Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1801291 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Team SPR has clever people working on the superconducting EMDrive.

In the latest patent application it is revealed the SC EMDrive is only driven for 0.2 of the 1st TC as attached.

In reference to the total amount of power that must flow into a TC driven device to fully charge it, the power input at 0.2 of the 1st TC is almost nothing as attached.

This means the Rf energy does not spend much time bouncing from end plate to end plate and inducing thermal heating effects on the walls of the SC frustum. Instead the input Rf energy is quickly converted into kinetic.

Seems pulsing the Rf energy input for 0.2 of 1 frustum TC may be something worthwhile to investigate further.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 07:51 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 demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1662
Team SPR has clever people working on the superconducting EMDrive.

In the latest patent application it is revealed the SC EMDrive is only driven for 0.2 of the 1st TC as attached.

In reference to the total amount of power that must flow into a TC driven device to fully charge it, the power input at 0.2 of the 1st TC is almost nothing as attached.

This means the Rf energy does not spend much time bouncing from end plate to end plate and inducing thermal heating effects on the walls of the SC frustum. Instead the input Rf energy is quickly converted into kinetic.

Seems pulsing the Rf energy input for 0.2 of 1 frustum TC maybe something to investigate further.

Hm.  Very interesting.  Todd and others have speculated that the duty cycle of the oven magnetrons many be an important factor.  This confirms it in a way.  That said, like the bandwidth of these oven magnetrons, the duty cycle is not at all precise like the approach outlined here...

Edit:  Typo.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 07:54 AM by demofsky »

Offline arc

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • In port for a few weeks
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 32
@Notsosureofit,

EDIT: Never mind. I answered my own dumb question. I shouldn't post before I finish my coffee. :( The bandwidth used for Q is not the same, but f is. Therefore, it results in;

acceleration g = (c2/L)*(delta_f/f), where

delta_f = (2pi/f)*(fs2 - fb2)

Q = f/delta_b  (b for bandwidth)

N*T = (P/2pi*L*f)*(delta_f/delta_b)

This implies a lower frequency, large delta_f/L implies a short length, wide half-angle. Small delta_b implies narrow bandwidth. So a wide stubby frustum with both a smaller small end and a larger big end? Using a narrow band RF amplifier rather than a Magnetron. Just as @TT and Shawyer have said.

Thank you.
Todd

This should make what I'm saying a little clearer. Using @Notsosureofit's theory. From this, we can see how the design of the frustum could be maximized for thrust. What puzzles me is why we are working in microwaves when the equation clearly shows that lower frequency is better:)
Todd

Correct
Shawyers heavy_lift model is designed around the 915Mhz unit,  220msec cyclic burst mode but only active for 1/8th of the time slot. Also advantageous for cooling.

The deep space model is designed around 500Mhz.  Its all tradeoff's between thrust and cooling

Todd, I think this is where your original concept of "energy pumping" will start to come into play and find its correct place. 

« Last Edit: 08/06/2015 10:26 PM by arc »

Offline TheTraveller

Internal dimensions for my 1st EMDrive build.

The as built unit will have end flanges that allow different end plates to be bolted on and for extensions to be bolted on.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:15 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 Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
TT,
I see you're opting for spherical end plates, how are you going to make the end plates?
shape hammering or CNC milling from a larger block of copper/aluminum?

Aluminum end plates might be easier to get and cheaper to mill, no?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 10:17 AM by Flyby »

Offline TheTraveller

TT,
I see you're opting for spherical end plates, how are you going to make the end plates?
shape hammering or CNC milling from a larger block of copper/aluminum?

Aluminum end plates might be easier to get and cheaper to mill, no?

They will be spin formed using a mandrel, if necessary machined to +- 0.05 mm of the desired radii and then highly polished.



The frustum side walls will also be spin formed around a mandrel and the ends machined to be at a right angle to the frustum axis.

Fabrication work is being done in China, arranged by a friend who does a lot of manufacturing and sourcing business in China. He has his own QA people in his China office to ensure what I get shipped is what I ordered and paid for.

If you have any doubts about the ability of copper to be spun, watch this:

« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 10:49 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 Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
Spin forming.... interesting.. had not seen that one yet, but as i see, it needs a pre-made template form to pull the sheet on...
Unless you plan for mass production, isn't that an expensive way to produce a prototype?

Offline TheTraveller

Spin forming.... interesting.. had not seen that one yet, but as i see, it needs a pre-made template form to pull the sheet on...
Unless you plan for mass production, isn't that an expensive way to produce a prototype?

The template is called a mandrel. Can be made on a lathe from hard wood or high density plastic or aluminium. Not expensive unlike injection tooling. Mandrel tooling costs, in China, are low cost as metal spinners do this all the time to get spinning business.

I intend to make many dozen EMDrives, so reproducibility is important.

One advantage in spin forming the side wall section is there is no small end to big end joint. Just smooth side walls which I believe will add just a bit to a higher Q as there is no silver soldered joint to increase losses.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 11:09 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 demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1662
One nice thing about spin forming is that Todds trombone shaped fustrums can also be built with this technique.

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.

Shell

Median = 14.97 degrees
Mean = 16.5257 degrees
Max = 25.48 degrees
Min = 11.45 degrees
Skewness = 0.667531
Kurtosis = 1.91077

It is a very skewed distribution, hence the Median is a better measure of central tendency.  The Mean and Standard Deviation are inappropriate to use because it is not a symmetric distribution.
This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with prior analysis.

There is absolutely no basis in any of her drawings for a cone half-angle of 6 degrees
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 12:53 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Which says Prof Yang is keeping the actual operational frustum dimensions very close to her chest.

I believe there is a real world optimised and measured high 117,500 Q narrow band frustum design, another with the measured wideband Q of 1,531 that was used for the magnetron Force generation tests and a lot of theoretical ones that have been sort of revealed in her papers. No real dimensional details, other than the measured Q of the high and low Q frustums has been released.
"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

FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Median = 14.97
Mean = 16.5257
Max = 25.48
Min = 11.45
Skewness = 0.667531
Kurtosis = 1.91077

It is a very skewed distribution, hence the Median is a better measure of central tendency.  This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with my prior analysis

Those drawing are just for reference. They are not representative of actual frustum builds. We have no photographs and no real frustum dimensions. And thus Prof Yang apparently protects Chinese state secrets.
"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: 5259
FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Median = 14.97
Mean = 16.5257
Max = 25.48
Min = 11.45
Skewness = 0.667531
Kurtosis = 1.91077

It is a very skewed distribution, hence the Median is a better measure of central tendency.  This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with my prior analysis

Those drawing are just for reference. They are not representative of actual frustum builds. We have no photographs and no real frustum dimensions. And thus Prof Yang apparently protects Chinese state secrets.

Yeah, let's just ignore all those drawings and let's use VooDoo to come up with a Yang geometry, because the drawings don't agree with pre-conceived notions.  Let's don't believe our eyes  :)


Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?



« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 03:00 PM by Rodal »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Median = 14.97
Mean = 16.5257
Max = 25.48
Min = 11.45
Skewness = 0.667531
Kurtosis = 1.91077

It is a very skewed distribution, hence the Median is a better measure of central tendency.  This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with my prior analysis

Those drawing are just for reference. They are not representative of actual frustum builds. We have no photographs and no real frustum dimensions. And thus Prof Yang apparently protects Chinese state secrets.
It is all we have other than calculations and looking at other builds and their successes or failures. So many variables abound in the reporting of real tests the best we can do is a good guesstimate and rely on numerical calculations.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
So we have 7 drawings from the author's in the author's previously ballyhooed "peer-reviewed papers".

The smallest angle in any of these drawings is practically TWICE as much as 6 degrees, the median is 15 degrees and the max is 25 degrees.  Yet we are going to ignore all these drawings in peer-reviewed journals?

