Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1797475 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
@Rodal - I was looking for antenna placement. But without having a proper resonant frequency for the cavity it doesn't matter where the antenna is, it won't resonate. So my thought was to find a resonant frequency then move the antenna to produce the highest Q for that frequency. Iterate.

So would you like to provide the correct resonant frequency for rfmwguy's cavity? Note that the drive frequency must be 2.45 GHz but that does not constrain the resonant frequency of the cavity. If the cavity resonant frequency is not 2.45 GHz then, as rfmwguy writes, he must modify his cavity dimensions until it does resonate at 2.45 GHz.

So you tell me what the resonant frequency actually is, change the dimensions as needed to reach 2.45 GHz resonance, then I can place the antenna to achieve the best Q.

I point out that if we don't support the DIY efforts (such as rfmwguy's) to the best of our ability then the experimental results that are achieved can not be definitive considering all the other limitations that DIYers must work under.

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline zen-in

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

...
I'm not the only active NSF member who has the paper.

Interesting and I think that answers the matter for now.
It certainly doesn't answer the question raised by WallofWolfStreet.  If anything it raises further questions.  What other NSF member has access to the paper and why is that relevant to this thread?

There is only one NSF member (to my knowledge) that disclosed his/her access to Shawyer's paper.

What is the purpose of posting (unasked by anyone) that she/he had privileged access to Shawyer's upcoming paper and boasting about its contents  "it will remove all doubt"  and now posting that another unnamed NSF member also has access?

Why give that irrelevant hearsay information (that somebody else has access to an unpublished paper) instead of providing substantive technical  information on what is the subject matter of the paper?

This is not a thread to disclose who has access to unpublished papers.  This is a thread to discuss the EM Drive developments - related to space flight applications -

This is another example of the disruptive thread-hijacking of the Travellers' posts.  Earlier I complained about his persistent spam posts and empty promotion of Shawyers' dubious experiments.   Whenever he has been asked to clarify one of his claims we just get the run-around.   This really reflects poorly on Shawyer and has further impugned his credibility.   I don't know if Shawyer is paying this guy but I would venture to say he is not getting his money's worth if that is the case.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 05:46 PM by zen-in »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
  • France
  • Liked: 651
  • Likes Given: 900
TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit: (bold added for emphasis)

Quote from: TheTravellerEMD
SECOND GENERATION EMDRIVE PROPULSION APPLIED TO SSTO LAUNCHER AND INTERSTELLAR PROBE
Roger Shawyer C.Eng.MIET.FRAeS
SPR Ltd, United Kingdom
sprltd@emdrive.com
ABSTRACT
In an IAC13 paper the dynamic operation of a second generation superconducting EmDrive thruster was described.
A mathematical model was developed, and in this paper, that model is used to extend the performance envelope of the technology.
Three engine designs are evaluated. One is used as a lift engine for a launch vehicle, another as an orbital engine for the launcher, and a third as the main engine for an interstellar probe.
The engines are based on YBCO superconducting cavities, and performance is predicted on the basis of the test data obtained in earlier experimental programmes.
The Q values range from 8 x 10^7 to 2 x 10^8 and provide high specific thrusts over a range of accelerations from 0.4 m/s^2 to 6 m/s^2.

The launch vehicle is an “all-electric” single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceplane, using a 900 MHz, eight cavity, fully gimballed lift engine.
A 1.5 GHz fixed orbital engine provides the horizontal velocity component.
Both engines use total loss liquid hydrogen cooling.
Electrical power is provided by fuel cells, fed with gaseous hydrogen from the cooling system and liquid oxygen.
A 2 Tonne payload, externally mounted, can be flown to Low Earth Orbit in a time of 27 minutes.
The total launch mass is 10 Tonnes, with an airframe styled on the X37B, which allows aerobraking and a glide approach and landing.
The full potential of EmDrive propulsion for deep space missions is illustrated by the performance of the interstellar probe.
A multi-cavity, fixed 500 MHz engine is cooled by a closed cycle liquid nitrogen system.
The refrigeration is carried out in a two stage reverse Brayton Cycle. Electrical power is provided by a 200 kWe nuclear generator.
The 9 Tonne spacecraft, which includes a 1 Tonne science payload, will achieve a terminal velocity of 0.67c and cover a distance of 4 light years, over the 10 year propulsion period.
The work reported in this paper has resulted in design studies for two Demonstrator spacecraft.
The launcher will demonstrate the long-sought-for, low cost access to space, and also meet the mission requirements of the proposed DARPA XS-1 Spaceplane.
The probe will enable the dream of an interstellar mission to be achieved within the next 20 years.

It will be interesting (from a public's expectation study point of view) to hear whether this abstract meets what readers here were expecting from what was said about the paper.

Sorry but this is nothing new, sadly. The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014. The title was exactly the same BTW. More important, the text was the same. On the SPR web site, only the more vague presentation paper is available, but the full IAC 2014 paper has been posted in the NSF EmDrive thread 2 by Mulletron in this post.


Shawyer, Roger (29 September–3 October 2014). "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe", 65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014). Toronto, Canada: International Astronautical Federation.

So it appears TheTravellerEMD on Reddit posted the abstract of the 2014 IAC paper??? Or the peer-review 2015 paper is based entirely on the 2014 conference paper? I'm confused.

If the abstract is the same, we should not hold our breath. That conference paper was all about projective study showing theoretical features of a conceptual superconducting EmDrive. No real data or new experimental results from any superconducting test article. I really hope I'm wrong and the 2015 peer-reviewed paper is completely different :(

I don't think many of you has ever read it, so I attach the full IAC 2014 paper below.

[EDIT]: @TheTraveller, can you tell us, just if the upcoming 2015 paper is written on the same grounds as the IAC 2014 paper?
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 05:58 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
@Rodal - I was looking for antenna placement. But without having a proper resonant frequency for the cavity it doesn't matter where the antenna is, it won't resonate. So my thought was to find a resonant frequency then move the antenna to produce the highest Q for that frequency. Iterate.

So would you like to provide the correct resonant frequency for rfmwguy's cavity? Note that the drive frequency must be 2.45 GHz but that does not constrain the resonant frequency of the cavity. If the cavity resonant frequency is not 2.45 GHz then, as rfmwguy writes, he must modify his cavity dimensions until it does resonate at 2.45 GHz.

So you tell me what the resonant frequency actually is, change the dimensions as needed to reach 2.45 GHz resonance, then I can place the antenna to achieve the best Q.

I point out that if we don't support the DIY efforts (such as rfmwguy's) to the best of our ability then the experimental results that are achieved can not be definitive considering all the other limitations that DIYers must work under.

From what I recall, @rfmwguy provided some dimensions to TheTraveller, who gave him answers regarding resonance.

Then @rfmwguy asked why was there so much difference between @rfmwguy calculation for natural frequency and TheTraveller's calculation, to resonate at 2.45 GHz.  So I calculated and gave @rfmwguy the length required to resonate at 2.45GHz.  So my understanding is that @rfmwguy now has at least 3 answers (@rfmwguy's calculation, TheTraveller's calculation and my calculation) on the length at which it will resonate at 2.45 GHz.

Also, as I wrote in the prior pages, if your Meep code does not show resonance I think that this is probably due to your particular Meep model (and no fault of Meep).  Have you compared a similar discretization FD mesh from your model, adapted to a cylindrical cavity and compare how close to the exact solution for a cylinder it is?

Model a cylinder with Meep with the Mean diameter where Mean= (BigDiameter+SmallDiameter)/2 and see how close is your Meep model to the exact solution for a cylinder.  Here is the exact, closed-form solution:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity



If your Meep model cannot accurately predict the natural frequency of a cylinder, it would be hopeless to predict the natural frequency of a truncated cone.  So my advice is that you should start with that comparison, if you want to predict natural frequencies of a truncated cone.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 06:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

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

Shell
The natural frequency and the mode shape predictions based on Maxwell's equations is all that I was referring to in previous discussions regarding numerical modeling.  The natural frequency and mode shape calculations should not be conflated with whether there is thrust or no thrust.   Marco Frasca paper (quoted above) is entirely consistent with that assertion.

Your right, I got off on a tangent just was getting frustrated at the limits of modeling. I'm more of a hands on kind of gal.

I read Frasca's paper (you were mentioned as well) and I think its done very well and I've added it to my substantial list of papers theorizing the hows and whys of thrust. Not discing anyone but this is like "The Price Is Right".

The how and why intrigues me, but Jose the rubber hits the road in building it. I know the task I've set out for myself is daunting and I've had to pull from decades of in the trenches engineering, hoping to add a little something to a discovery that might be as game changing as the taming of fire. The Higgs took Billions to discover and just from a theory. I'm trying to do about the same with a couple hundred bucks, scrap parts and staggered with multiple ideas and theories to  "The Dam* Thing Won't Work".  So I'm picking brains for any scraps to help and thanks to all for the atta girl.

Shell

PS: Hot tub was GREAT!

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
This is a good guide for installation of MEEP on Windows.
http://novelresearch.weebly.com/installing-meep-in-windows-8-via-cygwin.html

Thanks,
I run Linux on Ubuntu but it would be great if someone else or more people tried meep.
As for support, I haven't found much online support for the rather mundane problem of simulating a resonant cavity. Professional meep users are busy inventing improved optical tweezers or evanescent microscopes or some such.
Maybe after my build I look more into it as it seems to be a time hog and the build is my first priority.
Shell

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168

...
I'm not the only active NSF member who has the paper.

Interesting and I think that answers the matter for now.
It certainly doesn't answer the question raised by WallofWolfStreet.  If anything it raises further questions.  What other NSF member has access to the paper and why is that relevant to this thread?

There is only one NSF member (to my knowledge) that disclosed his/her access to Shawyer's paper.

What is the purpose of posting (unasked by anyone) that she/he had privileged access to Shawyer's upcoming paper and boasting about its contents  "it will remove all doubt"  and now posting that another unnamed NSF member also has access?

Why give that irrelevant hearsay information (that somebody else has access to an unpublished paper) instead of providing substantive technical  information on what is the subject matter of the paper?

This is not a thread to disclose who has access to unpublished papers.  This is a thread to discuss the EM Drive developments - related to space flight applications -

This is another example of the disruptive thread-hijacking of the Travellers' posts.  Earlier I complained about his persistent spam posts and empty promotion of Shawyers' dubious experiments.   Whenever he has been asked to clarify one of his claims we just get the run-around.   This really reflects poorly on Shawyer and has further impugned his credibility.   I don't know if Shawyer is paying this guy but I would venture to say he is not getting his money's worth if that is the case.

And how is resorting to so far baseless accusations against another poster helping the thread?

All you're going to achieve is the possibility of getting the thread locked or your posts removed.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 05:58 PM by Star One »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit: (bold added for emphasis)

Quote from: TheTravellerEMD
SECOND GENERATION EMDRIVE PROPULSION APPLIED TO SSTO LAUNCHER AND INTERSTELLAR PROBE
Roger Shawyer C.Eng.MIET.FRAeS
SPR Ltd, United Kingdom
sprltd@emdrive.com
ABSTRACT
In an IAC13 paper the dynamic operation of a second generation superconducting EmDrive thruster was described.
A mathematical model was developed, and in this paper, that model is used to extend the performance envelope of the technology.
Three engine designs are evaluated. One is used as a lift engine for a launch vehicle, another as an orbital engine for the launcher, and a third as the main engine for an interstellar probe.
The engines are based on YBCO superconducting cavities, and performance is predicted on the basis of the test data obtained in earlier experimental programmes.
The Q values range from 8 x 10^7 to 2 x 10^8 and provide high specific thrusts over a range of accelerations from 0.4 m/s^2 to 6 m/s^2.

The launch vehicle is an “all-electric” single stage to orbit (SSTO) spaceplane, using a 900 MHz, eight cavity, fully gimballed lift engine.
A 1.5 GHz fixed orbital engine provides the horizontal velocity component.
Both engines use total loss liquid hydrogen cooling.
Electrical power is provided by fuel cells, fed with gaseous hydrogen from the cooling system and liquid oxygen.
A 2 Tonne payload, externally mounted, can be flown to Low Earth Orbit in a time of 27 minutes.
The total launch mass is 10 Tonnes, with an airframe styled on the X37B, which allows aerobraking and a glide approach and landing.
The full potential of EmDrive propulsion for deep space missions is illustrated by the performance of the interstellar probe.
A multi-cavity, fixed 500 MHz engine is cooled by a closed cycle liquid nitrogen system.
The refrigeration is carried out in a two stage reverse Brayton Cycle. Electrical power is provided by a 200 kWe nuclear generator.
The 9 Tonne spacecraft, which includes a 1 Tonne science payload, will achieve a terminal velocity of 0.67c and cover a distance of 4 light years, over the 10 year propulsion period.
The work reported in this paper has resulted in design studies for two Demonstrator spacecraft.
The launcher will demonstrate the long-sought-for, low cost access to space, and also meet the mission requirements of the proposed DARPA XS-1 Spaceplane.
The probe will enable the dream of an interstellar mission to be achieved within the next 20 years.

It will be interesting (from a public's expectation study point of view) to hear whether this abstract meets what readers here were expecting from what was said about the paper.

Sorry but this is nothing new, sadly. The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014. The title was exactly the same BTW. More important, the text was the same. On the SPR web site, only the more vague presentation paper is available, but the full IAC 2014 paper has been posted in the NSF EmDrive thread 2 by Mulletron in this post.


Shawyer, Roger (29 September–3 October 2014). "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe", 65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014). Toronto, Canada: International Astronautical Federation.

So it appears TheTravellerEMD on Reddit posted the abstract of the 2014 IAC paper??? Or the peer-review 2015 paper is based entirely on the 2014 conference paper? I'm confused.

If the abstract is the same, we should not hold our breath. That conference paper was all about projective study showing theoretical features of a conceptual superconducting EmDrive. No real data or new experimental results from any superconducting test article. I really hope I'm wrong and the 2015 peer-reviewed paper is completely different :(

I don't think many of you has ever read it, so I attach the full IAC 2014 paper below.

[EDIT]: @TheTraveller, can you tell us, just if the upcoming 2015 paper is written on the same grounds as the IAC 2014 paper?


<<The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014.>>

You mean, the abstract of the "peer-reviewed paper" that is going "to remove all doubt" is the exact same as the 2014 paper???

Either TheTravellerEMD made a mistake or this is extremely disappointing news to anyone that believed the report that new upcoming results "to remove all doubts" would appear in the upcoming ''peer-reviewed" paper.


 I sincerely hope that  TheTravellerEMD made an innocent human mistake here and confused the 2014 and 2015 abstracts.

But if it is true that TheTraveller had read the upcoming peer-reviewed paper by Shawyer, he/she should certainly be able to tell us whether a mistake was made, or whether the peer-reviewed paper has the same abstract as the 2014 conference paper (this would be very strange as most peer-reviewed reputable journals do NOT accept papers that have been presented at old conferences).
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 06:23 PM by Rodal »

Online kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 521
TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit:
...
Thanks Dr. Rodal,

I didn't see a link to the reddit post, so here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3b2gxc/abstract_from_the_soon_to_be_released_emdrive/

~Kirk

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
@Rodal - I was looking for antenna placement. But without having a proper resonant frequency for the cavity it doesn't matter where the antenna is, it won't resonate. So my thought was to find a resonant frequency then move the antenna to produce the highest Q for that frequency. Iterate.

So would you like to provide the correct resonant frequency for rfmwguy's cavity? Note that the drive frequency must be 2.45 GHz but that does not constrain the resonant frequency of the cavity. If the cavity resonant frequency is not 2.45 GHz then, as rfmwguy writes, he must modify his cavity dimensions until it does resonate at 2.45 GHz.

So you tell me what the resonant frequency actually is, change the dimensions as needed to reach 2.45 GHz resonance, then I can place the antenna to achieve the best Q.

I point out that if we don't support the DIY efforts (such as rfmwguy's) to the best of our ability then the experimental results that are achieved can not be definitive considering all the other limitations that DIYers must work under.

I really don't understand what you are discussing above and I'll wait for @rfmwguy to explain it.

From what I recall, @rfmwguy provided some dimensions to TheTraveller, who gave him answers regarding resonance.

Then @rfmwguy asked why was there so much difference between @rfmwguy calculation for natural frequency and TheTraveller's calculation, to resonate at 2.45 GHz.  So I calculated and gave @rfmwguy the length required to resonate at 2.45GHz.  So my understanding is that @rfmwguy now has at least 3 answers (@rfmwguy's calculation, TheTraveller's calculation and my calculation) on the length at which it will resonate at 2.45 GHz.

Also, as I wrote in the prior pages, if your Meep code does not show resonance I think that this is probably due to your particular Meep model (and no fault of Meep).  Have you compared a similar discretization FD mesh from your model, adapted to a cylindrical cavity and compare how close to the exact solution for a cylinder it is?

Model a cylinder with Meep with the Mean diameter where Mean= (BigDiameter+SmallDiameter)/2 and see how close is your Meep model to the exact solution for a cylinder.  Here is the exact, closed-form solution:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity



If your Meep model cannot accurately predict the natural frequency of a cylinder, it would be hopeless to predict the natural frequency of a truncated cone.  So my advice is that you should start with that comparison, if you want to predict natural frequencies of a truncated cone.

Yes, I now have conflicting dimensions, however, am not even sure that "resonance" is key to the success of the thing. One would have to assume that max Q = max resonance to a large degree...some think Q may not be an overiding factor. So little real data from industry is being shared right now, we're on this path with a single flashlight. So be it in the initial stages of development...(  )it happens.

I'd venture to say that this "project" does not have billion-dollar implications, it has trillion-dollar implications IF the device can be scaled and replicated. What we have here is what the brit papers are saying...potential for revolutionizing the aerospace/transport industry. Naturally, anything being done by capitalists eager on getting a slice of the pie will be hidden BEHIND CLOSED DOORS...been there.

Here's one thing my aerospace marketing instincts tell me...if this "effect" was bogus, many companies would have officially said so...with test results. All we have now is theoretical naysayers claiming such, but not one, to my knowledge has completed nor commissioned a build, so sure of their own belief system.

I'll go with 6.25 x 11.01 x 9.91L and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate all the help at getting to this decision stage.




Offline Blaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Spring Hill, KS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 122
Well, it looks like we can only look for current DIYers and NASA to give us the data we want.  I am eagerly awaiting new results form the Baby EM Drive experiments.
Weird Science!

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...

Yes, I now have conflicting dimensions, however, am not even sure that "resonance" is key to the success of the thing. One would have to assume that max Q = max resonance to a large degree...some think Q may not be an overiding factor. So little real data from industry is being shared right now, we're on this path with a single flashlight. So be it in the initial stages of development...(  )it happens.

I'd venture to say that this "project" does not have billion-dollar implications, it has trillion-dollar implications IF the device can be scaled and replicated. What we have here is what the brit papers are saying...potential for revolutionizing the aerospace/transport industry. Naturally, anything being done by capitalists eager on getting a slice of the pie will be hidden BEHIND CLOSED DOORS...been there.

Here's one thing my aerospace marketing instincts tell me...if this "effect" was bogus, many companies would have officially said so...with test results. All we have now is theoretical naysayers claiming such, but not one, to my knowledge has completed nor commissioned a build, so sure of their own belief system.

I'll go with 6.25 x 11.01 x 9.91L and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate all the help at getting to this decision stage.

bigDiameter = 11.01 inches;
smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;
axialLength = 9 inches;  NOTICE 9 inches -- in this case

with FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC MODE.  It resonates at 2.45032 GHz with TM212


////////////////////////////////

bigDiameter = 11.01 inches;
smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;
axialLength = 10.2 inches;  NOTICE 10.2 inches -- in this case

with FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC MODE.  It resonates at 2.45044 GHz with TE013

////////////////////////////////

(Note: my previous calculation for 9.91 inches for TE013 resonance was using SPHERICAL ENDS)

L = 9.91 inches with spherical ends will resonate at TE013 at 2.45 GHz

L = 9.91 inches with flat ends will resonate at TE013 at 2.48468 GHz
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 06:51 PM by Rodal »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168

TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit:
...
Thanks Dr. Rodal,

I didn't see a link to the reddit post, so here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3b2gxc/abstract_from_the_soon_to_be_released_emdrive/

~Kirk

Thanks wasn't aware of that as it was posted there and not here.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit: (bold added for emphasis)

Sorry but this is nothing new, sadly. The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014. The title was exactly the same BTW. More important, the text was the same. On the SPR web site, only the more vague presentation paper is available, but the full IAC 2014 paper has been posted in the NSF EmDrive thread 2 by Mulletron in this post.


Shawyer, Roger (29 September–3 October 2014). "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe", 65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014). Toronto, Canada: International Astronautical Federation.

So it appears TheTravellerEMD on Reddit posted the abstract of the 2014 IAC paper??? Or the peer-review 2015 paper is based entirely on the 2014 conference paper? I'm confused.

If the abstract is the same, we should not hold our breath. That conference paper was all about projective study showing theoretical features of a conceptual superconducting EmDrive. No real data or new experimental results from any superconducting test article. I really hope I'm wrong and the 2015 peer-reviewed paper is completely different :(

I don't think many of you has ever read it, so I attach the full IAC 2014 paper below.

[EDIT]: @TheTraveller, can you tell us, just if the upcoming 2015 paper is written on the same grounds as the IAC 2014 paper?


<<The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014.>>

You mean, the abstract of the "peer-reviewed paper" that is going "to remove all doubt" is the exact same as the 2014 paper???

Either TheTravellerEMD made a mistake or this is extremely disappointing news to anyone that believed the report that new upcoming results "to remove all doubts" would appear in the upcoming ''peer-reviewed" paper.


 I sincerely hope that  TheTravellerEMD made an innocent human mistake here and confused the 2014 and 2015 abstracts.

But if it is true that TheTraveller had read the upcoming peer-reviewed paper by Shawyer, he/she should certainly be able to tell us whether a mistake was made, or whether the peer-reviewed paper has the same abstract as the 2014 conference paper (this would be very strange as most peer-reviewed reputable journals do NOT accept papers that have been presented at old conferences).


My hunch on this is that Mr. Shawyer simply has failed to produce a workable superconductor Emdrive demonstrator. Ergo, no new results to show.

Either because the superconductor material he is using is too frail, or flimsy or unwieldy and it doesn't result in a stable shape producing the expected Q values for enough time to conduct tests, and therefore, no measurements and no significant thrust increase is evidenced.

Or maybe he doesn't actually have the financial resources to do it on his own.

Note that all of these unforeseen challenges don't say zilch about the validity of the phenomenon. They are  the mere vicissitudes of life and experimental physics.

What is bad PR is to oversell upcoming results and just copy-paste and slightly edit previous results. If he has nothing new, he shouldn't publish the same things as if they were new.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 06:48 PM by tchernik »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
...

Yes, I now have conflicting dimensions, however, am not even sure that "resonance" is key to the success of the thing. One would have to assume that max Q = max resonance to a large degree...some think Q may not be an overiding factor. So little real data from industry is being shared right now, we're on this path with a single flashlight. So be it in the initial stages of development...(  )it happens.

I'd venture to say that this "project" does not have billion-dollar implications, it has trillion-dollar implications IF the device can be scaled and replicated. What we have here is what the brit papers are saying...potential for revolutionizing the aerospace/transport industry. Naturally, anything being done by capitalists eager on getting a slice of the pie will be hidden BEHIND CLOSED DOORS...been there.

Here's one thing my aerospace marketing instincts tell me...if this "effect" was bogus, many companies would have officially said so...with test results. All we have now is theoretical naysayers claiming such, but not one, to my knowledge has completed nor commissioned a build, so sure of their own belief system.

I'll go with 6.25 x 11.01 x 9.91L and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate all the help at getting to this decision stage.

bigDiameter = 11.01 inches;
smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;
axialLength = 9 inches;  NOTICE 9 inches -- in this case

with FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC MODE.  It resonates at 2.45032 GHz with TM212


////////////////////////////////

bigDiameter = 11.01 inches;
smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;
axialLength = 10.2 inches;  NOTICE 10.2 inches -- in this case

with FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC MODE.  It resonates at 2.45044 GHz with TE013

////////////////////////////////

(Note: my previous calculation for 9.91 inches for TE013 resonance was using SPHERICAL ENDS)

L = 9.91 inches with spherical ends will resonate at TE013 at 2.45 GHz

L = 9.91 inches with flat ends will resonate at TE013 at 2.48468 GHz

Doc, you have stated TM212 as EW's success, am I correct?

Offline Tetrakis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 9
It seems that a consensus has emerged, even among EMdrive proponents, that Shawyer's math is wrong and his experiments suspect. Yang's results are suspect because of the poor testing environment and the generally atrocious quality of scientific institutions in China. NASA's results, under the highest quality testing environment of the three significant experimental efforts, also show the smallest measured force (probably within their experimental error, as shown by the test with different device orientation). DIY EMDrivers' results are, so far, all suspect and lack rigor; they will not exceed the standards set by NASA.

So the inventor of this device has little credibility, the positive results from other labs are suspect, null, or insignificant with respect to error, and yet there is still enormous enthusiasm in its development. Herculean efforts are put forth to provide a theoretical basis for data that is too weak to publish in a reputable journal. Why?

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
...
Doc, you have stated TM212 as EW's success, am I correct?
I don't understand the question << you have stated TM212 as EW's success, am I correct?>> please elaborate further

From memory, not from search, I recall you mentioning TM212 mode in regards to EW. Is this the case and did this mode result in "thrust". Otherwise, where did you pick up on this...seems I recall some thermal and modeling images with this mode...many, many pages ago.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
  • UK
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 168

TheTravellerEMD posted the abstract on reddit: (bold added for emphasis)

Sorry but this is nothing new, sadly. The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014. The title was exactly the same BTW. More important, the text was the same. On the SPR web site, only the more vague presentation paper is available, but the full IAC 2014 paper has been posted in the NSF EmDrive thread 2 by Mulletron in this post.


Shawyer, Roger (29 September–3 October 2014). "Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied to SSTO Launcher and Interstellar Probe", 65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2014). Toronto, Canada: International Astronautical Federation.

So it appears TheTravellerEMD on Reddit posted the abstract of the 2014 IAC paper??? Or the peer-review 2015 paper is based entirely on the 2014 conference paper? I'm confused.

If the abstract is the same, we should not hold our breath. That conference paper was all about projective study showing theoretical features of a conceptual superconducting EmDrive. No real data or new experimental results from any superconducting test article. I really hope I'm wrong and the 2015 peer-reviewed paper is completely different :(

I don't think many of you has ever read it, so I attach the full IAC 2014 paper below.

[EDIT]: @TheTraveller, can you tell us, just if the upcoming 2015 paper is written on the same grounds as the IAC 2014 paper?


<<The text of this upcoming abstract is the exact same as in the non peer-reviewed paper presented by Shawyer at the IAC conference, Toronto, Canada, in October 2014.>>

You mean, the abstract of the "peer-reviewed paper" that is going "to remove all doubt" is the exact same as the 2014 paper???

Either TheTravellerEMD made a mistake or this is extremely disappointing news to anyone that believed the report that new upcoming results "to remove all doubts" would appear in the upcoming ''peer-reviewed" paper.


 I sincerely hope that  TheTravellerEMD made an innocent human mistake here and confused the 2014 and 2015 abstracts.

But if it is true that TheTraveller had read the upcoming peer-reviewed paper by Shawyer, he/she should certainly be able to tell us whether a mistake was made, or whether the peer-reviewed paper has the same abstract as the 2014 conference paper (this would be very strange as most peer-reviewed reputable journals do NOT accept papers that have been presented at old conferences).


My hunch on this is that Mr. Shawyer simply has failed to produce a workable superconductor Emdrive demonstrator. Ergo, no new results to show.

Either because the superconductor material he is using is too frail, or flimsy or unwieldy and it doesn't result in a stable shape producing the expected Q values for enough time to conduct tests, and therefore, no measurements and no significant thrust increase is evidenced.

Or maybe he doesn't actually have the financial resources to do it on his own.

Note that all of these unforeseen challenges don't say zilch about the validity of the phenomenon. They are  the mere vicissitudes of life and experimental physics.

What is bad PR is to oversell upcoming results and just copy-paste and slightly edit previous results. If he has nothing new, he shouldn't publish the same things as if they were new.

So we should wait on EW & others then?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...
Doc, you have stated TM212 as EW's success, am I correct?
I don't understand the question << you have stated TM212 as EW's success, am I correct?>> please elaborate further

From memory, not from search, I recall you mentioning TM212 mode in regards to EW. Is this the case and did this mode result in "thrust". Otherwise, where did you pick up on this...seems I recall some thermal and modeling images with this mode...many, many pages ago.

OK your memory is perfect.

NASA Eagleworks reported thrust with a HDPE dielectric insert, with mode TM212 at a lower frequency (1.94 GHz instead of 2.45 GHz).

Please notice that they used a dielectric insert, while you are not planning to use a dielectric insert.

The problem is that NASA also reported thrust with mode TE012 with a dielectric insert (at 1.8804 GHz), but they reported zero, nada, zilch, with TE012 without a dielectric insert (at 2.168 GHz).

Look here:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 07:23 PM by Rodal »

Offline zen-in

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

My hunch on this is that Mr. Shawyer simply has failed to produce a workable superconductor Emdrive demonstrator. Ergo, no new results to show.

Either because the superconductor material he is using is too frail, or flimsy or unwieldy and it doesn't result in a stable shape producing the expected Q values for enough time to conduct tests, and therefore, no measurements and no significant thrust increase is evidenced.

Or maybe he doesn't actually have the financial resources to do it on his own.

Note that all of these unforeseen challenges don't say zilch about the validity of the phenomenon. They are  the mere vicissitudes of life and experimental physics.

What is bad PR is to oversell upcoming results and just copy-paste and slightly edit previous results. If he has nothing new, he shouldn't publish the same things as if they were new.

Like you I can only speculate on what Mr. Shawyer has actually accomplished.   I have done many experiments with high temperature superconductors (HTS) and have earlier expressed my doubts that HTS can be used to create high Q waveguides, especially at high power.    The vortex state in HTS results in high resistive losses at very low AC frequencies (> 60 Hz).  I have seen this effect myself.   As the magnetic field frequency goes up more power is dissipated and the liquid Nitrogen starts boiling away.  Companies that make HTS power cables for electrical utilities have developed proprietary methods of limiting this loss at 60 Hz.    I doubt there is much difference if the cavity is cooled to 70 K or is at room temperature and microwave power is injected into it.   The HTS is just a high resistance dielectric, not considering any metal layers it may contain.    My guess is that it was just an expensive experiment that failed but still has the potential to prime the pump for more funding.

Tags: