Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1816963 times)

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
https://www.google.com/#q=Michelle+Broyles+Patents+and+applications

These patents and patent applications do not include major parts on how they really work. Critical items were  left out just to protect my corporate IP at the time. They may not even be related to the subject matter called out in the patent.

With patent trolls reviewing every patent for IP sometimes a small thing like "picket fencing" can help protect your companies IP and bottom line. Investors are happy because you have patents and you somewhat have protected yourself.

A patent is nothing more than a tool to be used in business operations and don't always reflect or describe the true operating nature of the device.

I would say on the patents concerning propellantless systems that you might not truly see the hows and whys of the device or why it really works. It would help to look at them all in this light.

Shell

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
The time and expense needed to create a patent plus allowing the company's name on it for the world to see makes me wonder...was a working prototype built? Airbus doesn't strike me as a company that would engage in frivolous patents on non-working concepts. If they do, shame on them...its setting a poor example for the world to see. There is only one other possibility, they have something. The 2006 article in newscientist should have discredited the patent app...yet it was published in 2015. Boeing once had an emdrive and silence since then except for a quote they aren't working with shawyer. 2 of the worlds largest aerospace companies have been evaluating peopellantless propulsion...perpetual motion machines for space nerds...why would they have even tried? And why is there a 2015 patent on the books? Dismissing this as "nothing to see here" is either naive or wishful opinion. A simple interest in a propellantless engine should not have lead to a patent, yet it did. Perhaps airbus can clarify.

I believe you are right there. I saw this happen in companies I worked for. They discredited the inventors in order to take over their patents later. Zen-In do well to believe in the numbers, but there is always more than that. That is where Trallever is right. It is about the $$.
I would not be suprised if Airbus intention was to discredit him. They done their research well and know that just s little push will damage his reputation even more... I do not have any idealistic visions about the american companies. Money is first motivator for them.

Also I do not think this dabate have any meaning here. Zen-In may I ask you why do you repeatedly bring this subject here?  I know you are very sceptical to Em-Drive and that is understatement, but damaging Mr. Shawyer reputation any further do not bring us any closer to solving this anomalous device.

I think you are mistaking me for someone else.  I have not recently posted anything to discredit Shawyer.   I have an open mind.  I am still waiting to see a demonstration that the EM-Drive produces thrust.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
(*) I still don't understand why Mr. Shawyer, upon the negative reception to his "theoretical explanation" and his NewScientist article, didn't seek cooperation from British Universities.  The UK has some outstanding universities: why doesn't he go to Cambridge University for example, and tell them: I have an experiment that shows a force, but my explanation is not well received in the scientific/engineering community, can you help me with a better explanation and to show that my experimental results are valid?

Just maybe that has been done.

Ah to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.

If Roger actually has a working EmDrive. It will be blatantly obvious that he is holding on to some important piece of theory or experimental setup to help explain it. However, If your holding on to theory to protect IP then there is ZERO need for any public pronouncements at all about the EmDrive. Not even a need for a website or youtube videos showing it is working.

See from where I stand your either doing basic science and seek to contribute to basic scientific knowledge of humanity. Which means open disclosure on not just your hypothesis, but also your experimental setup. Or your doing this for commercial gain. In which case feel free to hold on to as much information as you think is worthwhile. It just means that any disagreement thrown your way must be accepted. Since the decision was made to withhold information for the sake of commercial gain.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
The time and expense needed to create a patent plus allowing the company's name on it for the world to see makes me wonder...was a working prototype built? Airbus doesn't strike me as a company that would engage in frivolous patents on non-working concepts. If they do, shame on them...its setting a poor example for the world to see. There is only one other possibility, they have something. The 2006 article in newscientist should have discredited the patent app...yet it was published in 2015. Boeing once had an emdrive and silence since then except for a quote they aren't working with shawyer. 2 of the worlds largest aerospace companies have been evaluating peopellantless propulsion...perpetual motion machines for space nerds...why would they have even tried? And why is there a 2015 patent on the books? Dismissing this as "nothing to see here" is either naive or wishful opinion. A simple interest in a propellantless engine should not have lead to a patent, yet it did. Perhaps airbus can clarify.
No, if you are familiar with patent applications submitted by aerospace companies, you know that a working prototype does not need to have been built.  Thus, many aerospace companies submit patent applications for which there is no working prototype.  Let's familiarize ourselves with patenting in the aerospace industry: the cost of filing a patent application is insignificant compared to the cost of a working aerospace prototype, and there is no requirement to have a working prototype to submit a patent application.  Many patent applications are submitted for defensive purposes: just in case that something useful could come out of the invention, and to have a patent application submitted prior to a competing company, just in case, since the invention goes to the "first to patent".

What you are presenting is a false choice.  Submitting such a patent is not at all the same thing as engaging in frivolous patents.   Aerospace companies like Airbus often submit patent applications early in the R&D process. What we know for a fact is that 13 of Geneste's patent application broadest claims have already been cancelled.  You don't know the reason why they were cancelled, but obviously they were cancelled after the patent application was submitted.

You state:   <<The 2006 article in newscientist should have discredited the patent app...yet it was published in 2015.>>

Why would the decade-old article in New Scientist serve to discredit Geneste's application? Geneste's application is an entirely different concept, not connected to Shawer's theoretical or experimental claims. You fail to make any connection besides the fact that they are both propellant-less inventions.

<<A simple interest in a propellantless engine should not have lead to a patent, yet it did. >>

This is a non-sequitur.  There is no evidence you have presented that there is any connection between Geneste's patent application and Shawyer's invention, and there is no evidence that Geneste's patent application was motivated by Shawyer's invention.  As already reported by WallofWolfStreet in these pages, there are myriads of propellant-less space drive concepts that precede Mr. Shawyer's claims. There is no apparent connection between Mr. Geneste and Mr.  Wilby, besides the fact that they both worked, at different times for different divisions of a very large multinational company, in different departments.

Geneste filed all 3 patent applications: for the US patent application US 20150260168 A1, the European Patent Application EP 2923082 A1 and the World Patent Application  WO2014067810A1, all on the same date: Oct 22, 2013, which is 7 years after the letter from Alvin Wilby to New Scientist concerning Shawyer's invention, and it is also after the company Wilby worked for (Astrium), at a different country, at a different time, was merged into the defence division of EADS (a different company than the company Geneste works for: Airbus Group Innovations) .

Jean-Francois Geneste, is a staff member of Airbus Group Innovations, who apparently has an interest in esoteric concepts like propellant-less propulsion and LENR.   Alvin Wilby (the person that wrote the letter to New Scientist stating that Shawyer's invention was deeply flawed) used to be the technical director, at an earlier time, for Astrium, a different company.  Different people at different companies, different countries, and different times.

Astrium (the company were Wilby worked), no longer exists, it was an aerospace manufacturer subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) that provided civil and military space systems and services from 2006 to 2013. In 2012, Astrium had 18,000 employees in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain and the Netherlands.  In late 2013 Astrium was merged with Cassidian, the defence division of EADS and Airbus Military to form Airbus Defence and Space. EADS itself was reorganized as the Airbus Group, with three divisions that include Airbus, Airbus Defence and Space, and Airbus Helicopters
 
As to the fact that Geneste is employed by the Airbus Group, see this, to understand how large an organization is the Airbus Group and how tenuous is to imply that there is a connection between Geneste's present patent application and the letter of Wilby to New Scientist from a decade ago (who used to work for Astrium):

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015/01/16/airbus-staff-scientist-sees-potential-of-lenrs/
« Last Edit: 03/21/2016 04:32 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Concerning Jean-Francois Geneste's patent applications for "Propulsion device for transmitting momentum" (**), the following facts are also of interest:

1) Neither the author, nor the patent examiner has ever cited any of Shawyer's patents as being relevant to Geneste's invention, instead, the patent examiner has cited the following patents as being relevant to Geneste's invention:


Cited Patent(*)          Filing date          Publication date   Applicant                     Title
WO2005003556A1 *   May 14, 2004   Jan 13, 2005   Chiu Chin-Ho    Method and apparatus for power generation
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2005003556A1?cl=de

US5782134 *           Dec 6, 1996   Jul 21, 1998   Booden; James D.   Electromagnetically actuated thrust generator
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5782134.pdf

US6109123 *           Sep 15, 1998   Aug 29, 2000   Baskis; Paul T.   Rotational inertial motor
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US6109123.pdf

US20060060013 *   Feb 15, 2005   Mar 23, 2006   Norman Robinson   Motion providing unit
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20060060013.pdf

* Cited by examiner

2) On Apr 30, 2015,  there was a Non-entry into the national-phase legal event ("NENP") for the World Patent application, into the national phase in Germany (DE)   


3) On Feb 3, 2016, the extension to Germany (DAX) of the European Patent application was deleted

4) The deletion of the first 13 claims of Geneste's patent application.

The NENP for Germany of the World Patent and the deletion of the extension to Germany are significant events since Germany is a very important country for aerospace technology and for Airbus.

_______

(**) US patent application US 20150260168 A1, the European Patent Application EP 2923082 A1 and the World Patent Application  WO2014067810A1, filed on the same date: Oct 22, 2013.   Geneste claims (in his patent application):

Quote from: Geneste
The device can function using energy in electrical form alone, to power primarily the electromagnets and to a lesser extent all of the accessories required for the operation of the propulsion device.
...
On board an interstellar space vehicle, electrical energy is for example produced by a radioisotope generator, the technology of which is known, and the operating life of which is more than 20 years
...
at constant acceleration the star Proxima Centauri (Alpha Centauri C) located at a distance of 270,000 astronomical units (4.22 light years) could be reached in 18 years with a constant acceleration of 0.265 m/s^2 (ignoring the effects of general relativity), the speed reached on arrival therefore being c/2, i.e. half the speed of light
...
In the hypothetical case of a space vehicle with a mass of a 300 kg such as a probe vehicle, the acceleration presumes the application of an average force of 79.5 N (the mass multiplied by the acceleration).
...
The force generated by the propulsion device being internal to the system formed by the space vehicle, it is applied to an object at a relative speed of zero with respect to said propulsion device. In this case, assuming the average force to be a constant, the average power continuously transmitted to the space vehicle for its acceleration is 10.5 W
...
With a hypothetical output of the propulsion system of only 1%, taking into account the impulsive aspect of said propulsion system and the losses in the various mechanical and electrical components, it was established that 1 kW of onboard power is enough to complete the mission. A radioisotope generator having the capacity to produce such power is perfectly accessible with the current technologies.

Using as powerInput, the average power continuously transmitted to the space vehicle (this is the power input used in previous posts in the EM Drive thread):

Force/PowerInput
                  = 79.5 N / 10.5 W
                  = 7.57 N / W
                  = 7.57 *10^6 mN/kW
                  = 7570 (thousands of) times the 1,000 mN/kW claimed by Yang for her EM Drive experiments
                  = 2.27*10^9  (billions of times) the Force/PowerInput of a perfectly collimated photon rocket


_________________

Using as powerInput the power from the power plant, and assuming the very low 1%  (one per cent) efficiency assumed by Genestes:

Force/PowerInput
                  = 79.5 N / 1000 W
                  = 0.0795 N / W
                  = 79 500 mN/kW
                  = 79.5 times the 1,000 mN/kW claimed by Yang for her EM Drive experiments
                  = 2.38*10^7  (two dozen millions of times) the Force/PowerInput of a perfectly collimated
                      photon rocket
« Last Edit: 03/21/2016 06:38 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
What is a fact about the EADS (Airbus) Patent is that it is for a Propellantless Engine that is not a photon rocket nor a solar sail.

And science writers persist: "Despite what the Internet is saying, nobody has confirmed anything, and those silly physical laws still say propellantless space drives are impossible." - http://www.wired.com/2015/07/really-propellantless-space-drives-still-not-thing/






Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
Is there a demonstrator available for the EADS patent? http://tinyurl.com/hksu5re
It seems to be impossible to generate a force in a specific direction based on such mechanical setup. (Many people may think the same about the em drive).
While thinking about the applied momenta and back reactions and force vectors during rotation on the inertia mass I dont see that is possible because the average of all these forces have to cancel each other perfectly. Even the patent is authentic I would wonder if it workes as described.
I don't say it's impossible but seems unlikely to me.
Please correct me when I miss something related to this machine.

EDIT
It would be relatively easy for a company like EADS to confirm or to reject this, in regarding to the pure numbers posted by Dr.Rodal. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1506249#msg1506249
« Last Edit: 03/21/2016 07:47 pm by X_RaY »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Is there a demonstrator available for the EADS patent? http://tinyurl.com/hksu5re
It seems to be impossible to generate a force in a specific direction based on such mechanical setup. (Many people may think the same about the em drive).
While thinking about the applied momenta and back reactions and force vectors during rotation on the inertia mass I dont see that is possible because the average of all these forces have to cancel each other perfectly. Even the patent is authentic I would wonder if it worked as described.
I don't say it's impossible but seems unlikely to me.
Please correct me when I miss something related to this machine.
I agree. It makes no sense in a closed system with what the patent describes. Shell makes a good point that something could not be fully disclosed, but the question is why would something so obvious get through corporate due-diligence? Strange.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2016 07:28 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
Is there a demonstrator available for the EADS patent? http://tinyurl.com/hksu5re
It seems to be impossible to generate a force in a specific direction based on such mechanical setup. (Many people may think the same about the em drive).
While thinking about the applied momenta and back reactions and force vectors during rotation on the inertia mass I dont see that is possible because the average of all these forces have to cancel each other perfectly. Even the patent is authentic I would wonder if it worked as described.
I don't say it's impossible but seems unlikely to me.
Please correct me when I miss something related to this machine.

EDIT
It would be relatively easy for a company like EADS to confirm or to reject this, in regarding to the pure numbers posted by Dr.Rodal. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1506249#msg1506249

X-Ray, given the fact that the first 13 claims have already been deleted and that early on there was a Non-entry into the national-phase legal event ("NENP") for the World Patent application, into the national phase in Germany (DE)  and that just a few days ago, on Feb 3, 2016, the extension to Germany (DAX) of the European Patent application was deleted, it doesn't appear that Airbus Group is making much of this patent application.  I also agree that it violates conservation of momentum.  I don't see much of interest here, either from a technical viewpoint, or from a patent viewpoint (with this history).

This patent application was introduced into the EM Drive thread discussion by others that did not discuss its  prosecution history.

These companies have patent departments with many patent lawyers.  It is very easy for engineers and scientists to submit applications to their patent departments.  The cost of applying for a patent is insignificant compared to the cost of an aerospace prototype, for example.  The fact that the extension to Germany of the European Patent application was deleted a few days ago shows that Airbus Group is not pursuing this strongly.  Airbus speaks loudly and clear by pursuing or not pursuing extension to important countries like Germany and other future events and fees that have not  taken place.  To see whether, and how strongly is Airbus is pursuing this patent, just monitor future patent events for this application.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2016 08:10 pm by Rodal »

Offline spupeng7

Build Update:  "NSF-TE311" is well underway. I worked most of the day on the frustum. By far, the side-walls are the most difficult part of the emdrive to fabricate!

Also shown is the first-surface mirror attached to the emdrive that is part of the interferometer.

Pro-tip. If you order your copper from onlinemetals.com, it comes attached to a cardboard honeycomb. Leave it attached and tape it down to make it easier to cut the 1mm copper.


Monomorphic,
is that a bent clock on the wall behind your nice solid alloy angle test stand, or just a distorted reflection? Your build and cutting techniques look good and I admire your choice of scooter.

Could you maybe explain your test stand operation and general experimental method in more detail.  :)
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
I've completed the constant diameter tuning section. At a little over 6cm in length, I can tune the frustum as much as 1/2 wavelength @ 2.45Ghz.


Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Could you maybe explain your test stand operation and general experimental method in more detail.  :)

The build is actually very simple. There are two main components: an air track and an interferometer. They are designed to be used independently, as well as together.

The air track is the horizontal square tube the emdrive hangs beneath. This is an air bearing that can be used to simulate a frictionless environment.

The 450nm interferometer is built into the support structure. It is used to measure displacement with extreme precision.

*That is a Salvador Dali clock I picked up some years ago. Not a reflection. 
« Last Edit: 03/22/2016 03:07 am by Monomorphic »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Nice build, Monomorphic. Don't forget to record every test, including the ones you expect to be boring/no-thrust/just a dry test runs!
« Last Edit: 03/22/2016 03:30 am by RotoSequence »

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Philadelphia
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 45
Regarding the mysteries of patents, disclosures, claims, refutations, etc: A working EMdrive is bigger than patents. You could call it a military technology, or a world-changing invention. Many groups may be jostling for position in attempts to get valuable information, or funding, while at the same time protecting their own secrets. "Dirty tricks" may happen. My advice is to be wary.

Offline Slyver

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • CA
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 294
Could you maybe explain your test stand operation and general experimental method in more detail.  :)

The build is actually very simple. There are two main components: an air track and an interferometer. They are designed to be used independently, as well as together.

The air track is the horizontal square tube the emdrive hangs beneath. This is an air bearing that can be used to simulate a frictionless environment.

The 450nm interferometer is built into the support structure. It is used to measure displacement with extreme precision.

*That is a Salvador Dali clock I picked up some years ago. Not a reflection.

This looks to be a promising build. IF you observe a thrust greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket towards the small end, as predicted by the models that have been put forth, I request you also build a symmetric model, resonating at ~ the same freq. (a cylinder) of the same material and put it through the same test regime.  In other words, I would like to see a control experiment, testing specifically the hypothesis of "a geometry based anomalous force of a closed microwave cavity".

Thank you for your fine effort!

Offline Willem Staal

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Ah to hell with the games. Roger told me that has been done. In fact several universities have been involved. That said I believe Roger may be holding some of the theory stuff very close to his chest. Which I perfectly understand. I mean it is, in the end, about $$.

Rogers first patent on an emdrive like technology was in 1989.  He's had almost thirty years to come up with a more coherent theoretical explanation for the emdrive, and yet in his latest paper from July of 2015 (see here), he offers up the exact same nonsense theoretical explanation he has offered up since day one.

So if Roger is "holding some theory stuff very close to his chest", then are we to believe that in your opinion the most recent paper contains an intentionally incorrect theoretical explanation?  Because I can guarantee you no one from any of these collaborating universities would have let him use such a trivially incorrect explanation.  So how to reconcile this issue?  If he knows his theoretical explanation is bogus, why is he still using it in his published works?

You never heard of Industrial Secrets?

Roger is not a Publish or Die academic. Why should he give away the combination to the vault?

BTW I have advised him to get on his skates and open the commercial propellantless drive market NOW as there are 2 other propellantless drive techs coming on stream.
Agree. But you have to be aware of patent trolls, they are like flies on a fat t**d, and they are everywhere..
« Last Edit: 03/22/2016 09:11 am by rfmwguy »

Offline RERT

Regarding the mysteries of patents, disclosures, claims, refutations, etc: A working EMdrive is bigger than patents. You could call it a military technology, or a world-changing invention. Many groups may be jostling for position in attempts to get valuable information, or funding, while at the same time protecting their own secrets. "Dirty tricks" may happen. My advice is to be wary.

Amen to that. What is happening here is actually pretty bizzare - people are trying to replicate what would be extremely valuable technology in open cyberspace - the equivalent of a sunny open field, where every so often strangers wander up and chip in comments. Particularly interesting are the visitors who say "That's definitely not worth trying!" or "This way not that way!" when there is no publicly accepted theory of operation. Wary is definitely good, as is being wary of conspiracy theories. Nonetheless "Cui Bono?" is a very good question to bear in mind.

Offline Paul451

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

Since no-one else has asked:

A) How have you measured the minimum force required to move a EMdrive-equivalent mass on that air-track? (And what is the minimum force?)

B) Do you have a way of measuring the force produced by your EMDrive, or are you just looking at a binary yes/no result from displacement?

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407

Since no-one else has asked:

A) How have you measured the minimum force required to move a EMdrive-equivalent mass on that air-track? (And what is the minimum force?)

B) Do you have a way of measuring the force produced by your EMDrive, or are you just looking at a binary yes/no result from displacement?

A properly designed air track has no minimum force required to get it moving because it has zero stiction. All retarding forces it experiences (drag/friction) are dynamic and dependent on being in motion.

The air-track is pretty much binary, it either moves or it doesn't. The interferometer will allow me to do much more precise measurements of displacement. This is accomplished by counting the interference fringe patterns as they change.

Lastly, there is a third set-up mode: the White-Juday Field Interferometer. In this configuration the laser passes through the center of the frustum to look for variations in the path time.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564

Since no-one else has asked:

A) How have you measured the minimum force required to move a EMdrive-equivalent mass on that air-track? (And what is the minimum force?)

B) Do you have a way of measuring the force produced by your EMDrive, or are you just looking at a binary yes/no result from displacement?

A properly designed air track has no minimum force required to get it moving because it has zero stiction. All retarding forces it experiences (drag/friction) are dynamic and dependent on being in motion.

The air-track is pretty much binary, it either moves or it doesn't. The interferometer will allow me to do much more precise measurements of displacement. This is accomplished by counting the interference fringe patterns as they change.

Lastly, there is a third set-up mode: the White-Juday Field Interferometer. In this configuration the laser passes through the center of the frustum to look for variations in the path time.
Unless you perform this experiment in a vacuum chamber, there will be air resistance, characterized by a coefficient of drag, CD (dependent on the Reynolds number) and (approximately) the square of the velocity.



Looking at the picture of your setup, this air drag will produce a torque moment on the EM Drive, tilting the leading end of the EM Drive, because the air drag force has a moment arm around the air track support  (the axis of application of the air drag force is located at a distance from the air track support), since the EM Drive is unsymmetrically located, on one side, of the air track.  This moment will produce additional resistance, as well as additional aerodynamic contributions, and it will produce pressure on the air track support.

Normally one doesn't worry about such small contributions but since the forces that experimenters want to measure in these EM Drive experiments are so small (microNewtons for NASA's and Tajmar's experiments, milliNewtons for Yang's experiments), it may be worthwhile to consider their contributions in the experiment.



PS: A summary of other experimental small forces. There is also the issue of how is the EM Drive powered.  Ideally it would be powered from a battery, self-integrated, as this would avoid issues due the fact that energy is transmitted from an outside source to the EM Drive (hence there is a tiny amount of momentum due to this which would only be eliminated when using a battery source in a self-integrated configuration).

There is also the issue of possible Lorentz forces from cables, and the issue of unequal heated surfaces and unequal surface areas of the EM Drive due to induction heating, producing unsymmetric thermal convection (if not tested in a vacuum): buoyancy (lower internal air density) resulting in pressure on the track, convection asymmetry resulting in line force (due to external air density asymmetry) and torque (due to the moment arm), and asymmetric thermal radiation asymmetry (also present in a vacuum, but probably negligible), which I will not repeat here in the interest of brevity, since they have been discussed in previous threads. 
« Last Edit: 03/22/2016 02:29 pm by Rodal »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0