In the final formulation of General Relativity, Einstein noticed a nontrivial connection between Maxwell’s electrodynamics and his theory of gravity. He saw that by solving Maxwell’s equations in a gravitational field, not only does the electromagnetic field generate gravity, which is certainly believable from the mass-energy relation, but gravity can enhance a background electromagnetic field given the proper conditions. This duality was one of the key features of physics that led Einstein and his followers to propose that there is a Grand Unified Theory of all the forces.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:09 pmVax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.Traveler:We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs. (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.) Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? I'm curious...Best, Paul March
Vax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.
Questions for all and any.For those that ponder that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for reported thrust in prior EM Drive experiments or that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for some percentage of total thrust.Why does there seem to be so much of a difference between reported thrust levels with experiments conducted in a vacuum vs. in our normal atmosphere?Don
Quote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:33 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:25 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:11 pmI don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.So we should ignore the historic data? Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:25 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:11 pmI don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.So we should ignore the historic data? Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:11 pmI don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.So we should ignore the historic data? Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.
Quote from: TMEubanks on 11/02/2015 01:08 amHOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results. Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.Phil
Quote from: Star One on 11/01/2015 07:02 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:33 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:25 pmQuote from: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:11 pmI don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.So we should ignore the historic data? Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.Or a cubesat going from earth to lunar orbit with an EMDrive.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 04:51 amQuote from: TMEubanks on 11/02/2015 01:08 amHOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results. Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.PhilI'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that. The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.
For those of you performing or analyzing DIY experiments, there is software from MIT that might help you quantify the chimney effect by using an ordinary video camera instead of Schlieren optics. For best results, the background should be textured and the video should be uncompressed.One of their papers goes into more detail:Refraction Wiggles for Measuring Fluid Depth and Velocity from VideoThe second link also includes source code (Matlab).
That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.
Quote from: SteveD on 11/02/2015 05:22 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 04:51 amQuote from: TMEubanks on 11/02/2015 01:08 amHOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results. Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.PhilI'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that. The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 06:32 amQuote from: SteveD on 11/02/2015 05:22 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 04:51 amQuote from: TMEubanks on 11/02/2015 01:08 amHOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results. Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.PhilI'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that. The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.Phil:Word of advice. Do NOT run your test articles at 1.0 torr vacuum levels! That is at the bottom of the Pashen curve where glow discharges are the easiest to strike. You either run at full atmospheric pressure, or no higher than 1x10^-3 Torr and preferably at 1x10^-4 Torr or lower pressures. I've blown one two many expensive RF amps, or shorted out the frustum from glow discharges in same when I didn't observe that rule.Best, Paul M.
(...)Bingo! If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields. The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...(...)Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 02:50 pm(...)Bingo! If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields. The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...(...)Best, Paul M.Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
Yea, Shell, but what about the paper you write explaining your results? Which is easier to explain to a technically oriented audience, a detected acceleration of a few nano-g's, or drifting smoke? I think we have enough drifting smoke on this thread already. JMO But seriously, can anyone guess what order of magnitude of acceleration might be detected? F=ma, but what would you use for "m?" (In the speculated/estimated test set-up)For that matter, what would you use for "m" of the drifting smoke?