Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 1315992 times)

Offline Vix

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
I think that EM Drive could be a disruptive technology even if it never manages to provide enough thrust for earth lift off.  Notbfor going to Mars. I'd rather like to see it helps make this planet a better place. How?
Just managing to keep stuff afloat in the orbit would be more than enough.
Now just pair that with the idea of space solar panels. If those could be kept in earth orbit by Emdrives, and if a suitable method for beaming this energy to Earth gets developed, it would be a game changer. Think of a lof of clean electricity. No coal power plants, no nuclear ones. They would become obsolete. We would have enough electricity to charge all these electric cars. Oh, I forgot, the batteries. Hope that Musk has something up his sleeve. :) I expect a breakthrogh there as well. Now couple that with ongoing LENR experiments and the real possibility to get it work fairly soon.
I just truly hope these things will become real in the next five years...and I won't be bothered anymore by the Dieselgate and a Coal power plant in my backyard...
Call me biased, but I choose to believe that the Em drive works, for the sake of our kids health...

Offline RERT

Morning people.

Encouraging stuff from Paul March!

The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.

I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!

Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.

The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.

I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.

I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2015 09:38 am by RERT »

Offline TheTraveller

Morning people.

Encouraging stuff from Paul March!

The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.

I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!

Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.

The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.

I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.

I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.

Another approach is to increase the N/kW results by applying a step by step process during the design process:

1) do VNA scans to ensure resonance exists at the desired freq.

2) design in ability to impedance match so 95% of the generated Rf gets inside the cavity.

3) ensure the Rf generator bandwidth is smaller than cavity bandwidth.

4) optimise 1 - 3 to obtain highest measured Q (loaded Q)

5) paint frustum with high thermal emmissitivity coating to reduce operational temp.

6) use active min VSWR freq tracking.

7) design for Shawyers suggested TE013 mode.

8) measure loaded Q following Shawyer's suggestions using S11 VNA 3dB away from max rtn loss dB freq.

9) if designing in active narrow band Rf tracking, consider designing in spherical end plates.

10) use a SPR like frustum Df & resonant design tool.

Be rewarded wirh 0.3-0.5N/kW specific Force capable EMDrive.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
[speculation  on]

I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.

If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.

Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....

[/speculation]
« Last Edit: 10/13/2015 11:28 am by Flyby »

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell

Offline andygood

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Ireland
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 75
I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)
« Last Edit: 10/13/2015 03:01 pm by andygood »

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • United States
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 10
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency.  Could a Maser do this?  (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)

@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)

You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 22
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!

Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).

Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.

(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)



My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency.  Could a Maser do this?  (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)

@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.
You'll be back, we'll haunt your dreams. The tar baby frustum rarely lets go. If I was working at a full time job I'd be hard pressed to do any of this. It's quite demanding.

I think building a frustum similar to this thought would be quite interesting.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150923/ncomms9251/full/ncomms9251.html

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.

Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!

Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).

Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.

(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)



My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Personally visited mine....
Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
Before I head out to the shop I wanted to cover again the why I'm building the way I am. It may eventually lead to a active PLL frequency control to the frustum although I wanted a stable frustum to work with, one that could negate the thermal heat issues and remain tunable to research other modes and other theories of operation. My next step is to modify the end plates to a curved surface and make the magnetron tunable over a narrow range but not until I gain some results from this basic design. I very much agree with Paul March's, Shawyer's and TT's thoughts on a stable high Q design but not until I see how stable I can make this mechanically.

http://imgur.com/a/stBOj

Shell

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.

Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?

I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 281
[speculation  on]

I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.

If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.

Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....

[/speculation]

I can tell you  Mr. Flyby that last cover of the Tajmar work almost made it to the main media.
The numbers were huge indeed. Even Forbes took notice. Main stories on bbcnews and cnn have millions of views per hour.
NASA space flight forum server might crash and yes our calm community here will no longer be calm. At least for a month I guess.

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73
...
The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...


Or that they have determined that is the direction they need to go next.
Retired, yet... not

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.

Agreed. But if the next paper from EagleWorks was called something like "Experimental falsification of the Emdrive thruster: how we were all duped by a not-so-simple experimental error", I doubt Paul would be encouraging DIYers to continue.

That bit of encouragement in itself, is the most positive news he could bring us without violating the secrecy he was told to keep (at least until peer reviewed publication and independent replication).

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)

You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".

And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.
Retired, yet... not

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1