Would one practical use, if they do work, be a satellite with clusters of EM drives on different axis used for station keeping?Of how much practical use would they be in reality for interplanetary probes.
Quote from: aceshigh on 02/19/2015 06:52 pmA question... is the Q-Thruster that was being worked by EagleWorks Lab similar to the EM Drive they tested? Are them completely different things with different principles? I have the vague notion of seeing a photo of it long ago (while the main subject of the article was in fact Dr White's Warp Drive experiments) and I donīt remember it having a cone similar to Shawyer's EM Drive, so I guess they are totally different principles? I wonder if the former is still being pursued? If it is "considered" an EM Drive? Maybe Paul March can clear this up (if noone else knows the answer)?It appears that when METs, MLT, SFEs, Cannaes and Emdrives go through the doors of Eagleworks, they get rolled into the QVPT conjecture. In reality, they come from different sources, different inventors with different theories of operation. Dr. White, IMHO is right to try and unify these different types of "thrusters" under the same paradigm. I think they are all unified too under the same interaction, maybe not QVPT per se, but they share the QV as a common means of interaction.https://www.linkedin.com/pub/hector-serrano/29/69b/9a5https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/86787010/513081407/name/Eagleworks+Newsletter+2013.pdfhttp://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdfhttp://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009930.pdf
A question... is the Q-Thruster that was being worked by EagleWorks Lab similar to the EM Drive they tested? Are them completely different things with different principles? I have the vague notion of seeing a photo of it long ago (while the main subject of the article was in fact Dr White's Warp Drive experiments) and I donīt remember it having a cone similar to Shawyer's EM Drive, so I guess they are totally different principles? I wonder if the former is still being pursued? If it is "considered" an EM Drive? Maybe Paul March can clear this up (if noone else knows the answer)?
Shawyer has seemed convinced that this drive is able to replace commercial airliner engines etc. Obviously as he is the main proponent of the drive so this might be taken with a pinch of salt or two but if the drive is proven to be real he definitely seems to be ahead of the curve with the technology.
I guess not everyone realizes that a resonant cavity can be represented as an LC circuit. They're all the same thing.
FYIhttp://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/articles/2015/02/boeing-to-build-all-electric-propulsion-satellite-for-ses.html
Quote from: Mulletron on 02/19/2015 08:09 pmI guess not everyone realizes that a resonant cavity can be represented as an LC circuit. They're all the same thing. It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:25 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/19/2015 08:09 pmI guess not everyone realizes that a resonant cavity can be represented as an LC circuit. They're all the same thing. It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").There is some flexibility. I remember working on delay lines w/ parameters varying w/ length.That was odd stuff, I wonder if it can make a resonant circuit that way?
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:37 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:25 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/19/2015 08:09 pmI guess not everyone realizes that a resonant cavity can be represented as an LC circuit. They're all the same thing. It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").There is some flexibility. I remember working on delay lines w/ parameters varying w/ length.That was odd stuff, I wonder if it can make a resonant circuit that way?I agree, that's why I wrote "It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only". Yes, with a circuit complicated enough we could probably simulate most electromagnetic wave phenomena, just like the few analog computers that still were being used at MIT Draper Labs in the early 1970's to solve differential equations. I remember those . Reconfiguring the analog computer to solve a different equation required actual handwork unlike just writing software for digital computers :-)
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:45 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:37 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:25 pmIt can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").There is some flexibility. I remember working on delay lines w/ parameters varying w/ length.That was odd stuff, I wonder if it can make a resonant circuit that way?I agree, that's why I wrote "It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only". Yes, with a circuit complicated enough we could probably simulate most electromagnetic wave phenomena, just like the few analog computers that still were being used at MIT Draper Labs in the early 1970's to solve differential equations. I remember those . Reconfiguring the analog computer to solve a different equation required actual handwork unlike just writing software for digital computers :-)I guess I can't stop thinking about the 1/ f^3 in the thrust equation.Dual 12at7's I think....
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:37 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:25 pmIt can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").There is some flexibility. I remember working on delay lines w/ parameters varying w/ length.That was odd stuff, I wonder if it can make a resonant circuit that way?I agree, that's why I wrote "It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only". Yes, with a circuit complicated enough we could probably simulate most electromagnetic wave phenomena, just like the few analog computers that still were being used at MIT Draper Labs in the early 1970's to solve differential equations. I remember those . Reconfiguring the analog computer to solve a different equation required actual handwork unlike just writing software for digital computers :-)
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:25 pmIt can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").There is some flexibility. I remember working on delay lines w/ parameters varying w/ length.That was odd stuff, I wonder if it can make a resonant circuit that way?
It can be represented by a simple LC circuit only for simple uniform cavities, with uniform cross-sections, as for example the rectangular cross section cavity or the cylindrical cavity. The truncated cone (frustum) shape used by NASA, Shawyer in the UK and Prof. Juan Yang in China displays degenerate modes that go from resonant to evanescent, and it displays modes that do not conform to the same TEmnp or TMmnp designation as in cylindrical cavities. Actually in reviewing the mode shapes assigned in the COMSOL study for NASA I am now reviewing some interesting cases (the frequencies and images computed by COMSOL are excellent, but the designation of some of the modes is not straightforward, as the NASA engineer realized when designating some of the modes as "X").
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:52 pm...I guess I can't stop thinking about the 1/ f^3 in the thrust equation.Dual 12at7's I think....gives thrust per photon:T = (h/(2*L*f))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the number of photons is (P/hf)*(Q/2*pi) then:NT = P*Q*(1/(4*pi*L*f^3))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))
...I guess I can't stop thinking about the 1/ f^3 in the thrust equation.Dual 12at7's I think....
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:52 pm...I guess I can't stop thinking about the 1/ f^3 in the thrust equation.Dual 12at7's I think....gives thrust per photon:T = (h/(2*L*f))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the number of photons is (P/hf)*(Q/2*pi) then:NT = P*Q*(1/(4*pi*L*f^3))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the thrust really decreases as the cube of the frequency...wouldn't you get much less thrust operating your experiment in the X band? ( 8.0 to 12.0 GHz instead of 2 GHz implies 64 to 216 times less thrust, of course that's with everything else being the same which is not going to be...)
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 09:00 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/19/2015 08:52 pm...I guess I can't stop thinking about the 1/ f^3 in the thrust equation.Dual 12at7's I think....gives thrust per photon:T = (h/(2*L*f))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the number of photons is (P/hf)*(Q/2*pi) then:NT = P*Q*(1/(4*pi*L*f^3))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the thrust really decreases as the cube of the frequency...wouldn't you get much less thrust operating your experiment in the X band? ( 8.0 to 12.0 GHz instead of 2 GHz implies 64 to 216 times less thrust, of course that's with everything else being the same which is not going to be...)L goes down as well, but then the x-band sources are usually not as efficient either. How much more sensitive is the Cavendish setup?
Quote from: Flyby on 02/18/2015 05:23 pmNot really my expertise field.............Welcome to the group. This is very much a multidisciplinary effort. What are you good at?
Not really my expertise field.............
Quote from: Mulletron on 02/19/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: Flyby on 02/18/2015 05:23 pmNot really my expertise field.............Welcome to the group. This is very much a multidisciplinary effort. What are you good at?Well, mmm... of formation, I'm an architect, but always had a strong interest in what happening on the nuclear science field and spaceflight development. But the last 25 years I've specialized in 3D visualizations, 3Dmodeling and 3Dprinting (8 years).I fear that on the real hard science level, i might have little to nothing to add to the high standards here, but if there is anything I can do as far as visual communication goes, I might be of help or assistance, if needed...I also have considerable experience modeling for and working with a powder 3Dprinter, but I suppose NASA has much more advanced systems to their disposal. And ofc, If any of the DIY builders here would require assistance in building 3Dmodels for 3dprinting i'll gladly assist.
...Shawyer has yet to prove that the performance of his "engine" scales linear with a dramatically increased Q. ..
Quote from: Flyby on 02/19/2015 10:48 pm...Shawyer has yet to prove that the performance of his "engine" scales linear with a dramatically increased Q. ..Good point, on the other hand all theoretical formulas so far scale linearly with Q:@Notsosureoit: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1332746#msg1332746....
Quote from: Rodal on 02/19/2015 11:14 pmQuote from: Flyby on 02/19/2015 10:48 pm...Shawyer has yet to prove that the performance of his "engine" scales linear with a dramatically increased Q. ..Good point, on the other hand all theoretical formulas so far scale linearly with Q:@Notsosureoit: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1332746#msg1332746....I keep checking back and ..... there's another bloody typo ! N=P*Q/(2*pi*h*f^2) [ f^2 NOT f ]If I could type I'd be dangerous !Going back and scaling term by term it looks like (at constant power) only Q and X, everything else is a wash between distances and freq.
those mission parameters presupposed electrical power from solar panels? I guess that some good fission or fusion reactors (whenever fusion is available) would allow the addition of even more EM Drives and cut that mission time several times.