Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803475 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
The only one claiming "propellant-less" in that absolutist way is Shawyer.  Everybody else (McCulloch, White, etc.) no matter how unusual their theories, claims an interaction with the outside
Not exactly. They claim an interaction with spacetime, which pervades everything. And so again, inside and outside are no different.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Think we could use an RS time out. As with Cannae, what they will do is far less useful than what is being done in the short term. The distraction of future business plans cannot help this thread, which unless I miss the intent, is to study Spaceflight applications of an EM driven device.

I'm sure there are aeronautical forums that would benefit from RS's plans. Here? Not so much.

Pardon the mini-rant.

Offline TheTraveller

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"?

Don't know about the others but my EMDrive will soon be on a rotary turntable accelerating from 0 rpm to 120 rpm. The Rf amp power consumed versus real forward power versus real reflected power versus 3 axis acceleration versus velocity versus KE versus cavity pressure versus 6 x cavity temperature will be very interesting reading.

Wonder what Boeing will say then? BTW when EW asked Boeing to borrow their Flight Thruster they said No. Strange that if it didn't work? Was told Boeing still receives all the SPR updates that it sends out to their other IP licensees.

As to the licensees, Roger and I are in discussion about me setting up a EMDrive company ("something Prometheus something" sounds appropriate) and becoming a SPR licensee. Should be fun, exciting and profitable if just to sell complete EMDrive systems with a rotary test rig to 1,000s of uni, college, gov and corp customers that just have to see this working in the flesh and before their eyes.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:42 PM 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...Don't know about the others but my EMDrive will soon be on a rotary turntable accelerating from 0 rpm to 120 rpm. ..  Roger and I are in discussion about me setting up a EMDrive company ("something Prometheus something" sounds appropriate) and becoming a SPR licensee...
When?

Soon is when ?
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:46 PM by Rodal »

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
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"?

Don't know about the others but my EMDrive will soon be on a rotary turntable accelerating from 0 rpm to 120 rpm. The Rf amp power consumed versus real forward power versus real reflected power versus 3 axis acceleration versus velocity versus KE versus cavity pressure versus 6 x cavity temperature will be very interesting reading.

Wonder what Boeing will say then? BTW when EW asked Boeing to borrow their Flight Thruster they said No. Strange that if it didn't work? Was told Boeing still receives all the SPR updates that it sends out to their other IP licensees.

As to the licensees, Roger and I are in discussion about me setting up a EMDrive company ("something Prometheus something" sounds appropriate) and becoming a SPR licensee. Should be fun, exciting and profitable if just to sell complete EMDrive systems with a rotary test rig to 1,000s of uni, college, gov and corp customers that just have to see this working in the flesh and before their eyes.

I'll preface this with the fact that I think you have done great work between the spreadsheet as well as helping towards theory of how this magical device seems to work. So, thank you on that front.

However, this does not overlook the fact that almost on a daily basis you seem to have more and more promises of results, conclusions, and now a company which will sell thousands of drives.

I just want to see one, Traveller.

As they say, talk is cheap.

This is going to be the only time I'm going to mention this. I am rooting for you. Honestly, I am. I just want to see results, not promises.

-I
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 01:58 PM by DrBagelBites »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
The only one claiming "propellant-less" in that absolutist way is Shawyer.  Everybody else (McCulloch, White, etc.) no matter how unusual their theories, claims an interaction with the outside

Their claims are unfounded. ALL of the equations, Shawyer, McCulloch, @Notsosureofit, and my own, all are the same "rocket" equation. The only difference is how we choose to define group and phase velocity "inside" the frustum. Shawyer's equation is no more wrong or right than anyone elses, IMO. If we use Zeng & Fan's impedance graph to give us our v/c^2 value, then one might consider that "definitive" for a cone.

In all cases. Momentum is conserved without ejecting reaction mass because the momentum inside is non-linear. The force pushing it forward is larger than the momentum striking the big end plate. The problem is, without using GR or PV to describe a frequency dependent metric, (and even then) not too many folks are going to believe this until it actually lifts-off the ground.

It is not a Newtonian machine. Expecting it to obey Newton's laws, which are invalidated under these conditions by GR, is a mistake IMO.
Todd

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
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?
It's virtually massless mass with Virtual Particles??? ;)

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
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

We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around.  With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer?  We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.

Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that. 

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Back on track - Frustum, funnel, vortices and my initial theory.

While building and thinking (dangerous combination), a theory has been brewing that is not ready for peer review, but is ready for my pals here at NSF. Nature often leads to answers. Growing up in the tornado belt has lead me to think about the known forces within a funnel cloud that touches the earth. A frustum is a portion of that funnel.

Swirling electromagnetic waves, as with air, could create suction in the direction of the narrow end of the vortex. Thus, I've been reluctant to quantify the force as "thrust". Visualizing what occurs in a non-static frustum lead me to explore some papers on a electromagnetic vortices .

Be aware, there are 4th dimensional properties going on here and its not for the faint of heart.

Here is one of those papers: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.3994.pdf

"From the above it is possible to conclude: the state and evolution of the electro-magnetic field in a macroscopic approximation to the selected reference frame is clearly described by four-dimensional vector, which includes potential and solenoidal components and satisfies four-dimensional Dalamber equation."

My emphasis Solenoidal, aka ratchet.

Meepers will no doubt have issues with 4th dimensional properties as well as non-steady state EM waves in a Rotational propogation...just what fires naturally out of a magnetron's radome.

There you have it. Its where I'll be spending my theory time. Comments and critiques welcomed.

p.s. Yes, I know, a Z axis rotation needs to be measured along the longitudinal axis. To date, no one has tried this.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 02:29 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8018
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168

Think we could use an RS time out. As with Cannae, what they will do is far less useful than what is being done in the short term. The distraction of future business plans cannot help this thread, which unless I miss the intent, is to study Spaceflight applications of an EM driven device.

I'm sure there are aeronautical forums that would benefit from RS's plans. Here? Not so much.

Pardon the mini-rant.

I would argue that with a truly EM device (if there is ever such a thing) there would eventually be no difference as the vehicle would be able operate in both environments. Taking itself from the ground to space.

Offline TheTraveller

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"?

Don't know about the others but my EMDrive will soon be on a rotary turntable accelerating from 0 rpm to 120 rpm. The Rf amp power consumed versus real forward power versus real reflected power versus 3 axis acceleration versus velocity versus KE versus cavity pressure versus 6 x cavity temperature will be very interesting reading.

Wonder what Boeing will say then? BTW when EW asked Boeing to borrow their Flight Thruster they said No. Strange that if it didn't work? Was told Boeing still receives all the SPR updates that it sends out to their other IP licensees.

As to the licensees, Roger and I are in discussion about me setting up a EMDrive company ("something Prometheus something" sounds appropriate) and becoming a SPR licensee. Should be fun, exciting and profitable if just to sell complete EMDrive systems with a rotary test rig to 1,000s of uni, college, gov and corp customers that just have to see this working in the flesh and before their eyes.

I'll preface this with the fact that I think you have done great work between the spreadsheet as well as helping towards theory of how this magical device seems to work. So, thank you on that front.

However, this does not overlook the fact that almost on a daily basis you seem to have more and more promises of results, conclusions, and now a company which will sell thousands of drives.

I just want to see one, Traveller.

As they say, talk is cheap.

This is going to be the only time I'm going to mention this. I am rooting for you. Honestly, I am. I just want to see results, not promises.

-I

My talk is not cheap. I've allocated $20k to get this project done.

My 2nd surgery is over. Only 1.5 hours under the robot versus 4.5 hours last time. Was told the margin results are good but still show show some cancer was missed. Now being told will start daily radiation treatment for 6 weeks in about 1 1/2 month as they want to 1st monitor in which direction my PSA is moving. Was told the radiation should not stop me working in my workshop.

