Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635417 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length

It took me a while to find, but I think this image contains the correct dimensions. Only problem is we do not know where the constant diameter tuning section is tuned to. This will have a big influence on resonant frequency.


Offline TheTraveller

While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea :)

I observed only ~10% differences in the Q determined with the -3 dB method between the Windfreak SynthNV and a professional Agilent NVA.

Hi Peter,

You accept the -41dB rtn loss, indicating an almost perfect VSWR of 1.018:1?
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length

It took me a while to find, but I think this image contains the correct dimensions. Only problem is we do not know where the constant diameter tuning section is tuned to. This will have a big influence on resonant frequency.

Jamie,

The main frustum section still needs to resonate with 2 x 1/2 guide waves and then another 1/2 guide wave in the constant diameter section. Knowing the main frustum resonance, provides the small end guide wavelength and from that the approx tuned length can be calculated.

Will check your table.

Checked it.

Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

However as we know the VNA will still see a resonance via reflections from the side walls. Which means any force generation will be small.

The tuned cylinder length will help to ident the mode as it will be 1/2 the guide wavelength inside the cylinder.
 
« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 02:47 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 02:52 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline TheTraveller

Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate and side wall eddy current patterns.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

Best of luck getting any useful thrust in TE21x mode.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 03:02 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

It all depends on their antenna shape. Last I heard they were trying to model a monopole antenna 1/4 wavelength away from big end against the side wall. That is what I have modeled here. But if their antenna is oriented differently or a loop, the mode may be different.

Offline ThatOtherGuy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 47
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

What I mean is that, citing a paper dating back to last February, doesn't mean that there's some current change in whatever activity GILO may be carrying on (or not, for what we know); to me it sounds just like nonsense, but then, maybe it's just me


Offline TheTraveller

Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

It all depends on their antenna shape. Last I heard they were trying to model a monopole antenna 1/4 wavelength away from big end against the side wall. That is what I have modeled here. But if their antenna is oriented differently or a loop, the mode may be different.

Jamie,


The cutoff freq changes as the mode changes. That cavity may show a VNA resonance at a TE01x mode freq but it will not generate any significant thrust as the small end is cutoff and all the VNA is seeing are reflections from the side walls.

They need to ident the mode. If I knew the tuned length of the cylinder, that would help to ident the mode.

Exciting the desired mode is NOT EASY. There can be many modes close by. Cavity geometry needs to be analysed to obtain the best geometry with the widest separation away from undesired modes. Plus coupler design and placement can be used to excite desired modes vs non desired modes.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 03:15 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Meberbs - questions of how and why are tough, and can border on the metaphysical. I have to agree that the suggestion that if you mess with the rate of time, you can generate forces produces an immediate reaction of 'Whut?!'.
I generally agree, although I would say that how is usually not metaphysical, and why usually is. (Some theories such as some interpretations of quantum have no known different predictions, so without a way to differentiate them, the "how" becomes metaphysical)

However, it's right, not just correlation.
If you stated this as a possibility, then I would probably concede that point because we don't know the "how" yet as I previously stated. Instead you are stating this as an absolute fact, when it is not. Just go back to my previous post where I provided a description contrary to the "time dilation is the cause."

And if all you know is the 'time dilation gradient' in a gravity field, then you know the Newtonian gravitational force exactly.
You keep talking about time dilation and Newtonian gravity in the same sentence, when Newtonian gravity does not have time dilation. I think you might understand this, and are trying to say something along the lines of "The component of general relativity defined as time dilation can on its own mimic Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit." I am not sure the relevance of such a statement, but it makes some sense. Please clarify whether you understand that time dilation is not present in Newtonian gravity, and if my alternative interpretation of your statement is what you are trying to communicate.

The only contribution I'm really making here is to point out that the usual inferences also run backwards. You can use GR to create models of central field gravity and then see that you have created varying time dilation. But you can also turn it on its head and observe that any variable time dilation/g00 will produce gravity like forces. I think that observation is useful. I'm afraid I don't have anything useful to add on the why or how.
If this is what you are trying to communicate, then why are you stating the second one as an absolute fact, which implies that the first one is wrong? Otherwise I'd agree with this paragraph if instead of "any variable time dilation" you specify "any spatially variable time dilation", which I think eliminates time dilation due to non-gravitational based accelerations, since accelerations from other forces like electromagnetism can't be written as a pure function of space, and depend on other properties of a particle like charge. I still think the first description is the more useful one and provides a more general understanding, but I recognize that "which is more useful" is an arbitrary metric and can vary person to person.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.
Kinetic energy gain of the emDrive after a change in velocity is frame dependent though, so there will always be a frame where more energy is gained than was input. Also, it is a problem that energy apparently disappears in some other frames.

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.

EmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Yes, nothing new, just more clear proofs that the emDrive as described would violate conservation of energy, and can be used as a free energy machine. We have had this conversation before, and last time you repeatedly did not answer simple questions about a solid numeric example.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.
Kinetic energy gain of the emDrive after a change in velocity is frame dependent though, so there will always be a frame where more energy is gained than was input. Also, it is a problem that energy apparently disappears in some other frames.

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.

EmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Yes, nothing new, just more clear proofs that the emDrive as described would violate conservation of energy, and can be used as a free energy machine. We have had this conversation before, and last time you repeatedly did not answer simple questions about a solid numeric example.

I agree with all your points but instead of calling it a 'problem', I think it's a feature. It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
I agree with all your points but instead of calling it a 'problem', I think it's a feature. It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
The emDrive in general could operate relative to something otherwise undetectable that it uses as propellant, so it would not be true propellantless propulsion, and any issues with such explanations would have to be handled case by case (some could allow extraction of energy from whatever the drive is pushing against, which is fine).

TT has repeatedly denied the basic fact that propellantless propulsion like he is describing enables the extraction of energy. He also claims that no new physics is required to explain it even though his explanation breaks both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, and therefore is inconsistent with the most basic principles of physics.

I agree that the energy generation is a useful feature, but I called it a problem because it raises the issue of how to rewrite all of physics to allow for this.

Offline wicoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 151
It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'.

This is not about KE being different in different frames (it obviously is), but about the total change of KE as a result of some interaction in a system, which must be the same in ANY inertial frame to satisfy CoE.  When you switch frames, KE of all participating objects changes, but this does not give you free energy.  However, when some physical interaction causes the total KE to change in a way that is frame dependent (i.e. the difference is frame dependent), it becomes a problem since it allows free energy.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'.

This is not about KE being different in different frames (it obviously is), but about the total change of KE as a result of some interaction in a system, which must be the same in ANY inertial frame to satisfy CoE.  When you switch frames, KE of all participating objects changes, but this does not give you free energy.  However, when some physical interaction causes the total KE to change in a way that is frame dependent (i.e. the difference is frame dependent), it becomes a problem since it allows free energy.

Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view. I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective. Some say the EMDrive as well as the MEGA drive essentially create an artificial gravity field that the device falls through which amount to the same effect. I think any form of PP would essentially act the same.

I have to think more about what you said but I believe what I said was true regardless but only useful for energy extraction if you have a true form of PP to actually put energy into a moving or rotating frame. In that case it acts similar to gravity. Otherwise it just becomes a classical energy/momentum conservation problem which implies that you never truly have a stable reference frame to work with. For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of a valid reference frame is a platform which doesn't have to locally conserve momentum as an object is accelerated within it or at least it's a frame, like an almost infinite planet in which you don't have to supply the energy and momentum to maintain the integrity of that frame. A working EMDrive or MEGA drive appears to allow this as it isn't reacting against anything in the local environment to accelerate (if it really works!!!).
« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 07:07 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline wicoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 151
Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view.

If you are talking about the Starshot project, the lasers will feel recoil, which will push the Earth in the opposite direction (however miniscule, but it is enough).  As a result, the energy of the total system (sails + Earth) will be properly conserved (i.e. the difference will be the same in any inertial ref. frame, taking into account the initial KE of the Earth and its change).

Quote
I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.

Again, you need to take into account all interacting bodies, including the source(s) of the field, which will also gain (or lose, depending on ref frame) KE as a result of this interaction.  The total KE change will be frame-invariant, which is required to satisfy CoE.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view.

If you are talking about the Starshot project, the lasers will feel recoil, which will push the Earth in the opposite direction (however miniscule, but it is enough).  As a result, the energy of the total system (sails + Earth) will be properly conserved (i.e. the difference will be the same in any inertial ref. frame, taking into account the initial KE of the Earth and its change).

Quote
I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.

Again, you need to take into account all interacting bodies, including the source(s) of the field, which will also gain (or lose, depending on ref frame) KE as a result of this interaction.  The total KE change will be frame-invariant, which is required to satisfy CoE.

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.

« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 07:21 pm by Bob012345 »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.
This thread is about the EM Drive.

You wrote (addressed to meberbs)
Quote
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned, for very good reasons.



Shawer says repeatedly that there is no need for anything else than classical physics and no need for New Physics to explain it.  This is what is being questioned!


« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 07:45 pm by Rodal »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
...

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.
This thread is about the EM Drive.

You wrote (addressed to meberbs)
Quote
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned.



I'm really trying to discuss the energy issue, not TT's or Shawyer's particular explanations. Regarding bringing up the NIAC proposal, which I think is really great, was in context of the discussion regarding energy and COE which equally applies to both concepts and it seems to me a valid data point to the issue and it informs the discussion of EMDrive in my opinion. Also, in the end it's a lot more interesting for me to see what Shawyer does as compared to what he says.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0