Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdfNow imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 02:42 amInteresting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdfNow imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.What dimensions would a 10.2 GHz fustrum have? Does the theory or experimental evidence say higher frequencies are better, aside from the smaller size?
Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 03:21 pm.../...Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all. And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...Best, Paul MarchPaul, thank you for posting news (within the constraints). Following one of the aspect of the sensitivity of the experiment to cg shifts (discussed previously before the "black out") : do you still need a slight tilt (wrt strict verticality) of the axis of rotation of the TP's arm to have a stable rest position ? What else could be the cause for this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem that seems to indicate a measurement coupling directly proportional to temperature ? The dynamic recoil of a part's mass accelerating (relative to fixation on TP's arm) under effect of thermal dilatation could hardly "shift" rest position at levels of 100µN for more than a few seconds. For instance a 1kg part would have to accelerate at 10-4 m/s˛, after 10s this would be a huge 5mm move. I am under the impression that a horizontal pendulum with strict verticality of axis of rotation (i.e. where there is no change in altitude of the test article when the arm rotates) should be sensitive only to such "dynamic recoils" effects, relatively easy to tame and filter out because proportional to second derivative (wrt time) of temperature.Also, rules permitting, can you tell us if you have done new tests without dielectric inserts, and if yes if those tests are still yielding no measurable effect as for the previous experimental campaign at EW (Brady report 2014 and later follow-up by you on this forum) ?
.../...Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all. And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...Best, Paul March
As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air. Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 04:00 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:09 pmVax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.Traveler:We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs. (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.) Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? I'm curious...Best, Paul March Hi Paul,I'm very confident this is doable:1) is supplied as a bolt on 1U cubesat propulsion module, with top end thrust, depending on pwr availibility, of around 25mN.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from an integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem that has self protection from thermal over temp.4) real time frustum resonance tracking via lowest VSWR.5) each thruster unit will be qualified on a rotary test rig, in a min 1 torr vac chamber.My business model is to build and supply these 1U form factor X band thrusters to clients who wish to fly them as bolt on propulsion modules for their cubesat projects.It is good to see you active on the forum again.Phil Wilson
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:09 pmVax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.Traveler:We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs. (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.) Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? I'm curious...Best, Paul March
Vax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 11/01/2015 12:38 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 10:47 pm{snip}I'm very confident this is doable:1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.6) total mass under 1kg.7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.CommentsA second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.v = u + a t so t = Δv / aF = m a so a = F/mcombining t = Δv * m / FTo give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/st = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)25mN is only limited by Rf amp watts and power supply availability.Can always end stack the standard 25mN 1U modules for higher acceleration rates & built 3 axis arrays for attitude control.Like space lego. Only they make the sat move.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 10:47 pm{snip}I'm very confident this is doable:1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.6) total mass under 1kg.7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.CommentsA second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.v = u + a t so t = Δv / aF = m a so a = F/mcombining t = Δv * m / FTo give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/st = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)
{snip}I'm very confident this is doable:1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.6) total mass under 1kg.7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.Comments
{snip}Phil:You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well. What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 04:22 am{snip}Phil:You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well. What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?Best, Paul M.This 2014 Make: magazine article says about $40,000 to launch a cubesat, presumably a 1U.http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-goThe price will be negotiable since NASA may have a bulk buy scheme, can do many of the inspections in house but could require the launch firm to do expensive extra paperwork.
Quote Meberbs:"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure stress tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition. In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
Meberbs:"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."
Quote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 09:05 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 08:46 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:F = q [ E + (v × B) ]That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_forceTranslation of wikipedia(DE)pic 1 b)"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."pic 1 a) and pic 2"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."Yes, all you've said is true, but you're describing a magnetohydrodynamic generator, not a motor. Imagine a plasma flowing into a duct. Take two opposite charges in that flow, moving together in the same direction, with the flow, and entering a zone where a magnetic field is applied. Both charges will feel a Lorentz force in the opposite direction, and those forces will separate the charges like in your pictures. They can then be collected though electrodes on the sides of the duct. This is a power source, an MHD generator:Now, imagine a ionized gas at rest. Take the same duct and applied magnetic field, but this time, apply an electric field between the electrodes on the sides of the duct. unlike the first example, your opposite charges will flow in opposite directions: the electron will be accelerated towards the positive electrode, while the positron will be accelerated towards the negative electrode, because this time there is an applied E-field. The Lorentz force will accelerate both particles in the same direction. This is an electrical motor, an MHD drive:The difference is when you apply or not an electric field. In an MHD drive, the electric field accelerates the charges in opposite directions, but the magnetic field curves their trajectory and the resulting Lorentz force pushes all charges, whatever their sign, in the same direction. And, through collisions in the gas, momentum is transferred to heavy ions and neutral atoms which are also accelerated (as a side note, magnetohydrodynamic thrusters are way more powerful than ion thrusters, the latter accelerating only one species, positive ions, through an electric field).Basically it's the same thing as in a classical electric generator or linear motor with copper rotor and stator. Except with MHD your rotor is a working fluid (electrically conductive liquid or gas).
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 08:46 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:F = q [ E + (v × B) ]That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_forceTranslation of wikipedia(DE)pic 1 b)"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."pic 1 a) and pic 2"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."
Quote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:F = q [ E + (v × B) ]That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?
{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.
Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.
Quote from: X_RaY on 11/01/2015 09:57 amQuestion: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.The movement triggered on the particles accelerated by the Lorentz force does combine and changes the direction of the resulting force. This is not a simple problem. When I look at TM212 mode in the frustum I see the resulting Lorentz forces are mainly centrifugal for both charges in each "lobe", whatever the directions of the fields. This is because the charges being opposite, they flow in opposite direction along the E-field, but the Lorentz force acts on them oppositely too, so it pushes them in the same direction. After a cycle (since this is AC, not DC) the E-field is reversed, but the B-field is also reversed, and the left-hand rule shows the direction of the force is conserved, always centrifugal.Doest that mean the particles being centrifugally accelerated would interact with the slant lateral walls and thus are deflected from small end to big end, like in a rocket nozzle? I don't know if I'm right on this scheme.
@Mezzenile,Probably time to recall from Thread 2...
Snip...
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 11/01/2015 11:52 am@Mezzenile,Probably time to recall from Thread 2...My God : Thread 2 has 208 pages !
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.
Quote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmAny thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.That opinion is not shared by either Roger Shawyer nor Prof Yang. Both of who have a very considerable depth of experimental experience and data. Probably exceeding that of Eagleworks.Just maybe you need to review ALL their experimental data and theories that both claim to show no new physics is needed to explain the "Shawyer Effect".
Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.
This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and gravity)....