http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223Quote"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.
"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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 04:12 amhttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223Quote"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 .
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 11:17 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/29/2015 11:04 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 08:54 pmQuote from: Flyby on 07/29/2015 08:17 pmSo 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 Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.Maybe try[sic] getting a sense of humour Depends if you think that passes for humour.
Quote from: Star One on 07/29/2015 11:04 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 08:54 pmQuote from: Flyby on 07/29/2015 08:17 pmSo 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 Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.Maybe try[sic] getting a sense of humour
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 08:54 pmQuote from: Flyby on 07/29/2015 08:17 pmSo 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 Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.
Quote from: Flyby on 07/29/2015 08:17 pmSo 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
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?
He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amHe 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.
Quote from: ThinkerX on 07/30/2015 05:35 amQuoteSeems 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.
QuoteSeems 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....
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...
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.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amShawyer 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 08:35 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amShawyer 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.
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.
Prof Yang has experimentally shown 4N/kW.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 09:37 amProf Yang has experimentally shown 4N/kW.That is 4x the value in http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Resultswhich 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"?
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)
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
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.