Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2102756 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8008
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168


That's why they're building a high power test of 1Kw or so, hopefully by July...
I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW  :P

1.2 KW.
Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that way

As long as we hear the results that's all that matters.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It might occur to some to do a speculative build at a frequency other than that of a microwave oven magnetron (~125 mm wavelength) in order to get a smaller cavity which is easier to make and move around. What might that frequency range be? Well, they make magnetrons up to almost 100 GHz (3 mm wavelength) so there's a wide range to choose from. Cost is a factor also. The scopes, chiefly.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 10:54 AM by deltaMass »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
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.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 10:55 AM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
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?

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
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?

Offline TheTraveller

Ensuring that the device is encased and no heat is getting out sounds very sensible, yes.  :)
Plan is to replicate the Flight Thruster using 100Ws of RF during the static tests. At 150W, Shawyer got around 40mN or 4gf of thrust, which would give me around 25mN or 2.5gf. As my setup will be much lighter than Shawyers rotary system and will be using magnetic bearings, 2.5gf should be more than enough thrust to run load versus power consumed tests and generate a descent curve to show COE is obeyed or not.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller



That's why they're building a high power test of 1Kw or so, hopefully by July...
I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW  :P

1.2 KW.
Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that way

As long as we hear the results that's all that matters.
My tests will be streamed, in real time, via YouTube & recorded. Will setup a web site with the stream links, run by run measurement results, plans, BOM, sources etc.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 11:14 AM 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

Offline TheTraveller

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
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 11:22 AM 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

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.
As a one time ham, I'm not keen to crank up 1kW or more of power as there will be other issues to deal with at those power levels. Even at my max target of 100W, I suspect there may be issues to deal with.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 11:28 AM 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

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote

For the other question, the thrust, as a physicist I keep on being rather sceptical because I tried to move my car by hitting the windscreen with punches and nothing happened.


As an electrician I point my flashlight at the windscreen and the car moves. 
My knuckles are in perfect condition.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 12:55 PM by deuteragenie »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. :-\

Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F  knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?

I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

Or you could also give the example of EM Drive ship 1 (which started from a different place) being overtaken by EM Drive ship 2 ...

EDIT:

See White and Joosten, Appendix :

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

I just read this... Oh my!

deltaMass, I owe you an apology. I thought this was your derivation. I did not realize they published it that way. It was an assumption right from the start that acceleration is constant for constant input power. A "what if?" scenario. Fine, that's how the game is played if you want to get funded.

Thank you.
Todd

It really is a terrible piece of work. There is in fact not one, but are two bloopers. The first one is what we've been discussing, and the way he solves the problem by imprimatur, and then shows a graph absent the knee he describes. The second one is his attempt to show a "paradox" for the conventional operation of observing kinetic energy changes in different inertial frames. He neglects the extra term (m V dv) (V = relative frame velocity, dv = delta-v of object) which must be added in.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5255
Given the explosive number of posts in this thread, since the NSF article, how about if we divide the thread as follows

1) One thread for people that believe "EM Drive, Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory" (some posters have adhered to this principle of investigation, as of late)

and

2) another thread for those that rather continue with "EM Drive, Analyze experiments and Analyze theory" which was the original focus of threads EMDrive 1 and 2.





It will result in easier searching and less clutter. 
The forum moderator may have to close this thread and start another one pretty soon, as this 2nd EM Drive thread is already approaching 140 pages, as threads cannot have an unlimited number of pages.

This is an excellent time to make this decision.


It will also be more in the spirit of this forum which is to keep threads focused on topic, as approach #1 above (which disregards any theory) is in conflict with approach #2  :)


« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 01:31 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: TheTraveller
Plan is to replicate the Flight Thruster using 100Ws of RF during the static tests. At 150W, Shawyer got around 40mN or 4gf of thrust, which would give me around 25mN or 2.5gf. As my setup will be much lighter than Shawyers rotary system and will be using magnetic bearings, 2.5gf should be more than enough thrust to run load versus power consumed tests and generate a descent curve to show COE is obeyed or not.
I imagine the chief source of friction will be the generator bearings. Or can these also be magnetic?

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.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1293
  • Likes Given: 1745
Quote from: WarpTech
Hypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box)  but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled.

What sort of motion would YOU expect to see?

1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?

2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?

3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?

Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.

Todd
I must confess that I don't understand this system. It seems to suggest that a gravitational field can be generated at will de novo and also shielded. I wouldn't know where to start with something like that.

Exactly my point! The black box test is inadequate for such a device. A more "open minded" test is required to get to the true nature of such a device. Otherwise, rampant discussions of violations of COM will pursue.

Todd

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Given the explosive number of posts in this thread, since the NSF article, how about if we divide the thread as follows

1) One thread for people that believe "EM Drive, Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory" (some posters have adhered to this principle of investigation, as of late)

and

2) another thread for those that rather continue with "EM Drive, Analyze data and Analyze theory" which was the original focus of threads EMDrive 1 and 2.





It will result in easier searching and less clutter. 
The forum moderator may have to close this thread and start another one pretty soon, as this 2nd EM Drive thread is already approaching 140 pages, as threads cannot have an unlimited number of pages.

This is an excellent time to make this decision.


It will also be more in the spirit of this forum which is to keep threads focused on topic, as approach #1 above (which disregards any theory) is in conflict with approach #2  :)

Doctor,
     May be I am wrong in this approach, but, perhaps all the data SHOULD be examined first and the actual "How" this came about be theorized about later?  As I understand it, most science is done by observation and then theorizing on how something happened.

     At present, it appeares you have some sort of motion being created by the various units.  By varying the conditions of the experiments, be it power, frequency or even device configuration, the results appear to vary in a predictible fashion.  Perhaps examination of what variables seem to do what outputs you are getting, may provide insights into what is actually happening?  (Yeah, kind of self evident in retrospect)

       I figure that, once we see what all is actually happening with the device, a more coherent theory can be constructed to explain WHY these things are happening.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10

That's why they're building a high power test of 1Kw or so, hopefully by July...
I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW  :P

1.2 KW.
Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that way

As long as it's not "1.21 Jiggawatts!"
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275

That's why they're building a high power test of 1Kw or so, hopefully by July...
I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW  :P

1.2 KW.
Yes, my infrequent attempts at humour generally end up that way

As long as it's not "1.21 Jiggawatts!"
It's bad form to explain a joke, but I was implying that I hoped it wasn't -1 kW!

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Given the explosive number of posts in this thread, since the NSF article, how about if we divide the thread as follows

1) One thread for people that believe "EM Drive, Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory" (some posters have adhered to this principle of investigation, as of late)

and

2) another thread for those that rather continue with "EM Drive, Analyze experiments and Analyze theory" which was the original focus of threads EMDrive 1 and 2.





It will result in easier searching and less clutter. 
The forum moderator may have to close this thread and start another one pretty soon, as this 2nd EM Drive thread is already approaching 140 pages, as threads cannot have an unlimited number of pages.

This is an excellent time to make this decision.


It will also be more in the spirit of this forum which is to keep threads focused on topic, as approach #1 above (which disregards any theory) is in conflict with approach #2  :)

That is no reason to split the thread. If we don't stick together, and share data and insight....this effort will be severely hampered. One team, one fight.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 01:54 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
There is NO accepted theory. It is up to us (or someone else) to find the truth which will lead to falsifying EMdrive........or proving EMdrive and developing a working accepted theory.

We need to keep the best and brightest minds together on this problem if we're ever to succeed. The last thing we need, is a wedge being driven right through the effort.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 02:07 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: