Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1880694 times)

Offline TheTraveller

I have yet to see a video of a continuously accelerating EmDrive (the Shawyer video does not of course count).

So simple to avoid data that doesn't fit your world view. Just ignore it and move on?



Will you reject my video data because it also will not fit your world view?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 02:39 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline zen-in

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

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.

Be sure to include a coolant pump on it and make sure the fluid gets pumped in the right direction.   If your em-drive rotates in the wrong direction it is because the fluid is being pumped the wrong way. :)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I have yet to see a video of a continuously accelerating EmDrive (the Shawyer video does not of course count).
I'd like to see that, too. Best I could provide is a constant holding force in mg with the fulcrum test. Small end will be down, will start off with incremental power settings...using a microwave oven's own controller. 10% to 100% in 10% increments. K.I.S.S.

Rotary/torsion platforms concern me, as the aachen guys are noticing. For even larger test devices, centrifugal/vibratory forces in pumps and fans could easily translate into rotary additive forces. No matter, to each their own.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820

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.

It is basically the same idea, yes. Particles are in equilibrium with their surrounding ZPF, or thermal field. When you exert a force on it, the Doppler shift uses that energy against you and resists it. However, in QED even the mass of the electron is only "partly" due to this effect. There are many other contributions, too complicated to list (or remember). The same is true for other particles, especially the hadrons, where it is the extremely high frequency ZPF trapped inside the bag that is undergoing the Doppler shift that makes them "heavy".

I once had the same idea, that a Low frequency modulation could have the same effect and induce forward momentum. However, I learned that even IF this works to achieve propulsion, the higher frequency waves would still experience Doppler shift, time dilation and length contraction. So it would not achieve a warp drive. In order to achieve warp drive, one must control the bandwidth of the ZPF that interacts with protons & nucleons, and induce the phase shift there. While still keeping the bag inflated to avoid length contraction and time dilation. Not so easy!
Todd


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
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
What is the reason that the photon rocket multiplier of all of them are so close to each other (500x) again?

Is that fact (that they are all so close) telling use the power of the equation to fit this disparate data (fitting the data with Shawyer's or McCulloch's formulae on the other hand leads to differences between them of orders of magnitude)

Is the reason why the NASA data is not included because it contains a dielectric insert?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 02:51 AM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

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

Dumb question alert - so linear acceleration dimishes with time? If so, at what rate of decay?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 02:53 AM by rfmwguy »

Offline TheTraveller

[
...

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.

Be sure to include a coolant pump on it and make sure the fluid gets pumped in the right direction.   If your em-drive rotates in the wrong direction it is because the fluid is being pumped the wrong way. :)



You can clearly see there is no movement until the magnetron frequency locks onto the cavity resonance frequency despite the fact that the magnetron was being cooled during the hunt sequence.

Despite the cavity being fill with enough energy to make steam of any internal moisture, there is no rotation.

Maybe you can explain how circulating coolant in a closed system can induce continual acceleration of the test rig but only for the period of magetron lock on?
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 02:53 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline zen-in

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

...

You can clearly see there is no movement until the magnetron frequency locks onto the cavity resonance frequency.

Despite the cavity being fill with enough energy to make steam of any internal moisture, there is no rotation.

Maybe you can explain how circulating coolant in a closed system can induce continual acceleration of the test rig but only for the period of magetron lock on?
Here's an experiment you can do:  Mount a motor and battery supply on a freely rotating turntable.  Apply power to the motor and the turntable spins.   The same result is seen if a fluid is being pumped.   Three words: conservation of momentum. 
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 02:59 AM by zen-in »

Offline rfmwguy

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

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.

Be sure to include a coolant pump on it and make sure the fluid gets pumped in the right direction.   If your em-drive rotates in the wrong direction it is because the fluid is being pumped the wrong way. :)

You can clearly see there is no movement until the magnetron frequency locks onto the cavity resonance frequency despite the fact that the magnetron was being cooled during the hunt sequence.

Despite the cavity being fill with enough energy to make steam of any internal moisture, there is no rotation.

Maybe you can explain how circulating coolant in a closed system can induce continual acceleration of the test rig but only for the period of magetron lock on?

Mr. T, without knowing how the system is designed, we don't know if fluids pump continously or with tube or thermal activation. Also, the hv transformer will undoubtedly induce additional mechanical vibrations. Circulating fluids and pumps cause torque and vibration in addition to a buzzing hv transformer...just making sure u take all this into account for ur own build, that's all.

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73
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

For comparison, the CERN guys' threshold was five sigma before announcing Higgs.
Retired, yet... not

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
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
What is the reason that the photon rocket multiplier of all of them are so close to each other (500x) again?

Is that fact (that they are all so close) telling use the power of the equation to fit this disparate data (fitting the data with Shawyer's or McCulloch's formulae on the other hand leads to differences between them of orders of magnitude)

Is the reason why the NASA data is not included because it contains a dielectric insert?

It is because I did not use their reported input power and frequency, and I did not take the difference between two forces. I used the resonant frequency of the energy at small end x Force reported x c, for the photon rocket power.  For my prediction, I used the difference in potential energy, not force. The ratio is close because (edit: I'm not comparing it to the input power, and) all the devices are nearly the same size.

The two highest ratios are where SPR has a range of data. I'm not sure what length goes with what end "force" result. If you or TheTraveler can help me narrow that down to a specific length and output force, I could update the table. I think the high values are my error, for not thoroughly checking Shawyer's results for the exact numbers.

Regarding NASA, yes exactly right. My formula does not consider dielectrics. That's a different animal. I am going to refine this some more and see what else I can predict (and design).
Todd
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 03:50 AM by WarpTech »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
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
I like that - it is a nice grouping.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 59
If a 'motion test' is needed...

...why not put the whole device, power supply and all, in a very small boat and test it in, say, a 'kiddie pool' or something similar?  That would be pretty dang close to frictionless, without the technical worries associated with the rotary test. 

Offline rfmwguy

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

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

For comparison, the CERN guys' threshold was five sigma before announcing Higgs.
yep, with that kinda money on the line, they'd best not make a wrong announcement ala cold fusion. Me? If I see it moving even once, I'm calling the National Enquirer...uhhh, maybe not ;)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
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

Dumb question alert - so linear acceleration dimishes with time? If so, at what rate of decay?

Acceleration is proportional to (1/M)*dM/dt. It is either gaining or losing mass to accelerate. The same applies to a photon rocket, or a chemical rocket. At no time will the kinetic energy exceed the total delta-Mass x c^2.
Todd
 

Offline TheTraveller

If a 'motion test' is needed...

...why not put the whole device, power supply and all, in a very small boat and test it in, say, a 'kiddie pool' or something similar?  That would be pretty dang close to frictionless, without the technical worries associated with the rotary test.

Very hard to collect data on that setup. Even harder to replicate test setups, test run per test run.

The idea of a test rig is to reduce unknows / things you can't control.

I hope to be able to achieve long term test runs that develop 1,000s of RPM from continual long term acceleration.
"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
If a 'motion test' is needed...

...why not put the whole device, power supply and all, in a very small boat and test it in, say, a 'kiddie pool' or something similar?  That would be pretty dang close to frictionless, without the technical worries associated with the rotary test.

Very hard to collect data on that setup. Even harder to replicate test setups, test run per test run.

The idea of a test rig is to reduce unknows / things you can't control.

I hope to be able to achieve long term test runs that develop 1,000s of RPM from continual long term acceleration.
So you truly are following in Shawyer's footsteps.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
There ought to be a word for people who know just enough physics to be dangerous  8)

Ok I'll shut up.
Shell, I hope that you were kidding and that you'll continue speaking your mind

He's right sometimes I get too excited. I have work to do and the one thing I don't like is putting together the math needed to do the upcoming tests.

I would love to see a attempt from those who love being critical, to not. Maybe in doing so find out that much can be gained from it and what they say will carry much more weight and garner more respect. I hope this is seen as very constructive criticism and I have a great deal of respect for the depth of knowledge presented here.

Shell > off to a late night in the shellshop.
Shell...your enthusiasm is welcomed, right or wrong is irrelevant. its part of ur personality and proves u are not jaded. Criticism is easy. proof or refutiation requires hard work and an inquisitive mind. attach some pics of the shellshop project when u get the chance....and don't shut up.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2015 03:46 AM by rfmwguy »

Offline rfmwguy

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

Dumb question alert - so linear acceleration dimishes with time? If so, at what rate of decay?

Acceleration is proportional to (1/M)*dM/dt. It is either gaining or losing mass to accelerate. The same applies to a photon rocket, or a chemical rocket. At no time will the kinetic energy exceed the total delta-Mass x c^2.
Todd
In effect, not a propellantless thruster?

Offline TheTraveller


...

You can clearly see there is no movement until the magnetron frequency locks onto the cavity resonance frequency.

Despite the cavity being fill with enough energy to make steam of any internal moisture, there is no rotation.

Maybe you can explain how circulating coolant in a closed system can induce continual acceleration of the test rig but only for the period of magetron lock on?
Here's an experiment you can do:  Mount a motor and battery supply on a freely rotating turntable.  Apply power to the motor and the turntable spins.   The same result is seen if a fluid is being pumped.   Three words: conservation of momentum.

Except the table did not move until the magnetron locked on. You can tell when that happened due to the video sync issues due to leakage from the large amount of EM energy in the now resonant cavity.

http://www.emdrive.com/testnotes.pdf

I'm not using a magnetron. All solid state. No pumps nor motors nor circulating coolants. Nothing moving on the table.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Tags: