Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803777 times)

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 107
Obvious troll is obvious. The same person is signing up several times to post his illerate rants. Don't respond to trolls. You should know better. The trimmed, troll banned.


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?
Just a little follow-up here to answer a question that some may be asking: "What is a reasonable value of Newtons/Watt such that overunity could be achieved with a rotary device in a terrestrial lab?"

It's a mechanical limitation. An aggressive spec. is something like 1,000 gee with a 1 metre radius arm. That's about 1,000 rpm and a tangential velocity of about 100 m/s. That in turn calls for a minimum k-value of
0.02 N/W.
Keep that figure in mind.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 11:02 PM by deltaMass »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
A month ago, jannaf held a propulsion conference in nashville. Cannot find papers or summaries about their propellantless topic. Anybody else find something or are they strictly private?

Offline arc

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • In port for a few weeks
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 32

No the laser is secured to the center of the beam.
Kinda like this... sorry for the quicky in paint.
Shell

Note: Added second laser to setup for control. A sharp lurker here and bless them saw that the PDF and my how I explained it was different. My bad and thanks to them for getting it.

I have used a slightly different setup before. An old 4.5 inch telescope mirror amplifying (through curvature) small lateral movements of a steel beam.  The laser was on a separate tripod stand sitting beside the middle of the steel balance arm, not attached to the arm. As the arm moved the mirror on the far end moved with relation to a stationary laser light. The curved mirror was on the far end of the balance arm reflecting back onto a steel ruler. You may be able to attach the laser to the gantry frame that is holding the experiment up off the floor. You may possibly have one of those curved makeup mirrors available.
 
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 11:37 PM by arc »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
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?
Just a little follow-up here to answer a question that some may be asking: "What is a reasonable value of Newtons/Watt such that overunity could be achieved with a rotary device in a terrestrial lab?"

It's a mechanical limitation. An aggressive spec. is something like 1,000 gee with a 1 metre radius arm. That's about 1,000 rpm and a tangential velocity of about 100 m/s. That in turn calls for a minimum k-value of
0.02 N/W.
Keep that figure in mind.

Your message reminded me of this post.  I would think the video in this link below for the rotary device must be experiencing much more than photon force in N/W and its acceleration doesn't appear to depend on its velocity all that much.  I would imagine it accelerates as effective if not more than the EM thruster would (if it does).  What is to stop this device from reaching over-unity as you propose it would for the thruster?  (I'm not saying that it is over-unity but I am trying to understand your claim in context of this device and the EM drive.)

One way to pin down this velocity dependent stuff is to imagine a rotary implementation. frobincat has already provided all the details of that, and I've discussed it too, going back to 1996 with my first chat with Woodward.

I wanted to suggest a possible parallel to propellant-less propulsion in a rotary sense.  Two examples come to mind that might qualify in this category.  One is the device in this video.  .  The device regardless of how fast it rotates can still have energy added to it by torquing against the force of the pull on the weights that pull towards the larger radius.  I think it qualifies as propellantless. 

Would these devices be in the same category as a propellantless thruster rotating in circles? 
If so, what is to stop them from reaching overunity? 

...

2nd video if you click the post.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 11:48 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
All YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
All YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.

This is a real engineered device and if you look at how it is made you can see how it will accelerate if you give it a spin and then give the weights torque [back and forth depending on if the weights are moving out or coming in].  (It is the same concept as that of a swing).  I don't believe the owner of the original video is claiming it is over unity and I am not (one later video does appear to claim so) but you claimed a propellant-less thruster above a certain efficiency would be over-unity.  The parallel line of thought is then to compare the thrust to another known form of propellant-less thrust. 
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 12:25 AM by dustinthewind »

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
All YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.

This is a real engineered device and if you look at how it is made you can see how it will accelerate if you give it a spin and then give the weights torque [back and forth depending on if the weights are moving out or coming in].  (It is the same concept as that of a swing).  I don't believe the owner of the original video is claiming it is over unity and I am not (one later video does appear to claim so) but you claimed a propellant-less thruster above a certain efficiency would be over-unity.  The parallel line of though is then to compare the thrust to another known form of propellant-less thrust.

As frobnicat, deltaMass and others have much better said: the claims of overunity logically follow from the claims of thrust per watt, independent from speed. No known device produces constant thrust at any speed, being that the defining characteristic of the fabled "reactionless" drives.

You say it produces 2 Newtons per watt? well, then when it exceeds 3 m/s it contains more kinetic energy than the energy you have spent pushing it. Anything faster and it's all gain for you.

It would behave as a windmill, extracting energy from the wind. But in this case, without wind or any known energy source.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 12:26 AM by tchernik »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
All YouTube "free energy" videos are junk. You are wasting people's time by posting them. The only quality of merit to be found is in those videos which are deliberate, but cleverly engineered, hoaxes. But I don't believe this thread should be concerned about the ingenuity required to pull off magic tricks.

This is a real engineered device and if you look at how it is made you can see how it will accelerate if you give it a spin and then give the weights torque [back and forth depending on if the weights are moving out or coming in].  (It is the same concept as that of a swing).  I don't believe the owner of the original video is claiming it is over unity and I am not (one later video does appear to claim so) but you claimed a propellant-less thruster above a certain efficiency would be over-unity.  The parallel line of though is then to compare the thrust to another known form of propellant-less thrust.

As frobnicat, deltaMass and others have much better said: the claims of overunity logically follow from the claims of thrust per watt, independent from speed. No known device produces constant thrust at any speed, being that the defining characteristic of the fabled "reactionless" drives.

You say it produces 2 Newtons per watt? well, then when it exceeds 3 m/s it contains more kinetic energy than the energy you have spent pushing it. Anything faster and it's all gain for you.

It would behave as a windmill, extracting energy from the wind. But in this case, without wind or any known energy source.

Would you then say the device in the video above for energy put in decreases in thrust with speed?

I suppose so in a sense because even classically E=1/2mv^2 and at rest E=0 and a change of 20 units of energy we then get sqrt(20*2/m)=v where as now we start with the device in motion at 2000 unit of energy and add 20.  The change in velocity is then sqrt(2020*2/m)-sqrt(2000*2/m)=vf-vi should be a smaller change in velocity than starting from rest.

I suppose then the issue is the em drive carrying no propellant on-board and still accelerating like a rocket (changing in velocity with time at a constant rate).   I don't know how we would know it would accelerate like a rocket yet. 

Thanks for the mental spar there.  I wanted to pick the concept apart so I could better understand what you all were saying. 
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 01:00 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 59
Elizabeth Greene - As you are pursuing a EM Drive build, and the various theorist, modelers, and others here need all the data available, would you mind entering your devices specifications into the wiki? 

Each new physical test, each new MEEP model or comparable simulation, positive or negative, adds a piece to the puzzle.   

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1662

.......

......


@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. ;)

Hm.  We may have a bit of a nomenclature issue here.  I was comfortable with your use of virtual particle but I have to admit that when I see virtual particle I often think of QV since they use that term a lot - and strictly speaking one can argue they are exactly what you describe above.

That said, do we invent a term that specifically refers to your use vs QV or do we expect everyone to understand the difference?   One possibility is "EM virtual particle" or EMVP. 

Edit: And thank you for the link.  That is an excellent and approachable discussion of virtual particles.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 01:05 AM by demofsky »

Offline tleach

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Berthoud, CO
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 100
As frobnicat, deltaMass and others have much better said: the claims of overunity logically follow from the claims of thrust per watt, independent from speed. No known device produces constant thrust at any speed, being that the defining characteristic of the fabled "reactionless" drives.

You say it produces 2 Newtons per watt? well, then when it exceeds 3 m/s it contains more kinetic energy than the energy you have spent pushing it. Anything faster and it's all gain for you.

It would behave as a windmill, extracting energy from the wind. But in this case, without wind or any known energy source.

Three quick questions:

1) Does WarpTech's non-linear gravity-like photon rocket theory/equation lose thrust efficiency as velocity increases in order to avoid the over-unity problem?

I am saying the thrust-to-power ratio can exceed 1/c by many orders of magnitude, yes. This is done by controlling the potential energy input at the small end of the waveguide and the exit velocity at the big end. This improves the thrust to power ratio significantly and does not violate any CoE or CoM. It's the standard rocket equation, with a non-linear term added onto it. It is getting a "boost" from the non-linear affect of a tapered waveguide, the same as one would get from falling in a gravitational field. I'm not saying it's gravity, I'm saying that there is a Newtonian potential energy gradient from the small end to the big end that pushes the energy out and pushes the waveguide forward.

Right now, I'm not ready to discuss anymore about closed frustums. My goal was to show how to enhance a photon rocket to explain the 10,000x a photon rocket thrust to power ratios we're seeing. I think I have successfully, "theoretically" done this. I have not done it numerically yet and I'm working to finish up the paper, where I present 3 different types of thrust to power equations for a photon rocket. A photon rocket is not quite as easily understood as a flashlight. :)
Todd

2) I know there's always room for debate, but wasn't all the energy and matter in the Universe created during the Big Bang (random quantum fluctuation with no external radiation pressure gone amok or some such)?  Isn't that a violation of Conservation of Energy?  Why does nobody ever bring that up?

3) Is there any possibility excessive extraterrestrial use of over-unity exotic matter power generating EM drives is why we see an accelerating expansion of the universe and no evidence of type 2 or 3 Kardashev civilizations?  Why harness the power of a star when you can extract energy directly from the ZPF and only modestly decrease the time it will take this universe to reach the "Big Rip"?

...
1. Small vibrations (heat) that are external to the drive's frustum: like a Brownian motor. An inertial ratchet could become buoyant by inducing its own pressure gradient: particles would impart more momentum on the large end than the small end.
...

Could you elaborate on this "buoyant" effect and provide some references?

It is interesting because in my model of QG, a particle like a proton behaves like a "bag" of zero point fluctuations that act as the "driving" function for the harmonic oscillations. Radiation reaction acts as a damping function and the two are in equilibrium. Gravity arises as a broken symmetry. If you amplify the ZPF in the correct bandwidth, it will inflate the bag, making it buoyant in a gravitational field.  It's very counter-intuitive that adding energy reduces the energy density, but that is exactly what happens, just like a hot air balloon. Gravity obeys PV~T. Adding energy to the ZPF inflates the oscillator by dx and the volume of the probability density increases by dx^3, lowering the total Energy density. This is "Exotic Matter", it is the opposite effect of gravitational time dilation and length contraction.

Energy => E/sqrt(K)
Length => L/sqrt(K)

Where K is the refractive index of the vacuum in a gravitational field. If K < 1, Energy goes up, while Energy density goes down, which is "equivalent to" adding negative energy density to a positive energy density.
Todd

P.S.  Question 3 is my idea of a lame joke...  Sorry about that.
T. Thor Leach

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259

Could you elaborate on this "buoyant" effect and provide some references?

It is interesting because in my model of QG, a particle like a proton behaves like a "bag" of zero point fluctuations that act as the "driving" function for the harmonic oscillations. Radiation reaction acts as a damping function and the two are in equilibrium. Gravity arises as a broken symmetry. If you amplify the ZPF in the correct bandwidth, it will inflate the bag, making it buoyant in a gravitational field.  It's very counter-intuitive that adding energy reduces the energy density, but that is exactly what happens, just like a hot air balloon. Gravity obeys PV~T. Adding energy to the ZPF inflates the oscillator by dx and the volume of the probability density increases by dx^3, lowering the total Energy density. This is "Exotic Matter", it is the opposite effect of gravitational time dilation and length contraction.

Energy => E/sqrt(K)
Length => L/sqrt(K)

Where K is the refractive index of the vacuum in a gravitational field. If K < 1, Energy goes up, while Energy density goes down, which is "equivalent to" adding negative energy density to a positive energy density.
Todd

This post caught my attention and I wanted to ask if the image I am about to attach is a similar concept to what you are talking about.  It is based on the idea of atoms and their atomic wavelengths interacting with the Quantum Vacuum wavelengths of about similar wavelength.  It suggest the nature of momentum is the interaction of the waves (similar to how a magnet resists acceleration on an aluminum sheet but not quite the same) and is responsible for resistance to acceleration.  It also suggests how we might induce artificial acceleration by reversing the relationship. 

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589

.......

......



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. ;)

Hm.  We may have a bit of a nomenclature issue here.  I was comfortable with your use of virtual particle but I have to admit that when I see virtual particle I often think of QV since they use that term a lot - and strictly speaking one can argue they are exactly what you describe above.

That said, do we invent a term that specifically refers to your use vs QV or do we expect everyone to understand the difference?   One possibility is "EM virtual particle" or EMVP. 

Edit: And thank you for the link.  That is an excellent and approachable discussion of virtual particles.
Maybe EMVP would be a good choice, I like it. Like I said I dislike Virtual Particle as it can be misconstrued to mean many things to different people. You are way beyond me in understanding the path and physics of the internal operations of not only the drive but in many other areas. All I can do is just look for links and actions that make sense. It's your expertise that can help refine the links I see.

Evanescent modes are solutions for the Helmholtz wave equation which have a imaginary eigenvalue for the electromagnetic wave vectors. *They have no spacial phase variation,
consequently their "phase shift is zero" during propagation*. Critical piece of information on how they can act on the normal harmonic waves and modes that have a high degree stored energy from the Q.

Got to eat some diner... I'll be back, so roll this around Todd and think how the EMVP's can be acted on by the Evanescent waves.

Shell

Offline TheTraveller

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


Thanks.

Will add them to my database.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
I reverse engineered the amount of energy storage required to exert the forces measured by SPR and Yang, using my non-linear force equation. I did not calculate the Q or use the reported input power, because I don't trust that data since no efficiencies or details of how that data was verified exist. So what this table shows is the Energy required and Power required to sustain that energy. If I were to calculate the "Loaded Q", this energy would be the "Loss per cycle", neglecting heat.

I think the numbers are rather reasonable, about 500X better than a photon rocket operating at the same frequency. Also, I used the resonant frequency of the small end diameter, not the input frequency in my calculation.
Todd

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
FWIW...Spaceflight being our topic, here's a minor diversion...nasa's fy 2015 budget summary below. Spaceflight is actually a small portion of their overall budget. ISS support tops the list, but earth science ranks high at about $1.8bil. Cross-agency (?) support ranks high as well.

Now I understand why EW may be underfunded. Its difficult to extract propulsion R&D allocation from this summary. I'm not against earth science, just thought noaa and the nws had their fingers on that pulse. Nasa operates about 21 earth monitoring birds, a bit surprising.

Advanced Spaceflight R&D may best be performed by private individuals and industry considering their budget austerity and "interesting" budget allocations. If any of us are waiting on them, check out the summary...the wait may be long.

Offline TheTraveller


...

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.

I have explained many times why Shawyer suggest a free to continuesly accelerate rotary EMDrive measurement system is superior to using a scale that limits the ability to continuesly accererate.

Shawyers recommendation are based on SPR experience in gathering experimental data as per
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

So while the earlier SPR experimental data still stands, for future testing, the ability for the EMDrive to be able to continuesly accelerate is the preferred method.

I'm building a rotary test system because it offers more data to collect such as Rf amp power consumption during measured acceleration in Motor mode and the ability to measure acceleration resistance in Generator mode. Can't do that using a scale.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I have yet to see a video of a continuously accelerating EmDrive (the Shawyer video does not of course count).

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
Three quick questions:

1) Does WarpTech's non-linear gravity-like photon rocket theory/equation lose thrust efficiency as velocity increases in order to avoid the over-unity problem?
...

Yes, it is inversely proportional to the momentum. So as you input more energy and it gains momentum, it becomes harder to push. In my post, I provided the rocket equation. So starting from a finite mass of ship + energy storage, the kinetic energy can never exceed the total energy it started with.
Todd

Tags: