Quote from: Chrochne on 07/17/2015 12:00 pmQuote from: Jeff131 on 07/17/2015 08:35 amI like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion? Is it not also fair to also give credit where credit is due?After all. Do you think that the first human that discovered the wheel could explain why it worked? Does that mean that there was ("as you say") no ("true research") by the original builder of the wheel, until the reasons why the wheel worked could be explained in full detail, by others?After all. Even Newton was not 100 percent correct with all his known statements, Yet we still respect him on what he was correct about vs. trash talking him about what he was incorrect about.Note: We as humans have been manipulating atoms in many ways, for many reasons and for many purposes, for some time now. However, only recently have we been able to determine why atoms have mass.Don
Quote from: Jeff131 on 07/17/2015 08:35 amI like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.
I like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40797.phpHere's a high Q cavity for light that's a bit weird. Nobody has noticed it moving about
Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 07/17/2015 12:17 pmQuote from: Chrochne on 07/17/2015 12:00 pmQuote from: Jeff131 on 07/17/2015 08:35 amI like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion? Is it not also fair to also give credit where credit is due?After all. Do you think that the first human that discovered the wheel could explain why it worked? Does that mean that there was ("as you say") no ("true research") by the original builder of the wheel, until the reasons why the wheel worked could be explained in full detail, by others?After all. Even Newton was not 100 percent correct with all his known statements, Yet we still respect him on what he was correct about vs. trash talking him about what he was incorrect about.Note: We as humans have been manipulating atoms in many ways, for many reasons and for many purposes, for some time now. However, only recently have we been able to determine why atoms have mass.DonWell written for a newbie to the forum, congrats. I think lurkers might get the impression that advocacy science is being done here when most of it is the opposite. Think serious theorists and builders here have a healthy dose of skepticism...which is a good thing. People looking for free energy or perpetual motion machines will tire of our discussions quickly and move along. I'm enjoying all the well written critiques and challenges. "It ain't gonna work" statements are, well...cheap and easy obviously without much deep thought/effort behind them. For me, its like Shell said upthread...looking up at the night sky as a kid and seeing Sputnik race by inspired her to think outside the box. Me too only it was Echo One that captured my imagination. Nothing may come of my NSF-1701 project, but the build, the enjoyable conversations...and the POSSIBILITY are motivation enough. I choose not to sit back and throw stones, but to participate. Why wait for others? Heat up that soldering iron and have some fun.
Quote from: rq3 on 07/16/2015 10:42 pmQuote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 02:55 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 11:42 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/16/2015 02:48 amQuote from: Notsosureofit on 07/16/2015 02:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential ) when navigating in deep space?Here is where it may fall apart...perhaps the effect is only noticeable in an intense gravity field. Lots of testing needs to be completed...onwards and upwards.If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.You're getting your SF mixed up. An Alderson point is where you want to be when you fire up the Alderson drive.
Quote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 02:55 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 11:42 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/16/2015 02:48 amQuote from: Notsosureofit on 07/16/2015 02:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential ) when navigating in deep space?Here is where it may fall apart...perhaps the effect is only noticeable in an intense gravity field. Lots of testing needs to be completed...onwards and upwards.If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 11:42 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/16/2015 02:48 amQuote from: Notsosureofit on 07/16/2015 02:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential ) when navigating in deep space?Here is where it may fall apart...perhaps the effect is only noticeable in an intense gravity field. Lots of testing needs to be completed...onwards and upwards.If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/16/2015 02:48 amQuote from: Notsosureofit on 07/16/2015 02:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential ) when navigating in deep space?Here is where it may fall apart...perhaps the effect is only noticeable in an intense gravity field. Lots of testing needs to be completed...onwards and upwards.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 07/16/2015 02:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential ) when navigating in deep space?
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:15 am Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.
Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.
If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?
Quote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 11:04 pmQuote from: rq3 on 07/16/2015 10:42 pmQuote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 02:55 pmIf EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.You're getting your SF mixed up. An Alderson point is where you want to be when you fire up the Alderson drive.Right. The Alderson point was free of gravitational influences that would make the Alderson drive non-functional. If the Emdrive needs to "push" on a gravitational field, you need to avoid the Alderson point.
Quote from: rq3 on 07/16/2015 10:42 pmQuote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 02:55 pmIf EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.You're getting your SF mixed up. An Alderson point is where you want to be when you fire up the Alderson drive.
Quote from: RonM on 07/16/2015 02:55 pmIf EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.
If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.
According to present data, testing the EMDrive with input powers at or above 1 MW is necessary to reach a thrust that can actually be experienced without doubt of measurement errors. Achieving a thrust level high enough to lift an object would (as done by Goddard with chemical rockets) finally convince people to adequately fund R&D in this area.Let us gather enough supporters to send an E-Mail to Mythbusters.They definitely have the money and means to use a Gyrotron, Klystron or a similar powerful microwave source and build a simple truncated cone microwave resonator to see whether they can achieve a level of thrust high enough to convince people to fund adequate R&D in this area.
Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 07/17/2015 12:17 pmIf the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mr. Shawyer discovered the emdrive effect while researching excessive position keeping fuel consumption in a flight vehicle in orbit.Am I wrong in that? I can't find a source for it now.
Quote from: ElizabethGreene on 07/17/2015 02:27 pmQuote from: TheUberOverLord on 07/17/2015 12:17 pmIf the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mr. Shawyer discovered the emdrive effect while researching excessive position keeping fuel consumption in a flight vehicle in orbit.Am I wrong in that? I can't find a source for it now.That is correct as far as the legend goes. How much drift, what type of satellite, what kind of power being transmitted at what frequency...who knows.
Quote from: Rodal on 07/17/2015 03:16 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/17/2015 03:03 amNSF-1701 update...good news for meepers, I have not yet placed the magnetron into the frustum. I will this weekend, so here's ur chance to suggest placement. Suggest wavelength placement and locale...near big, near small or centered. I was planning on 1/2 wavelength from small end...doesn't matter to me. Julian moved from large end to center...meepers can respond.Based on the Wolfram Mathematica analysis of the Meep model, the antenna RF feed should be close to the small end, in the location that aero modeled (aero to respond as to exact location).According to this model, the antenna at the big end is a no-no. Bad, because it equalizes the pressure distribution at both ends. We have meep data on this Doc? For the big end?Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/17/2015 03:03 amNSF-1701 update...good news for meepers, I have not yet placed the magnetron into the frustum. I will this weekend, so here's ur chance to suggest placement. Suggest wavelength placement and locale...near big, near small or centered. I was planning on 1/2 wavelength from small end...doesn't matter to me. Julian moved from large end to center...meepers can respond.Based on the Wolfram Mathematica analysis of the Meep model, the antenna RF feed should be close to the small end, in the location that aero modeled (aero to respond as to exact location).According to this model, the antenna at the big end is a no-no. Bad, because it equalizes the pressure distribution at both ends.
NSF-1701 update...good news for meepers, I have not yet placed the magnetron into the frustum. I will this weekend, so here's ur chance to suggest placement. Suggest wavelength placement and locale...near big, near small or centered. I was planning on 1/2 wavelength from small end...doesn't matter to me. Julian moved from large end to center...meepers can respond.
...I've tried to get someone to do a meep with not only the harmonics of the wave actions but the evanescent waves...
As history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs .... Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?...
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/17/2015 02:44 pm...I've tried to get someone to do a meep with not only the harmonics of the wave actions but the evanescent waves...The Meep analyses that I have analyzed with Wolfram Mathematica for postprocessing are Finite Difference in time (and FD in space) analysis. As such they do not only contain the harmonics but they contain all possible solutions to Maxwell's equations.The present analyses certainly contain evanescent wave solutions.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/17/2015 02:44 pmAs history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs .... Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?...Yes, and let's wonder why Shawyer whose first patent on this was in the late 1980's has never reported on thrust from the EM Drive in vacuum ? And why Yang with all her University resources (which is very well equipped as the data shows) has never reported on experiments done in vacuum either? And why didn't Boeing continue the contract work with SPR on the Flight Thruster? Could it be because of the lower thrust in vacuum as reported by Paul March and soon to be reported in the AIAA by Prof. Tajmar from TU Dresden, Germany?Also think about this: if air or another gas is required, how is it required? because if it is required as a propellant (with air ions leaking to the outside) this is no longer a propellant-less propulsion, is it. And if it is using surrounding air, it cannot be used in space (just like air-breathing jet engines cannot be used in space).Also recall that all the EM Drive tests have been run for relatively short periods of time up to now.Many things to wonder about
...Ok look at this. How many orders of thrust do were see above Ion or Light propulsion? This is an effect that can change most everything if used correctly and still satisfy all the critical poo from the Com and CoE advocates and even Maxwell is happy. We still have a high thrust system.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/17/2015 04:20 pm...Ok look at this. How many orders of thrust do were see above Ion or Light propulsion? This is an effect that can change most everything if used correctly and still satisfy all the critical poo from the Com and CoE advocates and even Maxwell is happy. We still have a high thrust system.Yes certainly above a flaslight photon rocket. Compared to VASIMIR at 8500 a photon rocket thrust/InputPower, the numbers reported by March in vacuum were 25 times lower: 330 times a photon rocket. Prof. Tajmar will report significantly lower numbers. So, if NASA can increase the numbers reported by March for vacuum by a factor of 30, (30 mN/kW) we would have something better than VASIMIR, and hopefully not using propellant (VASIMIR uses argon).