Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1801985 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 07:31 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 deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.
I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 07:31 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.

I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?

Did ask for it, but so far nothing. Have not had any replies to my emails in some time. Normally happens when he is travelling and working with his clients.

As far as I know, the measured relationship between dropping Power and increasing Velocity has never been discussed before.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 07:39 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 deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.

I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?

Did ask for it, but so far nothing. Have not had any replies to my emails in some time. Normally happens when he is travelling and working with his clients.

As far as I know, the measured relationship between dropping Power and increasing Velocity has never been discussed before.
Well, it bears repeating that it's an excellent characteristic from the point of view of over-unity power generation. The acceleration looks approximately constant, and that's a measure of the thrust (mass is constant, a = F/m). So since k = F/Pin, and F is ~constant, and Pin is decreasing, then k is increasing.

Offline TheTraveller

Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.

I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?

Did ask for it, but so far nothing. Have not had any replies to my emails in some time. Normally happens when he is travelling and working with his clients.

As far as I know, the measured relationship between dropping Power and increasing Velocity has never been discussed before.
Well, it bears repeating that it's an excellent characteristic from the point of view of over-unity power generation. The acceleration looks approximately constant, and that's a measure of the thrust (mass is constant, a = F/m). So since k = F/Pin, and F is ~constant, and Pin is decreasing, then k is increasing.

Don't believe Force is ~constant. Believe Force it is dropping quite a bit.

F = (2 Q Df P) / c.

As Power is dropping, Force will also drop. Suggest the Power curve to the right of the start of Velocity increasing should also represent Force decreasing as Velocity increases.
"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
Design considerations for an over-unity EmDrive power generator
Caveat: this violates physical law. Proceed with extreme scepticism.

The system under consideration is a rotary EmDrive. One fact that has not yet been emphasised is that continuous power generation is only possible while the drive is accelerating. Rotation at constant speed will not produce constant net power, but will merely maintain constant rotational energy. Clearly rotational velocity cannot be allowed to increase without limit, and so the "preferred embodiment" will be to maintain a set of such generators, phased such that some are accelerating while some are decelerating, both under constant input power. The minimum speed will be roughly the effective power breakeven speed, and the maximum speed will be dictated by the mechanical constraints, chiefly the centrifugal stress. Therefore the entire set is constantly changing speed between these two limits.

The available output power (before efficiency is factored in) is d/dt(0.5 m v2) = m v a.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.

I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?

Did ask for it, but so far nothing. Have not had any replies to my emails in some time. Normally happens when he is travelling and working with his clients.

As far as I know, the measured relationship between dropping Power and increasing Velocity has never been discussed before.
Well, it bears repeating that it's an excellent characteristic from the point of view of over-unity power generation. The acceleration looks approximately constant, and that's a measure of the thrust (mass is constant, a = F/m). So since k = F/Pin, and F is ~constant, and Pin is decreasing, then k is increasing.

Don't believe Force is ~constant. Believe Force it is dropping quite a bit.

F = (2 Q Df P) / c.

As Power is dropping, Force will also drop. Suggest the Power curve to the right of the start of Velocity increasing should also represent Force decreasing as Velocity increases.
Valid observation, but it's a contradiction. That's to say that given equation you quote relating Force to input Power does not seem to apply.

The acceleration (a) is the slope of the velocity curve against time. Roughly speaking, that slope is positive and constant. That in turn implies constant Force, via F = m a.

My general impression is that is a very strange graph. For example, the speed continues to increase after the power is switched off!!
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 08:12 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Please read my updated version. I misread 1 N/KW as 1 N/W.
Best delete your reply back there, as it contains an invalid quote from me.

Did that.

Here is an interesting bit of old but forgotten data from the Demonstrator rotary test.

Note how the Power drawn from the power supply drops as the EMDrive accelerates and Velocity increases. In the attachment I took the measured Velocity curve, inverted it and placed it under the measured Power curve so the relationship is clearer.

Just maybe Shawyer is right and there is no overunity here.

I would draw the opposite conclusion. If, as velocity increases, power drops as acceleration remains approximately constant, then 'k' is increasing with speed. We only require it to stay constant, so that's better than we expect.

Do you have the raw data behind that graph?

Did ask for it, but so far nothing. Have not had any replies to my emails in some time. Normally happens when he is travelling and working with his clients.

As far as I know, the measured relationship between dropping Power and increasing Velocity has never been discussed before.
Well, it bears repeating that it's an excellent characteristic from the point of view of over-unity power generation. The acceleration looks approximately constant, and that's a measure of the thrust (mass is constant, a = F/m). So since k = F/Pin, and F is ~constant, and Pin is decreasing, then k is increasing.

Don't believe Force is ~constant. Believe Force it is dropping quite a bit.

F = (2 Q Df P) / c.

As Power is dropping, Force will also drop. Suggest the Power curve to the right of the start of Velocity increasing should also represent Force decreasing as Velocity increases.
Valid observation, but it's a contradiction. That's to say that given equation you quote relating Force to input Power does not seem to apply.

The acceleration (a) is the slope of the velocity curve against time. Roughly speaking, that slope is positive and constant. That in turn implies constant Force, via F = m a.

My general impression is that is a very strange graph. For example, the speed continues to increase after the power is switched off!!

What happens inside an accelerating cavity is not straightforward as cavity Q, resonant frequency and bandwidth window all modify under the influence of acceleration.

I'm sure your know what caused the additional straight line velocity increase post magnetron power off. They switched off the magnetron coolant pumps before the EMDrive had come to rest. If you watch the entire test video,

is clear there was no movement, despite the magnetron coolant pumps being on during the cavity resonant frequency search time.

BTW the frequency Shawyer calls out in the Video are from an IF strip. Need to multiple the frequency calls by 100 for cavity frequency.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 08:25 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 deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm sorry - they did what now? The power plot does not represent the actual input power?
Or the velocity plot does not represent the true velocity?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 08:27 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

I'm sorry - they did what now? The power plot does not represent the actual input power?

The Power plot is only for the Power used by the magnetron.

On board were various other support systems, including a coolant circulatory system for the magnetron.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 08:32 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 deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm only interested in the magnetron power of course. So the power plot is correct.

Now, please explain again how, with power turned off at the end, kinetic energy is being added to the system, as can be seen by a further increase in velocity after the power goes off.

Are you going to say that it's the stored cavity energy? I hope not, because that's not much at all.

Offline TheTraveller

I'm only interested in the magnetron power of course. So the power plot is correct.

Now, please explain again how, with power turned off at the end, kinetic energy is being added to the system, as can be seen by a further increase in velocity after the power goes off.

Are you going to say that it's the stored cavity energy? I hope not, because that's not much at all.

The post off coolant slosh effect was discussed in the 2009 SPR paper.

There is also a bit more data.

Note the impedance change comment in the 2nd Slosh attachment, which means the magnetron saw a higher load impedance and delivered less Power into the cavity.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 08:53 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 deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
So pumped coolant is contributing to the rotational energy, and is also capable of transferring angular momentum to the platform. Jumping Jehosophat. That is abysmal experimental technique, you know. Because it's impossible to separate any putative thrust due to the EmDrive from what the coolant pump is doing to the angular momentum. In fact, looking at the velocity slope due to the "slosh", the coolant pump appears to account for most of the action.

It didn't have to be designed like that.

As for that text snippet - if I told you what I really thought of that, I would probably be banned.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 09:00 AM by deltaMass »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5260
So pumped coolant is contributing to the rotational energy, and is also capable of transferring angular momentum to the platform. Jumping Jehosophat. That is abysmal experimental technique, you know. Because it's impossible to separate any putative thrust due to the EmDrive from what the coolant pump is doing to the angular momentum. In fact, looking at the velocity slope due to the "slosh", the coolant pump appears to account for most of the action.

It didn't have to be designed like that.

As for that text snippet - if I told you what I really thought of that, I would probably be banned.

Hat tip to zen-in.

Zen-In has been saying this from thread 1: that the response in Shawyer's Demonstrator rotary test was due to the sloshing fluid that the coolant pump on the air bearing was accounting for most of the action.

It was one of the first initial posts by Zen-In.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 09:20 AM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

So pumped coolant is contributing to the rotational energy, and is also capable of transferring angular momentum to the platform. Jumping Jehosophat. That is abysmal experimental technique, you know. Because it's impossible to separate any putative thrust due to the EmDrive from what the coolant pump is doing to the angular momentum. In fact, looking at the velocity slope due to the "slosh", the coolant pump appears to account for most of the action.

It didn't have to be designed like that.

As for that text snippet - if I told you what I really thought of that, I would probably be banned.

If you watch the video, there is no acceleration / velocity change, despite the magnetron coolant and pump system being operational pre the frequency lock on and start of acceleration. I assume once the pump was switched off, some coolant flowed into a storage tank and that mass movement was what caused the post power off slight increase in table velocity. Also note the slight velocity increase post power off was linear and not log.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

So pumped coolant is contributing to the rotational energy, and is also capable of transferring angular momentum to the platform. Jumping Jehosophat. That is abysmal experimental technique, you know. Because it's impossible to separate any putative thrust due to the EmDrive from what the coolant pump is doing to the angular momentum. In fact, looking at the velocity slope due to the "slosh", the coolant pump appears to account for most of the action.

It didn't have to be designed like that.

As for that text snippet - if I told you what I really thought of that, I would probably be banned.

Hat tip to zen-in.

Zen-In has been saying this from thread 1: that the response in Shawyer's Demonstrator rotary test was due to the sloshing fluid that the coolant pump on the air bearing was accounting for most of the action.

It was one of the first initial posts by Zen-In.



Got that wrong.

Maybe you can explain why there was no movement for 130 sec, yet the coolant pumps and coolant were at work cooling the magnetron, which in the 1st 130 sec was consuming much more power than during the acceleration phase?

Also observe the post power off slosh generated increase in velocity was linear and not log, despite the 130 to 210 sec acceleration velocity being log?
"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
Maybe the table was clamped until lock was achieved?

 There's a lot going on here, which is why it's such a shitty experiment. To even think of presenting that data in public is unthinkable (but he did). F'rinstance:
1. It searches for tune and eventually locks
2. The VSWR increases as the input impedance wanders off and the input power drops precipitously (no feedback)
3. The air bearing is doing its air bearing thing and jiggling stuff about in a way that isn't characterised
4. The coolant is circulating and has an angular momentum component with a finite dot product with the main axis of rotation, instead of being orthogonal to it (why?)
5. Equipment on the table has its own fans. Not discussed at all.

Just a mess. No attempt to calibrate out the various disturbances via control experiments. Completely amateurish.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 09:57 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Maybe the table was clamped until lock was achieved?

 There's a lot going on here, which is why it's such a shitty experiment. To even think of presenting that data in public is unthinkable (but he did). F'rinstance:
1. It searches for tune and eventually locks
2. The VSWR increases as the input impedance wanders off and the input power drops precipitously (no feedback)
3. The air bearing is doing its air bearing thing and jiggling stuff about in a way that isn't characterised
4. The coolant is circulating and has an angular momentum component with a finite dot product with the main axis of rotation, instead of being orthogonal to it (why?)
5. Equipment on the table has its own fans. Not discussed at all.

Just a mess. No attempt to calibrate out the various disturbances via control experiments. Completely amateurish.

If you actually read all the various papers about that test rig, per and post calibration runs were done for every test run.

The fans are for a reflected power radiator because as you say, while searching for the right frequency, almostcall the power is reflected from the cavity and like the Chinese test setup, you must be able to dump the reflected energy into a heat sink and then to get rid of the waste heat.

However once cavity lockon happens, there is very little reflected energy that needs to be turned into heat and discharged out the top of the unit.

So like the case of the coolant heat load being highest in the 1st 130 sec and no table movement, likewise the reflected power load would have been the highest heat load during the 1st 130 sec, yet no movement.

As for claiming the table was clamped, might as well also claim it had a small hidden remote controlled motor as all that would be fraud.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 11:25 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 TheTraveller

The Traveller's EMDrive independent Force verifier program

Would appreciate a email from those who are interested in verifying the Force generation from my 2.45GHz variation of the SPR Flight Thruster.

After I complete and publish my series of experimental tests on the EMDrive, I plan on making around 6 more EMDrive systems, complete with 100W Rf amp, frequency tracking control system, BlueTooth data logging and control system, plus the PC software to control the system.

Expected Force generation, at 100 Ws, should be around 60mN or 6gf.

Those who are willing to replicate my rotary test setup, will be considered to have sent to them, at my expense, all the above hardware for independent verification of the Force generation.

After the independent tester has verified and reported the Force generation, if they wish to keep the hardware I have supplied, it will be available to them at my cost.

If you wish to enquire further about this independent verification program, please email me:

"The Traveller E M D at g mail dot com" Of course remove the spaces, at = @ and dot = .

Have decided to make 7 EMDrive Force verification systems instead of 6.

System #1 will be sent to Roger Shawyer to find a worthy home in some deserving UK university that will publish their independent test results.

Requests are being received from other interested parties.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 10:50 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 TheTraveller

Maybe the table was clamped until lock was achieved?

 There's a lot going on here, which is why it's such a shitty experiment. To even think of presenting that data in public is unthinkable (but he did). F'rinstance:
1. It searches for tune and eventually locks
2. The VSWR increases as the input impedance wanders off and the input power drops precipitously (no feedback)
3. The air bearing is doing its air bearing thing and jiggling stuff about in a way that isn't characterised
4. The coolant is circulating and has an angular momentum component with a finite dot product with the main axis of rotation, instead of being orthogonal to it (why?)
5. Equipment on the table has its own fans. Not discussed at all.

Just a mess. No attempt to calibrate out the various disturbances via control experiments. Completely amateurish.

Would have been really simple for Shawyer to not include the post power off velocity gain in the chart. Real simple and no one would ever know.

But he didn't do that and explained why it happened.

What I see is a man being 100% transparent, showing us the real test data and explaining why the Murphy incident occurred.

Likewise he could have revideoed the test run and left the coolant pumps running post the magnetron power off and until the table stopped rotating.

But he did not and showed us the full video, speed bumps and all. I say that speaks volumes for his data and personal integrity.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 11:03 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

Tags: