Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1796174 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
As soon as you put the battery on-board, the velocity is limited by the equation;
E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2
Could you please describe qualitatively - i.e. in plain English - the mechanism whereby this "natural brake" occurs, but iff that limiting velocity is << c? Or did you simply mean that c is the natural limit?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 03:27 AM by deltaMass »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
For those of us working @ 2.4 ghz, here is an academic paper on low cost mw leakage gear. Safety first, friends...

Thanks. Most appropriate for the magnetron builders.

Working with the EMDrive Calculator, I working to design the smallest TM011 flat end plate unit possible, that uses a simple Rf excitation in the middle of the small end and that is resonate at 2.45 GHz so can use the low cost 5-20W WiFi amps available.

Plan to keep total mass, including battery and USB IR (wireless data link) USB link to max 2.5kg and ALL to fit inside a clear sealable perspex cylinder that can easily be oriented as desired. Will then sit directly on a 5kg scale that has 0.001g resolution. Can pump down the perspex cylinder, using a small lab pump I have to very significantly reduce hot air effects. Electro caps will be replaced with solid tants.

Work In Progress.

Nice! Exciter, amp, copper wire mesh and other goodies on their way. Will be fun to experiment with rf injection locale and radiator. Starting with simple monopole at first, then loop. Planning on side injection at center and close to big and small ends, about 15% off ends. Will have removeable end caps for another variable. Might be a stretch, but targeting 1.5 kg...

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
*Links*
All these references are unpublished articles by Harold E. Puthoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff who has for decades insisted that electrons cannot "accelerate" in the atomic ground state without radiating. Now, I'm all for considering unorthodox views. The problem is that this view is sort of based on the Bohr model, in which electrons orbited the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. There are various ways of refuting the argument, but to me the simplest is to point out that if an electron in the ground state did radiate, it would have to fall to a lower energy level, and of course none exists. The rigor of a science is measured by its ability to predict, and the Standard Model makes quite a number of very accurate predictions. To deviate from accepted physics one has to present convincing evidence.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 04:29 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1737
As soon as you put the battery on-board, the velocity is limited by the equation;
E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2
Could you please describe qualitatively - i.e. in plain English - the mechanism whereby this "natural brake" occurs, but iff that limiting velocity is << c? Or did you simply mean that c is the natural limit?

You and @wallonwolfstreet have both helped me and I want to say, I am still learning and trying to cope with my own understanding. The point of the paper has not changed, however, my expression for the potential as (P/F)^2 is incorrect, except as v^2 equates to a gravitational potential. I think the meaning of what I want to say is there, but the equation is wrong.

It is a perplexing problem and obviously not a realistic one, once you consider the power source is external and mass will increase indefinitely.

Todd

Offline TheTraveller

For those of us working @ 2.4 ghz, here is an academic paper on low cost mw leakage gear. Safety first, friends...

Thanks. Most appropriate for the magnetron builders.

Working with the EMDrive Calculator, I working to design the smallest TM011 flat end plate unit possible, that uses a simple Rf excitation in the middle of the small end and that is resonate at 2.45 GHz so can use the low cost 5-20W WiFi amps available.

Plan to keep total mass, including battery and USB IR (wireless data link) USB link to max 2.5kg and ALL to fit inside a clear sealable perspex cylinder that can easily be oriented as desired. Will then sit directly on a 5kg scale that has 0.001g resolution. Can pump down the perspex cylinder, using a small lab pump I have to very significantly reduce hot air effects. Electro caps will be replaced with solid tants.

Work In Progress.

Nice! Exciter, amp, copper wire mesh and other goodies on their way. Will be fun to experiment with rf injection locale and radiator. Starting with simple monopole at first, then loop. Planning on side injection at center and close to big and small ends, about 15% off ends. Will have removeable end caps for another variable. Might be a stretch, but targeting 1.5 kg...

To aid mode hunting, the Calculator is bring modified to calc resonance closeness, from a selected external frequency. Will indicate how many +-Hz the selected frequency is away from being ideal at a dozen TM & TE modes.

One glance will reveal the closest mode/s to give resonance at your desired frustum dimensions & frequency.

Should make the job of getting it right enough / close enough to see mN level thrust.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 04:43 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

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 103
{snip}
It is a perplexing problem and obviously not a realistic one, once you consider the power source is external and mass will increase indefinitely.

Todd


Does this amount to with a solar powered EM drive the speed will increase as long as energy is supplied? The energy is stored as mass.

This variable mass should reduce the acceleration for constant Pin as the velocity increases, giving the device a top speed.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
{snip}
It is a perplexing problem and obviously not a realistic one, once you consider the power source is external and mass will increase indefinitely.
Todd
Does this amount to with a solar powered EM drive the speed will increase as long as energy is supplied? The energy is stored as mass.
This variable mass
should reduce the acceleration for constant Pin as the velocity increases, giving the device a top speed.
I would draw your attention to my nick  :D
Were this to be true, then this is yet another way to build a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind, with free energy to spare.  Any system that can vary its mass at will can in principle be engineered into a free energy machine.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
As soon as you put the battery on-board, the velocity is limited by the equation;
E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2
Could you please describe qualitatively - i.e. in plain English - the mechanism whereby this "natural brake" occurs, but iff that limiting velocity is << c? Or did you simply mean that c is the natural limit?

You and @wallonwolfstreet have both helped me and I want to say, I am still learning and trying to cope with my own understanding. The point of the paper has not changed, however, my expression for the potential as (P/F)^2 is incorrect, except as v^2 equates to a gravitational potential. I think the meaning of what I want to say is there, but the equation is wrong.

It is a perplexing problem and obviously not a realistic one, once you consider the power source is external and mass will increase indefinitely.

Todd
I wish you nothing but success in refining your theory into something wonderful. You have my respect for the attempt! But I cannot say in all honesty that your theory in its current form commands my respect. I'm pleased you see the criticisms for what they are intended to be. No hard feelings, I hope.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
...
The thrust-to-power ratio will just tell you how fast you can get there. What happens is, the energy stored in the battery is discharged into accelerating all the particles to a new momentum. If no mass was ejected in the process, then once the ultimate momentum state is reached the battery is discharged and all the sub-atomic particles of mass that were accelerated will have been contracted. Work was done to curve space-time for the matter that was transported, relative to the rest-frame where it started. Without that, there is "hidden inertia", not accounted for, even at low speed.

Todd

Sorry to add to the heavy fire your ideas are already subjected to, one further question maybe you can answer to clarify your position. I can understand you point that if you relate inertia fundamentally to relativistic effects, even very very small delta_mass (relative to "initial" mass) must be taken into account to "equate" with mv² at low v (because of c²). Anyway, "all the sub-atomic particles of mass that were accelerated will have been contracted" seem to imply that when two objects A and B meet at some relative velocity, what A will see of B will not necessarily be symmetrical of what B sees of A, depending on the history of each, and that sounds contradicting to SR.

To put it more clearly : let's A and B be two similar spacecrafts initially resting (inertial trajectory) with no relative velocity at some distance from one another, in a local patch of flat space time (which is not the same as saying in a completely empty Universe). While B stay inert, let A thrust toward B, by conventional mean or with EM drive, or with beamed propulsion, should make no difference. Then A stops thrusting and continues coasting toward B on inertial trajectory. You said there is no way from A to tell the acceleration history of A by analysing its constitutive elements, since all is scaled likewise (both on board helium atom for instance and on board measuring yardsticks). Fine.

But when A and B (both now coasting on their respective inertial trajectories) meet at close distance, A releases an atom of helium that is measured against yardsticks on board B. B also releases an atom of helium that is measured likewise on board A.  Seems, from what you are saying, that the 2 results would be different, so there would be a way from A and B to tell apart the acceleration history of A and B. While in academical interpretation of relativity, both would see some relativistic effects of the atom coming from the other, but those relativistic effects (scalings...) would be symmetrical, of same magnitude, ignoring the history that brought A and B at a given relative velocity at a given moment. How comes ?

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • France
  • Liked: 645
  • Likes Given: 899
@Todd (WarpTech), I have another (!) question for you:

You use polarizable vacuum (PV), alternative to GR, to explain EmDrive thrust.

As PV is a scalar theory of gravity, and since Pr. Fernando Minotti from CONICET also uses a scalar theory of gravity (of the Brans-Dicke type, after Mbelek and Lachièze-Rey, with inclusion of a Bekenstein's direct interaction of scalar and Maxwell fields) to explain EmDrive thrust, is your model compatible, about the same, slightly or completely different compared to Minotti's?

For the record, here is Minotti's paper: Scalar-tensor theories and asymmetric resonant cavities

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1737
...
The thrust-to-power ratio will just tell you how fast you can get there. What happens is, the energy stored in the battery is discharged into accelerating all the particles to a new momentum. If no mass was ejected in the process, then once the ultimate momentum state is reached the battery is discharged and all the sub-atomic particles of mass that were accelerated will have been contracted. Work was done to curve space-time for the matter that was transported, relative to the rest-frame where it started. Without that, there is "hidden inertia", not accounted for, even at low speed.

Todd

Sorry to add to the heavy fire your ideas are already subjected to, one further question maybe you can answer to clarify your position. I can understand you point that if you relate inertia fundamentally to relativistic effects, even very very small delta_mass (relative to "initial" mass) must be taken into account to "equate" with mv² at low v (because of c²). Anyway, "all the sub-atomic particles of mass that were accelerated will have been contracted" seem to imply that when two objects A and B meet at some relative velocity, what A will see of B will not necessarily be symmetrical of what B sees of A, depending on the history of each, and that sounds contradicting to SR.

...

If you integrate the path along each objects world-line, you find they are not symmetrical. It is like the Twin Paradox. The two twins do not age identically because one was accelerated, the other was not. The situation is not symmetrical.  What you are referring to as "SR" is a symmetrical comparison between two identical inertial frames, no history and constant relative velocity, therefore no way to distinguish between them. That's SR, this is GR. Accelerations are involved, therefore this is not a comparison of two identical inertial frames anymore. Total mass-energy was increased in one and not the other, when force was exerted to accelerate it.


Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
To save time and avoid my rusty CAD skills, I will try and describe a simple system I will use to validate weight loss or gain on my EMDrive experiment in addition to a digital scale...which "may" be affected by RF radiation from the drive:

A simple horizontal balancing bar, hung at a height of 3 to 5 feet or about midway between a floor and ceiling (to avoid near-field interactions).

One end of balance bar has the emdrive (hanging) assembly (I'm targeting 1.5 kg). The opposite end of the horizontal bar should be further away from the near-centralized balancing point than the emdrive is (for greater range of movement).

At his opposite end away from the emdrive is a laser pointer (attached horizontally) shining on a wall about 3-5 feet (not critical) away. Simple weights on are used to balance the horizontal bar at equilibrium (perhaps lengths of tape attached to the laser side of bar).

On the wall nearest the laser pointer is a length of white paper. When at balance equilibrium, mark a point where laser light appears on the paper. Add a known weight (a US penny weighs about 2.5g) to the emdrive assembly and mark the new spot on the paper that the  laser pointer appears (will be vertically above).

You get the idea, its a VERY simple system to validate digital scale measurements and not meant for absolute accuracy. Hope this helps. If anyone sees a problem with it, post it here as well as other ideas that might be useful for the growing number of experimenters out there.

The more vertical deflection you can get on the laser end, the better. Further away from a wall and also assymetry of the balancing bar in favor of the laser side.

Had to write this down before my memory failed me once again  ;)


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Velocity = roughly constant from t=0 to t=2 sec, and it becomes roughly zero after 2 sec until power is turned off
v = (xo/2 sec)    0 < t < 2
v = 0                  t>2                      Change in velocity:  (xo/2 sec) - 0 = (xo/2 sec)



So, this is the history:

Power off  t<0 => velocity = 0 (zero)
Power on  0<t<2 s => velocity =(xo/2 sec) for 2 seconds duration  (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )
Power on t> 2 s => velocity = 0 (zero)   (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )

Same velocity (zero) for power off t<0  , than the velocity with power on for t > 2 s

Than I'm kind of confused at what I see here Dr.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Motivated by Shell's post, and the discussion with @frobnicat as to what NASA measured concerning velocity vs Input Power, I went back to Shawyer's report on this test, see http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf, to see what is reported concerning velocity vs.  power

See the Figure attached below

Shawyer writes:

Quote from: MICROWAVE PROPULSION – PROGRESS IN THE EMDRIVE PROGRAMME Roger Shawyer

The engine was then mounted on a dynamic
test rig enabling it to be “flown” on a rotary air
bearing, as shown in fig 9.
The tests simulated the engine moving a
100Kg spacecraft in weightless conditions.
The test programme included acceleration and
deceleration runs in both directions, and
confirmed the thrust levels measured in the
static tests.
Fig 10 gives the result of a typical test run,
where the Demonstrator Engine produced a
thrust of 10.4 gm against a calibrated friction
torque of 7.1 gm. Input power was 421W,
giving a specific thrust of 243 mN/kW.
The frequency offset curve shows that initial
magnetron thermal drift ends with frequency
lock. At this point, 130 secs into the test run,
the velocity data shows the start of
acceleration under power. The prior thermal
drift period, with no acceleration, shows that
the thrust is not a result of spurious thermal
effects. When the power is turned off, at 210
secs, there is a coast period as the slosh effects
of 5kg of coolant maintain a reduced
acceleration. This is followed by the
deceleration due to the friction torque. A
maximum velocity of 2cm/s was achieved and
a total distance of 185cm was “flown”.
The direction of acceleration was opposite to
the direction of thrust, thus conclusively
proving that the engine obeys Newton’s laws,
and that although no reaction mass is ejected,
the engine is not a reactionless machine. An
electrical reaction occurs between the EM
wave and the reflector surfaces of the
resonator, resulting in an input impedance
change with acceleration. This is seen in the
power curve in fig 10

So, while NASA Eagleworks tests (with the EM Drive "force" acting against the stiffness of the torque pendulum and against the magnetic damping force) showed:

Power off  t<0 => velocity = 0 (zero)
Power on  0<t<2 s => velocity =(xo/2 sec) for 2 seconds duration  (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )
Power on t> 2 s => velocity = 0 (zero)   (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )

Same velocity (zero) for power off t<0  , than the velocity (zero) with power on for t > 2 s


==> Explanation: due to damping, after the ~2 sec transient, the response under the "force" is practically the static response, F=k*x where k is the stiffness and x the displacement (acceleration and velocity effects become negligible).  "Force" is resisted by the torque pendulum stiffness.




This Shawyer test (in an "air bearing" with calibrated friction torque of 7.1 gm, that the EM Drive had to overocme ) shows instead:

velocity increasing with constant (or slowly decreasing) Power Input

the velocity increase is nonlinear

acceleration is not constant, but it actually appears to increase with time in a bilnear fashion: approximately there is a first period of time with constant acceleration A and a following period of time with acceleration B, where B > A. After power is turned off, velocity continues to increase with time (Shaywer's explanation is in the quote above: " When the power is turned off, at 210 secs, there is a coast period as the slosh effects of 5kg of coolant maintain a reduced acceleration." ), at an acceleration rate roughly corresponding to acceleration A.

in other words, it shows acceleration under Power Input ON. first acceleration=A, then B>A
and it continues to show acceleration with Power Input OFF. at acceleration = A again



QUESTION: what do others make of the velocity vs. power shown for this test (the only test performed with the EM Drive on an air bearing) ?

Does it make sense that "coasting period" with NO power can translate into continued acceleration (albeit at a slower rate of acceleration ?)
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 05:24 PM by Rodal »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1737
*Links*
All these references are unpublished articles by Harold E. Puthoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff who has for decades insisted that electrons cannot "accelerate" in the atomic ground state without radiating. Now, I'm all for considering unorthodox views. The problem is that this view is sort of based on the Bohr model, in which electrons orbited the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. There are various ways of refuting the argument, but to me the simplest is to point out that if an electron in the ground state did radiate, it would have to fall to a lower energy level, and of course none exists. The rigor of a science is measured by its ability to predict, and the Standard Model makes quite a number of very accurate predictions. To deviate from accepted physics one has to present convincing evidence.

The paper on quantum ground states by Hal Puthoff is available online and very easy to read, relatively speaking. He derives the equilibrium using Stochastic Electrodynamics and shows the result is identical to those obtained using Quantum Electrodyamics of the Standard Model. If you want peer reviewed publications, I will refer you to the book; "The Quantum Vacuum" by Peter W. Milonni, and the references there-in. The end result is the same, but it's more difficult to read. In the book,

In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni writes,
"The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved."

Puthoff has a very clear way of explaining things, so does Milonni. I believe this will help most of the people here to understand this, without getting too deep into the Standard Model physics.

Thank you.
Todd


« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 05:22 PM by WarpTech »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1737
So, while NASA Eagleworks tests (with the EM Drive "force" acting against the stiffness of the torque pendulum and against the magnetic damping force) showed:

Power off  t<0 => velocity = 0 (zero)
Power on  0<t<2 s => velocity =(xo/2 sec) for 2 seconds duration  (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )
Power on t> 2 s => velocity = 0 (zero)   (it implies deltaV = (xo/2 sec) )

Same velocity (zero) for power off t<0  , than the velocity (zero) with power on for t > 2 s


This Shawyer test (in an "air bearing" ) shows instead:

velocity increasing with constant (or slowly decreasing) Power Input

the velocity increase is nonlinear

acceleration is not constant, but it actually appears to increase with time in a bilnear fashion: approximately there is a first period of time with constant acceleration A and a following period of time with acceleration B, where B > A. After power is turned off, velocity continues to increase with time (Shaywer's explanation is in the quote above: " When the power is turned off, at 210 secs, there is a coast period as the slosh effects of 5kg of coolant maintain a reduced acceleration." ), at an acceleration rate roughly corresponding to acceleration A.

in other words, it shows acceleration under Power Input ON. first acceleration=A, then B>A
and it continues to show acceleration with Power Input OFF. at acceleration = A again



QUESTION: what do others make of the velocity vs. power shown for this test (the only test performed with the EM Drive on an air bearing) ?

Does it make sense that "coasting period" with NO power can translate into continued acceleration (albeit at a slower rate of acceleration ?)

It looks to me after a brief period to charge the Q, as power is being attenuated, the frustum accelerates. As attenuation increases and power drops faster, the acceleration rises. When it's turned off, all the energy has to be attenuated and the asymmetry and acceleration persists until all the energy is dissipated into thrust & heat. Perfect IMO! (But I have not had my coffee yet.  :-\)
Todd

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
...

It looks to me after a brief period to charge the Q, as power is being attenuated, the frustum accelerates. As attenuation increases and power drops faster, the acceleration rises. When it's turned off, all the energy has to be attenuated and the asymmetry and acceleration persists until all the energy is dissipated into thrust & heat. Perfect IMO! (But I have not had my coffee yet.  :-\)
Todd
OK, but this experimental report presents even more problems for energy conservation, as it shows increasing acceleration (first A , and then B >A) under decreasing input power.

Either the test is an artifact or if it is a real effect, it cannot go on like that  (like a chemical reaction that consumes itself cannot go on indefinitely), as it would be a super free-energy machine.

The only actual test of the EM Drive in motion is even more disturbing than the worst that has been assumed here (constant acceleration at constant power input).
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 02:52 PM by Rodal »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
When it's turned off, all the energy has to be attenuated and the asymmetry and acceleration persists until all the energy is dissipated into thrust & heat.
If the thrust is proportional to the intensity of the microwave energy in the resonator, then the latter could be easily measured and compared to thrust. But IMO the microwave energy level would have dropped to an undetectable level in a very small fraction of a second after power was terminated. OTOH if the acceleration measurement is the result of a thermal heating effect and not reactionless propulsion, it might well have shown the persistance that was recorded.

My reading of Shawyer's original paper is that he asserts that radiation pressure will vary with the group velocity of the incident photons. However it is well established that the momentum of a photon is proportional only to its frequency, and SFAICT there are no reports to indicate that microwave frequency is shifted by a change in waveguide diameter.  So why would the radiation pressure on the two ends of the resonator be diferent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_particle_model:_photons
« Last Edit: 06/08/2015 03:00 PM by vulture4 »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
Velocity = roughly constant from t=0 to t=2 sec, and it becomes roughly zero after 2 sec until power is turned off

Does it make sense that "coasting period" with NO power can translate into continued acceleration (albeit at a slower rate of acceleration ?)

It leads to looking at issues regarding the air bearing for a starter. We used air bearings on much of the equipment we designed in the semiconductor industry We once designed a flat disk rotational bearing and had issues with it. Once it started to move it tended to want to continue moving and sometimes accelerating. We finally related it to the way the pressure waves were traveling between the plates creating a pattern that imparted movement to the top floating plate. We also saw the same effect in air bearing spindles used in dicing saws where the internal air bearing wasn't mated correctly and would lead to rotation in the spindle with out power being applied.

It was hard to think of a way we could test these theories as air is hard to see until one of my techs decided to simply put his hand in front of the air flow from the rotational bearing and said he could feel the differences in pressure. The body is sometimes a great detector.

This is why I intend as one test to float my device, it's close to being frictionless and only the viscosity of the water needs to be overcome to see movement. No weird air bearing issues.
 

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Thoughts for emdrive advanced experimenters: These threads have mentioned cubesat, which is a fixed form factor payload availability. Believe the Aachen group is planning to use it if success is achieved at 26 GHz.

An interesting article on a recent cubesat experiment via crowdfunding and The Planetary Society recently appeared. However, there are rumblings from contributors that its of a lot of money for a very limited duration:

"LightSail's days in orbit are now numbered. The cubesat launched to a relatively low orbit, and atmospheric drag will likely pull it back down to Earth in the next two to 10 days, Planetary Society representatives have said." -
http://www.space.com/29588-lightsail-spacecraft-deploys-solar-sail.html

FWIW, cubesats are low-earth orbit platforms with apparently short lives. Thought the Lightsail could overcome the low-orbit forces and get moving outward...apparently not. Could emdrive? Maybe...maybe not.

Tags: