Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 795384 times)

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #600 on: 09/15/2014 08:34 PM »
Its been said that scaling a device up beyond 10s of Watts to 10s of KW would be prohibitively expensive and difficult.
This seems to be in the realm of high power radar and such. I.e COTS
So, sure it would cost a few $. But it could settle this debate once and for all. Think of the payoff!
Can anyone put forward a reasoned argument why high power devices haven't been made and tested?
Many thanks.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #601 on: 09/15/2014 08:38 PM »
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that  particular issue better than anyone on the planet.

I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #602 on: 09/15/2014 08:49 PM »

A) There is a claim that there can be rocket propulsion produced without on-board propellant and without an outside force propelling it (i.e. solar propulsion, electrodynamic tethers, etc.)


That's not extraordinary, as you mention an electric tether does this. Are you sure there is nothing similar at work in EMDrive and others? There are many perfectly classical explanations for those experiments.
What is interesting is when an experimentation is reproducible and I don't see this here.

Yes, the three proposed explanations (from Dr.White, Prof. Woodward and Prof. Brito) I mentioned are extraordinary.
An electrodynamic tether is conventional physics. 

You claim <<There are many perfectly classical explanations for those experiments>> but you fail to propose a single classical explanation.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:10 PM by Rodal »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #603 on: 09/15/2014 08:49 PM »
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that  particular issue better than anyone on the planet.

I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?
Presuming you are replying to my post...
What speculation? It is a direct and simple question. It is relevant to the thread and enquring minds need to know.
No PM's or emails needed at this point methinks.
There is probably a simple answer. I got one previously (Too expensive/difficult) that I dispute.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #604 on: 09/15/2014 10:45 PM »
@IslandPlaya :
Presumably also because higher power means stronger side effects. As already stated (was it John?) proving and studying an effect is about signal/noise ratio, not about absolute signal magnitude, and there is no reason to believe that the higher power and heavier system would improve enough SNR to be worth at this stage and given the credits ? By noise I'm including all spurious known and unknown classical effects that could mask or distort or mimic the studied effect in the experimental system.

Looks like, so far, effect relative magnitude (thrust/power) is not scaling with overall size or power, maybe we could check Dr Rodal's useful compilation of values to put that into perspective. The EM density on the other hand could be important for the thrust/power, but it won't need bigger apparatus either as it's a ratio of power to volume. Also the frequency used fixes a natural yardstick, the wavelength, there is no guarantee that a bigger cavity with more nodes of standing wave in it would work the same (at a given microwave frequency). Scaling without disturbing this aspect (and keeping the same freqs) might mean putting many identical small cavities in parallel, not a single bigger one.

Personally I would be much more interested and impressed to see a system with the thruster mounted on a freely rotating arm in a rotationally symmetric chamber (vertical shaft at same axis of a cylindrical chamber) and have it accelerate, even if not in a vacuum : is it still thrusting, how fast... ? Surely this is doable for the devices with the higher thrust/power ratio (not at uN but at mN), maybe not with a shaft but maybe just floating on liquid (liquid metal if low pressure need be). All explanations (of classical effect masquerading as the effect) requiring volumetric changes with the move of the device (pressure effects pushing between the chamber and the moving parts for instance) could be checked. And also this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:51 PM by frobnicat »

Offline abuzuzu

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #605 on: 09/15/2014 11:07 PM »
Islandplaya

I slightly know several of the Mach and EM effect experimenters.
 
These experiments, even the NASA sponsored experiments, are pretty much funded out of pocket by the experimenters.  A couple hundred watts of microwave power does not come cheap.  Add to that the microwave power source must operate in a vacuum- cooling is a big big problem -- and the entire experimental apparatus must mass less then the maximum allowed suspended mass limit of the precision force balance.  This is bare-bones shoestring and sealing wax experimentation.  Even so the experiments have yielded very suggestive ( my judgement of the value of the results) evidence of something unusual and potentially useful.