The drawings are part of a big master conspiracy?

The peer-reviewers are part of a master conspiracy or they just did not realize that the drawings did not match the text?

Since we are at it, why not just say that Yang used a cylinder for her experiments?
Or perhaps she used a big sphere, that's it, since it is all part of a big conspiracy...
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 12:24 PM by Rodal »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
FYI Yang's Sidewalls in degrees.
Shell

Median = 14.97
Mean = 16.5257
Max = 25.48
Min = 11.45
Skewness = 0.667531
Kurtosis = 1.91077

It is a very skewed distribution, hence the Median is a better measure of central tendency.  This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with my prior analysis

Those drawing are just for reference. They are not representative of actual frustum builds. We have no photographs and no real frustum dimensions. And thus Prof Yang apparently protects Chinese state secrets.

Yeah, let's just ignore all those drawings and let's use VooDoo to come up with a Yang geometry, because the drawings don't agree with pre-conceived notions.  Let's don't believe our eyes  :)
Who do voodoo, you do?

Dr. Rodal,

Considering all the theories out there as to the why this produces thrust I would say it would take a internal action like your calculated and increased stress values to accomplish it. I guess it's one of the few things that make sense.

What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust. I find it interesting that we see little or no enhanced stress on the side wall which if we did would tend to go hand and hand with their theories.

Coffee thoughts this morning.

Shell

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
So we have 7 drawings from the author's in the author's previously ballyhooed "peer-reviewed papers".

The smallest angle in any of these drawings is practically TWICE as much as 6 degrees, the median is 15 degrees and the max is 25 degrees.  Yet we are going to ignore all these drawings in peer-reviewed journals?

The drawings are part of a big master conspiracy?

The peer-reviewers are part of a master conspiracy or they just did not realize that the drawings did not match the text?

Since we are at it, why not just say that Yang used a cylinder for her experiments?
You know for sure what she used? She could have used a box for all we know. Peer reviewed or not. A real picture would be better not by much.

I find this interesting as well. Every open test that could be verified with real time video and EW as well has showed very low thrusts and here we have the Chinese and RS claiming outrageous thrusts. Why is that? Wouldn't that fact alone lead you to question not only thrusts but configurations and other important data... peer reviewed hmmm.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
...
What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust. I find it interesting that we see little or no enhanced stress on the side wall which if we did would tend to go hand and hand with their theories. ....
Shell
You are completely wrong in the above statement.  The calculation of stress shows that the stresses on the sidewalls are most significant.   I discussed in previous posts, and Todd understood it, as he actually said that's what he expected.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 12:46 PM by Rodal »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
....
This confirms that 15 degrees is the best estimate for the cone half-angle used by Yang, in agreement with my prior analysis.

There is absolutely no basis in any of her drawings for a cone half-angle of 6 degrees

Pffff... common, how can you use distribution calculations? As if the drawings are random but meaningful data? They are not.
These drawings are produced on purpose, mostly as schematic illustrations. Performing a statistical analysis on drawings to obtain "meaningful" data is really a first for me... :o

However, to me, this type of analyzing looks like a severe case of "calculitis" : an irresistible urge to (over) analyze and look for patterns where there are in fact none...
Might as well perform a statistical analysis on cartoons for facial recognition, while we're at it.... ::)

If you want correct data obtained from from drawings then these drawing need to be engineering grade and include measurements.

If the drawings do not include measurements, then they are illustrations that need to bring an idea across.
The only thing you get out of these, statistically spoken, is the average angle that the illustrator(s) perceive to be best looking to tell the story, iow the perceptional, most pleasing angle to bring the idea or concept across.
Assuming there is a correlation with the real device based on a few illustrations is just few bridges too far...

The only way to obtain the correct angle is either by calculus or by engineering drawings. Performing statistical distribution diagrams , medians , etc is all pointless in this case. Let alone see it as a validation of previous assumptions.

overkill... really...
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 12:42 PM by Flyby »

Tags: