The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrustA Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.Coincidence?
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it. The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
There are other results.Remember Roger gave up using dielectrics in 2003 and all his later devices also had spherical end plates.Both Roger and Prof Yang have reported experimental data in the 0.4N/kW range.
Posted by: meberbs« on: Today at 03:04 PM »"While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence."Meberbs:I'm game. What will it take on the experimentation side of this question to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the the observed thrust like effect is real and engineer-able? Just more thrust of say XX milli-Newton from say the EW lab, or perhaps just replication of our current EW lab's ~100 micro-Newton (uN) results in an independent lab like Glenn Research Center?? Or will it take a demonstration flight of an emdrive powered XX U-CubeSat where it raises its orbit by some predetermined number of km that can be explained in no other way??? And please do remember that someone has to pay for all these efforts...Best, Paul M.
Prof Yang developed a classical electrodynamics model of the EMDrive that predicted around the same Force levels as Shawyers theory predicted and both models predicted close to the measured Force levels.Her 2013 peer reviewed paper predicts and graphs the Forces generated on all the surfaces and shows a net Force being generated.Maybe have a read of her 5 peer reviewed papers?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401423#msg1401423Like Shawyer, Prof Yang claims no new physics are needed to explain the EMDrive / Shawyer Effect.
Quote from: Flyby on 11/03/2015 12:27 pmHowever exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it. The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?I'll re-post what I said on another site.The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.Shell
mwvp"The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust"Flyby"However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... ""Until so far , the EMdrive replication beaches at 0.00125N/kW on the shores of reality, instead of the claimed 0.4N/kW."-----------------------------------Yes, well the latest reported result agrees very well with the (admittadly simple) dispersion model for TM212 with no free parameters. The unfortunate consequence is that should that model be correct, the attainable thrust is likely to be limited to less than 0.01N/kW.That being said, there is considerable room for the examination of other geometries. (and, I suppose, the inclusion of "secret sauces") It would, for example, be of interest to do the exact calculation for the conical cavity with spherical ends. (a daunting task that I don't have the time to pursue at the moment)http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
Quote from: mwvp on 11/03/2015 09:23 amThe EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrustA Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.Coincidence?citations?
You have just been sent a personal message by Carl G on NASASpaceFlight.com Forum....This was heavily reported by members as off topic for the thread (and the site). I saved it for you, but we're trying to keep the wacky science to a minimum. Carl,Mod.
Quote from: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 03:15 pmQuote from: Flyby on 11/03/2015 12:27 pmHowever exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it. The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?I'll re-post what I said on another site.The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.ShellAgreed. Despite the growing heap of evidence, the Emdrive is still well within its early speculative phase, trying to prove it actually exists. Yes, I'm aware of all the work done by scientists and DIYers alike, but it's still not an uncontroversial accepted fact.And because of the way things seem to work at NASA, following the Technical Readiness Levels, EagleWorks people are adhering to the expected R&D method to the letter and doing exactly what they should be doing right now.Once this is proven to the financing bodies' (e.g. NASA) satisfaction, it will receive further funding.It's taking longer than we expected, though, but let's notice this is strongly controversial, potentially new physics.Please notice I say "new physics" in the broadest sense: some phenomenon that wasn't predicted by our models and theories and which was practically stumbled upon. If the existing models can be re-worked to accommodate this new phenomenon (or not) is pending to be settled.
Quote from: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 03:15 pmQuote from: Flyby on 11/03/2015 12:27 pmHowever exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it. The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?I'll re-post what I said on another site.The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.ShellBy no means was my above comment targeting the engineering capabilities of Eagleworks. I have zero criticism on their approach or method so far...My only concern is that the assumption of some people, that the EMdrive scales easily might turn out very disappointing.Until proven or replicated that 0.4N/kW is achievable i don't think it is wise to project fantasies of cube satellites and others outlandish stuff.Shawyer and Yang's results still need to be validated first, both in effect (does it exist?) and in numbers (can we get 0.4N/kW?).If it needs babysteps, sure, fine with me, but very few things in this world scale in a linear fashion. The curve usually tends to flatten ones you scale up. So, if the efficiency on a low power test is already low, it doesn't predict much good for the more powerful version.What I'm starting to fear is that the effect turns into an interesting scientific case study, but that the real world application turns out far less promising then the flying cars that have been promised by some...So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?
So - would anybody be interested in a new power source to power this drive (and other space based systems)?For reference: I use to have many a discussion with the late Dr. Edward Teller on superconductivity projectsAnd Louise Kleba (Formerly of NASA's Shuttle Program) can verify my credentials.
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?
Quote from: Flyby on 11/03/2015 03:57 pmSo the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?Have you looked at the crudity of the EMDrives being tested? They are copper pieces bolted together, with off-the-shelf magnetrons or RF transmitters.If the effect is genuine, do you really think that such crude devices can possibly have achieved the maximum possible efficiency or output? You think that once the effect is understood, it won't be accessed in a much more direct way?Aside:1mN may not seem particularly useful, but it's that not far outside the margins for deep space missions.Splitting the difference between MSL's RTG and the newer experimental designs, you're looking at maybe 200kg for 1kW (including the mass of the EMDrive itself.) 1mN/kW becomes 5mN per tonne of drive/power mass. Add a tonne of payload/etc. That gives 20yrs to Pluto flyby. Doable, but probably outside of useful.However, just four times the efficiency to 4mN. The time to Pluto flyby is reduced to 11 years. (Less if you give it a bigger throw in the inner solar system.) BUT! And here's the kicker. Flight time into Pluto orbit is just 15 years. Or Jupiter in 5 years. Saturn in 8. Etc. With a 50% payload mass. Remember, that's at just 4 mN per kW.Propellantless thrust is a whole new world. 4N/kW would be revolutionary of course, but just 1/1000th of that is useful to for science missions.Continuing for 1/100th: At 40mN per kW, you can reach the sun's gravitational focus at 600AU in just 14 years. That's within a decent mission lifespan, and hence acceptable to funding agencies like NASA. (Also, Pluto orbit in 5 years. Flyby in 3.5yrs. Similar times to anywhere in the solar system.) So at just 40mN/kW, you essentially replace any other form of propulsion for deep space science missions.And 1/10th: At 400mN per kW, you can orbit Pluto in 19 months. (Similar time to anywhere in the solar system. 5-6 months to Mars.) And you can reach the gravitational focal point in just 4 years. At that point, naturally you'll jack up your payload mass for realistic missions.Anything beyond 1N/kW, and it will be the only means of transport outside of LEO (and landing on a moon or planet), and allows HSF to the even outer planets.Hell, 4N/kW, at 50% payload mass, can flyby Alpha Centauri in 28 years, with a peak velocity of 30% of lightspeed (if you could find a 30 year power source.)Propellantless thrust changes everything.