Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1680316 times)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
using a given geometry (thickness, diameters, length) and using pure copper as material input.

For my runs, I have been using pure copper at 0.1cm wall thickness. When running monopole sims, I'm a little uncertain what diameter to make the antenna. Shell showed me some images and took some measurements, and it looks like 0.5 to 0.7cm.

Both antenna design and placement are critical depending on the modes you want to excite.

I think i'm going to help illustrate this by running frequency sweeps (2 - 3Ghz) on the same frustum dimensions, but with a number of different antenna types and locations.
Good idea...it was originally suggested to me to off-center the RF insert on the large diameter...did that but no cigar. Went to centering it on the large plate. Side insertion was also a topic of discussion...centered or offset? Seems depends on whom you asked.

Nice that you have the modeling, but I will say this, models have described modes, but I remain unconvinced there is a magic mode that needs to be designed for (yet anyway). Otherwise, we'd have blueprints and working EMDrives all over the planet.

Here's something else to think about, Eagleworks' project is dead...for all intents and purposes. Dead in the fact that there is an information blackout that has been in effect for many months. Designing something to try and match a 2-3 year old design whose specifics have not been released is counterproductive IMHO.

I can tell you that there were rumblings that the 2014 tests yielded results WITHOUT a dielectric. I cannot say any more than that as am trying to respect the overall blackout. That being an old 2014 test, seems OK to provide the info. So...long story short...no one has a magic design yet so feel free to experiment with the guidance you have here...you will get some who want you to do this or that...but the key word here is YOU.

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 281
If the NASA EW project would be completely dead I guess we would have at least some post from Star-Drive to have some closure I think. ???

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
using a given geometry (thickness, diameters, length) and using pure copper as material input.

For my runs, I have been using pure copper at 0.1cm wall thickness. When running monopole sims, I'm a little uncertain what diameter to make the antenna. Shell showed me some images and took some measurements, and it looks like 0.5 to 0.7cm.

Both antenna design and placement are critical depending on the modes you want to excite.

I think i'm going to help illustrate this by running frequency sweeps (2 - 3Ghz) on the same frustum dimensions, but with a number of different antenna types and locations.
Good idea...it was originally suggested to me to off-center the RF insert on the large diameter...did that but no cigar. Went to centering it on the large plate. Side insertion was also a topic of discussion...centered or offset? Seems depends on whom you asked.

Nice that you have the modeling, but I will say this, models have described modes, but I remain unconvinced there is a magic mode that needs to be designed for (yet anyway). Otherwise, we'd have blueprints and working EMDrives all over the planet.

Here's something else to think about, Eagleworks' project is dead...for all intents and purposes. Dead in the fact that there is an information blackout that has been in effect for many months. Designing something to try and match a 2-3 year old design whose specifics have not been released is counterproductive IMHO.

I can tell you that there were rumblings that the 2014 tests yielded results WITHOUT a dielectric. I cannot say any more than that as am trying to respect the overall blackout. That being an old 2014 test, seems OK to provide the info. So...long story short...no one has a magic design yet so feel free to experiment with the guidance you have here...you will get some who want you to do this or that...but the key word here is YOU.

Keeping sources confidential, I disagree with these characterizations and interpretations:

1) <<Eagleworks' project is dead...for all intents and purposes. Dead in the fact that there is an information blackout that has been in effect for many months. >>
NASA Eagleworks project is not dead, it is ongoing.


The fact that Star-Drive has not been posting at NSF for a while does not make the NASA project "dead" for NSF discussion purposes, nor is posting at NSF the only means of existence of NASA projects. Lots of NASA and non-NASA projects are still "alive" for NSF discussion purposes even when the project individuals are not actively posting at NSF.

The LIGO project was not "dead" for NSF discussion because there was no public information until the article appeared in Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einstein-s-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-time) , for example.  It was active: people working at LIGO were of course aware of the information being accumulated.  No public information was released until the article appeared on Science, as it is the norm.

It is perfectly normal for NASA to observe similar standards concerning reporting of ongoing R&D projects.

People "with a need to know" at NASA receive information on ongoing NASA R&D projects.  The general public is informed when the managing authorities determine that the information is robust enough to be disclosed.

2) << there were rumblings that the 2014 tests yielded results WITHOUT a dielectric. I cannot say any more than that as am trying to respect the overall blackout. That being an old 2014 test, seems OK to provide the info>>

Just stating "without a dielectric" can be a misleading characterization if the testing apparatus is not taken into account: 

* tests without a dielectric yielded "no significant results", both for the Canae and for the Shawyer-type-truncated-cone devices when tested in the same torsional pendulum, even when a power more than 10 times higher was used as input for the tests without a dielectric. That is a reported fact.

* unreported new tests (to be performed after the 2014 report) without a dielectric were NOT to be performed in the same torsional pendulum as used for the 2014 report.  Preliminary tests in a completely different testing apparatus (a teeter-totter balance, as disclosed previously in the EM Drive threads was the proposed testing apparatus) are not directly comparable. (*)

Suggestion: let's either discuss what was reported or otherwise let's discuss details of unreported tests.  Loose discussion of unreported tests without a dielectric without characterizing the testing apparatus or the testing results (with and without a dielectric) can be misleading.

If test results with and without a dielectric are going to be discussed, the testing apparatus, other details, and most importantly, the results should be discussed.

Subjective interpretation of reported results (*) can be confusing enough, so imagine how much more confusing can be when people subjectively interpret unreported results, or suggest <<I cannot say any more than that as am trying to respect the overall blackout.>>

____

(*) Examples of previous confusion in reporting published tests by people that did not understand how to interpret the published NASA report:

a) whether the 2014 reports were performed in vacuum or not: many reported the tests to be performed in a vacuum because they assumed that being performed in a chamber was tantamount to being performed in a vacuum, which was incorrect

b) the confusion regarding the terminology of "Null test" for the Canae device without grooves vs the one with grooves

If such confusion can arise from people misreading and misinterpreting a published, written report, imagine what confusion can arise from people misunderstanding and misinterpreting unpublished results  ;)
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 07:31 pm by Rodal »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
If the NASA EW project would be completely dead I guess we would have at least some post from Star-Drive to have some closure I think. ???

Indeed. If one day they said "the show is over, people", I'm certain most of us would like to know.

The very reason why I keep an eye of this, is because it's believable enough that some serious institutional effort has been mustered to test it.

If they say "it doesn't work", then it's time to move on.

These guys have been claiming gravitational effects based on electromagnetic sources for a while now:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html
None of this is tested as far as I know. Could become interesting again though.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
If the NASA EW project would be completely dead I guess we would have at least some post from Star-Drive to have some closure I think. ???

Indeed. If one day they said "the show is over, people", I'm certain most of us would like to know.

The very reason why I keep an eye of this, is because it's believable enough that some serious institutional effort has been mustered to test it.

If they say "it doesn't work", then it's time to move on.
Agreed, however, many of us have moved on from both Eagleworks and SPR. If I put on my old cynical hat, I would say that I've never seen ANYTHING with my own eyes and NOBODY has proof that these things exist outside the lab.

edit - WHICH is why my build continues and glad others are as well.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 08:24 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline MazonDel

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Worcester, MA
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 36
Here's a question for people, apologies if it was asked/answered before.

What sort of effect does having a less rounded frustum have on things?

I've been toying around with a design for a re-configurable frustum. Sort of like a three dimensional iris shutter system. While I "should" be able to figure out how to make the blades rounded, unless I get super fancy with adjustable curves on the blades, they will still somewhat only be optimized for a particular shape.

Additionally, is having the RF input on the side of the frustum necessary compared with one of the endplates?

The goal of this particular mental exercise is to attempt to come up with a design of a frustum that can to some extent have most variables about its shape adjustable via computer control (possibly via stepper motors).

Thanks

-Mazon

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Official English version by the author, of Trunev's paper:

http://ej.kubagro.ru/2016/02/pdf/107.pdf

GENERAL RELATIVITY AND DYNAMICAL MODEL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE

Alexander Trunev

Quote
The data shown in Fig. 3 and 7 demonstrate that in the electromagnetic drive thrust increases by several orders of magnitude compared to photon rockets. In the Yang-Mills theory, this increase can be explained by the fact that nonlinear waves carry momentum from the system more effectively than photons.


In the present study we examined the mechanism of excitation waves in the Yang-Mills field, leading to the appearance of traction effect at resonance of electromagnetic waves in a conical cavity.The inclusion of the Yang-Mills field in the model has a double scientific interest. On the one hand, this model allows us to explain the processes in electromagnetic drive. On the other hand, these devices themselves may be used to register the mechanical effects caused by the Yang-Mills field.

Bold added for emphasis
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 07:32 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Here's a question for people, apologies if it was asked/answered before.

What sort of effect does having a less rounded frustum have on things?

I've been toying around with a design for a re-configurable frustum. Sort of like a three dimensional iris shutter system. While I "should" be able to figure out how to make the blades rounded, unless I get super fancy with adjustable curves on the blades, they will still somewhat only be optimized for a particular shape.

Additionally, is having the RF input on the side of the frustum necessary compared with one of the endplates?

The goal of this particular mental exercise is to attempt to come up with a design of a frustum that can to some extent have most variables about its shape adjustable via computer control (possibly via stepper motors).

Thanks

-Mazon
Think I might have answered this on TT's site, but think slipping plates will cause a resonance problem and low Q.

Here's something to consider. Do what I did on my first design, construct the sidewalls with copper mesh screen, 11 threads per inch, use adjustable compression bands at 3 places along the sidewall. Mesh is quite pliable and it does give good resonance. Side-mount injection is not my choice and would be difficult with this or similar methodology.

Offline MazonDel

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Worcester, MA
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 36
Here's a question for people, apologies if it was asked/answered before.

What sort of effect does having a less rounded frustum have on things?

I've been toying around with a design for a re-configurable frustum. Sort of like a three dimensional iris shutter system. While I "should" be able to figure out how to make the blades rounded, unless I get super fancy with adjustable curves on the blades, they will still somewhat only be optimized for a particular shape.

Additionally, is having the RF input on the side of the frustum necessary compared with one of the endplates?

The goal of this particular mental exercise is to attempt to come up with a design of a frustum that can to some extent have most variables about its shape adjustable via computer control (possibly via stepper motors).

Thanks

-Mazon
Think I might have answered this on TT's site, but think slipping plates will cause a resonance problem and low Q.

Here's something to consider. Do what I did on my first design, construct the sidewalls with copper mesh screen, 11 threads per inch, use adjustable compression bands at 3 places along the sidewall. Mesh is quite pliable and it does give good resonance. Side-mount injection is not my choice and would be difficult with this or similar methodology.

During the writing of my previous post, I did have the idea of adjustable bars (in place of the blades) that could manipulate some sort of metallic cloth around and decided to do some looking before mentioning. At a glance, something like http://www.lessemf.com/fabric4.html#1212 was what I was thinking. Does something like the fabric or mesh make sense from an end-plate perspective?

Definitely having end-plate injection would simplify my setup. On an aside about that, there is probably no real value in having an ability to similarly offset the RF port is there? It wouldn't be that hard to do with an end-plate, for what I have in mind if people thought there would be value in it.

-Mazon

Offline TheTraveller

Here's a question for people, apologies if it was asked/answered before.

What sort of effect does having a less rounded frustum have on things?

I've been toying around with a design for a re-configurable frustum. Sort of like a three dimensional iris shutter system. While I "should" be able to figure out how to make the blades rounded, unless I get super fancy with adjustable curves on the blades, they will still somewhat only be optimized for a particular shape.

Additionally, is having the RF input on the side of the frustum necessary compared with one of the endplates?

The goal of this particular mental exercise is to attempt to come up with a design of a frustum that can to some extent have most variables about its shape adjustable via computer control (possibly via stepper motors).

Thanks

-Mazon
Think I might have answered this on TT's site, but think slipping plates will cause a resonance problem and low Q.

Here's something to consider. Do what I did on my first design, construct the sidewalls with copper mesh screen, 11 threads per inch, use adjustable compression bands at 3 places along the sidewall. Mesh is quite pliable and it does give good resonance. Side-mount injection is not my choice and would be difficult with this or similar methodology.

During the writing of my previous post, I did have the idea of adjustable bars (in place of the blades) that could manipulate some sort of metallic cloth around and decided to do some looking before mentioning. At a glance, something like http://www.lessemf.com/fabric4.html#1212 was what I was thinking. Does something like the fabric or mesh make sense from an end-plate perspective?

Definitely having end-plate injection would simplify my setup. On an aside about that, there is probably no real value in having an ability to similarly offset the RF port is there? It wouldn't be that hard to do with an end-plate, for what I have in mind if people thought there would be value in it.

-Mazon

This is the only photographic evidence we have of how and where Rf was injected into the SPR Flight Thruster, which is the most modern non cryo design. That Rf coax injection by a coupler (sort of antenna) of some design.

It is the method I have used and plan to use again on my next thruster build.

Good luck with your build.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
This is the only photographic evidence we have of how and where Rf was injected into the SPR Flight Thruster, which is the most modern non cryo design. That Rf coax injection by a coupler (sort of antenna) of some design.

Can anyone tell me what this square thing is protruding near the RF coax inject? Is it some kind of mechanism for changing the shape of the antenna? 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Here's a question for people, apologies if it was asked/answered before.

What sort of effect does having a less rounded frustum have on things?

I've been toying around with a design for a re-configurable frustum. Sort of like a three dimensional iris shutter system. While I "should" be able to figure out how to make the blades rounded, unless I get super fancy with adjustable curves on the blades, they will still somewhat only be optimized for a particular shape.

Additionally, is having the RF input on the side of the frustum necessary compared with one of the endplates?

The goal of this particular mental exercise is to attempt to come up with a design of a frustum that can to some extent have most variables about its shape adjustable via computer control (possibly via stepper motors).

Thanks

-Mazon
Think I might have answered this on TT's site, but think slipping plates will cause a resonance problem and low Q.

Here's something to consider. Do what I did on my first design, construct the sidewalls with copper mesh screen, 11 threads per inch, use adjustable compression bands at 3 places along the sidewall. Mesh is quite pliable and it does give good resonance. Side-mount injection is not my choice and would be difficult with this or similar methodology.

During the writing of my previous post, I did have the idea of adjustable bars (in place of the blades) that could manipulate some sort of metallic cloth around and decided to do some looking before mentioning. At a glance, something like http://www.lessemf.com/fabric4.html#1212 was what I was thinking. Does something like the fabric or mesh make sense from an end-plate perspective?

Definitely having end-plate injection would simplify my setup. On an aside about that, there is probably no real value in having an ability to similarly offset the RF port is there? It wouldn't be that hard to do with an end-plate, for what I have in mind if people thought there would be value in it.

-Mazon
Recently Monomorphic conducted some very interesting computer runs using FEKO, showing the effect of random distortions of each end as well as of the sidwalls, on the electric field strength contour lines.



https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503825#msg1503825

Please notice that these comparisons were on the iso-contours of the electric field strength, and not on the Q.

According to all the EM Drive theories:

1) Shawyer's
2) McCulloch
3) Notsosureofit
4) DeAquino

the most important parameter governing force/InputPower is the quality factor of resonance Q, which is also the parameter allowing the force/InputPower to exceed the one of a photon rocket.

Therefore I think you should wait until Monomorphic runs a numerical comparison of the effect of random distortions of each end, and of the sidewalls on the Q, before making a decision on how to proceed.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 10:55 pm by Rodal »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4366
  • Likes Given: 1404
Therefore I think you should wait until Monomorphic runs a comparison of the effect of random distortions of each end, and of the sidewalls on the Q, before making a decision on how to proceed.

I'm working on doing just that. I hope to have something by this weekend. The higher number of triangles in these meshes (500+) greatly increases the compute time and I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm also going to work with aero on comparing FEKO and MEEP runs. Hope to have results on that in the next day or so.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Therefore I think you should wait until Monomorphic runs a comparison of the effect of random distortions of each end, and of the sidewalls on the Q, before making a decision on how to proceed.

I'm working on doing just that. I hope to have something by this weekend. The higher number of triangles in these meshes (500+) greatly increases the compute time and I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm also going to work with aero on comparing FEKO and MEEP runs. Hope to have results on that in the next day or so.

Great !

We also need to have these comparisons at least for both TE and TM modes.

The above comparison for the electric strength appears to be a TE mode showing the transverse electric iso-contours (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Such a TE mode shape has a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction, along the axis of axi-symmetry of the frustum, therefore it stands to reason that the endplates are the most affected by the magnetic field along the axis.


However, in a TM mode (as used for example by NASA in their experiments), the magnetic field will take place in the azimuthal (transverse) direction. 

It would be interesting to see this comparison also for a TM mode shape.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 11:19 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
Therefore I think you should wait until Monomorphic runs a comparison of the effect of random distortions of each end, and of the sidewalls on the Q, before making a decision on how to proceed.

I'm working on doing just that. I hope to have something by this weekend. The higher number of triangles in these meshes (500+) greatly increases the compute time and I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm also going to work with aero on comparing FEKO and MEEP runs. Hope to have results on that in the next day or so.
Good! I'm glad to see it. It's needed.

Shell

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
This is the only photographic evidence we have of how and where Rf was injected into the SPR Flight Thruster, which is the most modern non cryo design. That Rf coax injection by a coupler (sort of antenna) of some design.

Can anyone tell me what this square thing is protruding near the RF coax inject? Is it some kind of mechanism for changing the shape of the antenna?
My best guess is that it is a matching stub. Note the screw adjustment on the left of the box. No idea on the interior antenna design.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
This is the only photographic evidence we have of how and where Rf was injected into the SPR Flight Thruster, which is the most modern non cryo design. That Rf coax injection by a coupler (sort of antenna) of some design.

Can anyone tell me what this square thing is protruding near the RF coax inject? Is it some kind of mechanism for changing the shape of the antenna?
My best guess is that it is a matching stub. Note the screw adjustment on the left of the box. No idea on the interior antenna design.

It also could be a loop antenna for exciting a TE012 mode and the attachment on the side allows you to rotate the loop for max Q and minimum mode distortion in the cavity.


Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 1
emdrive will be on the bbc horizon episode per this article
http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/d2zck4/horizon--project-greenglow-the-quest-for-gravity-control
   Who is he?The device looks very cool!!!I completed the microwave amplifier using NXP chip, I was measuring platform

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0