Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1797479 times)

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1662
Could an explanation for the EmDrive's internal workings be paralleled to something like cavitation bubbles in liquid? Such as:

It's kind of a wild thought, but for some reason it made sense to me.

Initially this did not work for me because I like Shell's explanation earlier today about evanescenct waves creating virtual particles at the small end of the fustrum which disappear at the base.

However, in the video the cracks caused by the cavitation always appeared on the side of the bottle or test tube.  This is most likely due to the fact that the glass is stronger on the bottom than the sides.

This got me thinking about the chaotic behaviour exhibited by the Baby EM Drive when it was suspended by two lines. 

So if EM Drives start to develop side motion maybe it is due to something like cavitation behaviour at the base finding a weak spot and collapsing asymmetrically.

Kirck: Scotty! What the heck is going on!!  Scotty: Cap'n! We have cavitation leaks in the drives!!

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Duty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ;)):

1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)
2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)
3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)
4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)

We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.

As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.

Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner.    /end soapbox ramble.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

2014 Peer Review IAC 14 paper C4,8.5 final.pdf

I started making a page by page comparison between this newly uploaded paper and the earlier IAC 14 paper C4,8.5 final.pdf to determine what changes were introduced in the review process, but it turns out that the two pdf files are byte-identical.

Traveller, can you please confirm that you uploaded the correct paper, and that there were, in fact, no changes introduced into the paper during the review process.

~Kirk

Roger Shawyer told me his IAC 2014 paper was accepted for publication. He did not mention any changes.

Will ask him and report back.
Then what on Earth did you mean by saying that this new paper "will remove all doubt" when it's identical to a paper that's already published? That makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
Duty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ;)):

1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)
2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)
3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)
4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)

We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.

As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.

Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner.    /end soapbox ramble.

Maybe it is just me, personally, but I would like to be, statistically speaking, at least 95% confident I have something before I start crying wolf.

I only have one chance to have a first impression, and I want to be pretty sure it works before I give that up.

As you said, if not properly announced, demonstrated, and verified it's just another fluke. So, until I can convince myself, I will not be able to convince others.

-I

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
I will repeat my questions here, as it seems they disapeared in the flood of other issues:

* There is a net, non-zero Poynting vector over an integer number of periods.  This negates what Greg Egan showed, where he concluded that the Poynting vector is zero for an EM Drive.

Has this been demonstrated/accurately calculated? It has been shown that some slices of the data, when represented graphically appear to have large non-zeo Poynting vector.  I guess noone will object to this.  This does not mean that a) all slices (... infinitesimally small) exhibit the same behavior and b) that the many small (again, infinitesimally small) Poynting vectors which may or may not be graphically represented do not cancel out the large ones which dwarf them graphically.  Or am I missing something ?

* The Poynting vector is increasing with time.  This is required in more general situations (for radiation pressure all that is required is a non-zero average).  This is very significant.  It remains to be explored whether it is just a transient.

Roughly the same comment on this, but added to the potential need to consider much longer and finer time steps.  Has this been taken into account?

1) Your wording and statements are different than mine.   I stand 100% behind what I stated.  I don't agree with your wording.  Now I have one comment from WallofWolfStreet that it was intuitively obvious that the Poynting vector would not sum up to zero over an integer number of periods.  Your question negates the fact that it may be "intutively obvious" as you are asking the question.  However in retrospect I have to agree with WallofWolfStreet that with the RF feed on is not surprising that the Poynting vector average is not zero.

2) What is not intuitively obvious is that the Poynting vector increases with time. I have gone out of my way to state the obvious, that I only looked at 2 cycles and that it may be a transient.  I think that I stated that every single time

3) Aside from wording. You have access to the same numerical data that I do. They are in the csv files.    You and others can calculate the Poynting vector field as well from the data.

Dear Mr Rodal, I have copy/pasted what you have stated in several threads, these words are not mine.  Tell me if something I have quoted has been inadvertendly modified, which is doubtful.

1) I have asked a question, which is quite simple, namely: didn't we draw conclusions hastingly from one specific slice whereas all slices (ie to omega) must be considered to get the complete picture? In order to progress constructively in finding an answer to this question, I suggest to (re-)start studying the 2D case, as there exist only one slice in 2D.

2) Fair enough.  Still it does not rule out that things may happen between steps.  We would need to look at the asymptotic behavior for example, to gain some confidence in the analysis.

3) My purpose in life is to apply critical and logical thinking.  I have a track record of beating lawyers 110% of the time at that game ;). I do not need to look at the CSV files and I would not have a clue what the heck a Poyting vector is as this does not seem relevant to the question raised.

I am sorry to question intuitively obvious things, but I have been raised this way.  I tried my best to help confirming (or refuting) what seems obvious, and made concrete proposals above, but would appreciate more definitive evidence to be convinced as to me this is insufficient so far.   

Quote from: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

Quote from: Colonel Hans Landa
I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, where rumors, true or false, are often revealing.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 09:24 PM by deuteragenie »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 1740

.......

I also tried to point out many a post ago in (I think) the last EM drive thread, that a standing wave might be interpretable as an 'exotic' type of dynamically created massive particle. This whole tapered frustum actually looks to me as if this geometry squeezed one side of this dynamically created exotic particle equivalent. Assuming this point of view, this squeezed dynamic particle should then react and try to escape the squeezing towards the wider end of the frustum, hence being sort of accelerated, while the equivalent but opposite impulse is being imparted towards the smaller frustum end. If this were the case, the type of squeezing reaction might even depend on the type of exotic particle equivalent that is being dynamically generated in terms of frequency, energy density and field distribution/modes. Just the same as static types of particles have different properties that particle physics knows.
Yes, yes yes! Perfect. What wonderfully weird actions within 1/3 of a wavelength are occurring by the antenna?  A action the can impart spin and momentum and mass to that virtual particle that is being created within the small endcap? It is a evanescent wave action generating first order forces! Evanescent waves can move MIE particles, gold spheres and even charge your cell phone! This isn't a small force we're imparting to the virtual massive particles,  this is an evanescent wave action can move particles (MIE spheres with billions of atoms). The poynting vectors which give the momentum and spin of the massive virtual a direction to "push" and that's to the large end.

They head out to the large (*edit) end imparting force but being virtual particles that cannot exist without a corresponding real field from the small end cap they decay and disappear back into the Quantum vacuum. This action doesn't violate anything by making a virtual massive particle at the antenna adding energy and direction and thrust towards the large cavity end and then decaying back into the Quantum Vacuum.

I read somewhere and it went like this...  short-lived high-mass force-carrier particles seem to violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass -- their mass just can't come out of nowhere!" They can and they do, they are a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.  These high-mass particles come into being and seem to escape the standard model's notice somehow.

These massive virtual particles don't violate COE, in the end of the small cavity within 1/3 wavelength. Assisted by the evanescent waves they come into existence, The poynting vectors give them direction and upon decaying their kinetic energy plus their mass is imparted to the Frustum giving it acceleration and thrust.

......

Oh my!  This explanation really works for me!  I think this really explains the importance of the standing waves forming and collapsing.  I was impressed with the sinusoidal behaviour of the waves we saw in the animations of meep data. 

More specifically this is an excellent outline of how an EM drive would work as a closed system!!

@CW has the right idea, squeezed light is trying to move to the big end where it is less squeezed, and pushes the frustum the other way in the process. The main issue I have with @SeeShell's idea is that, there is not enough energy in the cavity to create a significant amount of "massive" virtual particles. It would be difficult to even prove that a single electron-positron pair is being created at these energy levels, even at the surface of the antenna. What is in the QV is orders of magnitude too small to couple to, at these energies. IF it could work as Dr. White surmised, as a QV MHD thruster, the amount of current density and magnetic field strength required would be enormous. The QV energy density is concentrated above frequencies > 1022Hz. Frequency  in the EM drive is many orders of magnitude below what the QV would need to couple to it.
Todd



Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
Duty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ;)):

1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)
2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)
3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)
4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)

We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.

As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.

Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner.    /end soapbox ramble.

Very good points to consider. I have so much work ahead of me that I'll be doing the basics to see if I can get thrust, if I do then things change in testing and verification.

Shell

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
@Rodal-
Meep can output the time slices as frequently as desired, up to once per time step, or 6527 h5 file time indices (data sets) per run. So instead 10 h5 data sets/cycle, there would result just over 200 h5 data sets/cycle. Neither I nor my computer can deal with that much data over a full run. It would be much smaller impact to increase the run time beyond 32 cycles.

As for increasing the csv data frequency, better to install the latest Meep from source, then explore the use of the newer features of the software to reduce the data at run time, prior to output. That means we would need to drop back 5 and punt, for now, but later we might have a stronger meep to support our efforts.
OK, I'm here trying to make sense of the units in your Meep output, in order to be able to interpret the time response.

We start with the output:

Quote
My latest run has completed. This is the output at the final step.

; run time set to 13.052188647619047 meep time                               This is printed output from control file set.
;Meep progress: 13.054/13.052188647619047 = 100.0% done in 6479.3s, -0.9s to go
;run 0 finished at t = 13.054 (6527 timesteps)
 

and there is extra information, that I need you to double check as to whether you know it for a fact to be precise to make calculations:

320 time slices in the whole run
32 cycles in the whole run (hence 10 time slices per cycle)
Scale Factor "a" = 0.3 meters

Then we start by calculating the Meep unit of time:

tMeep = a /c = 0.3 m / 299792458 m/s = 1.000692*10^(-9) seconds

Then we calculate the period, the time taken for one cycle:

Period = 13.054 tMeep / 32 = 4.082199*10^(-10) seconds

Frequency = 1/Period = 2.44966 GHz

This is very close to 2.45 GHz so it seems fine. (Don't need Harminv to calculate frequency if this is correct).

However, let's use the Finite Difference time step information:

time per time slice =( 6527 time steps/ 320 time slices) (13.054 timeMeep/6527 time steps)*(0.3 m/299792458 m/s timeMeep) =
                           = 4.082199*10^(-11) seconds/time slice

which is consistent with the previously obtained result for Period time, if one multiplies it by 10 time slices per period.

However, if you take a look at this picture, there are not 10 slices per period, but there are approximately 9 time slices per period:



multiplying


4.082199*10^(-11) seconds/time slices * 9 time slices = 3.673979 * 10^(-10) seconds

which gives:

2.7218 GHz frequency instead of  2.44966 GHz

QUESTION:

Where does the information come from that there there are exactly 10 time slices per cycle ?

How do you know that?

I can see that you may know that there are 320 time slices for the complete output. but how do you now that there are 10 time slices per cycle?

(after-time (* 30.7 T_meep)              ; to use, uncomment this and the closing parin.   
        (to-appended "ex" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-efield-x))  ; time evolution of fields.
        (to-appended "ey" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-efield-y))
        (to-appended "ez" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-efield-z))
        (to-appended "hx" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-hfield-x))
        (to-appended "hy" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-hfield-y))
        (to-appended "hz" (at-every (* .1 T_meep) output-hfield-z)) )   )
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline zen-in

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

...

The extraordinary claims made in the 1st 3 pages, especially in Table 1 on page 1, which mean the mentioned EMDrives work as claimed and are now peer reviewed history. Accept them as factual and move on to new fields.

As for your other physicists, I sure hope they have not dug themselves in so deep, they can't retract their views.

Earlier in this thread you disputed the validity of any results from any em-drive that did not use Mr. Shawyer's rotational displacement method.  I commented on that and have not heard a reply from you.   So I will repeat:   If all these other experiments are invalid and therefore cannot be considered replications of Mr. Shawyer's experiment one has to assume there are has been no replication.    But now you are saying these other experiments somehow validate Mr. Shawyer's experiment.   So which is it?   Are all these experiments invalid because they don't use a rotational displacement apparatus or are they replications?   I have not seen any data from any em-drive that would indicate that this claimed phenomenon exists.   Peer reviewed or not this latest paper doesn't provide any data to support this claim.   I don't fault the reviewers or Mr. Shawyer.   Anyone is free to submit a paper that proposes some new, unproven hypothesis to the AIAA.    I think where the reviewers might scrutinize the paper more closely would be if the paper included experiment data that was interpreted in an unscientific way.   Since none of Mr. Shawyer's papers have include actual experimental data he is fine on that account.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 09:37 PM by zen-in »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...My purpose in life is to apply critical and logical thinking.  I have a track record of beating lawyers 110% of the time at that game ;)
No Sir, I did not draw conclusions hastingly,but after careful analysis.  I don't have any interest here in convincing you of anything, on the contrary, I would prefer if others independently do their own independent calculations.   I am interested in convincing myself of what is going on (and remain to this point unconvinced whether the EM Drive is a genuine propulsion device and if so how is this happening). Concerning your experience beating lawyers 110% of the time, I have been a successful science and technology Expert Witness in litigation, where the purpose is not to beat lawyers but to prove the case to Judge and Jury (at least in the USA and Canada, where I have been an Expert Witness), but I'm not an expert witness in this forum.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 10:03 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I see that Shawyer's "latest paper"  8)  contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?