Should start doing real hands on work in about 1 1/2 month, when the rad treatment starts. My friend is arranging for the 1st prototype to be build in China and to arrive here in the same time as I start the rad treatment. So that will help shorten the time. Give me 6 weeks to finish the Raspberry and PC software. Have the rotary table components. Amp should be here in a few weeks, so everything is currently scheduled to be coming together in 6 weeks.

Mid Sept should start posting photos of the build.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...
My talk is not cheap. I've allocated $20k to get this project done.

My 2nd surgery is over. Only 1.5 hours under the robot versus 4.5 hours last time. Was told the margin results are good but still show show some cancer was missed. Now being told will start daily radiation treatment for 6 weeks in about 1 1/2 month as they want to 1st monitor in which direction my PSA is moving. Was told the radiation should not stop me working in my workshop.

Should start doing real hands on work in about 1 1/2 month, when the rad treatment starts. My friend is arranging for the 1st prototype to be build in China and to arrive here in the same time as I start the rad treatment. So that will help shorten the time. Give me 6 weeks to finish the Raspberry and PC software. Have the rotary table components. Amp should be here in a few weeks, so everything is currently scheduled to be coming together in 6 weeks.

Mid Sept should start posting photos of the build.

We are all praying for a quick recovery and that all your wishes come true

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around.  With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer?  We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.

Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that.

No, see:  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Best reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kW

Your number is 400 times larger

4 N/kW is 4,000 times larger

Yeah, I took the best result Yang reported (4 N/kW) and took Shell's reported 10% decrease in vacuum, to report a sort of "vacuum adjusted" best thrust to power ratio of 0.4 N/kW (in the best case scenario of only losing 90% of thrust in a vacuum, as per Shell).

But you're right in that my "vacuum adjusted" methodology isn't winning any experimental honesty awards, and the only honest thing to do is to throw out Yang and Shawyer's results completely (at least their numerical results) and only focus on results that come from vacuum.

Quote from: SeeShells
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.
   
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 02:25 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline TheTraveller

...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around.  With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer?  We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.

Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that.

No, see:  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Best reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kW

Your number is 400 times larger

4 N/kW is 4,000 times larger

The Tajmar vacuum results were at a Q of 20 in a oxidised cavity. It is not correct to quote Specific Force numbers without quoting the Q and if the cavity contained a dielectric or not.

It would be very interesting to measure, record and post the atmo and vacuum Q of a cavity based on a S11 return loss scan.

Why has such a simple thing never been done or has it? Anybody know?
"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

Have confirmed the EW dielectric copper frustum does generate Force big end to small end. The latest Shawyer summary is incorrect. Have informed Shawyer.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
...
My talk is not cheap. I've allocated $20k to get this project done.

My 2nd surgery is over. Only 1.5 hours under the robot versus 4.5 hours last time. Was told the margin results are good but still show show some cancer was missed. Now being told will start daily radiation treatment for 6 weeks in about 1 1/2 month as they want to 1st monitor in which direction my PSA is moving. Was told the radiation should not stop me working in my workshop.

Should start doing real hands on work in about 1 1/2 month, when the rad treatment starts. My friend is arranging for the 1st prototype to be build in China and to arrive here in the same time as I start the rad treatment. So that will help shorten the time. Give me 6 weeks to finish the Raspberry and PC software. Have the rotary table components. Amp should be here in a few weeks, so everything is currently scheduled to be coming together in 6 weeks.

Mid Sept should start posting photos of the build.

Get better, we need you.

I am excited to see what you have in store.

-I
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 02:29 PM by DrBagelBites »

Offline TheTraveller

...We now have two separate sets of experiments that confirm that thrust decreases significantly in air, and yet we still see the numbers for Yang and Shawyer (4 N/kW of 1 N/kW) bandied around.  With the knowledge that thrust drops in air (but by an inconsistent/indeterminate amount), aren't we forced to essentially ignore any numerical results that come from either Yang or Shawyer?  We know they are less, but how much less is impossible to tell.

Any comment that extrapolates thrust results, or linearity of results wrt to Q, etc, using Yang and Shawyers results, is ignoring the experimental proof from two labs that thrust drops in vacuum. At the very least, from what Shell has said with the best being 10%, we have to throw away an order of magnitude, meaning the "best" thrust to power achieved so far was actually 0.4 N/kW, if that.

No, see:  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Best reported thrust/InputPower in vacuum is 0.001 N/kW

Your number is 400 times larger

4 N/kW is 4,000 times larger

Yeah, I took the best result Yang reported (4 N/kW) and took Shell's reported 10% decrease in vacuum, to report a sort of "vacuum adjusted" best thrust to power ratio of 0.4 N/kW (in the best case scenario of only losing 90% of thrust in a vacuum, as per Shell).

But you're right in that my "vacuum adjusted" methodology isn't winning any experimental honesty awards, and the only honest thing to do is to throw out Yang and Shawyer's results completely (at least their numerical results) and only focus on results that come from vacuum.

Quote from: SeeShells
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.


I suggest we need to wait to see what the latest EW vacuum data shows.

In my opinion it is the Tajmar vacuum data that needs to be thrown out as it was a comedy of multiple measurement errors.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
...In all cases. Momentum is conserved without ejecting reaction mass because the momentum inside is non-linear. The force pushing it forward is larger than the momentum striking the big end plate. The problem is, without using GR or PV to describe a frequency dependent metric, (and even then) not too many folks are going to believe this until it actually lifts-off the ground.

It is not a Newtonian machine. Expecting it to obey Newton's laws, which are invalidated under these conditions by GR, is a mistake IMO.
Todd
So that means that you think that this "force pushing it forward is larger than the momentum striking the big end plate" must be acting against a fixed background, that there is a preferred frame.

Why? I do not follow your logic. There are 2 frames of reference only. The metal and the field. What I believe is happening is "squeezed" light. GR and the PV Model operate through the Uncertainty principle relationships,

delta_p * delta_x = h/2

If you squeeze delta_x by confining it inside a tight cavity near the apex, then the momentum is necessarily larger in that state. So this equation is different at each end of the cavity, depending on the diameters. How is this related to GR and the PV Model? Simple,

delta_p*sqrt(K) * delta_x/sqrt(K) = h/2

When the refractive index, K = sqrt(-g11/g00) > 1, this is precisely what happens.
Todd

 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...
Why? I do not follow your logic. There are 2 frames of reference only. The metal and the field. What I believe is happening is "squeezed" light. GR and the PV Model operate through the Uncertainty principle relationships,

delta_p * delta_x = h/2

If you squeeze delta_x by confining it inside a tight cavity near the apex, then the momentum is necessarily larger in that state. So this equation is different at each end of the cavity, depending on the diameters. How is this related to GR and the PV Model? Simple,

delta_p*sqrt(K) * delta_x/sqrt(K) = h/2

When the refractive index, K = sqrt(-g11/g00) > 1, this is precisely what happens.
Todd
I don't see an equation for conservation of momentum  above. Neither did I see  a force balance diagram for the statement " The force pushing it forward is larger than the momentum striking the big end plate."
« Last Edit: 07/30/2015 02:42 PM by Rodal »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
There is really no point in fabricating 1000N/kW projections and VTOL spacecrafts if you can not even produce 1N of force...
Show the data of a device producing 1N and then we can slowly start extrapolating towards the future.
But until now we don't even know if it works...

It has been said a thousand times already inhere : if you want credibility, then start with a modest , but clear force.
Producing wild, highly speculative and outlandish claims and extrapolating towards floating vehicles actually works contra-productive and drives your credibility into the ground like a bunkerbuster...

Tags: