Quote from: demofsky on 05/18/2015 09:28 pmSo should everyone be using perforated copper sheeting?? Admittedly, I can't even begin to imagine how this would affect the performance of the drive. Do the various theories need a solid wall or as long as the perforations are sufficiently fine it should not matter?? https://concordsheetmetal.com/store/perforated-copper/Good thoughts as the mesh would be a cost-effective solution for trials, however, its likely going to be a lower Q which theoretically inhibit power/effeciency. My old company used this exact material in an impedance matching network, while a competitor used solid aluminum. At the end of the day, the 50 ohm freq matching was extended abt 25% by using the more expensive solid cone. I'd suggest initial proof of performance testing on the mesh, moving up to silver-plated flash over copper.Another topic I have not see discussed is intermodulation products caused by dissimilar metals, perhaps nickel( Magnetic)-plating of connectors and such. I'm not sure if IM products would adversly affect the trials, as the magnetron is inherently spraying out bits all over the spectrum.
So should everyone be using perforated copper sheeting?? Admittedly, I can't even begin to imagine how this would affect the performance of the drive. Do the various theories need a solid wall or as long as the perforations are sufficiently fine it should not matter?? https://concordsheetmetal.com/store/perforated-copper/
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 09:58 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:43 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 09:40 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:36 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 08:52 pm...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.Propellant comes out of a rocket engine. According to Shawyer nothing comes out of an EM Drive.If nothing is coming out of the EM Drive, how can it have a thrust force in the opposite direction to its acceleration?Has someone measured that thust force you are referring to ? If this thrust force of the EM Drive has been measured, how was the thrust force measured simultaneously with a measurement of the acceleration in the opposite direction ? As you well know it was measured and reported here:No, I don't know that.I see a chart that Shawyer put together. Nobody here could explain why the Demo Engine has it in both directions.I never saw a paper detailing how such a thrust was measured simultaneously with measuring the acceleration in the opposite direction.Shawyer is in business to sell licenses, not to give it all away so any DIY guy can replicate and go into business against SPR and it's clients.There are holes in what he has put in the public domain. I doubt he has any intention of filling them in. For guys like me, working to replicate the EM Drive, we need to learn to follow the bread crumb trail he has left. For me, that trail is strong and delivering good intel.I'm highly confident of replicating his Flight Thruster and getting close to his results.Shawyer has patents on the EM Drive. One of the fundamental agreements and understanding under which patents are conferred by a state (or the European Union) to an inventor is that the inventor must disclose all the "information material to patentability." See: Duty to disclose information material to patentability.In intellectual property one always has to make a choice: trade secret (like the Coca Cola formula) or patent. Under trade secret you run the risk that the secret may become public (by independent discovery), but as long as it is a trade secret it has no expiration.A patent gives you a state-conferred monopoly, but it has an expiration date. The state gets to make the patent information public in exchange for conferring the patent's monopoly to the inventor.I'm sure that Shawyer would disagree with your statement if you are referring to information material to patentability protected by Shawyer's patents. On the other hand, if you are not referring to information material to patentability, then the information you are referring to "so any DIY guy can replicate and go into business" is not protected by Shawyer's patents.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:43 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 09:40 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:36 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 08:52 pm...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.Propellant comes out of a rocket engine. According to Shawyer nothing comes out of an EM Drive.If nothing is coming out of the EM Drive, how can it have a thrust force in the opposite direction to its acceleration?Has someone measured that thust force you are referring to ? If this thrust force of the EM Drive has been measured, how was the thrust force measured simultaneously with a measurement of the acceleration in the opposite direction ? As you well know it was measured and reported here:No, I don't know that.I see a chart that Shawyer put together. Nobody here could explain why the Demo Engine has it in both directions.I never saw a paper detailing how such a thrust was measured simultaneously with measuring the acceleration in the opposite direction.Shawyer is in business to sell licenses, not to give it all away so any DIY guy can replicate and go into business against SPR and it's clients.There are holes in what he has put in the public domain. I doubt he has any intention of filling them in. For guys like me, working to replicate the EM Drive, we need to learn to follow the bread crumb trail he has left. For me, that trail is strong and delivering good intel.I'm highly confident of replicating his Flight Thruster and getting close to his results.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 09:40 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:36 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 08:52 pm...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.Propellant comes out of a rocket engine. According to Shawyer nothing comes out of an EM Drive.If nothing is coming out of the EM Drive, how can it have a thrust force in the opposite direction to its acceleration?Has someone measured that thust force you are referring to ? If this thrust force of the EM Drive has been measured, how was the thrust force measured simultaneously with a measurement of the acceleration in the opposite direction ? As you well know it was measured and reported here:No, I don't know that.I see a chart that Shawyer put together. Nobody here could explain why the Demo Engine has it in both directions.I never saw a paper detailing how such a thrust was measured simultaneously with measuring the acceleration in the opposite direction.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 09:36 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 08:52 pm...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.Propellant comes out of a rocket engine. According to Shawyer nothing comes out of an EM Drive.If nothing is coming out of the EM Drive, how can it have a thrust force in the opposite direction to its acceleration?Has someone measured that thust force you are referring to ? If this thrust force of the EM Drive has been measured, how was the thrust force measured simultaneously with a measurement of the acceleration in the opposite direction ? As you well know it was measured and reported here:
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/18/2015 08:52 pm...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.Propellant comes out of a rocket engine. According to Shawyer nothing comes out of an EM Drive.If nothing is coming out of the EM Drive, how can it have a thrust force in the opposite direction to its acceleration?Has someone measured that thust force you are referring to ? If this thrust force of the EM Drive has been measured, how was the thrust force measured simultaneously with a measurement of the acceleration in the opposite direction ?
...Spacecraft move in the opposite direction to the thrust of the engine. EM Drive is no different.
[...Has anyone tried to pull a copy of the patent from the patent office?
Quote from: pogsquog on 05/18/2015 11:02 pmBack of the envelope calculation for the 'hot air balloon' explanation, considering the pessimistic possibility that we just have a really heavy, electric powered Chinese sky lantern:...Thanks for running the numbers What is the basis for the air flow rate (volume) = 0.0097 m^3 / s ? is it an assumption or is it an outcome of equations? if an outcome of equations, what where the equations or theory used in the calculator?
Back of the envelope calculation for the 'hot air balloon' explanation, considering the pessimistic possibility that we just have a really heavy, electric powered Chinese sky lantern:...
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/18/2015 11:18 pm[...Has anyone tried to pull a copy of the patent from the patent office?These are all the patent documents I know of, that have been posted in this thread. All of them are UK patent applications.I don't know whether any patents were actually conferred for the EM Drive.Under justia, this is all that shows up (not an EM Drive patent):http://patents.justia.com/inventor/roger-j-shawyerSame under Google patentsand I couldn't find his EM Drive patents under USPTO search under inventor eitherDid you find any?I edited my post to read: patent (applications ?). Thanks for questioning, as I didn't recall that all (apparently ?) that has been posted here are just applications in the UK.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/18/2015 11:12 pmQuote from: pogsquog on 05/18/2015 11:02 pmBack of the envelope calculation for the 'hot air balloon' explanation, considering the pessimistic possibility that we just have a really heavy, electric powered Chinese sky lantern:...Thanks for running the numbers What is the basis for the air flow rate (volume) = 0.0097 m^3 / s ? is it an assumption or is it an outcome of equations? if an outcome of equations, what where the equations or theory used in the calculator?I just plugged the numbers into a convection calculator:http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.htmlClearly, this is an approximation, but I think it is sufficient for the purpose of showing that one cannot completely rule out a thermal (hot air balloon) effect for this particular result, as a rapid replacement of the air in the chamber is theoretically possible (assuming it is well ventilated), so it is possible to see a rapid loss of up-thrust after power-off. Finding similar thrust in other orientations would rule this out, although the possibility of temporary thrust due to thermal expansion causing directed air flow, and sustained air flow due to jet effects would still exist; directed air flows of just a few percent of the frustum's volume per second are sufficient to cause this effect, which is easily possible when you are pumping a kilowatt of power into a small space.
From the pdf's Shawyer uses/used an internal "dielectric"
Please remember this is a long thread and this site's forum has a high signal to noise factor. ...
OK all good points. But it is not at all clear that one wants a high Q.The highest thrust was achieved by Prof. Yang with an effective Q of only ~1500 (take into account that the reported Q's appear much larger because of the unorthodox way the Chinese report Q, if one uses the same method as in the West, Yang's Q was relatively low).Todd's theory shows that one doesn't want a huge Q.So using a mesh would be of research interest, to see what difference it makes., whether it makes no difference, or is worse or better
...OK I'm scratching my head. Can't find where the Chinese state higher thrust needs lower Q. Maybe you can find it for me?...
...The highest thrust was achieved by Prof. Yang with an effective Q of only ~1500 (take into account that the reported Q's appear much larger because of the unorthodox way the Chinese report Q, if one uses the same method as in the West, Yang's Q was relatively low)...
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 01:40 am...OK I'm scratching my head. Can't find where the Chinese state higher thrust needs lower Q. Maybe you can find it for me?Can find it stated for the 4 modes examined, higher Q = higher thrust as attached.What I stated was that Prof. Yang has achieved the record highest thrust recorded for the EM Drive and that the Q's she conducted the experiments at (when calculated the same way as they are calculated in the West) are low Q~1500 when compared to Shawyer's Q (hat tip to Star-Drive and zen-in for first uncovering this)
...OK I'm scratching my head. Can't find where the Chinese state higher thrust needs lower Q. Maybe you can find it for me?Can find it stated for the 4 modes examined, higher Q = higher thrust as attached.
...I have read the 3 papers many times. Where did she state that? In what table? The 2010 paper I linked and the attached table makes it VERY clear the highest thrust came with the highest Q.BTW I doubt you can get a good frustum Q measurement using a broadband microwave source as the frequency is all over the place and not at 2.45GHz. So the observed bandwidth would be as wide as a barn door because the wide band magnetron output is as wide as a barn door.I see now this was your assumption and not from the paper.Again I state that if you read the 2010 paper, it is VERY clear the higher the Q, the higher the thrust. Nothing the Chinese nor Shawyer has presented goes against that.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 01:54 am...I have read the 3 papers many times. Where did she state that? In what table? The 2010 paper I linked and the attached table makes it VERY clear the highest thrust came with the highest Q.BTW I doubt you can get a good frustum Q measurement using a broadband microwave source as the frequency is all over the place and not at 2.45GHz. So the observed bandwidth would be as wide as a barn door because the wide band magnetron output is as wide as a barn door.I see now this was your assumption and not from the paper.Again I state that if you read the 2010 paper, it is VERY clear the higher the Q, the higher the thrust. Nothing the Chinese nor Shawyer has presented goes against that.Well, read them again, and this time please figure out by yourself how Yang calculates the Q in her tables http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1369553#msg1369553Particularly read, in Chinese, Prof. Yang's most recent paper containing the embedded thermocouple temperature measurements, that spell this out very clearly.
...Not as quick note on the Internet. With all due respect to Dr. Rodal- his characterization of the Internet (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1375139#msg1375139) is a bit inaccurate....
I have read the 3 papers many times. Where did she state that? In what table? The 2010 paper I linked and the attached table makes it VERY clear the highest thrust came with the highest Q.BTW I doubt you can get a good frustum Q measurement using a broadband microwave source as the frequency is all over the place and not at 2.45GHz. So the observed bandwidth would be as wide as a barn door because the wide band magnetron output is as wide as a barn door.I see now this was your assumption and not from the paper.Again I state that if you read the 2010 paper, it is VERY clear the higher the Q, the higher the thrust. Nothing the Chinese nor Shawyer has presented goes against that.As to how to get a frustum that has constantly varying internal wavelengths to resonate at each end plate, from a different applied Rf wavelength, well I'm working on that. Might be my secret squirrel secret sauce.