Offline SeeShells

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

.......

......


@CW has the right idea, squeezed light is trying to move to the big end where it is less squeezed, and pushes the frustum the other way in the process. The main issue I have with @SeeShell's idea is that, there is not enough energy in the cavity to create a significant amount of "massive" virtual particles. It would be difficult to even prove that a single electron-positron pair is being created at these energy levels, even at the surface of the antenna. What is in the QV is orders of magnitude too small to couple to, at these energies. IF it could work as Dr. White surmised, as a QV MHD thruster, the amount of current density and magnetic field strength required would be enormous. The QV energy density is concentrated above frequencies > 1022Hz. Frequency  in the EM drive is many orders of magnitude below what the QV would need to couple to it.
Todd

I hate the word virtual particles because they are not particles at all but disturbances in the fields of two passing real world particles, but the forces that are created bear  characteristics of real particles. What got me going on this is reading Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's Q&A on virtual particles.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ This is a good primer for anybody to read.

"Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves.  A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

On virtual particles....
"It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle.  However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass."

...And this is what I feel the evanescent waves are acting on. Not a real particle at all but just a group of wave functions created that can carry energy and momentum. If they can carry it they can be acted on.

Still make sense?   

Shell

Note: WaveTech, I really want to thank you for taking your time to reply to little old lady me. ;)

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
  • France
  • Liked: 651
  • Likes Given: 900
Don't forget this is the 2nd peer reviewed EMDrive paper, the 1st being the Chinese paper as attached.
[* 2013 NWPU 2013.pdf]
the various statements made there confirming for the 2nd time in a peer reviewed paper (Chinese peer review was 1st) the EMdrive generates Force as claimed.

So far Dr. Juan Yang et al. published 5 papers about the EmDrive through peer-review:

ZHU, Yu; YANG, Juan; MA, Nan (September 2008). "The Performance Analysis of Microwave Thrust Without Propellant Based On The Quantum Theory". Journal of Astronautics (in Chinese) 29 (5): 1612–1615.

YANG, Juan; YANG, Le; ZHU, Yu; MA, Nan. "Applying Method of Reference 2 to Effectively Calculating Performance of Microwave Radiation Thruster". Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University 28 (6): 807–813. [Original in Chinese]

Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Li, Peng-Fei; Wang, Yang; Wang, Yun-Min; Ma, Yan-Jie (2012). "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters". Acta Physica Sinica (in Chinese) (Chinese Physical Society) 61 (11). doi:10.7498/aps.61.110301

Yang, Juan; Wang, Yu-Quan; Ma, Yan-Jie; Li, Peng-Fei; Yang, Le; Wang, Yang; He, Guo-Qiang (May 2013). "Prediction and experimental measurement of the electromagnetic thrust generated by a microwave thruster system". Chinese Physics B (IOP Publishing) 22 (5): 050301. doi:10.1088/1674-1056/22/5/050301

Feng, S.; Juan, Y.; Ming-Jie, T. (September 2014). "Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system". Acta Physica Sinica (in Chinese) (Chinese Physical Society) 63 (15): 154103. doi:10.7498/aps.63.154103

« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 09:58 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline deuteragenie

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

No Sir, I did not draw conclusions hastingly,but after careful analysis.  I have S.B., S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Aero & Astro, specialize in the field of numerical analysis and 35 years of experience in R&D.  I have carefully examined the problem, and have carefully chosen my words.  Obviously the graphical data presented is only a small amount of what I have examined.  I don't have any interest here in convincing you or anybody else of anything, on the contrary, I would prefer if others independently do their own independent calculations.   I am interested in convincing myself of what is going on (and remain to this point unconvinced whether the EM Drive is a genuine propulsion device and if so how is this happening). Concerning your experience beating lawyers 110% of the time, I have been a successful Scientific Expert Witness in litigation, where the purpose is not to beat lawyers but to prove the case to Judge and Jury (at least in the USA and Canada, where I have been an Expert Witness).

Dear Mr Rodal. 

I have unfortunately no degrees at all but even more unfortunately still the same questions. 

As it is not possible  to determine a "limit to infinity" from the Meep analysis, I will not endeavour to study the problem from this necessarily incomplete data as this would clearly be a waste of time to try demonstrating the existence of a net Poynting vector over the (3D) enclosed volume in question from said data. Many nice pictures can be produced, and I have contributed a few, but this will not answer the questions raised above.

Despite these objections, I feel that the Meep analysis done so far have provided a lot of very useful information for experimenters.  Great thanks to aero et al for their wonderful contributions, and to you for providing particularly useful insights !

My apologies for raising stupid questions: I am in a bad mood today as it is Waning Gibbous.

This will be my last message in this board.  Good luck to all.  See you on the other side of the galaxy if/when the drive works. 

Quote from: Walt Disney
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 10:18 PM by deuteragenie »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
One of the more piquant consequences of a self-contained (rotary) overunity energy system is that it makes interstellar travel a snap relative to our current options. Acceleration will increase with time at no fuel cost.
Here are some ship times based on special relativity, when travelling to the nearest star (Alpha Centauri, 4.2 lightyears distant), at various constant accelerations, accelerating to halfway and then braking the other half of the way.
0.1 gee          12.5 years (0.57c max)
1 gee              3.5 years (0.95c max)
10 gee            8.9 months (>0.99c max)
100 gee          1.4 months (>0.99c max)
1,000 gee        7.3 days (>0.99c max)
10,000 gee      18 hours (>0.99c max)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...
Quote from: Walt Disney
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.

Well, I for one will be sorry to see you go and I hope you reconsider as you have made very valuable contributions to this forum, and wish that you continue to help us with your intelligent and helpful contributions. 
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 10:11 PM by Rodal »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
One of the more piquant consequences of a self-contained (rotary) overunity energy system is that it makes interstellar travel a snap relative to our current options. Acceleration will increase with time at no fuel cost.
Here are some ship times based on special relativity, when travelling to the nearest star (Alpha Centauri, 4.2 lightyears distant), at various constant accelerations, accelerating to halfway and then braking the other half of the way.
0.1 gee          12.5 years (0.57c max)
1 gee              3.5 years (0.95c max)
10 gee            8.9 months (>0.99c max)
100 gee          1.4 months (>0.99c max)
1,000 gee        7.3 days (>0.99c max)
10,000 gee      18 hours (>0.99c max)

The big conceptual problem with any reactionless/accelerating device providing constant thrust at any speed is precisely this humongous accumulation of kinetic energy (because anything massive traveling at such speeds is obscenely energetic). Energy that would be usable for making relativistic killer vehicles just as well as it would be for doing probes and starships.

And this is also the main reason to be very skeptic of them all. They break known physics as much as they break other assumptions about life and the universe.

This doesn't prove the Emdrive doesn't exist, though, because we have already entered into empiric demonstrations of it, and those (when they work) topple even the best of theories. Experiments must tell what's going on, and some theoretical modeling and explanations can help find better ways to do it.

I'd be surprised if this is actually a trick for going around CoM and CoE, though,  probably it's a very ingenious measurement error or in the best of worlds,  just a novel way to interact with some background field (including gravity). But in a discussion between who's right: theory or experiments, I would have to side with whatever replicable experiments say.

« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 10:24 PM by tchernik »

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3
So I'll modify my magnetron (which can be done) get 100% duty and double the thrust? I'm not really jazzed about that as WarpTech (and I) think that the DC component from the magnetron assists in the thrust. I'll take this first step with a 50% acceleration component if that's what it is.

No modification to the Magnetron is required (besides cooling).  The real changes would be to the power supply.  The 50% duty cycle comes from the way the power supply is constructed.  It is a half-wave voltage doubler.  The transformer takes 60hz 120v(ish) from the wall socket and steps it up to ~2500 volts AC.  During the positive half of the AC wave the magnetron receives the voltage from the capacitor (~2500 volts) plus the voltage from the transformer.  The other half of the 60hz cycle is negative and the magnetron gets nothing because the diode is diverting the negative voltage off to ground.  Replace this kit with a constant voltage current limited 5,000v-ish DC supply and 100% duty cycle is yours for the taking.  As a bonus you'll get the ability to somewhat modify the power output too.

If you want an alternative path to more power, pull a waveguide off of your resonator and mount two identical magnetrons facing each other in it.  They will slave (* more appropriately called injection locking) together like magic.  You can stick more than two of them in the same waveguide, at anti-node intervals.  Low budget linear accelerators do this to get more power into the box, though they usually will use a circulator instead of just a waveguide.  Impedance match this waveguide to your resonator or the magnetrons closest to it will take severe abuse from the power leaking back from the resonator.

For cooling I've wrapped my magnetron with flexible copper tubing for cooling and am using thermal switches so they don't cook.  Used microwaves are cheap, but there is no sense in frying the magnetrons unnecessarily.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
So I'll modify my magnetron (which can be done) get 100% duty and double the thrust? I'm not really jazzed about that as WarpTech (and I) think that the DC component from the magnetron assists in the thrust. I'll take this first step with a 50% acceleration component if that's what it is.

No modification to the Magnetron is required (besides cooling).  The real changes would be to the power supply.  The 50% duty cycle comes from the way the power supply is constructed.  It is a half-wave voltage doubler.  The transformer takes 60hz 120v(ish) from the wall socket and steps it up to ~2500 volts AC.  During the positive half of the AC wave the magnetron receives the voltage from the capacitor (~2500 volts) plus the voltage from the transformer.  The other half of the 60hz cycle is negative and the magnetron gets nothing because the diode is diverting the negative voltage off to ground.  Replace this kit with a constant voltage current limited 5,000v-ish DC supply and 100% duty cycle is yours for the taking.  As a bonus you'll get the ability to somewhat modify the power output too.

If you want an alternative path to more power, pull a waveguide off of your resonator and mount two identical magnetrons facing each other in it.  They will slave (* more appropriately called injection locking) together like magic.  You can stick more than two of them in the same waveguide, at anti-node intervals.  Low budget linear accelerators do this to get more power into the box, though they usually will use a circulator instead of just a waveguide.  Impedance match this waveguide to your resonator or the magnetrons closest to it will take severe abuse from the power leaking back from the resonator.

For cooling I've wrapped my magnetron with flexible copper tubing for cooling and am using thermal switches so they don't cook.  Used microwaves are cheap, but there is no sense in frying the magnetrons unnecessarily.
Wow. Very nice. FWIW I have in my designs (for the future) the same 2 magnetrons slaved!

I had no idea you were pursuing a build. If you would like to share, that would be great or not. Your call.

shell

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
So I'll modify my magnetron (which can be done) get 100% duty and double the thrust? I'm not really jazzed about that as WarpTech (and I) think that the DC component from the magnetron assists in the thrust. I'll take this first step with a 50% acceleration component if that's what it is.

No modification to the Magnetron is required (besides cooling).  The real changes would be to the power supply.  The 50% duty cycle comes from the way the power supply is constructed.  It is a half-wave voltage doubler.  The transformer takes 60hz 120v(ish) from the wall socket and steps it up to ~2500 volts AC.  During the positive half of the AC wave the magnetron receives the voltage from the capacitor (~2500 volts) plus the voltage from the transformer.  The other half of the 60hz cycle is negative and the magnetron gets nothing because the diode is diverting the negative voltage off to ground.  Replace this kit with a constant voltage current limited 5,000v-ish DC supply and 100% duty cycle is yours for the taking.  As a bonus you'll get the ability to somewhat modify the power output too.

If you want an alternative path to more power, pull a waveguide off of your resonator and mount two identical magnetrons facing each other in it.  They will slave (* more appropriately called injection locking) together like magic.  You can stick more than two of them in the same waveguide, at anti-node intervals.  Low budget linear accelerators do this to get more power into the box, though they usually will use a circulator instead of just a waveguide.  Impedance match this waveguide to your resonator or the magnetrons closest to it will take severe abuse from the power leaking back from the resonator.

For cooling I've wrapped my magnetron with flexible copper tubing for cooling and am using thermal switches so they don't cook.  Used microwaves are cheap, but there is no sense in frying the magnetrons unnecessarily.
Wow. Very nice. FWIW I have in my designs (for the future) the same 2 magnetrons slaved!

I had no idea you were pursuing a build. If you would like to share, that would be great or not. Your call.

shell
Well now...a lurking experimenter? C'mon elizabeth, throw your hat into the ring...us builders need the moral support ;) what's the scoop?

Tags: