Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1797727 times)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.

And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.

I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).

I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.

If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion? Is it not also fair to also give credit where credit is due?

After all. Do you think that the first human that discovered the wheel could explain why it worked? Does that mean that there was ("as you say") no ("true research") by the original builder of the wheel, until the reasons why the wheel worked could be explained in full detail, by others?

After all. Even Newton was not 100 percent correct with all his known statements, Yet we still respect him on what he was correct about vs. trash talking him about what he was incorrect about.

Note: We as humans have been manipulating atoms in many ways, for many reasons and for many purposes, for some time now. However, only recently have we been able to determine why atoms have mass.

Don
Well written for a newbie to the forum, congrats. I think lurkers might get the impression that advocacy science is being done here when most of it is the opposite. Think serious theorists and builders here have a healthy dose of skepticism...which is a good thing. People looking for free energy or perpetual motion machines will tire of our discussions quickly and move along. I'm enjoying all the well written critiques and challenges. "It ain't gonna work" statements are, well...cheap and easy obviously without much deep thought/effort behind them.

For me, its like Shell said upthread...looking up at the night sky as a kid and seeing Sputnik race by inspired her to think outside the box. Me too only it was Echo One that captured my imagination. Nothing may come of my NSF-1701 project, but the build, the enjoyable conversations...and the POSSIBILITY are motivation enough. I choose not to sit back and throw stones, but to participate. Why wait for others? Heat up that soldering iron and have some fun.

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40797.php

Here's a high Q cavity for light that's a bit weird. Nobody has noticed it moving about  8)

Beautiful and quite symmetrical.

Offline TheUberOverLord

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • U.S.
    • Secure Methods To Display IP Cameras In Websites
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
I like the idea because I actually think THAT the EMDrive IS a myth. And nothing else.

And it definitely should be the matter of Mythbusters and not of serious scientists.

I disagree. From the independent scientific level Dr. Rodal and the others here are actually very sceptic about the EmDrive. Still their research based on rigorous work is starting to show that there may be something into it. You have to understand that even after the years of claims that EmDrive works (claimed by Mr. Shawyer) the true research begun only just now ( from the time NASA EW and chinese folks showed their first results).

I learned here that too much shouting why it can and why it can not work leads to dead end only and proves nothing.

If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion? Is it not also fair to also give credit where credit is due?

After all. Do you think that the first human that discovered the wheel could explain why it worked? Does that mean that there was ("as you say") no ("true research") by the original builder of the wheel, until the reasons why the wheel worked could be explained in full detail, by others?

After all. Even Newton was not 100 percent correct with all his known statements, Yet we still respect him on what he was correct about vs. trash talking him about what he was incorrect about.

Note: We as humans have been manipulating atoms in many ways, for many reasons and for many purposes, for some time now. However, only recently have we been able to determine why atoms have mass.

Don
Well written for a newbie to the forum, congrats. I think lurkers might get the impression that advocacy science is being done here when most of it is the opposite. Think serious theorists and builders here have a healthy dose of skepticism...which is a good thing. People looking for free energy or perpetual motion machines will tire of our discussions quickly and move along. I'm enjoying all the well written critiques and challenges. "It ain't gonna work" statements are, well...cheap and easy obviously without much deep thought/effort behind them.

For me, its like Shell said upthread...looking up at the night sky as a kid and seeing Sputnik race by inspired her to think outside the box. Me too only it was Echo One that captured my imagination. Nothing may come of my NSF-1701 project, but the build, the enjoyable conversations...and the POSSIBILITY are motivation enough. I choose not to sit back and throw stones, but to participate. Why wait for others? Heat up that soldering iron and have some fun.

Thanks.

When I performed maintenance on my first water cooled 10 KW klystron amplifier in Martina Franca Italy, using my Air Force training ("click for more detail and photos") everything went well. My eyesight was fine afterwards and and I was also able to have children in the future  8)

Yet, I did not have a full grasp on all details on how a klystron amplifier functioned. While I never created a klystron amplifier I was dangerous enough to be tasked to maintain them. So I personally think it's not fair to discredit a creator of something, simply because they can't accurately explain how it works, in all ways, in great detail.

Hence my reason for posting on how much intimate detail of how a wheel works did the creator of the wheel actually have analogy in my prior post here.

Don
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 02:03 PM by TheUberOverLord »
EM Drive builders can use these free Interfaces to show their tests live using any IP Cameras in websites Click for live demo examples

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • USA
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 41
Its the missing link of GUT...giving away some working theories of mine, if thrust appears, I predict it will differ towards and away from a gravitational source. Interested? Hope so...its a hot potato subject you know.

I would have to agree, the gravitational dispersion would add or subtract with the direction of the cavity.
I am curious as to where you intend to get a "good supply" of gravity (or of its gradient or indeed of the curl of its potential  ;) ) when navigating in deep space?
Here is where it may fall apart...perhaps the effect is only noticeable in an intense gravity field. Lots of testing needs to be completed...onwards and upwards.

If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.

So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.

You're getting your SF mixed up. An Alderson point is where you want to be when you fire up the Alderson drive.

Right. The Alderson point was free of gravitational influences that would make the Alderson drive non-functional. If the Emdrive needs to "push" on a gravitational field, you need to avoid the Alderson point.

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3

If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mr. Shawyer discovered the emdrive effect while researching excessive position keeping fuel consumption in a flight vehicle in orbit.

Am I wrong in that?  I can't find a source for it now.

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 760

If EM drives requires a "good supply" of gravity, it won't work in deep space, but it would still be a very useful device for interplanetary travel. A spacecraft with EM drives in LEO could rapidly accelerate and build up enough velocity to travel to another planet before it is too far out of Earth's gravitational field.

So now we have to map Alderson points, and avoid them before we make the jump.

You're getting your SF mixed up. An Alderson point is where you want to be when you fire up the Alderson drive.

Right. The Alderson point was free of gravitational influences that would make the Alderson drive non-functional. If the Emdrive needs to "push" on a gravitational field, you need to avoid the Alderson point.

Good point. Your ship could coast to the jump point, but after exiting on the other side the EM drive would be useless. Not a good combination of SF technologies.

Getting away from SF and back to reality, assuming an EM drive does produce thrust, what are the implications of the various theories people have been discussing?

Roger Shawyer's theory allows for EM drives with a thrust to mass ratio greater than one, powerful enough to launch from Earth's surface. Not restricted to external conditions or fields, Shawyer's drive could be used for rapid interplanetary travel and even interstellar missions. Hard to imagine a system that would have a bigger impact on space travel, greatly reducing costs and travel time.

Per the discussion above, an EM drive dependent on the strength of the local gravitational field would be useful for orbital operations, but would be limited in interplanetary operations. Build up enough velocity early and it could send a spacecraft to other planets. Going to a low gravity object, such as an asteroid, would be problematic since the EM drive could not be used for the return trip due to the weak gravitation field of the asteroid. If such an EM drive had a thrust to mass ratio greater than one, if would also revolutionize getting to LEO.

What about the other theories people have proposed? Do they fit the two scenarios listed above or do they have different implications?

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
As history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs our friends and who discovered fire? It's all lost to time and memory but the impact of those discoveries cave carries through the centuries. I hope the writer in the Forbes article was right that this will be like discovering fire.
-------------------------------------
On another thought...

Just about everyone here knows by now I'm a visual kinda gal and even though I can cluck like a chicken, scratching out the formulas in the dirt. Still I like to visualize waves and interactions, it's much faster.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/clouds/maxwell/total_internal_reflection.html

This is beautiful, a reflection from a 45 degree wall of perfect reflector (like to do this in meep with a small perforated copper sheet a a 6.1 degree angle of incidence)... hint hint.

Several things that have been bothering me on my build and have been from the start. The antenna placements are all over the place from resonate chambered iris to dipoles to just reflecting off the ground planes of the endplates and or inserted into the nodes of a mode internally (TT's).

What configuration really enhances thrust, or let's say produces any thrust? The answer is with a few boundary rules of resonance and good Q ... all have.

The answer is right there in front of us, not in the antenna small end vs big end or side wall waveguide insertion it's in making sure a few simple harmonic actions are there. It's in the data very clearly posted by the builders.

The last month I've been struggling like rfmwguy to place my antenna... somewhere along I realized it might not matter if a few basics were met. Get the thing to resonate and generate a clean mode action increasing and stabilizing a good Q. Boom, thrust!

I've tried to get someone to do a meep with not only the harmonics of the wave actions but the evanescent waves. Even WarpTech remarked once they are everywhere, he was so right.

If I couple the strange and spooky high order actions of a evanescent wave reflecting of the side walls (like they do on the reflector animation). I see through that perfect reflector evanescent waves are in inside and outside.

When I couple the actions reported in this paper "Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves"
Konstantin Y. Bliokh1,2, Aleksandr Y. Bekshaev3,4, and Franco Nori3,5,6

I see a first order effect of a stripped down version of a real wave (love that) with extraordinary action imparting spin and momentum acting on the medium around and in by even moving particles comprised of billions of atoms. Waves generated like the EMDrive. Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?

My hot tub thoughts this morning. That was so good I may jump in again need to flesh this out in the effanscant bubbles of the tub.

Still think the Perforated Copper sheeting for the EMDRive is a bad one? I don't know? All I know is I want to build it and make it so.

I think we have built a gigantic pair of EM evanescent wave tweezers grabbing particles and throwing them around to create thrust. I like this thought.

Shell

double slit wording lol
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 02:47 PM by SeeShells »

Offline TheTraveller

According to present data, testing the EMDrive with input powers at or above 1 MW is necessary to reach a thrust that can actually be experienced without doubt of measurement errors.

Achieving a thrust level high enough to lift an object would (as done by Goddard with chemical rockets) finally convince people to adequately fund R&D in this area.

Let us gather enough supporters to send an E-Mail to Mythbusters.

They definitely have the money and means to use a Gyrotron, Klystron or a similar powerful microwave source and build a simple truncated cone microwave resonator to see whether they can achieve a level of thrust high enough to convince people to fund adequate R&D in this area.

100Ws will generate more than enough Force, if applied to a 20kg load on a 1.5 mtr wide rotary table, to generate continual acceleration for many minutes, going from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm or 2 rps. All cordless, totally self contained.

Can then repeat that process, over and over again, until the 24v 24AH SLA batteries are drained.

There will be no doubt, after such a demo that the EMDrive works as Shawyer has claimed since 2002.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline rfmwguy

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

If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mr. Shawyer discovered the emdrive effect while researching excessive position keeping fuel consumption in a flight vehicle in orbit.

Am I wrong in that?  I can't find a source for it now.
That is correct as far as the legend goes. How much drift, what type of satellite, what kind of power being transmitted at what frequency...who knows.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249

If the EM Drive turns out to be a valid form of propellant-less propulsion?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Mr. Shawyer discovered the emdrive effect while researching excessive position keeping fuel consumption in a flight vehicle in orbit.

Am I wrong in that?  I can't find a source for it now.
That is correct as far as the legend goes. How much drift, what type of satellite, what kind of power being transmitted at what frequency...who knows.
Microwave transmission for such man-made objects in orbit do not use closed cavities in Faraday cages. So the story doesn't make sense with why he chose a closed cavity. 

Microwave transmission dishes:  (completely open at the wide end)



The fact that a microwave transmitter (open at the wide end) has an (extremely small) energy flux out of it is not controversial, it was well known much before Shawyer did anything.  It could be well calculated by Aerospace Engineers.  What Shawyer did was to propose propulsion from a completely closed cavity which is, Ahem, controversial to say the least (it certainly violates conservation of momentum), and which has no verification for vehicles in orbit.

If there would have been verification of propulsion for closed microwave cavities in orbit, Shawyer's concept would not be so controversial, and so universally derided in academia (i.e. Prof. Sean Carroll at CalTech, Prof. Baez, etc.).
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 03:27 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
NSF-1701 update...good news for meepers, I have not yet placed the magnetron into the frustum. I will this weekend, so here's ur chance to suggest placement. Suggest wavelength placement and locale...near big, near small or centered. I was planning on 1/2 wavelength from small end...doesn't matter to me. Julian moved from large end to center...meepers can respond.

Based on the Wolfram Mathematica analysis of the Meep model, the antenna RF feed should be close to the small end, in the location that aero modeled (aero to respond as to exact location).

According to this model, the antenna at the big end is a no-no.  Bad, because it equalizes the pressure distribution at both ends.

We have meep data on this Doc? For the big end?

Shell
Rigorously speaking the question cannot be answered until there is an accepted proof of how this thing can generate any thrust and not be an experimental artifact. 

My comment was made on a quick visual inspection of a run that aero made of one of your models with the antenna close to the big end.  I need to perform further analysis of the data to have confidence about it.  Hopefully within the next few days.
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 03:21 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...I've tried to get someone to do a meep with not only the harmonics of the wave actions but the evanescent waves...
The Meep analyses that I have analyzed with Wolfram Mathematica for postprocessing are Finite Difference in time (and FD in space) analysis.  As such they do not only contain only the harmonics but they contain all possible solutions to Maxwell's equations.

The FD in time solution with Meep is not a harmonic analysis.  Aero has used Harminv in some analysis to extract harmonic information, but this is separate from the FD solution, that contains all possible solutions to Maxwell's equations.

The present analyses certainly contain evanescent wave solutions.

In principle, it is not possible to separate the complete response into harmonic and evanescent waves, since the complete response involves dispersion as well as attenuation. 
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 03:37 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
As history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs .... Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?...
Yes, and let's wonder why Shawyer whose first patent on this was in the late 1980's has never reported on thrust from the EM Drive in vacuum ?  And why Yang with all her University resources (which is very well equipped as the data shows) has never reported on experiments done in vacuum either?  And why didn't Boeing continue the contract work with SPR on the Flight Thruster?  Could it be because of the lower thrust in vacuum as reported by Paul March and soon to be reported in the AIAA by Prof. Tajmar from TU Dresden, Germany?

Also think about this: if air or another gas is required, how is it required? because if it is required as a propellant (with air ions leaking to the outside) this is no longer a propellant-less propulsion, is it.  And if it is using surrounding air, it cannot be used in space (just like air-breathing jet engines cannot be used in space).

Also recall that all the EM Drive tests have been run for relatively short periods of time up to now.

Many things to wonder about :)
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 04:04 PM by Rodal »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
...I've tried to get someone to do a meep with not only the harmonics of the wave actions but the evanescent waves...
The Meep analyses that I have analyzed with Wolfram Mathematica for postprocessing are Finite Difference in time (and FD in space) analysis.  As such they do not only contain the harmonics but they contain all possible solutions to Maxwell's equations.

The present analyses certainly contain evanescent wave solutions.

And after the hot tub, it doesn't totally need true particles of air or normal mass it can act on the eddies of virtual particles too.

Shell

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
As history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs .... Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?...
Yes, and let's wonder why Shawyer whose first patent on this was in the late 1980's has never reported on thrust from the EM Drive in vacuum ?  And why Yang with all her University resources (which is very well equipped as the data shows) has never reported on experiments done in vacuum either?  And why didn't Boeing continue the contract work with SPR on the Flight Thruster?  Could it be because of the lower thrust in vacuum as reported by Paul March and soon to be reported in the AIAA by Prof. Tajmar from TU Dresden, Germany?

Also think about this: if air or another gas is required, how is it required? because if it is required as a propellant (with air ions leaking to the outside) this is no longer a propellant-less propulsion, is it.  And if it is using surrounding air, it cannot be used in space (just like air-breathing jet engines cannot be used in space).

Also recall that all the EM Drive tests have been run for relatively short periods of time up to now.

Many things to wonder about :)
I've pondered over this for some time but I kept on coming back to it. I do think there is a way to take a real advantage of this effect in a vacuum if it proves out to be true. Last hot tub idea.
Shell

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587

Makes me sad as I didn't want to throw a bucket of hot tub water on the blog. I hear crickets again... sigh.

Ok look at this. How many orders of thrust do were see above Ion or Light propulsion? This is an effect that can change most everything if used correctly and still satisfy all the critical poo from the Com and CoE advocates and even Maxwell is happy.

We still have a high thrust system.

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 636
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40797.php

Here's a high Q cavity for light that's a bit weird. Nobody has noticed it moving about  8)

Very beautiful patterns

I wanted to address a point I have seen mentioned before and alluded to here and elsewhere.   "Nobody has noticed it moving about" or 'Lots of waveguides out there and none of them generate thrust' (approximate quote from several threads back).   

This doesn't provide any data one way or another.   No-one would see the kind of forces we are discussing here unless they specifically instrumented for it and worked very hard at reducing noise (mechanical and electrical) from the systems.   That is why this is HARD to find or prove or disprove.   Of course we would have noticed big signals before,  but these are small.   Engineers normally design support structures for things like antennas and waveguides specifically so they won't move.   And the add a little more strength for good measure.   Even in systems where weight is critical - aircraft and spacecraft - support structures for waveguides and antennas are pretty stout as they have to survive launch or take off and landing loads.  Just to put something on an aircraft you normally have to meet a 9 or 16 g crash load margin (depends on where it is on plane and what type of plane -among other things).   So the bottom line is - just because force doesn't just show up in random places doesn't mean it isn't there.   Unless we are looking for it - carefully and precisely - we are very unlikely to have noticed it.   

Assuming there is something to EMDrive - once it has been shown in a controlled repeatable fashion, then optimized through theoritical analysis, experimentation, and careful engineering it may may lift cars . . . or spacecraft . . . or flying cities ala Ringworld.   Or perhaps only keep satellites on station.  In either case if its real its going to be exciting.

Herman
EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...
Ok look at this. How many orders of thrust do were see above Ion or Light propulsion? This is an effect that can change most everything if used correctly and still satisfy all the critical poo from the Com and CoE advocates and even Maxwell is happy.

We still have a high thrust system.

Yes certainly above a flaslight photon rocket.  Compared to VASIMIR at 8500 a photon rocket thrust/InputPower, the numbers reported by March in vacuum were 25 times lower: 330 times a photon rocket.  Prof. Tajmar will report significantly lower numbers.   So, if NASA can increase the numbers reported by March for vacuum by a factor of 30, (30 mN/kW) we would have something better than VASIMIR, and hopefully not  using propellant (VASIMIR uses argon).
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 04:35 PM by Rodal »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
As history marches on we tend to forget who discovered the wheel or tamed the first horse or made cats and dogs .... Then I wondered why there is little thrust in a vacuum, could it be no particles of air for the evanescent wave action to act on?...
Yes, and let's wonder why Shawyer whose first patent on this was in the late 1980's has never reported on thrust from the EM Drive in vacuum ?  And why Yang with all her University resources (which is very well equipped as the data shows) has never reported on experiments done in vacuum either?  And why didn't Boeing continue the contract work with SPR on the Flight Thruster?  Could it be because of the lower thrust in vacuum as reported by Paul March and soon to be reported in the AIAA by Prof. Tajmar from TU Dresden, Germany?

Also think about this: if air or another gas is required, how is it required? because if it is required as a propellant (with air ions leaking to the outside) this is no longer a propellant-less propulsion, is it.  And if it is using surrounding air, it cannot be used in space (just like air-breathing jet engines cannot be used in space).

Also recall that all the EM Drive tests have been run for relatively short periods of time up to now.

Many things to wonder about :)
It has been known that Evanescent waves are around any antenna and can propagate through materials with some funny actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave



Like the last one.

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2953
  • Likes Given: 2587
...
Ok look at this. How many orders of thrust do were see above Ion or Light propulsion? This is an effect that can change most everything if used correctly and still satisfy all the critical poo from the Com and CoE advocates and even Maxwell is happy.

We still have a high thrust system.

Yes certainly above a flaslight photon rocket.  Compared to VASIMIR at 8500 a photon rocket thrust/InputPower, the numbers reported by March in vacuum were 25 times lower: 330 times a photon rocket.  Prof. Tajmar will report significantly lower numbers.   So, if NASA can increase the numbers reported by March for vacuum by a factor of 30, (30 mN/kW) we would have something better than VASIMIR, and hopefully not  using propellant (VASIMIR uses argon).
YES!!! And the effect can be increased I think by several orders of magnitude by the selection of the right materials and increasing the evanescent wave actions! this thing isn't dead at all but uses a very neat piece of physics that is pretty well understood.
Shell
booboos correction
« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 04:50 PM by SeeShells »

Tags: