/2008 10:20:47 AM , Rating: 5
There's no convective or conductive heat loss, surely. There is, however, radiative heat loss. If that wasn't true, the earth (which is itself in the vacuum of space) would get continually hotter and hotter from the sun's energy. The sun, in fact, would have no way of transferring its own heat to other objects in the solar system.


RE: Long extension cord?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 9/25/2008 9:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that wasn't true, the earth (which is itself in the vacuum of space) would get continually hotter and hotter from the sun's energy.


A-ha! Now you've hit the nail on the head, masher2 ;-)

Global warming explained.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Cybertoxic on 9/25/2008 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I, in my lack of infinite wisdom, could be mistaken, but in the vaccuum of space I thought that hot things tend to stay hot and cold things stay cold since there is no air to carry off/dissipate the heat. Could be wrong, haven't spent much time in a vaccuum recently.


One word... "Radiation".


RE: Long extension cord?
By Jimbo1234 on 9/25/2008 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 1
Radiation transfers heat in a vacuum. In a nutshell Q=e*Sigma*A(T1^4-T2^4) where e (emmissivity) = 1 for black body radiation, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzman constant, A is the area and T1 and T2 are the two items' temperatures. Somewhere I'm missing view factors, but that's beside the point.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Fnoob on 9/25/2008 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
"With a heat source inside the ship (read nuclear) and a cold source (read freaking huge outer space), his propelling system is good to go. Just attach a developed Stirling Engine."

It would seem that if you have a nuclear power source on board, you could come up with a better propulsion system than this arguably loony microwave contraption, stirling engine, gerbil wheel, or whatnot.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Solandri on 9/25/2008 2:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with propulsion in a vacuum is that you have nothing to push off against. There's no road for the wheels to turn on, or fluid for the propellers to push through. You have to get your thrust by throwing mass/energy in the opposite direction. So you could have an infinite power source on board, but if you don't have any reaction mass you aren't going anywhere.

Also, space is a poor heat sink. It's a vacuum so the only means of cooling things is radiating heat away, no convection or conduction. Essentially, it's like running your computer without a fan and heat sink (both of which rely on conducting heat to the air and convecting the air away). You have to do fancy tricks with Peltier coolers (to transfer heat away from the sources), then another gizmo whose name I don't recall which helps convert heat energy into radiation.

I agree this idea is loony, but it is correctly attempting to address the issues of propulsion and heat dissipation in space.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Suntan on 9/25/2008 5:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, space is a poor heat sink.


nope, it works quite well. The insulation on manned vehicles is designed to contain heat in (when that side of the vehicle is facing away from the sun) as much as it is to keep heat out when facing the sun.

quote:
then another gizmo whose name I don't recall which helps convert heat energy into radiation.


Yes, its called a radiator.

Further, the radiator on the space shuttle looks and works much the same as the one found on your car (although your car uses convection instead of radiation.) Ever wonder why the shuttle floats though space with the cargo bay doors open when it isn't in the middle of releasing any satellites? That's because the radiators are composed of a couple of tubes attached to the inside of the cargo bay doors. When they need to get rid of pent up heat, they open the doors, point them away from the sun and run coolant thru them.

You're spot on about the mass needed for propulsion though.

-Suntan


RE: Long extension cord?
By Solandri on 9/25/2008 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, perhaps I should have said relatively poor heat sink. The fact that you even need a radiator for a system which works fine without one on Earth attests to that.

And the heat->radiation gizmo I was thinking of was something else I read about being developed in the '90s. Something like a Peltier, except instead of cooling one end while heating the other, it cooled one end and radiated away heat at the other end. Kinda like a combo Peltier-radiator with no moving parts.


RE: Long extension cord?
By Suntan on 9/26/2008 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alright, perhaps I should have said relatively poor heat sink. The fact that you even need a radiator for a system which works fine without one on Earth attests to that.


Again, you are incorrect. The shuttle has a cooling system because it needs to transfer heat. (Where do you think all the heat being absorbed by the “sun” side of the craft goes?) The fact that they can do it by running coolant thru a couple of pipes strung along the edge of the inside of the bay doors is possible because radiating the heat out into space is quite effective.

Peltier coolers are what they are. They are used in applications where cooling is needed and other forms of heat exchanger are not the best for the application. This does not change the fact that radiating heat into space is an effective means of getting rid of heat.

-Suntan


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki