At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.
Quote from: JBF on 04/29/2013 12:45 amAt an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.A photon has energy E = hf and momentum p = hf / c = E / cF = dp/dt = dE/dt / cSo even if all the energy was converted into photons all emited in the desired direction, that would make a force:F = 2.5e3/3e8 = 8e-6 NThat's 90 000 times less than 720 mN.Where am I wrong?
Brady, David (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States); White, Harold G. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States); March, Paul (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States); Lawrence, James T. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States); Davies, Frank J. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States)
New paper describing encouraging results from the testing of an 'EM-drive' like device.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052Hope it stands up to further scrutiny. Could be a real game changer!
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive."..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
Quote from: Dunners73 on 07/31/2014 05:44 pmNot sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive."..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
Well it's appeared again.http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-driveThis is the main link.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052Anyone notice Harold 'warp drive' White is one of the authors on this?
Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both testarticles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not producethrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to producethrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
QuoteManual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both testarticles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not producethrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to producethrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).This looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
