Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1871890 times)

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 251
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223

Quote
"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK.

"The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."

Terrafugia's TF-X flying car concept, due to launch in 2021, could benefit from the use of the EmDrive space propulsion technology, according to Roger Shawyer.

Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.

I keep my fingers crossed he can deliver that Mr. Traveller. I just also hope SPR have enough funds to do that. It will be expensive as well and more - He still needs to develop such drive and it will be no fun. Of course floating drone is way more better proof than any paper published. I would wish to work for SPR just to be their marketing manager :D.

Offline TheTraveller

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223

Quote
"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK.

"The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."

Terrafugia's TF-X flying car concept, due to launch in 2021, could benefit from the use of the EmDrive space propulsion technology, according to Roger Shawyer.

Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.

I keep my fingers crossed he can deliver that Mr. Traveller. I just also hope SPR have enough funds to do that. It will be expensive as well and more - He still needs to develop such drive and it will be no fun. Of course floating drone is way more better proof than any paper published. I would wish to work for SPR just to be their marketing manager :D.

If Shawyer can convince Uk Dept of Defense he can build a EMDrive powered military drone, funding will not be an issue.

Needs to be said I was told the Uk Dept of Defense selected the 7 expert UK aerospace and academics to do the 2 UK gov reviews of his work that was needed to get the 2 grants he received from the Uk gov to build the Demonstrator EMDrive and the air bearing rotary test rig.

So his work is known to the Uk Dept of Defense. I suggest a EMDrive powered military UAV would be something they would be very interested in.

As Shawyer has announced this project and given it a date, could speculate SPR has funding to build a demonstrator UAV.
"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

Now that Roger seems in the sharing and telling mood, I'll ask him if there is any more superconducting EMdrive photos and experimental data he may wish to share.

To date the latest we have is attached, which is his test rig and the SC EMDrive but no test data.
"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 many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?
It must be floobie-dust flying off in the opposite direction  8)

Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.
Maybe try[sic] getting a sense of humour  8)

Depends if you think that passes for humour.
Three guesses.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Shawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.

He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.

Offline dumbo

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • I believe eleph^H^H^H^H^HEMDrives can FLY
  • Tianjin, China
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 77
He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.

Agreed. It is a shame that the "EMDrive effect" (if real) was not discovered by some more level-headed person. 1000 N per kW??? I am sorry, this kind of performance really stretches credulity. I may have to agree with Sean Carroll after all.

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48


So many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?
It must be floobie-dust flying off in the opposite direction  8)

Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.
Maybe try[sic] getting a sense of humour  8)

Depends if you think that passes for humour.

Nah, I'm fine with it... deltaMass is by far more qualified in the matter then me.

I believe we both agree that it is unlikely that CoM is actually violated....
 
I, from my side, do not yet want to conclude that the EMdrive is a hoax, as it has neither been validated or nullified in a solid way.
As I'm not prepared to throw the EMdrive overboard (yet) because it (apparently) violates one of the fundamental laws we've build our knowledge on, and on the other hand i do not want to follow the zealots that refute Newtons laws, i'm trying to find a middle ground.

So, maybe it is our perception and/or our understanding that is failing, and not the EMdrive or CoM on it self? I see no reason to polarize the debate, without first questioning our self...


so , really, no problem with some good sense of humor...bring it on... 8)


Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.
Agreed. It is a shame that the "EMDrive effect" (if real) was not discovered by some more level-headed person. 1000 N per kW??? I am sorry, this kind of performance really stretches credulity. I may have to agree with Sean Carroll after all.
Not quite that bad, but certainly Loony Tunes based on all past performance - including Cannae's superconducting thing. He's talking standalone, and so something like Li-Ion, which clocks in at around 300 W/Kg. To lift off you need at least 10 N/Kg. What k=N/W does this therefore demand?
N/W = N/Kg / W/Kg = 10/300 = 0.03 N/W, or 30 N/KW.

That's absurd.
And I didn't even include the mass of the EmDrive itself!

If I do include, I reckon it needs about 40 W/Kg (that's generous btw). So the aggregate (batteries included :) ) W/Kg comes also to about 40 W/Kg. That's 250 N/KW.

Beyond ridiculous.

Your figure isn't too far off! - I still didn't include the craft body weight and other stuff.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 08:24 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Quote

Seems like a lot more than they can generate right now, in a 10 kg device.

Am i reading something wrong in that news piece or do they really think they can FLOAT something against gravity? Seems counter intuitive when they claim to not be interested in space anymore and at the same time dry they can generate 1g of acceleration...


External (beamed) power source, perhaps?  Thought I saw a thread on something like that around here....

Use Lithiums for power and limited boil off cryo cooling for the superconducting EMDrives. Total mass needs to be under 1kg per N generated.

So at 15kgs, need to gen 147N. At say 1,000N/kW would need 147W Rf.

Suspect the UAV may be more like 100s of kgs.

Apologises. The SPR Spaceplane lift engine is rated at 667N/kW and not the 1,000N/kW I quoted. It's mass budget is attached. Note the mass budget includes a 2t orbital payload.

At 9.858ks total mass, the Spaceplane needs to generate more than 96,608N to lift off. At 667N/kW that will require 145kWs of Rf energy generation. Assuming 85% efficiency, the Spaceplane electrical system will need to generate more than 185kW of electrical power for liftoff.

With 3,465kgs for the LOx, LH2 and fuel cells, plus 1,163kgs for the Rf generators, a 200kW electrical system delivering 170kWs of Rf to 8 EMDrive lift engine cavities seems doable.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 09:44 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

Shawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.

He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.

Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.
"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
Shawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.

He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.

Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.
That makes no sense. If you can lift off, you can keep lifting. In the year 2015, there are as yet no Space Police. Bop up to the ISS, take a few pix, come down again.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 08:48 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Shawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.

He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.

Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.
That makes no sense. If you can lift off, you can keep lifting. In the year 2015, there are as yet no Space Police. Bop up to the ISS, take a few pix, come down again.

And how much will that cost? Who will fund it?

Bet the UK Dept of Defence will fund a EMDrive military drone well before a EMDrive space vehicle funder could be found.

Of course once the military EMDrive drone flies, the space guys will be lining up to build his Spaceplane. I suggest Roger already has the funding to build the drone and that is why he announced it.

BTW if the drone is not vac rated, it can't do a ISS flyby plus it's remote controls may not reach far enough to do space.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 09:16 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
The N/W figures demanded by Shawyer to build a floating drone are scandalous because they are completely unrealistic. You will need at minimum 250 N/KW, and that's using a drone with zero body weight (see my previous post for details). It is difficult for me to imagine how you just swallow this stuff so uncritically.


Offline TheTraveller

The N/W figures demanded by Shawyer to build a floating drone are scandalous because they are completely unrealistic. You will need at minimum 250 N/KW, and that's using a drone with zero body weight (see my previous post for details). It is difficult for me to imagine how you just swallow this stuff so uncritically.

His Spaceplane EMDrive is rated at 667N/kW.

Prof Yang has experimentally shown 4N/kW. To go to 667N/kW only needs a Q increase of 167x. Her latest cavity with a unloaded Q of 117,000, should reduce that to maybe 80x. So why the total disbelief? The increase required is just engineering hours and $.

You course if you believe the EMDrive is a fraud or the specific Force doesn't scale with Q, then, well it is just fairies at the bottom of the garden.

BTW any comments on these worked Spaceplane numbers:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411296#msg1411296

As to Q versus Specific Force scaling, SPR now has 8 data points on their graph as attached. Sure seems to show Specific Force does scale with unloaded cavity Q.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 09:57 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
Prof Yang has experimentally shown 4N/kW.
That is 4x the value in
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
which shows ~1 N/KW.
Could you please update the details?
Has a peer-reviewed paper been published to describe this result?

How do you propose to get to 650 N/KW? "Superconductivity does it all"?
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 09:57 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

Prof Yang has experimentally shown 4N/kW.
That is 4x the value in
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
which shows ~1 N/KW.
Could you please update the details?
Has a peer-reviewed paper been published to describe this result?

How do you propose to get to 650 N/KW? "Superconductivity does it all"?

I posted the data from the latest peer reviewed Prof Yang paper where they went back and investigated why the dip in their Specific Force curve happened.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1406672#msg1406672

BTW with that data, which shows the cavity bandwidth window lower left, it can bee see there is no way the entire magnetron bandwidth can fit into the cavity so the real cavity energy input is much less than the total power that is used to do the calcs.

had they run that bandwidth mismatch analysis over all the data points, I suggest the overall result would have been 4N/kW or better.

Assuming those results were achieved with their 2010 cavity, going to their latest 117,500 Q cavity will increase the 4N/kW to around 10N/kW, especially in using the flat end plates and the short cylindrical sections to convert spherical waves in the tapered cavity to planar waves in the cylindrical sections just before they hit the flat end plates. Then only 67x more Q to get to 667N/kW. Maybe with the flat end plates converters, only need 40x more Q.

So maybe SC or maybe just more EMDrive design tuning such as automatic frequency following to always keep the freq in the middle of the cavities bandwidth curve.

If 667N/kW can be achieved without SC, then you can take a LOT of mass out of the Spaceplane mass budget. Maybe that is where Shawyer is going with the drone design?
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 10:30 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 Vix

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Perhaps there are some more details about Em drive that we are not aware of, i.e. they are classified. The model we are discussing here may be just a teaser, a rude concept that we are trying to (dis)prove it works.
The real thing may involve different materials and design.
For example, why use just one magnetron? Why not try with two (phase locked) or more?
Why use  copper? What would happen if we could afford to build a golden frustum? (Holy-grail) :)

Offline TheTraveller

Perhaps there are some more details about Em drive that we are not aware of, i.e. they are classified. The model we are discussing here may be just a teaser, a rude concept that we are trying to (dis)prove it works.
The real thing may involve different materials and design.
For example, why use just one magnetron? Why not try with two (phase locked) or more?
Why use  copper? What would happen if we could afford to build a golden frustum? (Holy-grail) :)

Have no doubt that since the 2009 Shawyer Flight Thruster EMDrive or the 2010 Prof Yang EMDrive there has been considerable development efforts not made public.

Going through the existing data, it seems 10N/kW is easily doable with 2009 cavity designs. With Prof Yang's new cavity with short cylindrical sections and flat end plates may boost Specific Force to 20N/kWs or higher.

BTW a sliver plated cavity should better than a gold plated cavity. A very thin gold flash coating over the highly polished much thicker silver coating will stop oxidation of the silver.
"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 posted the data from the latest peer reviewed Prof Yang paper where they went back and investigated why the dip in their Specific Force curve happened.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1406672#msg1406672
Ah - please excuse me - I missed that.

I did finally look at the peer reviewed paper. How on earth it passed peer review is beyond me.

- The interstellar calculation is wrong.
- Claiming momentum is conserved in the manner in which it is claimed is wrong.
- The calculation of input energy is wrong.
and so forth.

"Beyond all doubt" - that must be it.

I'm also bound to comment that at 2/3 N/W, the power break-even speed is only 1.5 m/s. For centrifugal 1 gee on a rotor that's ~60 rpm (1 Hz) with a radius arm of 0.23 m. Any faster and she's a power station. But of course, you don't get that, and neither does Shawyer.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 11:10 AM by deltaMass »

Offline qraal

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 18

I did finally look at the peer reviewed paper. How on earth it passed peer review is beyond me.

- The interstellar calculation is wrong.
- Claiming momentum is conserved in the manner in which it is claimed is wrong.
- The calculation of input energy is wrong.
and so forth.

"Beyond all doubt" - that must be it.

I'm also bound to comment that at 2/3 N/W, the power break-even speed is only 1.5 m/s. For centrifugal 1 gee on a rotor that's ~60 rpm (1 Hz) with a radius arm of 0.23 m. Any faster and she's a power station. But of course, you don't get that, and neither does Shawyer.

He presented at IAC and he got a paper published as a result. You should see some of the other IAC "peer-reviewed" papers... Oy Vey! It's even more fun reading the ones that don't get accepted...

The interstellar computation is trivial, so it's a bit disappointing seeing him take short cuts.

Tags: