Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2099453 times)

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
Wonderful breakthrough in many ways.
I was wondering has anyone given the thought to putting several of the EM drives in series?

Offline rgreen

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Following on what jknuble said about the multipactor-like effect as a possible cause of thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect  I can't help but wonder about what's going on with the copper surface of the frustum. A quick back of the envelope (well, python) calculation shows that there's certainly enough energy in these devices to somehow atomize a small amount of copper , and propel them with enough momentum to produce a small amount of thrust.

For example, a 30 watt emdrive where 0.001% of the energy went towards atomization and 1% went toward addtional momentum of the particles... You'd have a device with 91uN thrust, propelling 1.4ng of copper a second at 65500m/s.

I can think of 3 ways to debunk this. 1) perhaps that amount of particles going that fast would be noticeable with the naked eye, so this isn't really a valid explanation. 2) stick a detector behind the thruster (are they ionized?). 3) SEM of the surface compared to scraps from the same batch of copper not used in the thrustum.

Just how would we get a net-thrust from a closed cavity with atomization.  Even if atoms are being ioniozed inside the cavity I don't see how that could result in a net thrust.  Atomization results in immediate thrust but then that creates impact on the other side of the cavity canceling out the propulsion.
I'm talking about signs of atomization on the *outside* surface of the frustum. Although it would probably be happening in the inside as well. The copper atoms would be the propellent. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be, but it's obviously more than a thermal effect, and the whole reversal in phase/thrust would be difficult to explain. It seems more simple than QV or relativity models, but it's still probably interesting physics.

It might also explain the interferometer results.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
I know I'm new here but I've been in engineering for almost 50 years. The EM drive seems to parallel so many things I've seen in electronics and embrace harmonics and it got me thinking how it would compare to things like a YAGI antenna for gain buy linking them in series. Would you get a Q gain in thrust?

Offline TheTraveller

Last year's R. Shawyer's conference presentation slides had been already posted in this thread.  I had not seen the final version of the presentation paper (the attachment in @Mulletron's post) but, although it is nice to have for reference, I did not see something there that we had not discussed or reviewed before (including the latest superconducting design by Shawyer which we have discussed multiple times), as well as his project studies for aerospace.

That conference was 6 months ago. 

There are several things that are NOT new, and that have been discussed for several months in these threads, for example:

* that R. Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric inserts in his EM Drive
* that the latest design of R. Shawyer is superconducting with Doppler compensation, and large cone angle and spherical ends



As an example of what can happen in 6 months of R&D, during the last 6 months, NASA Eagleworks reported:

1) The first time that any organization has conducted EM Drive tests in a vacuum
2) A positive signal in their interferometer tests, using an EM Drive pillbox shape as the test item.

QUESTIONS:

Is there any update on what is the progress with Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive?

Does he report an experimental Q?

Does he report any experimental measurements during the last 6 months?

Does anybody have an explanation why Shawyer reports measurements of force in opposing directions for the Demonstrator engine and ONLY for this engine (it cannot be a typo, since it is repeated in the final version of the conference paper).

If I have missed something new, that had not been reviewed previously, I would appreciate if somebody could point it out. 

If there nothing new that can be pointed out, there is no need to reply.

Thanks.
Roger that.
Good to know all the data that can be mined from past presentations and postings has been mined, discussed, sorted and filed away. Guess we wait for new data from EW's test of their new build, which hopefully follows Shawyers test protocol and elimination of dielectrics recommendations, at least initially.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5248
The challenge (not yet met) is to explain the experimental measurements as an experimental artifact or as something useful for space propulsion, with an explanation that can be embraced without objections.

Therefore, there is plenty of new observations on experimental reports that can still be made to explain the measurements.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007

Roger that.
Good to know all the data that can be mined from past presentations and postings has been mined, discussed, sorted and filed away. Guess we wait for new data from EW's test of their new build, which hopefully follows Shawyers test protocol and elimination of dielectrics recommendations, at least initially.

No, you have already shown that we need to revisit what Mr. Shawyer has been reporting. This forum has not given the necessary attention to most of it. Also look back up in the thread where @meberbs was talking about the Chinese using coils. I don't ever remember talking about that.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368813#msg1368813

I about fainted when I read that because I'm convinced this thing works primarily off the magnetic field component inside the cavity.


I know from experiment that a magnetic field goes right though the thin copper from one side to the other. So that is trivial to pull off. Hopefully Eagleworks accounted for the magnetic field going the other way..inside to out.

@TheTraveller, keep bring in fresh insight. You're rocking this thread.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:08 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5248
Wonderful breakthrough in many ways.
I was wondering has anyone given the thought to putting several of the EM drives in series?
Yes, it has been discussed earlier in these threads, and it would enable testing at NASA Glenn for example.  NASA Eagleworks does not have the budget to do it.

I know I'm new here but I've been in engineering for almost 50 years. The EM drive seems to parallel so many things I've seen in electronics and embrace harmonics and it got me thinking how it would compare to things like a YAGI antenna for gain buy linking them in series. Would you get a Q gain in thrust?

The honest answer is that it is unknown, as the theories explaining the thrust meet with objections that are not yet convincingly answered and the experimental results are inconsistent.  NASA Eagleworks is actively working on further experiments with the goal to achieve consistency in their experimental results.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:10 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller


Roger that.
Good to know all the data that can be mined from past presentations and postings has been mined, discussed, sorted and filed away. Guess we wait for new data from EW's test of their new build, which hopefully follows Shawyers test protocol and elimination of dielectrics recommendations, at least initially.

No, you have already shown that we need to revisit what Mr. Shawyer has been reporting. This forum has not given the necessary attention to most of it. Also look back up in the thread where @meberbs was talking about the Chinese using coils. I don't ever remember talking about that.

I about fainted when I read that because I'm convinced this thing works primarily off the magnetic field component inside the cavity.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368813#msg1368813

I know from experiment that a magnetic field goes right though the thin copper from one side to the other. So that is trivial to pull off. Hopefully Eagleworks accounted for the magnetic field going the other way..inside to out.

@TheTraveller, keep bring in fresh insight. You're rocking this thread.
What I read is, the Chinese test rig has 2 coils, electromagnets, one of which is activated, once the test article moves from plum, to force the test article back to plum. Coils are calibrated as to the restorative force they generate per current input. Depending on which way the test article moves, either coil 3 or coil 4 is activated to restore the test article to plum and the current drawn determines the force generated by the test article.

Chinese thrust measurement system attached.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:31 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007

Hopefully Eagleworks accounted for the magnetic field going the other way..inside to out.


Actually they did. Right here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1346066#msg1346066

Quoting Paul March:
Quote
Lastly find attach a slide with the results of this week's test that demonstrate that the copper frustum still generates a thrust signature when it is not in the stainless steel vacuum chamber walls.  And as you will note the forward thrust signature is similar in magnitude for the same 50W case in-air in the vacuum chamber, so I think we can start to put to bed the idea that standard E&M evanescent waves interactions with the vacuum chamber walls are the cause of these thrust signatures.

I do have to admit that those thrust signatures are barely above the noise floor. You can't deny that.

« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:27 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Further thoughts that I think correlate to the TheTraveller's statements.

I was thinking about my post from last night and was pondering why, if pushed in the "forward" direction the drive begins and continues to accelerate.  If you imagine the drive creating two gravity wells, small/deep at rear and large/shallow at front.  Once the drive is pushed, the gravity wells would follow the drive HOWEVER the reaction is subject to the speed of light.  That momentary delay might allow for the drive to slip into the forward gravity well's wake and begin accelerating (essentially falling).

Just food for thought...

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Further thoughts that I think correlate to the TheTraveller's statements.

I was thinking about my post from last night and was pondering why, if pushed in the "forward" direction the drive begins and continues to accelerate.  If you imagine the drive creating two gravity wells, small/deep at rear and large/shallow at front.  Once the drive is pushed, the gravity wells would follow the drive HOWEVER the reaction is subject to the speed of light.  That momentary delay might allow for the drive to slip into the forward gravity well's wake and begin accelerating (essentially falling).

Just food for thought...

Or something much more mundane:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2865

A resonant cavity can ONLY support certain frequencies. If those frequencies change, say due to red or blue shift, they won't/can't resonate, and are lost. That resonant cavity that was once saturated, now has a "hole" which can be filled by more incoming radiation, said another way energy flowing back in. The transient Poynting vector. In layman's terms.

The missing Poynting vector is due to us never considering an accelerating cavity. Shawyer says it has to move first before you observe a force. He isn't just saying that. He probably observed that.

That sounds exactly like ME too. Same freaking thing. Two sides of the same coin.

ME=Classical description
EM=Quantum description

See that bottom pic. Those "dips" are the only frequencies that will exist within that range of my cavity. If they get shifted up or down (like by if I pick up the cavity and shake the crap out of it), they're history.

« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:44 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Mulletron -

Fantastic, I think we are saying the same thing using different analogies because in my non-scientific mind - aligned photons and gravity wells are the same thing.  From the blog post you reference it seems that once there is forward motion, the EM radiation has more force in the forward direction. 

I wonder if, as the drive accelerates forward and as the photons bounce back and forth between the rear and front that - from the perspective of a single photon (or the microwave) the frustum chamber looks like a perfect cylinder.  If this is the case, it seems that the frustum chamber would require less slope to get started and more slope to accelerate further. 

I wonder if a frustum chamber that could dynamically change the angle/slope of the walls in response to momentary acceleration might remove the theoretical speed limit.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:57 PM by PushHigher »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361

Roger that.
Good to know all the data that can be mined from past presentations and postings has been mined, discussed, sorted and filed away. Guess we wait for new data from EW's test of their new build, which hopefully follows Shawyers test protocol and elimination of dielectrics recommendations, at least initially.

No, you have already shown that we need to revisit what Mr. Shawyer has been reporting. This forum has not given the necessary attention to most of it. Also look back up in the thread where @meberbs was talking about the Chinese using coils. I don't ever remember talking about that.

I about fainted when I read that because I'm convinced this thing works primarily off the magnetic field component inside the cavity.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368813#msg1368813

I know from experiment that a magnetic field goes right though the thin copper from one side to the other. So that is trivial to pull off. Hopefully Eagleworks accounted for the magnetic field going the other way..inside to out.

@TheTraveller, keep bring in fresh insight. You're rocking this thread.
What I read is, the Chinese test rig has 2 coils, electromagnets, one of which is activated, once the test article moves from plum, to force the test article back to plum. Coils are calibrated as to the restorative force they generate per current input. Depending on which way the test article moves, either coil 3 or coil 4 is activated to restore the test article to plum and the current drawn determines the force generated by the test article.

Chinese thrust measurement system attached.


Yes, this is the way we built balances in the past.  The coil provides a balancing force so that the position is static and the force is calibrated against the coil current.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5248
Further thoughts that I think correlate to the TheTraveller's statements.

I was thinking about my post from last night and was pondering why, if pushed in the "forward" direction the drive begins and continues to accelerate.  If you imagine the drive creating two gravity wells, small/deep at rear and large/shallow at front.  Once the drive is pushed, the gravity wells would follow the drive HOWEVER the reaction is subject to the speed of light.  That momentary delay might allow for the drive to slip into the forward gravity well's wake and begin accelerating (essentially falling).

Just food for thought...

Or something much more mundane:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2865

A resonant cavity can ONLY support certain frequencies. If those frequencies change, say due to red or blue shift, they won't/can't resonate, and are lost. That resonant cavity that was once saturated, now has a "hole" which can be filled by more incoming radiation, said another way energy flowing back in. The transient Poynting vector. In layman's terms.

The missing Poynting vector is due to us never considering an accelerating cavity. Shawyer says it has to move first before you observe a force. He isn't just saying that. He probably observed that.

That sounds exactly like ME too. Same freaking thing. Two sides of the same coin.

ME=Classical description
EM=Quantum description

See that bottom pic. Those "dips" are the only frequencies that will exist within that range of my cavity. If they get shifted up or down (like by if I pick up the cavity and shake the crap out of it), they're history.


But this is NOT what was measured at NASA Eagleworks.  Nothing needed to be pushed and nothing was pushed at NASA Eagleworks.

Now, two different experiments and mechanisms are being discussed  (#2 as treated by Mulletron and TheTraveller):

1) NASA Eagleworks.  Stationary test item.  Thrust force in same direction as movement.

2) SHAWYER.  Need moving item to measure force ?.  Thrust force in opposite direction to movement. (All kind of experimental issues here, and a lack of experimental force-vs.-time data to analyze).

Since they are different, I wonder whether we should split threads into NASA Eagleworks and a separate thead for the others.  This would prevent confusion.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 02:59 PM by Rodal »

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 576

Or something much more mundane:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2865

A resonant cavity can ONLY support certain frequencies. If those frequencies change, say due to red or blue shift, they won't/can't resonate, and are lost. That resonant cavity that was once saturated, now has a "hole" which can be filled by more incoming radiation, said another way energy flowing back in. The transient Poynting vector. In layman's terms.

The missing Poynting vector is due to us never considering an accelerating cavity. Shawyer says it has to move first before you observe a force. He isn't just saying that. He probably observed that.

That sounds exactly like ME too. Same freaking thing. Two sides of the same coin.

ME=Classical description
EM=Quantum description

See that bottom pic. Those "dips" are the only frequencies that will exist within that range of my cavity. If they get shifted up or down (like by if I pick up the cavity and shake the crap out of it), they're history.



Going into the speculation side and maybe a silly error: this observation could also match with EW's potential observation of a warpdrive signature.

If I remember well, they have mentioned something called 'boost' that seems to be a speed multiplier.

What if we are actually seeing that, a initial speed from an imparted momentum, just slightly 'boosted'?

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007

But this is NOT what was measured at NASA Eagleworks.  Nothing needed to be pushed and nothing was pushed at NASA Eagleworks.

Now, two different experiments and mechanisms are being discussed  (#2 as treated by Mulletron and TheTraveller):

1) NASA Eagleworks.  Stationary test item.  Thrust force in same direction as movement.

2) SHAWYER.  Need moving item to measure force ?.  Thrust force in opposite direction to movement. (All kind of experimental issues here, and a lack of experimental force-vs.-time data to analyze).

Since they are different, I wonder whether we should split threads into NASA Eagleworks and a separate thead for the others.  This would prevent confusion.


No we're NOT going to split threads. We're going to resolve the disparity. @TheTraveller already figured it out yesterday. Maybe you missed it.....Those dielectrics are the bootstrap to get it going. The other, as mentioned by me is the constant seismic noise. The dielectrics give the preferred direction by their helicity, which is the source of the non-reciprocity as described by the transfer of linear momentum from the QV papers.

What really bothers me about Eagleworks is this quote:
Quote
We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

Significant...........that probably screwed up our reasoning for all these months. No significant thrust says there was thrust, it was just insignificant..........but there WAS thrust.

An unloaded cavity appears to be metastable. You have to give it a push in a particular direction. Look at the Shawyer Demonstrator, it goes both ways. The ones with dielectric, go one direction.

There's still some inconsistencies with this that need figured out.



@Star-Drive, we need this to be addressed.

From talking with Mr. Shawyer, I get it why high Q=higher thrust. High Q also equals a narrow bandwidth cavity....aka easy to perturb. Design one with a bandwidth narrow enough to be perturbed by the redshift caused by Earth's 1g acceleration, you get unassisted levitation.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:28 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Quote
But this is NOT what was measured at NASA Eagleworks.  Nothing needed to be pushed and nothing was pushed at NASA Eagleworks.

