Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/14/2014 11:57 pmAs someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust? We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.Why not?Do we need to go to 100kW ? Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or not?
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust? We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.Why not?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/15/2014 12:00 amQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/14/2014 11:57 pmAs someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust? We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.Why not?Do we need to go to 100kW ? Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or not?Ok, start at 1KW then 10KW then 100KW...The point is its much easier (I think) to construct higher power devices than to detect low thrust levels.If a 1KW device was to slide down an air-track then the world would change...
an interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device1) Would you consider the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device a "scaled-up" version of the Cannae device -last tested at NASA Eagleworks as per the "Anomalous thrust ..." paper-?or2) Are the numbers quoted by Dr. White for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device unrepresentative because of A) some mistake I made in my interpretation or B) because Dr. White did NOT test Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device and the numbers he quoted were measured elsewhere?
I don't knowandI don't know
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/15/2014 12:07 amI don't knowandI don't knowThank you andThank you
Quote from: Rodal on 09/15/2014 12:11 amQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/15/2014 12:07 amI don't knowandI don't knowThank you andThank youNow. Will you answer why higher power devices have not been tested?My opinion: They have and it works, therefore Top Secret.What can you say?
Quote from: cuddihy on 09/14/2014 03:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2014 02:05 pmI have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.Thread winner! Nice quip John.As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.Thanks for answering this. So it's going to need a lot more development to get to this stage then.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2014 02:05 pmI have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.Thread winner! Nice quip John.As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
To put this comparison more bluntly:Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/14/2014 05:22 pmTo put this comparison more bluntly:Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?I think the answer to this question is simply because EagleWorks only presented a paper that outlined tests on the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. I am equally puzzled as you, since the Boeing device seems to be much more interesting. But outside of the deck and the 2013 update you linked to there is ZERO information about the Boeing test article which I find very curious given the results. From the 2013 update you linked to before, it looks like the Boeing device was tested along side the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. So unless there is some sort of NDA in place or some sort of time constraint on compiling the information necessary for inclusion in the paper or some combination there of. I cannot see a reason for why it wouldn't be included.On a separate note, from the limited information available I am beginning to wonder if the Boeing device wasn't a Mach Effect/Woodward Effect device.
Quote from: cuddihy on 09/14/2014 03:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2014 02:05 pmI have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.Thread winner! Nice quip John.As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.Yet, that is exactly what is necessary. The terrestrial based apparatus seems subject to many more constraints than a free body experiment would be subject to. Don't tell the proponents that I'm suggesting an appropriate scaling up of their apparatus. They have neither a sense of humor nor perspective.
Quote from: Star One on 09/14/2014 08:40 amWhy is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
Quote from: birchoff on 09/15/2014 12:26 amQuote from: Rodal on 09/14/2014 05:22 pmTo put this comparison more bluntly:Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's deviceSPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device_____________________________________________________________________________Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?I think the answer to this question is simply because EagleWorks only presented a paper that outlined tests on the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. I am equally puzzled as you, since the Boeing device seems to be much more interesting. But outside of the deck and the 2013 update you linked to there is ZERO information about the Boeing test article which I find very curious given the results. From the 2013 update you linked to before, it looks like the Boeing device was tested along side the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. So unless there is some sort of NDA in place or some sort of time constraint on compiling the information necessary for inclusion in the paper or some combination there of. I cannot see a reason for why it wouldn't be included.On a separate note, from the limited information available I am beginning to wonder if the Boeing device wasn't a Mach Effect/Woodward Effect device.Please also consider that:A) The Boeing/DARPA measurements show a sudden impulse of very short duration instead of the practically rectangular pulses measured with the latest tested devices (Cannae and (Fustrum) Tapered Cavity). That may be a problem concerning the Boeing/DARPA device as what is needed is steady state thrust.and B) NO Information gets out on top secret work. None. Nada. At the time of the Manhattan Project you didn't have snapshots with small amounts of information. You had nothing getting out. The NASA Eagleworks 2013 update on the Boeing/DARPA device (look at the link) seems to be on a Yahoo server with the address xa.yimg.com. All of these are servers that host the graphic images of Yahoo pages (y=Yahoo + img=image).
Quote from: aero on 09/14/2014 07:52 pman interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper **** and I don't mean this as a criticism, the equations of Dr. White are scattered in several Power Point slide presentations, I have NOT been able to find them all contained in a single entire paper I mean this constructively, the more we address Dr. White's equations, the more fair our assessment and also the better we will understand whether his explanations are plausible or not
The tools of MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) can be used to model this modified vacuum fluctuation density analogous to how conventional forms of electric propulsion model propellant behavior.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 09/14/2014 08:47 amQuote from: Star One on 09/14/2014 08:40 amWhy is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.not sure, but considering Star Drive is a electric-engineer, I am certain he has a good explanation for why not.for Mach Effect devices, I know they need piezo-electric materials and ceramics that are just too expensive for anyone without some good financial backup.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/14/2014 08:39 pmQuote from: aero on 09/14/2014 07:52 pman interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper **** and I don't mean this as a criticism, the equations of Dr. White are scattered in several Power Point slide presentations, I have NOT been able to find them all contained in a single entire paper I mean this constructively, the more we address Dr. White's equations, the more fair our assessment and also the better we will understand whether his explanations are plausible or not...attempt,.....
Quote from: Rodal on 09/14/2014 08:39 pmQuote from: aero on 09/14/2014 07:52 pman interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper ...... at this level I just can do dimensional analysis ....
Quote from: aero on 09/14/2014 07:52 pman interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper ...
B) NO Information gets out on top secret work. None. Nada. At the time of the Manhattan Project you didn't have snapshots with small amounts of information. You had nothing getting out. The NASA Eagleworks 2013 update on the Boeing/DARPA device (look at the link) seems to be on a Yahoo server with the address xa.yimg.com. All of these are servers that host the graphic images of Yahoo pages (y=Yahoo + img=image).
Inventor Guido Fetta has developed a 2nd technology that develops thrust without the use of on-board reaction mass. This new technology uses RF interactions with a dielectrically loaded waveguide to produce thrust. This new technology functions by a mechanism that is different from the Cannae Drive thrust mechanism. Cannae LLC has patent pending status on a wide range of designs based on this new technology.
We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
In that vein, I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being."
PS: A Hall thruster's input power to thrust efficiency or specific thrust is around 0.05 N/kWe using today's commercially available thrusters. Air breathing jet engines can have thrust efficiencies of up to ~75 N/kWe at take off, so assuming a 0.40N/kWe for our Copernicus Orbital calculations is not way out on a limb, and in fact is representative of the performance of my first two Mach-Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) that I built in 2003 and 2004 and reported on in my STAIF-2006 paper.
BTW, I'm a little late is saying this, but tell Goat Guy that he needs to perform his energy conservation analysis in the 4D GRT formalism and not the flat space-time Newtonian version he's been using to date when performing M-E or Q-Thruster based momentum and energy conservation calculations. Woodward's 2004 M-E derivation paper's appendix A can show what's needed here.
As for White's Q-Thrusters, energy & momentum conservation is observed by the fact that the vacuum derived propellant has an energy equivalent mass that does have a velocity less than c. And just like the standard rocket equation, your rocket's maximum obtainable velocity is dependent on the maximum exhaust velocity of the Q-Thruster that is driven by all its local and perhaps gravitational field input energies. Our current model for same indicates that these vacuum e/p pair like propellant velocities should be in the range of 10,000-to-10,000,000 m/s for the geometries and input power levels we've looked at to date, but of course only if our Q-Thruster model Excel sheet is correct.