Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635404 times)

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

Offline M.LeBel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 34
 ... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 281
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

That post from Gilo on the Facebook made an edit and added link to this article:

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/gilo-expands-with-new-wiltshire-unit

This is very interesting:

"The subsidiary of Gilo Industries Group has taken further space at Chaldicott Barns as an expansion of the business after more investment to develop new technology."

Of course Gilo works on additional technologies, but they mentioned the propulsion with this update. It points to the SPR company.

Also article mentiones Kuang-Chi investment group again. There are also other investors as far as we know. Many of them with considerable assets and interest in space and propulsion technologies.

Mod: SPR site updated with the latest presentation we already know about http://emdrive.com/
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 05:55 am by Chrochne »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
What you just posted is the mathematical equivalent of gibberish. You can't just break up the parts of a derivative like it was a fraction. There are a few cases where you can correctly write down something similar such as when notating a variable substitution (such as for integration by parts) but even then it is just shorthand for other more rigorous steps. What you did gets even worse when you invert so that you are dividing by infinitesimals, which is basically division by 0.

Also, even ignoring the issues with your use of infinitesimals, the dB/E portion makes no sense, because a vector divided by a vector is simply not a defined operation. This gets to the main problem with the ideas you keep posting here: You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist, and a single dimension simply cannot contain the information to describe 3 others as well as itself. When you write it out mathematically like this, the problem becomes obvious as you get undefined operations like this to do the magic conversion.

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 281
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 67
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,

Except for the statement of the delta, yes, I agree especially for design/builders including magnetics inside or outside the frustum.

To maintain a delta, the pulses have to become shorter and overlap from multiple sources. There are electronic ways to construct and extend an extended peaking wave that looks like a square wave over time. E fields are easy; B field management and applications require knowledgeable magnetics folks.

The B field should be treated independently at first with coupling to Maxwell equations for a fuller picture. One should consider using Dirac's equations which are balanced, and also check out Maxwells' equations with axions added.

Interesting possibilities and dangerous opportunities.

David M




Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 67
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Philadelphia
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 45
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh

Good point. The Ultem I will be using is black anyhow, but I don't know exactly *how* black it is. The bad thing is, Ultem has a low thermal conductivity (.22 W/m). It's pretty much a decent insulator!
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 12:41 pm by R.W. Keyes »

Offline TheTraveller

Email received from Roger in regard to who AIM is on the attached slide.

Interesting that the American Institute of Mathematics has a detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND a solution to the high Q acceleration problem as does Prof Yang's NWPU.

==============

Hi Phil

AIM is the American Institute of Mathematics. It is funded by the National Science Foundation and is used by a number of US government agencies.

I had a meeting with John Fry at his request, on 19 Jan 2014 in the UK.

Best regards

Roger

==============
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 12:41 pm by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
https://aimath.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Mathematics

John Fry is the co-founder of Fry's Electronics, California.
And AIM is funded by NSF ;D
(no! not the website of this forum, but the National Science Foundation, a US government agency)

https://www.nsf.gov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 01:19 pm by flux_capacitor »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 1729
For example:  In the Notsosureofit example the thrust NT of the rest frame is reduced by the acceleration of the cavity by the factor (g(photon) - g(cavity))/g(photon).

[off the cuff statement - note the nonlinearity]
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 02:26 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
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 02:29 pm by SeeShells »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force. For a low estimate of a 1 kg apparatus, that would be 0.002 to 0.1 m/s^2. This is at best a factor of 100 less acceleration than I was using, and with the factor of 1000 increase in Q you suggested, this is a net factor of 10 increase in the delta v 0.1 m/s is still not going to be very significant.

Shawyer has obviously not demonstrated anything near 100 gs acceleration, or he would have posted a picture of the hole in his wall, and we would be having a very different conversation. We can instead stick with my 1 g number which is still far above demonstrated accelerations, which are the only ones that matter experimentally. That would bump it up to 10 m/s. This would get you up to around 80 Hz shift, which might almost be enough to matter if you had a very good source (I'd have to check the expected bandwidth at that kind of Q) still, for this to come into effect, you would already be accelerating at a sustained 1 g for 1 second, and if there were limitations caused by they would just make it difficult to accelerate much faster, no reason you couldn't keep that rate up though.

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.
Yes, this is a science forum in English, so we are using the short scale. Million is never a problem and is always 106 in any scale. it is billion and trillion which have different meanings in the long scale, but nobody should use the long scale in English and especially in scientific discussions.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

 :o Well then, I look forward to hearing more when you're ready to present it.  ;D

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

And what about Fetta? I strongly suspect Shawyer, Fetta and others have much stronger results than you know about and know what's really going on. Are you considering the possibility that even if you don't accept Shawyer's theory, his equations may in fact work yet need to be put on a firmer footing or shown to be equivalent to better theories.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 05:54 pm by Bob012345 »

Tags:
 

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