We are on a rotating sphere, could that be the push?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:05 PM by PushHigher »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5248
Quote
But this is NOT what was measured at NASA Eagleworks.  Nothing needed to be pushed and nothing was pushed at NASA Eagleworks.

We are on a rotating sphere, could that be the push?
That (rotation of the Earth) does not make any difference regarding a change from initial conditions for an unrestrained drive.  What Mulletron and TheTraveller are proposing is:

d2x/dt2 (t=0) = 0

d2x/dt2  (t>0&t<?) >0

Ditto for gravity, and any other field force, unless one postulates that you have the EM Drive restrained and suddenly you unrestrain it (easy to do for gravity, difficult to do for the Earth's rotation)  at t=0+, but this is not what is being reported in experiments.

_________
PS: Seismic noise is not a satisfactory explanation: it is random (would require a ratchet mechanism and a defense for what is the ratchet mechanism and the magnitude would still be random)
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:21 PM by Rodal »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80

Or something much more mundane:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2865

A resonant cavity can ONLY support certain frequencies. If those frequencies change, say due to red or blue shift, they won't/can't resonate, and are lost. That resonant cavity that was once saturated, now has a "hole" which can be filled by more incoming radiation, said another way energy flowing back in. The transient Poynting vector. In layman's terms.

The missing Poynting vector is due to us never considering an accelerating cavity. Shawyer says it has to move first before you observe a force. He isn't just saying that. He probably observed that.

That sounds exactly like ME too. Same freaking thing. Two sides of the same coin.

ME=Classical description
EM=Quantum description

See that bottom pic. Those "dips" are the only frequencies that will exist within that range of my cavity. If they get shifted up or down (like by if I pick up the cavity and shake the crap out of it), they're history.



Going into the speculation side and maybe a silly error: this observation could also match with EW's potential observation of a warpdrive signature.

If I remember well, they have mentioned something called 'boost' that seems to be a speed multiplier.

What if we are actually seeing that, a initial speed from an imparted momentum, just slightly 'boosted'?
I think just recently (maybe within 15 to 20 pages ago someone said that Dr White considers the EM drive to be a case of warp drive because he thinks the underlying principles of operation are dipping into the same source. My memory is really vague but if I remember right you are not too far off the mark. at least on one branch of consideration here.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:46 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
I think just recently (maybe within 15 05 20 pages ago Someone Said that Dr White considers the EM drive to be a case of warp drive because he thinks the underlying principles of operation are dipping into the same source. My memory is really vague but if I remember right you are not too far off the mark. at least on one branch of consideration here.

Yeah and we've established that Eagleworks methodology is driven by the Dr. White QVPT conjecture, so no wonder why the test protocol isn't matching what the inventor is telling us.

Ning Li all over again.

Read for yourself about what happened:
https://www.google.it/search?q=ning+li&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=0XIsVfriEojqaPP5gIAJ#q=%22ning+li%22+%22fell+apart%22

*No I'm not going to remove the Ning Li reference. We should not fall prey to lessons already learned. Gut check moments are important. Reporting the facts, even if they are unpopular is important.
Providing forceful backup is important.
https://www.google.com/search?q=forceful+backup&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Quote
In order for an organization to be Operationally Disciplined (doing the right thing, the right way, every time to achieve Operational Excellence), it takes a commitment from all employees not only to themselves, but also to one another. The concept of Forceful Watch Team Backup is rooted in everyone’s understanding that they are part of something larger than themselves, everyone relies on one another and there is a level of seriousness to the jobs they do. With that as a foundation, employees are driven to back up one another to ensure that everyone is doing the right thing, the right way, every time. And if a fellow employee has overlooked something or is not behaving in an Operationally Disciplined manner, other employees have the courage to step in and help resolve the issue. Employees are actively looking for what might be wrong in each other’s areas and expect others to do the same in return. It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure the company succeeds-if one person fails, everyone fails.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:48 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: