Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2101825 times)

Offline PaulF

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
Although i have a slight inclination towards believe there is indeed an effect, simply because of shawyer's video of his dynamic test, because of the test performed in china and because the Eagleworks results, I still feel very uncomfortable about the silence Shawyer has on his first generation super cooled device.

If I would have irrefutable and impressive results with a supercooled EMdrive, I would not hesitate to make it known to the world. I'm sure a lot of scientific and financial interest would come my way... but I'm not Shawyer... :)
still.. the question remains.. why the silence?
NDA, money, under contract, testing issues?

Shawyer did email Mullerton
It is entirely possible, and plausible, that Shawyer had to sell some of his knowledge to keep going and that now he has to keep his mouth shut about any progress made under the new owner.

Of course, this is pure speculation at this point.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
...

Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.

Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.

Feel free to comment on this first draft.

I would like to clarify for the general audience that

Quote
Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting

 this is a reference to NASA's experiments with an interferometer, where the laser beam goes through small portholes on a pillbox shaped cylindrical  EM Drive cavity.   



It is my understanding that NASA has not measured any thrust forces from this experiment involving a pillbox shaped EM Drive cavity.

NASA expected no significant thrust either, because the pillbox-shaped cavity is entirely symmetric in the longitudinal direction (parallel to the laser beam) and because the cavity did not contain any polymer dielectric insert in the experiments (as so far performed).
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 05:31 PM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Quote
... and because the cavity did not contain any polymer dielectric insert.

But if desired, couldn't a donut shaped dielectric be used? That is, just drill a small hole in the center of the dielectric for the laser beam to pass through?
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
All-
The EM Drive wiki project is starting to take shape - thanks in particular to @MazonDel who has begun adding and organizing content, including links back to the relevant posts and attachments on this forum and elsewhere.  It's still very early, so any assistance is greatly appreciated!  The site is run on MediaWiki (the same software used by Wikipedia) so it's quite easy to jump in and start contributing.

For those building their own test articles, I invite you to update this page with your plans and links to any relevant photos, diagrams, videos, etc.  We also have sections to list out the various theory proposals, possible error sources and a placeholder FAQ.

@Chris Bergin, feel free to link to this from the forums, when and if you think it would be of value to your visitors (particularly the newer ones).

-Rolf

EDIT: The following has already been done !  Thanks so much to Rolf




Rolf,

Thank you for this very noble effort  :)

I have a suggestion, based on the experience of our NSF article and Star-Drive's posts in the forum being misquoted and misattributed in several publications in the media, and the negative effect this has had on the NASA Eagleworks team.

Could you please have an announcement up-front on the EM Drive wiki project for this (*) un-moderated effort, that any poster is free to write whatever she/he wants regarding her/his own work or posts regarding the EM Drive.  But that other people's work (posts in this forum and attachments) should only be linked or posted verbatim (but never paraphrased), in order to prevent the problems we have witnessed due to the false, misleading reports in the media about NASA Eagleworks.

This is particularly important regarding the work of posters that have either used their own names (rather than monickers) or whose real name has become generally known otherwise.

Thank you :)

_________
(*) my understanding
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 06:49 PM by Rodal »

Offline StrongGR

I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.

May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible?  I'd very much like to see this.
StrongGR  may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula.  Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. 

Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful  :) ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.

That's why closed-form solutions rock :)

Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.

Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.

Feel free to comment on this first draft.

What an original contribution !

this is very interesting:

Quote from: Marco Frasca
One sees that there is an additional component to the laser field exiting the cavity that interacts with the mode inside. This can have terms with the frequency shifted and is a purely gravitational effect.

This result is extremely interesting. 

Quote from: Marco Frasca
I have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity. Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen. This could explain recent results at Eagleworks with a resonator having the form of a truncated cone. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanation

This justifies Dr. White's attempts to measure these effects with an interferometer



I'm looking forward to your attempt at dealing with a truncated cone geometry (difficult geometry to analyze)

Thanks a lot! Indeed my idea was to justify White's results that appear already striking from a physicist's standpoint. I am working on the frustum case and I hope to update the paper soon.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?

I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.

LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.

Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here,  the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.

The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.

I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).


Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
Now, that's something we can all agree with  :)

I second that statement! You know I have some old wire mesh (old front door screen) to build a cone shaped can, connect some wires to an old and discarded microwave, power it and Bingo, Warp Drive! It's not that simple and what if I, by the shot in the dark make something that does work better than anything out there? I've accomplished very little as the other part of the equation of why, isn't there. Theory, Design, Engineering and Testing all go hand in hand. One aspect may leapfrog another during a process.
I have no solid clue why this EM drive works, sure there are some great theories (some of them have "warped" my little brain) out there. I have no doubt a answer will make itself known by Developing Theories, Designing, Building, Testing in synergy.

We'd be like soldiers in the army of infinite monkeys.

Except we're not infinite, not soldiers, and not monkeys. Let's see how good we can be. I have this idea of a community of enthusiast experimenters, sharing and sometimes arguing about what works and how we've measured it, with meetups and tests, like radio amateurs of old. We would devour the papers of Shayer, Eagleworks, and other professional scientists....but not present ourselves as such. There may be some people who can be good conduits between the two communities.

I don't know if others on this thread are familiar with the software development essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". It might be an interesting read to find similarities. I feel that software, and Em Drive, need both the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Offline TheTraveller

I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?

I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.

LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.

Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here,  the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.

The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.

I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).
My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build.

I'm doing as close as possible to Shawyer replication as I can as I feel the closer I stay to Shawyer, the higher the chance of success. WHEN that works I may start trying stuff outside what Shawyer has shared.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline PaulF

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?

I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.

LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.

Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here,  the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.

The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.

I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).
That just jogged my memory. Check out www.zooniverse.org

This project has been going for years and involves participants yound and old from all over the world classifying galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Very effective. I think their method could be adapted to suit EM drive theoretical and possible practical development and have the masses participate. BOINC could be another way, getting CPU time donated for simulations if anyone has the need for them within the project.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:07 PM by PaulF »

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.

How about using Tesla batteries for a few seconds (>300 KW?) and send the damn thing at the other side of the galaxy? Would that form a convincing test result?

Offline PaulF

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.

How about using Tesla batteries for a few seconds (>300 KW?) and send the damn thing at the other side of the galaxy? Would that form a convincing test result?
From what I distill from some of the information I have read, coronal discharges were already plaguing some of the teams at power between 100 and 1000 Watts. a 300KW burst would probably fry everything we can throw at it and would require serious re-design of the components and use of materials, if at all possible.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)

We can of course test to see this at work. We use a rotary configuration and when the tangential velocity exceeds 2/k, we switch from external power to a coaxially mounted generator. And then begin charging people for the juice. Outrageous!  8)

Added emphasis. If it can be of any comfort to you, I understand both your arguments and humour (so far). I only disagree on a minor point : while as stated in later posts it could be shown experimentally much below 2/k (say, at 1% of that velocity) that the system phenomenology is on the way to reach break-even (assuming no unphysical knee in the thrust/power=function_of(velocity) equation), the system would potentially exhibit breakeven not at 2/k but starting at 1/k velocity tangential velocity.

Hope this is not perceived as self-promotional cross-posting but since you appear not to contribute in the "feature article thread" maybe you haven't seen my little drawing I posted there. That might be helpful :

Em drives mounted on a rotor turning at 2000m/s tangential velocity (not easy but this is the kind of tangential velocity attained in some energy storage flywheels...). Em drives consuming 1kW microwave, radiating some (all ?) of this power as heat and thrusting at 1N : 1N/kW is in the ballpark of what has been experimentally claimed already. This gives 2000m/s * 1N = 2kW mechanical power to the shaft of the rotor. 2kW mechanical power at the shaft are converted to 1800W DC current by a generator (and 200W radiated as heat). Of this 1800W DC electrical power, 250W are diverted for any use we like. To keep it in line with the topic I put it to good use to power another Em drive but really we are free to use those 250W for whatever (creating mass for instance). The power splitter is not 100% efficient, it radiates 50W of power. 1800-250-50 = 1500W to feed the RF amplifier. The RF amplifier wastes (radiates) 500W as heat and pumps 1000W of clean microwave back into the Em drives on the rotor.

The process needs an initial investment in energy (to make rotor move at 2000m/s tangential velocity) but then this is a free energy generator for all practical purpose. If small variations in efficiency make the rotor lose a bit of velocity, just divert a little more power to the RF amplifier : this is just a regulation problem, there is ample margins to adjust and stabilize around the optimal operating point.
...


In the following post, Side note 1, I explain why I think the right metric for the velocity above which there is energy issue (ie apparent COE breaking, or more factually, possible breakeven) is not 2/k but a more stringent (more easily accessible) 1/k limit. I do use twice 1/k as the tangential velocity for my quantitative argument above, but only to accommodate for both inefficiencies in the feedback cycle and leave a significant amount of "free juice". Both inefficiencies and diverted power could in principle be reduced to an arbitrary epsilon, making the breakeven reachable in principle (if not in practice) starting at any epsilon above 1/k tangential speed.

Not that it makes much difference for the argument, since tangential velocity can be arbitrarily raised in principle (if not in practice) unless the required breakeven velocity is c (case for the photon rocket, but not the proposed em drives that have a higher k hence breakeven velocity < c).

I suggest we call 1/k the breakeven velocity (Vbe ?) and discuss the possibility of such breakeven rather than speaking of "free energy" (which I try to avoid) or "apparent free energy" (which I used to leave open the fact that it may be possible and still respect COE, provided a hidden energy source is involved). But "free energy" is so much connoted that no proponent (of short trips to Saturn by using constant thrust/power) want to admit that their claimed phenomenology (constant thrust/power) requires "apparent free energy".

This conducts proponents (of short trips to Saturn with Em drives of constant thrust/power well above .1N/kW) to incoherent statements and inconsistent positions where we can see "thrust (at constant power) will therefore decrease as velocity increase" in one paragraph about how well the Em drive respects COE, and "at 10N/kW Saturn could be reached in a few weeks" in the next paragraph about how good Em drive would be at opening fast deep space transportation.

So, proponents of Em drive, will the theoretical breakeven above 1/k velocity (or practical breakeven above 2/k or 3/k to leave margin for innefficiencies in the feedback cycle, and k better than 1N/kW for a velocity compatible with known materials), will this breakeven be
1/ Impossible ?  => Where and how exactly does it fail ?
2/ Possible ? => What and where is the hidden field/flow that is "harvested" for apparent surplus energy ?


Side note : proponents of "this is all different of what we know, this must take GR into account...", please give quantitative arguments about the level of space-time curvature needed to yield micronewtons or otherwise be significant relative to values obtained with Newtonian mechanics in the low velocity and weak curvature regime. And the corresponding amount of local mass-energy to reach such curvature in usual GR. The total energy content of EM radiation bouncing around in a 30cm Q=10000 cavity fed at 100W is on the order of .001 J, this will bend space-time, but a lot less than the mass of a microbe...


Offline PaulF

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 9
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?

I personally use LiFePO4 batteries, as they are inherently safer than alternatives. For instance, I have one (about 1kg) with 8400mAh capacity and 30C continuous discharge capability (252 amps). You can extract ~1kW for a couple minutes, which should be enough for measurements. Recharging is also fast.

LiFePO4 is a good battery tech..better, safer than others out there though not quite as much power/mass. For short tests, I think that whatever can be effectively used is good. For actual vehicles, where safety and reliability is required, I'd want LiFePO4.

Regarding your earlier comments, about just using more power to get results: I think we're going to see two different methodologies here,  the first being what Eagleworks is doing, which is carefully thought out, precision science, with work on theory to explain and therefore maximize efficiency. The other approach is the hacker approach, which is more of a mechanical and pragmatic approach, of doing things like applying more power or using different materials based upon hunches...that the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. The problems arise when trying to unify the approaches - without some really fantastic results (such as a flying car), no one is going to let a hacker near the precision and certified labs to prove their claims, and the naysayers will have a field-day with "outlandish claims". Much of the guff EMdrive etc have received so far is because of insufficient theory and tests. I don't have a PhD in physics, and even if I did, if I wasn't prominent in the field I'd see no reason why Eagleworks or other reputable places would waste their time with me or the hundred other 'crackpots' in serious tests.

The exception to this may be if a program were implemented for inexpensive, quick, formal tests. An example which passed these tests would then be eligible for further testing and scrutiny. I think that such a program would be the best interface between the 'hackers' and the 'scientists'.

I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).
My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build.

I'm doing as close as possible to Shawyer replication as I can as I feel the closer I stay to Shawyer, the higher the chance of success. WHEN that works I may start trying stuff outside what Shawyer has shared.
I may be asking a stupid question, but has anyone ever tried Pulse Width Modulation with the micro waves? To see how that effects forces within the cavity? Or has that mathematically been ruled out? Or?
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:13 PM by PaulF »

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.

How about using Tesla batteries for a few seconds (>300 KW?) and send the damn thing at the other side of the galaxy? Would that form a convincing test result?
From what I distill from some of the information I have read, coronal discharges were already plaguing some of the teams at power between 100 and 1000 Watts. a 300KW burst would probably fry everything we can throw at it and would require serious re-design of the components and use of materials, if at all possible.

Interesting.  Corona discharges could prevent the device to scale then (assuming it works).
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:22 PM by deuteragenie »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
...
My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build.
...

Another advantage to replicate the Flight Thruster, is that the Flight Thruster is one of only two designs that are close to what appears to be the optimum cone angle (7.5 degrees).  Only the Shawyer Experimental and Shawyer's Flight Thruster are close to this optimum geometry:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370559#msg1370559
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:47 PM by Rodal »

Offline CharCamOlson

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I am not an engineer, a scientist, or an inventor. I am just an english major who writes science fiction and thinks this is really cool. So, that said, is there any chance that the guys at Eagleworks are ever going to have a Gofundme? Is there any way for all the people watching this project who don't have technical skills to kick in a little money to fund those who DO?

Just asking. Seems crowdfunding might help get around some of the "big organizations won't fund our research" problem.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365

I've been looking at surplus 20kw radar magnetrons on ebay, and the availability of 3D printed silicons carbide base on which to plate my Magnesium diboride superconductor, and also at cryocoolers. It's all very complex and expensive, and with the cryo, somewhat dangerous. I am most definitely in the realm of a 'hacker' in this endeavor (and have been so in other fields for a number of years), so I know what to expect (or at least I think I do).

Radar magnetrons operate in pulsed mode.    The output power during the pulse may be 20 kW but the duration is very short and so the average power output is very low.   Any high power CW magnetron is very dangerous to play with when it is removed from the equipment it was designed for.    The RF discharges can cause serious injury and temporary blindness.

Offline TheTraveller

...
My engineer's gut tells me the best device for "Replicators" would be the Flight Thruster as it uses narrow band RF, which can be generated by a programmable RF generator, with an auxiliary RF amplifier and the RF energy feed into the cavity by standard RF connectors and coax. This gives good control over both frequency and power, which is not really available with a magnetron based RF generator, plus stops the need to add waveguides into the build.
...

Another advantage to replicate the Flight Thruster, is that the Flight Thruster is one of only two designs that are close to what appears to be the optimum cone angle (7.5 degrees).  Only the Shawyer Experimental and Shawyer's Flight Thruster are close to this optimum geometry:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370559#msg1370559
Saw the conic data. Nicely done.

Did you or anyone else ever write an excel spreadsheet to calc Shawyers Design Factor? If so pls link it or if not please consider doing it as your skills there are much better than mine.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5914
  • Likes Given: 5253
I am not an engineer, a scientist, or an inventor. I am just an english major who writes science fiction and thinks this is really cool. So, that said, is there any chance that the guys at Eagleworks are ever going to have a Gofundme? Is there any way for all the people watching this project who don't have technical skills to kick in a little money to fund those who DO?

Just asking. Seems crowdfunding might help get around some of the "big organizations won't fund our research" problem.

No crowdfunding allowed for NASA. 
Please see this as an alternative:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1366620#msg1366620

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
The point I'm making is this. You see these men sitting at the table together in this video? They're all on the same team....trying to figure out how to pull off interstellar flight. For the good of all of us. Now they're duking it out in an interview in Wired. They (like us) should all be working together, pooling resources, combined knowledge and experience. Instead a rift has formed, which will likely kill progress.

it seems to me Wired totally distorted what Davis and Millis said. Most comments also note that.

Tags: