Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1801121 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Did you notice how his "efficiency" or Eout/Ein was always < 1 because he figured that somehow the onboard power supply knew how fast it was going?  ;D

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
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.

This is a complete and final admittance by Shawyer, saying it for anybody that cares to read between the lines that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive does not work effectively in a vacuum:  Shawyer must think that the EM Drive cannot generate enough propulsion in a vacuum even to move a small satellite.

face it:  Shawyer has been at this longer than anybody else, his first patent in the late 1980's.
Yet he has NEVER reported a single EM Drive test in a vacuum.  Zero, nada, zilch tests in vacuum.

Neither Prof. Yang has reported a single test in vacuum (even though anybody acquainted with the resources at her University, it should be easy for her to do so). 

It is obvious that space applications require the least amount of thrust.  The abandonment of space applications and substituting them with this Quixotic effort for commercial flight applications demanding huge amount of thrust is as loud a statement any inventor can make that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive requires air to operate effectively.

Instead of doing what should be easy: to demonstrate a tiny EM Drive propulsion in space, Shawyer diverts the attention to long-term R&D efforts of a Quixotic effort which appears impossible by comparison.  As difficult as EM-Drive air flight applications may appear to be, this must mean that in Shawyer's eyes, Space Applications of the EM Drive even at the tiniest of thrust, are even more difficult to realize.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 11:45 AM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It would be a game-changer nevertheless if a floater could be built, even if it only worked in air. Needless to say, I don't believe it can because of the ridiculous numbers being bandied about. I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.  ::)

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.

This is a complete and final admittance by Shawyer, saying it for anybody that cares to read between the lines that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive does not work effectively in a vacuum:  Shawyer must think that the EM Drive cannot generate enough propulsion in a vacuum even to move a small satellite.

face it:  Shawyer has been at this longer than anybody else, his first patent in the late 1980's.
Yet he has NEVER reported a single EM Drive test in a vacuum.  Zero, nada, zilch tests in vacuum.

Neither Prof. Yang has reported a single test in vacuum (even though anybody acquainted with the resources at her University, it should be easy for her to do so). 

It is obvious that space applications require the least amount of thrust.  The abandonment of space applications and substituting them with this Quixotic effort for commercial flight applications demanding huge amount of thrust is as loud a statement any inventor can make that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive requires air to operate effectively.

Instead of doing what should be easy: to demonstrate a tiny EM Drive propulsion in space, Shawyer diverts the attention to long-term R&D efforts of a Quixotic effort which appears impossible by comparison.  As difficult as they may appear to be, this must mean that in Shawyer's eyes, Space Applications of the EM Drive even at the tiniest of thrust, are even more difficult to achieve.

Another explanation is SPR has secured funding to build a EMDrive powered drone, probably military, and that is where their focus will be for the next few years. It is my understanding that other SPR partners are doing the Spaceplane work.

It would seem SPR has added another business model, as a contract end product EMDrive enabled builder, to it's traditional EMDrive IP licensor business model.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 11:58 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 qraal

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 17

This is a complete and final admittance by Shawyer, saying it for anybody that cares to read between the lines that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive does not work effectively in a vacuum:  Shawyer must think that the EM Drive cannot generate enough propulsion in a vacuum even to move a small satellite.

[snipped]

It is obvious that space applications require the least amount of thrust.  The abandonment of space applications and substituting them with this Quixotic effort for commercial flight applications demanding huge amount of thrust is as loud a statement any inventor can make that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive requires air to operate effectively.


I am not convinced that's why. Emphasising complex long-term aerospace applications scares off potential VC investors looking for Kick-Starter style efforts. Personal transport applications are probably more attractive, more near term, and mean more potential market, than the comm-sat market.

Or you're right and Shawyer's yanking our chain. Would be ironically funny if it proves to perform even better than he imagines/computes at moderate Q factors.

Offline TheTraveller

It would be a game-changer nevertheless if a floater could be built, even if it only worked in air. Needless to say, I don't believe it can because of the ridiculous numbers being bandied about. I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.  ::)

I would suggest the Wright brothers would agree will you if you told them of the engineering stats for an A380. They would look at a modern jet engine with their mouths wide open, totally in disbelief.

In reality the difference between the Wright Flyer and the A380 is just engineering hours and $.

Will be no difference with EMDrive development as N/kW climb higher and higher.
"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
It would seem SPR has added another business model, as a contract end product EMDrive enabled builder, to it's traditional EMDrive IP licensor business model.
Ah yes. And how's that been working out for SPR - "traditionally", I mean?

Forgive me for saying so, but I am not noticing all these EmDrive licenced products zigging and zagging around in my little universe. Could that be because I should get out more?

All I heard is that Boeing took a look and now disavows it completely. Is that what you mean by "traditional"?
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 12:06 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8013
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168

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.

Just as long as he doesn't make it a black triangle as that will cause no end of fuss.;)

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.  ::)

 ::)

that's simple to solve. Have your EM Drive INSIDE the ship's pressurized area. Its propellantless right? Therefore, you can locate it anywhere on the ship, including under your cryogenic chamber-bed :)


Offline Ayreos

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 12
[...]
Just as long as he doesn't make it a black triangle as that will cause no end of fuss.;)

It's okay, Shawyer's drone is silver:


Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
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.
No one has showed a working EMDrive in a vacuum that has decent thrust. The best I've seen is about 10% of the thrust in a air test.

What this might say is he (RS) still hasn't quite figured out why it works and his theories are built on possible incorrect assumptions. (Air=More to push on inside the cavity violates CoM unless you can get outside of the cavity). Dr. White's theory of virtual particles is the only one I can think of right now that gets momentum from inside (creating VPs) to the outside but lacks a good explanation of explaining air/no air test results.  Back to ground zero so far.

The air/no air is to me a huge Data flag and still the 800 pound gorilla in the room and I don't blame RS for not wanting to wrestle with it

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Outgassing? That doesn't hold up because there's likely to be more of that in vacuum - less vapour pressure.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, the "can't do space because there's no air" argument doesn't hold up. You just put the drive in a pressurised gas box and/or let it push from the inside of the vehicle.

And no, none of this makes any sense to me either.

So what's all this "space qualified" stuff? Not needed.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:14 PM by deltaMass »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
Here is an example from meep-discuss that uses a square loop antenna. The example problem doesn't work but I think that was a different problem with his control file. Using ( 2 pi  ) * something instead of ( 0 + 2 pi i ) * something. He should have been using a complex multiplier, that is, if I'm recalling the right / problem answer.

This is the same example that I uploaded yesterday morning, but that is 10 pages up thread, so here it is again.

I don't know much about loop antenna.  This file makes a giant 2-D source (24 units X 24 units, infinitely thin) and a square metal loop 2.928 X .7 units (center line), the "wire" width is .2, height of .1 units.  The loop is called a "scatterer" and is not generated by default.  Does any of that sound right for a loop antenna?

If I (or someone else) were to make a square loop antenna somehow, how would we know if it was a loop?  What fields would we look at and what would they look like?  Quickly testing different ideas can be painful if I use the truncated cone geometry/steps with long calculation times.
This may help
http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/AN639.pdf

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
...

Anyway, as has been pointed out, the "can't do space because there's no air" argument doesn't hold up. You just put the drive in a pressurised gas box and/or let it push from the inside of the vehicle.
...
Conservation of momentum precludes that

Neither can you use an air-breathing jet engine in space by just putting it "in a pressurised gas box and/or let it push from the inside of the vehicle."
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:15 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Conservation of momentum precludes the whole thing.
But it's propellantless. So inside or outside, it's all the same.

Or does it have a local topology detector?
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:18 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
When we heard about Tajmar's title "side effects..." we hoped that his team had made measurements of the environment outside the EM Drive to see whether indeed nothing is being ejected, no electromagnetic fields, no distortions of the environment.

Unfortunately he didn't make any such measurements...
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
When we heard about Tajmar's title "side effects..." we hoped that his team had made measurements of the environment outside the EM Drive to see whether indeed nothing is being ejected, no electromagnetic fields, no distortions of the environment.

Unfortunately he didn't make any such measurements...
Why would you expect a propellantless drive to eject propellant?

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Here's a thought experiment about inside versus outside.

Model the drive as a cylinder of fixed shape. Imagine it touching a flat, deformable plane of finite extent.
To get the drive inside, we simply deform the plane around the drive into a bigger cylinder and let it make endcaps to seal itself shut with the drive inside.

Now unroll the plane back to flat, and deform it the other way, so now it's curving away from the drive. We end up with two touching cylinders.

Why would these operations make any difference to a drive that emits no exhaust of any kind?

Offline martinc

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • UK
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
>>Dr. White's theory of virtual particles is the only one I can think of right now that gets momentum from inside
>>(creating VPs) to the outside but lacks a good explanation of explaining air/no air test results.  Back to ground zero so
>>far.

this isn't quite true, there is the possibility of a warp field as claimed to be detected by the laser interferometer results
but whether a small warp field or spacial distortion with a concave shape could produce the measured thrust is beyond me to tell. i think the warp effect should be included in the possibilities at this stage, it's no more outlandish that the quantum soup theory and actually has some evidence. i don't understand why no-one is talking about this

Offline leomillert

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 12
It would be a game-changer nevertheless if a floater could be built, even if it only worked in air. Needless to say, I don't believe it can because of the ridiculous numbers being bandied about. I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.  ::)

I would suggest the Wright brothers would agree will you if you told them of the engineering stats for an A380. They would look at a modern jet engine with their mouths wide open, totally in disbelief.

In reality the difference between the Wright Flyer and the A380 is just engineering hours and $.

Will be no difference with EMDrive development as N/kW climb higher and higher.

Wright brothers?
I think you mean Santos-Dumont  8)

Wright Flyer?
I think you mean 14-bis  8)
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:38 PM by leomillert »

Tags: