Dr. Rodal:As promised, find attached a few related papers from work. As to the rest of your and Mulletron's concerns over the Eagleworks evolving theoretical musings on the EM-Drive propulsion topic, I leave you with Boyd Bushman's, (was senior scientist at LM/FW, now retired and passed-on), admonition to me when I first met him back in 2000 when discussing Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect work with Boyd's boss, "Follow the data, theory be dammed!" We intend to do just that, no matter where it might take us.Best, Paul M.
I'm new here and I just thought I would post this video for you all. Its a very VERY sloppy experimental setup of something like the what people on this forum are talking about. The interesting thing here is the man in the video doesn't use end-plates and its quite a bit slimmer than the EM Drive. Here is the video: youtube.com/watch?v=vcaOKX7Ko7wWhat are some thoughts about the video posted?
Created Shawyer (EM Drive) engine is very easy and simple in its design . It provides the necessary thrust " by the oscillation of the microwaves inside the vacuum container ."http: //hi-news.ru/technology/v-nasa-i ...I decided that the system should not be closed
Feeling incapable of contributing much to the theoretical analysis I feel competent in building a device and providing accurate data. I have learned to think carefully before experiment/measurement so that I understand what is being measured, what the data is expected to reveal and why it is relevant. My point is both disciplined theoretical analysis and experimental data are useful.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/02/2015 08:23 pmQuote from: rgreen on 05/02/2015 03:28 pmFollowing on what jknuble said about the multipactor-like effect as a possible cause of thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect I can't help but wonder about what's going on with the copper surface of the frustum. A quick back of the envelope (well, python) calculation shows that there's certainly enough energy in these devices to somehow atomize a small amount of copper , and propel them with enough momentum to produce a small amount of thrust. For example, a 30 watt emdrive where 0.001% of the energy went towards atomization and 1% went toward addtional momentum of the particles... You'd have a device with 91uN thrust, propelling 1.4ng of copper a second at 65500m/s.I can think of 3 ways to debunk this. 1) perhaps that amount of particles going that fast would be noticeable with the naked eye, so this isn't really a valid explanation. 2) stick a detector behind the thruster (are they ionized?). 3) SEM of the surface compared to scraps from the same batch of copper not used in the thrustum.Just how would we get a net-thrust from a closed cavity with atomization. Even if atoms are being ioniozed inside the cavity I don't see how that could result in a net thrust. Atomization results in immediate thrust but then that creates impact on the other side of the cavity canceling out the propulsion. I'm talking about signs of atomization on the *outside* surface of the frustum. Although it would probably be happening in the inside as well. The copper atoms would be the propellent. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be, but it's obviously more than a thermal effect, and the whole reversal in phase/thrust would be difficult to explain. It seems more simple than QV or relativity models, but it's still probably interesting physics.It might also explain the interferometer results.
Quote from: rgreen on 05/02/2015 03:28 pmFollowing on what jknuble said about the multipactor-like effect as a possible cause of thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect I can't help but wonder about what's going on with the copper surface of the frustum. A quick back of the envelope (well, python) calculation shows that there's certainly enough energy in these devices to somehow atomize a small amount of copper , and propel them with enough momentum to produce a small amount of thrust. For example, a 30 watt emdrive where 0.001% of the energy went towards atomization and 1% went toward addtional momentum of the particles... You'd have a device with 91uN thrust, propelling 1.4ng of copper a second at 65500m/s.I can think of 3 ways to debunk this. 1) perhaps that amount of particles going that fast would be noticeable with the naked eye, so this isn't really a valid explanation. 2) stick a detector behind the thruster (are they ionized?). 3) SEM of the surface compared to scraps from the same batch of copper not used in the thrustum.Just how would we get a net-thrust from a closed cavity with atomization. Even if atoms are being ioniozed inside the cavity I don't see how that could result in a net thrust. Atomization results in immediate thrust but then that creates impact on the other side of the cavity canceling out the propulsion.
Following on what jknuble said about the multipactor-like effect as a possible cause of thrust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor_effect I can't help but wonder about what's going on with the copper surface of the frustum. A quick back of the envelope (well, python) calculation shows that there's certainly enough energy in these devices to somehow atomize a small amount of copper , and propel them with enough momentum to produce a small amount of thrust. For example, a 30 watt emdrive where 0.001% of the energy went towards atomization and 1% went toward addtional momentum of the particles... You'd have a device with 91uN thrust, propelling 1.4ng of copper a second at 65500m/s.I can think of 3 ways to debunk this. 1) perhaps that amount of particles going that fast would be noticeable with the naked eye, so this isn't really a valid explanation. 2) stick a detector behind the thruster (are they ionized?). 3) SEM of the surface compared to scraps from the same batch of copper not used in the thrustum.
Quote from: CW on 05/07/2015 10:54 amI think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.Which battery types would you recommend for 1 KW operation?
I think that the solution is really simple, if it's about demonstrating a thrust effect that is many times larger than measurement precision: Crank up the RF power. A lot. There is really no two ways about it. Please don't even try to play with a power level that even a 9V-battery can put out.. . Personally, I'd play in a power regime of about 1kW (actually I do, but that's another story..) . 1KW is a level that can easily be handled by readily available parts and off-the-shelf electronics, but is still not excessive.
Now, that's something we can all agree with
Quote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 08:49 pmQuote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock Correct, I am providing some closed form equations for a simplified case that should describe correctly what observed recently at Eagleworks. As said before, I cannot find an explanation for thrust in the framework of general relativity. In the aforementioned Minotti's paper it is shown that one needs to modify the theory to account for it. Minotti's paper can be helpful to discuss the full problem and this will be work for the (very) near future. The point that I would like to understand is if the linearized Einstein theory could be enough. Probably so but my analysis for the simplified problem makes me think that a cavity can yield more for a laser propagating inside.Eagleworks' results about the laser and the cavity are exciting because could pave the way both to table-top experiments in general relativity and space-time engineering as the technology to manage electromagnetic fields is well acquired.Feel free to comment on this first draft.
Quote from: sghill on 05/06/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.StrongGR may be talking about a closed-form solution for that case (without the dielectric insert), therefore a mathematical formula. Not necessarily including plots, as they are necessary for numerical solutions. Given the closed-form solution (for which we would be most thankful ) then all of us could make plots using our own software, for any numerical values we are interested in.That's why closed-form solutions rock
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.
I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.
One sees that there is an additional component to the laser field exiting the cavity that interacts with the mode inside. This can have terms with the frequency shifted and is a purely gravitational effect.
I have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity. Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen. This could explain recent results at Eagleworks with a resonator having the form of a truncated cone. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanation
I hope this post wasn't too rambling or too full of misconceptions regarding the tests you have performed. I don't envy you folks trying to make progress on this complex issue via a public internet forum. Good luck, and again, I hope I'm wrong!-Joseph Knuble, NASA GSFC Code 555Microwave Instrument Technology BranchFinal note for any students here who are curious about RF: This is far below the power levels I believe you have operated at but for future consideration at the 100W to KW level note the acoustic (i.e. pressure) effects of this demonstration which uses a 2.4GHz magnetron in a closed cavity with a contaminant: Depending on the dynamics involved, teams which have tested at high power could be seeing the effects of a similar unstable vibration (think of your vibrating cell-phone skittering across the table.)
The point I'm making is this. You see these men sitting at the table together in this video? They're all on the same team....trying to figure out how to pull off interstellar flight. For the good of all of us. Now they're duking it out in an interview in Wired. They (like us) should all be working together, pooling resources, combined knowledge and experience. Instead a rift has formed, which will likely kill progress.I do not want that to happen to this thread, which mas made pretty darn good progress so far. Not bad for a once unknown internet forum. Now back to work.
Quote from: TheTravellerPlan is to replicate the Flight Thruster using 100Ws of RF during the static tests. At 150W, Shawyer got around 40mN or 4gf of thrust, which would give me around 25mN or 2.5gf. As my setup will be much lighter than Shawyers rotary system and will be using magnetic bearings, 2.5gf should be more than enough thrust to run load versus power consumed tests and generate a descent curve to show COE is obeyed or not.I imagine the chief source of friction will be the generator bearings. Or can these also be magnetic?
Plan is to replicate the Flight Thruster using 100Ws of RF during the static tests. At 150W, Shawyer got around 40mN or 4gf of thrust, which would give me around 25mN or 2.5gf. As my setup will be much lighter than Shawyers rotary system and will be using magnetic bearings, 2.5gf should be more than enough thrust to run load versus power consumed tests and generate a descent curve to show COE is obeyed or not.