I agree it is time for someone or some agency to throw a significant chunk of change at these guys ( and gals - Hat tip to Heidi) and see if these effects are real or not.  Till then progress will be slow and uneven.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #606 on: 09/15/2014 11:08 PM »
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.

I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.

If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 11:10 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #607 on: 09/15/2014 11:10 PM »
@IslandPlaya :
Presumably also because higher power means stronger side effects. As already stated (was it John?) ....And also this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.

Right on ! 

Mesmerizing is the right word...(if this would work as proposed)...

[@frobnicat please add me to the list of those (John, etc.) who think you are brilliant in picking your choice of words  :) ]

Here is yet another paper, this time using Prof. Woodward's explanation ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0102/0102002.pdf  ), where the author realizes that:

<<If experiment will succeed, this opens the possibility to realize new kind of devices for energy production and space transportation>>

but ...

"Only entropy comes easy."
Anton Chekhov
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 11:17 PM by Rodal »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #608 on: 09/15/2014 11:24 PM »
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that  particular issue better than anyone on the planet.

I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?
Presuming you are replying to my post...
What speculation? It is a direct and simple question. It is relevant to the thread and enquring minds need to know.

yes, I was replying to your post, but I was not saying you were speculating, I was saying that your direct and simple question would lead to speculations (from everyone else), which in MY humble (and maybe wrong opinion) would lead to a lot of posts that in the end could be dismantled with a single post by Paul March, since he is an electrical engineer working at the QThrusters and therefore could answer in 2 lines what we would speculate in 4 pages.

Now, I would prefer to speculate on this subject AFTER Paul March would answer it, so if he gives a reason for not being able to increase the power, people could disagree with him or give opinions on what could be done, whatever.

I completely agree with you that it IS relevant to this thread and that we all want to know. My point was not that the question should not be asked, but that I felt it would be better to ask the question to the person who knows the precise answer.


Quote
There is probably a simple answer. I got one previously (Too expensive/difficult) that I dispute.

EXACTLY. There is probably a simple answer! And Paul March (Stardrive) knows it. The answers you got before (too expensive, difficult) were SPECULATIONS, not answers. And you did not like those speculations.

Therefore I donīt know why you are disagreeing with me, when I exactly told you that you should get the simple answer directly from Paul March, instead of asking us, since all we can give you are speculations that will not satisfy you.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #609 on: 09/15/2014 11:26 PM »
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums about the question of increasing power in ME-Devices and if it was related to Mach Effect devices by Woodward and their difficulty of scaling up due to money constraints.

Quote from: GiThruster
I would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true. As result, paul's interest was in low-k materials that can be run at high frequencies since these low k materials don't suffer the same non-linearities and other troubles most high k materials have.

I doubt the trouble is lack of materials. I think Eagle has been remarkably productive, and I have little complaint there. Scaling up a thruster to Newtons of force just to scale it up is not useful at this point. What you want are high figures of merit (FOM's) in thrust to mass and thrust to power. You can alway build arrays of thruster later on if you get decent FOM's.

I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but I'd just note that it the rumors are true and three more NASA centers are going to jump into the fray and start testing, we'll have real answers in the next year or two. Stennis already has a balance, so they could do validation studies pretty quickly. NASA has remarkable resources. They just need to be properly tasked.

I would just note though, that for a commercial grade M-E thruster, you really do want a Colossal Dielectric Constant (CDC) material that maintains its constant up into very high frequencies. Paul wasn't looking at that stuff despite I did recommend some to him.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #610 on: 09/16/2014 12:05 AM »
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.

I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.

If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.

I strongly object : given the hypothesis of velocity invariant thrust/power effect (with this ratio >> 1/c therefore neglecting the mass of energy... see photon rockets) then a "free energy" device is not only possible, it is compulsory.
Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.
The velocity invariance of the thrust at constant power implies that above a certain speed (precisely the inverse of the thrust/power ratio) relative to whatever reference frame you feel technologically comfortable to exchange power with the mobile, above that speed so you reach breakeven. I let you figure out where the energy comes from as seen from the cosmic horizon, but if the effect is anything like it says it is, then it can give unlimited energy for all practical purpose.

If you are implying that something can't be both a free energy generator and real, then you should consider that EM drives are not real (or not with a velocity invariant thrust/power), which I would tend to agree, though the energy might be conserved on a larger scale and that is not free energy after all (say, you are actively contributing at accelerating the demise of the Universe when running such device) in which case the effect could be valid (with velocity invariance) and be a good energy generator, not free but cheap.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:17 AM by frobnicat »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #611 on: 09/16/2014 12:21 AM »
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.

I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.

If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.

I strongly object : given the hypothesis of velocity invariant thrust/power effect (with this ratio >> 1/c therefore neglecting the mass of energy... see photon rockets) then a "free energy" device is not only possible, it is compulsory.
Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.
The velocity invariance of the thrust at constant power implies that above a certain speed (precisely the inverse of the thrust/power ratio) relative to whatever reference frame you feel technologically comfortable to exchange power with the mobile, above that speed so you reach breakeven. I let you figure out where the energy comes from as seen from the cosmic horizon, but if the effect is anything like it says it is, then it can give unlimited energy for all practical purpose.

If you are implying that something can't be both a free energy generator and real, then you should consider that EM drives are not real (or not with a velocity invariant thrust/power), which I would tend to agree, though the energy might be conserved on a larger scale and that is not free energy after all (say, you are actively contributing at accelerating the demise of the Universe when running such device) in which case the effect could be valid (with velocity invariance) and be a good energy generator, not free but cheap.

What?

Energy is used to impart any sort of acceleration and give the object momentum, and driving a generator would take away an imparted portion of its momentum. The losses of driving the generator in a thermodynamically sound system would be greater than the energy needed to keep the system in motion. EM drives do not change this, and it makes no difference how high your initial velocity was before you started using that momentum to drive a generator; your perpetual motion machine is going to slow down.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:26 AM by RotoSequence »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #612 on: 09/16/2014 12:23 AM »
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...

Quote from: GiThruster
...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...

What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?

Sorry Dr Rodal, but the question I asked at Talk Polywell forums was about increasing the power input. I posted his entire answer here, but dissecting his answer here and return your questions to that forum, and back and forth wouldnīt be viable. I also canīt invite him to post in this thread because he was banned long ago in this forum.

I think GiThruster had some strong disagreements with Dr White in the past and there may a bit more of ad hominem in his distrust of Dr White than he would admit. But if itīs important to you to check with him those particular parts of his answer, I would suggest you to ask directly with him at that forum.

I hope you understand there is a limit I am willing to go in playing messenger boy between Talk Polywell, NasaSpaceFlight Forum and NextBigFuture :D

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #613 on: 09/16/2014 12:36 AM »
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...

Quote from: GiThruster
...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...

What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?

Sorry Dr Rodal, ...

<<the question I asked at Talk Polywell forums was about increasing the power input.>> OK, but he went off-topic by stating that he was <<still on record that [he] don't trust the data coming from Eagle,>> and I thought it fair to not let that charge stay unexplained.  Never mind, I used Google to search for his statements at Talk Polywell forums and I found out that his main objection to what he refers to as "Eagleworks tests" was how the results of the interferometer tests for distortion of space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer ) were stated.   Dr. White stated that the experimental results showed a vanishing but non-zero difference between charged and uncharged states after signal processing, but this difference remained inconclusive due to external interference and limits in  computational processing.  GiThruster's opinion in that forum was that the results were negative, period.  A subject off topic for this thread.  I didn't find anything he posted that adds further to what is already in the record on this thread.  Thanks
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:59 AM by Rodal »

Offline MichaelRBrumm

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #614 on: 09/16/2014 12:37 AM »
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.

I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.

If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.

I think that rightly or wrongly, some people believe that these drives may leverage a previously untapped force of nature. In their view, it would be like energizing an electromagnet in the dynamo of a wind turbine to extract energy from the wind. It only seems like "free energy" to the layperson, because they don't take into account the increased entropy in the Sun needed to generate those winds.

Until further testing, I'm going to remain skeptical. However, it wouldn't be the first time we discovered a new source of energy.

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3571
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 125
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #615 on: 09/16/2014 12:54 AM »
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.

If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
Frobnicat is correct, but it is discussed in more detail here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35332.0

 (The whole thread is interesting in my opinion, but of course that would be the case ;) )

I also created that thread precisely so various propellantless propulsions schemes etc do not repeat these discussions on general physics that apply equally to all of them.

What should be discussed on this thread is the specific loophole exploited to get around the general issues. Several are brought up from time to time. Im not sure which one is claimed here or if there is a concensus on that.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:57 AM by KelvinZero »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #616 on: 09/16/2014 01:06 AM »
I don't see how you're making the leap from an EM drive providing a constant force to an EM drive imparting a constant change in velocity. I can't see how an unknown mechanism for transforming electricity into kinetic energy in one direction necessitates a surplus of energy.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:07 AM by RotoSequence »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #617 on: 09/16/2014 01:17 AM »
...
Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.
...

What?

Energy is used to impart any sort of acceleration and give the object momentum, and driving a generator would take away an imparted portion of its momentum. The losses of driving the generator in a thermodynamically sound system would be greater than the energy needed to keep the system in motion. EM drives do not change this, and it makes no difference how high your initial velocity was before you started using that momentum to drive a generator; your perpetual motion machine is going to slow down.

Then you say that the presence of a EM thruster makes a system thermodynamically unsound, and therefore impossible. I would tend to agree. My hypothetical perpetual motion machine (make the track circular for actual perpetuity) makes exactly the same hypothesis as the proponent to build up mission profiles : a given thrust/power figure, and Newtonian mechanics from there on. It is stationary (time invariant) as you can check step by step if you know classical mechanics (I do, so I'm rather confident there) :
no need to talk of acceleration or momentum or losing velocity as forces counteract exactly, on the axis of interest (the track) the mobile is subject to 2 opposing forces, 1N of thrust of the EM thruster (pushing on "the walls of reality", that's where the gained energy would come from if it were to be conserved overall as it would be, like, pushing on something that's conveniently always at 0 speed relative to you, whatever your velocity) and opposite 1N of the track's energy recovery system. The mobile sees two opposite equal forces, it keeps its speed exactly. Note that if the track were to have some friction losses, this could be included in the tracks recovery 1N opposite force : I'm taking ample margin by considering a 0.5 efficiency between the 5000*1 = 5kW raw mechanical power imparted by the mobile to the track and the recovered 2.5kW electric power output of the track "dynamo". The ground track system inputs 5kW mechanical, dissipates 2.5 kW as heat, and outputs 2.5kW electric, of which 500W to the benefit of the community, and 2kW in a wireless transmission system that dissipates 1kW as heat and allows the mobile to recover 1kW electric. The mobile electric system inputs 1kW, and outputs 1kW to the EM thruster, which by the EM thruster hypothesis gives from that the 1N thrust needed (and probably also some more heat).
If small instabilities were to make the mobile slow down a little bit, you would just have to take a little bit of the 500W excess back into the system to regulate. The system could as well diverge toward higher velocities, you just have to put a good regulation to stabilize on a given target velocity. Ample margin for that.

If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.

If it were to make sense with a valid EM thruster hypothesis, this would imply very exotic physics indeed to keep an energy balance overall. There at the stress energy tensor of asymptotic space curvature and the gates of dark energy I shall stop.

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3571
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 125
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #618 on: 09/16/2014 01:21 AM »
I don't see how you're making the leap from an EM drive providing a constant force to an EM drive imparting a constant change in velocity. I can't see how an unknown mechanism for transforming electricity into kinetic energy in one direction necessitates a surplus of energy.
I think we should discuss it on that other thread. I won't mind if anyone bumps it ;)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35332.0

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #619 on: 09/16/2014 01:33 AM »
If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.

First and foremost, can you derive the excess energy mathematically? How much input power are you using to impart 1 Newton of thrust, and what is the precise mathematical relationship you're using to generate even more power, start to finish, with your generator than was put in?

Tags: