Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 1316477 times)

Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 31
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A 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?

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 173
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A 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?

The fringe science 'community' has reported gravity and time related anomalous effects for decades surrounding things that included high voltage, high frequency, large banks of stacked capacitive plates, Tesla coils and the like.  The fact that the highest reported anomalous thrust signature in an EM drive to date is in a super conducting cavity has also intrigued me.  Do I believe all these things are related? Absolutely.  Any theory of what the EM drive is doing needs to take all this into account (at least enough to throw any irrelevant piece out! :) ).  I think the likelihood that this is an electromagnetic effect is high.  My instinct - and I'm no physicist but I think I have good instincts - is that this will be a simple thing to implement once we figure out the 'secret sauce' (and of course the underlying theory).
As an example of what I mean: how long ago could man have invented an electric generator?  All you need is: insulated copper wire, a magnet (lodestone), and a rotary shaft.  It could have been built in the bronze age!  We just didn't know to form the insulated wire into a coil and rotate the magnet inside it.  Imagine electricity in 5,000BC (I swear I'm going to write this as a Sci Fi novel!).  Anyway I know the EM drive won't be THAT simple, but I believe a time will come in the not too distant future when we'll figure out how to roll this off a factory floor for pennies.  THAT will change the world.
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
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?

Offline TheTraveller

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.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 194
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A 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?

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
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.

I am well aware of Shawyer's and Yang's results, but as long their results have not been replicated, you can not assume that these values are representing a reality.

Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt their results and Shawyer's rotaring table is still one of the most compelling things to "believe" there is indeed a force. But "believing" and getting scientific evidence are 2 different things.

Until so far , the EMdrive replication beaches at 0.00125N/kW on the shores of reality, instead of the claimed 0.4N/kW.
This can mean 2 things:
A) either Shawyer/Yang made some errors that inflated their results.
B) the replications made some errors that deflated the obtained results.

Until that issue has been cleared, it is unwise to take the most optimistic results as guideline.

Be conservative...it can only get better after that.. ;)

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
All: I will probably be taking a break from posting in here for a while so that I have more time for things in the rest of my life. I should be back eventually, and will try to get around to any replies then. In a previous reply to TheTraveller, I offered to run Greg Egan's field solutions for a different sized cavity (spherical caps only). That offer still stands, since I would like the excuse to force me to practice using Bessel functions. You might need to PM me to get my attention though.

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.

There likely isn't a single experiment that could fully convince me, I would need at least one replication by an independent lab unless the results were incredibly dramatic (like building a working hovercraft).

The best way to convince me with minimal need for independent replication is by experiments with a very high signal to noise ratio. This means that an experiment where the signal is at least one, preferably two orders of magnitude above any external forces that need to be accounted for. (This can be accomplished by raising the signal through more power, or by reducing the magnitude of the other forces, such as by running in vacuum to eliminate air flows, or shielding to eliminate external magnetic fields.) The results you have described are promising, but (depending on the details once your paper comes out) I expect to want at least two other labs such as Glenn to replicate the results (with an independent build). I know that all of this will take time, but I can be patient. Even if your current results are not enough to settle it for me, any improvements you make increase the justification for more funding, or for independent verification.

Ideally this would include a force large relative to the mass of the test object so that sensitive measurement equipment is not necessary. This is not necessary though, and I don't want to give a specific minimum force that would satisfy me, since that might be a nearly impossible goal.

I don't believe that a cubesat would be worth the cost of putting in orbit at this point, since there are many ways of testing this on the ground. I would expect a ground test of a fully standalone thruster (power source, generator, etc) to be performed before any cubesat launch. As far as I am aware this is common practice for most new thruster system including ion thrusters which have relatively low thrust.

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#msg1401423

Like Shawyer, Prof Yang claims no new physics are needed to explain the EMDrive / Shawyer Effect.

Only 2 of those papers were accessible and in English, so I will only comment on those. Of those papers, one stopped the theory roughly at "Radiation pressure exists" with no explanation of how it could produce net thrust on average inside a resonating cavity.

The other one has a major issue that I attached to this post. They use logic that says they want one of the forces to be small so they will ignore it. They do not provide any explanation of why it should be possible to design the cavity to make the forces have large or small ratios. (You can go to the paper and see I didn't cut out any explanation that could justify this) Simply ignoring a force such as this means that I can't trust the author of this paper to run an experiment either. With this kind of logic, they could just only consider external effects that produce forces against their expected thrust, and ignore any sources of error that may be causing (or increasing the magnitude of) the observed force.

Normally, an error this blatant is enough for me to not bother with anything else written by that person. This error makes their theory essentially "If I assume A, then I can prove A". If this isn't enough evidence for you, I can provide a more thorough analysis of the issues with the paper when I get back to posting.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1729
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 at Q's around 10,000. (<- note added in proof)

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
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 03:43 pm by Notsosureofit »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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?
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

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
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?
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

Agreed. 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.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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
Even considering just NASA's last series of tests listed in the Wiki pages of the two different mode of TM212 and TE012 Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) that change alone in just selections of TxXX mode shows a 7x increase in using TE012,  comparing with others ie: Shawyer's @ TE012 it's significantly higher (~80x) which would worked to .1 N/KW in just using the wiki data if EW had gotten TE012 to work better, it's not easy.

This is why I have pursued the TE012 with a highly symmetrical RF injection, in a tunable, thermally compensating cavity. To pull up the thrust/kW out of the noise generated from the high power thermally observed effects. http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

That said, I've somethings I have to do today and maybe finish with enough time to get the rest of the insulation installed in the shop.

Shell

Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 31
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A 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?

WRT anomalous thrust generated by Peltier devices, the website detailing the experiment at http://www.theavalonfoundation.org/docs/peltier.html , which was up when I first referred to it in
reply #308 in thread 3 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380201#msg1380201 is gone.

WRT using zener diodes as a gravity wave transducer, I've been notified I've been censored as off-topic because of complaints. A number of us (CW #896, 'Shells #897, Aero #898, CW #899, rfmwguy, Glenfish through #904) have been discussing "gravity" or hypothetical space-flow detection.

Perhaps it was my flippant and hyperbolic demeanor that got my reference to Cahill and his quantum gravity detection with zener diodes censored, but I thought it would be on-topic, since if it works, it could be useful, in a number of ways, in our context.

Off topic? I think not:

Quote
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.

Again, apologies to the offended; I wasn't trying to hype anyone's extraordinary theory, nor divert attention away from EM Drive research, but to explore the immediate topics of the nature of the vacuum/spacetime and technology to explore it WRT the EM Drive.

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
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?
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
By 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 once 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?
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 04:34 pm by Flyby »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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?
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

Agreed. 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.

And that simple statement "new physics" will stir up the physics community like a stick poking in an ant pile and even now it's polarized sides. I applaud EW and NASA on taking a step back from last year to (as the saying goes) get all their ducks in a row. For 300 years some of our most cherished foundations of calculus and Newton's Laws have remained steadfast. Nobody wants to upset the apple cart, but something (IMHO) weird is happening and truly begs a answer.

This is what I've tried to convey, there really is no bad data in pursuing this abnormality.

Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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?
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
By 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?
post

On scale-ability. With even the meager data out there, I've seen where you could potentially scale the thrusts to .1N/kW and to me this is a red flag as which way to go in my build. That would be 1/4 of the way to your .4M/kW figure. Adding spherical endplates to my next build should help that number climb higher. This is my goal, is it doable?  I don't know how stable the back of the others are I'm standing on are, but we will see if I can do it.


Nuff chattering, I've got a ton of work to get done.

Shell

Offline Remberasha

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Alabama
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
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 projects

And Louise Kleba (Formerly of NASA's Shuttle Program) can verify my credentials.

Science has it's flaws and sometimes makes mistakes, but it is still the very best tool that we have to find the truths of our universe!

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
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 projects

And Louise Kleba (Formerly of NASA's Shuttle Program) can verify my credentials.

Of course we would all be interested.  I suggest you start a new thread giving a bit of detail about the power source, and just who you are. I know of no way to verify credentials by a forum handle.

Then post the link on this thread. Be prepared for a LOT of questions, many will be negative and some will be spot-on.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 22
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?

To this forum, that is an important question.  However, thinking broadly, even such low thrust levels, once they are unquestionable, might lead to a physics revolution, and who knows where that might lead us? Since we still do not have for a fact HOW it works, who can really tell these geometries or methods are the ideal?

IF the effect proves to be real beyond any doubt, my two cents are on an analogy of we discovering electricity by rubbing a comb on a piece of wool, and trying to use that for propulsion. Once we fully understand the mechanism, THEN we will be able REALLY create machines to use it.

First, let's prove that rubbing the comb on the wool makes the comb attract light objects, that it is not glue on the comb, wind on the light object our anything similar.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
So 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.

Offline fluxcapacitor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So 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.

Think about Lockheed Martin's compact fusion reactor: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

Could this be used? Also, at current efficiency, do you need 628 gigawatts of power to levitate a 80 kg person on earth? :)

They are aiming for a 100MW version.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2015 09:44 pm by fluxcapacitor »

Tags:
 

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