EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8

[FattyLumpkin]

Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).

[bad_astra]

There's no justification for releasing this paper early.

[spupeng7]

To all,

I've build 2 labs and I'm currently doing my 3rd. I've built 3 different frustums and currently on my 4th. Each step has been to refine my data, narrow the error and enhance the thrust anomaly. You all have been following me for the last 1-1/2 years and watched and even commented on the advances and failures. This last effort will be able to provide very clear and concise testing data. This was done without embracing theory, other than Maxwell's and a few others. I've seen anomalous thrusts without anything other than the copper and microwaves, I've seen anomalous thrusts with dielectrics, I've seen anomalous thrusts with a kitchen sink PZT approach.

The first powered on pretest last year (December) I exceeded the load cell in my small digital scale in a powered jerk action and delightfully turned antennas and magnetrons into matchsticks. Before the smoke cleared I interestingly a saw a large impulse from the system before failure. This is truly where it started. This was my "that's interesting" moment.

This last build, in a new lab and with a new device, when I'm done I'll have no qualms of it passing my peer reviews in independent testings and labs, if it shows real thrusts. I know it needs to be done and that it is a step in the process. If I find out what I've been seeing is a build or test bed error, I truly win and can go back to sitting in my hot tub more than I do now and fully retire. If it's truly a propulsion-less device, we all win big time and the hot tub time will have to wait.

There is a lot of critical debate going on and it's a good thing, there is nothing wrong with it. It's driven me to spend thousands of hours, refining the builds and the test stands. I've been building things for over 50 years, building them to work and understanding why they work has been the hallmark of my life. This is no different.

Oh, one other thing. If you think me,  67 year old woman with a pick ax and a shovel, digging a foundation for my new lab isn't driven to discover the truth and maybe has seen something she doesn't understand and is doing it because she loves blisters and a sore back??? Ha! And you know what? A huge thanks goes for the other engineer DYIers (you don't need to be building something either advice and theory works too) who have devoted hours to find out the truth and to share their hard work and sweat with you. Thank You!

My Very Best,
Shell

Thank You Shell,

Byron said it, truth is beauty and beauty truth. Am so glad you appreciate the amateur theory as well, it is hard won sometimes and quite ridiculous to the well educated. Engineering is all about what actually works, we admire your determination and have strong faith in its potential.

Good luck with matters political today and remember that your test results are eagerly anticipated. Thank heaven for this forum and long may it live, JMN..

[WarpTech]

Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).

Being a guitarist and luthier, I love it! However, there is a little more method to my madness. The parabolas share the same focal point and all reflections maximize the forward or reverse momentum. Not to mention I could roast some marshmallows at the focus with sunlight as a source too. It's multi-functional!

[SeeShells]

Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).

Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard. I've had to try to stay with what is easy to build and cost effective, maybe if more funds come around I'll do it and have it made, although it's still easier to do with a small flat top.

Shell

[FattyLumpkin]

Thanks, Shell, thanks Aero! No doubt such a complex shape would be quite pricey. At least now I know my thinking wasn't completely crazy. : )  Best to the both of you!!   FL

[otlski]

Hopefully the rotary rig will be in a later paper? "The Smoking Gun"

Besides the RPM numbers (r per hour!) do you know if there is a calculation of force or acceleration from the rotary rig? I guess it would need some sort of calibration force to calculate.

All you need is to know the moment of inertia of the rotating part and its angular acceleration rate (which can be done with simple video frame timing).  Those two terms allow you to calculate the torque.  The torque divided by the applied radius to give you force.  Profile drag and bearing self-motoring torques are confounding factors that need to be characterized and subtracted out.

[rfmwguy]

aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :

all articles not even 24hr old

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm

http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm

https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/

http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml

http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html

A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...

Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil.

I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.

Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.

I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.

I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.

IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.

Off my Soap Box,
Shell

I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.

[SeeShells]

aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :

all articles not even 24hr old

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm

http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm

https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/

http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml

http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html

A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...

Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil.

I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.

Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.

I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.

I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.

IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.

Off my Soap Box,
Shell

I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.

That is so very true on leaks, sad but true.

You can be sure I'm not going to shutter my doors on this project. Yes conformal coatings will keep issues with a high Q cavity a minimum by keeping oxidation away and issues with internal arcing. Anyone doubt this watch a CD in a microwave...

[FattyLumpkin]

BTW Shell, thanks ever so much for your report. Any idea +/- you might be conclusively finished with your work?  FL

[SeeShells]

BTW Shell, thanks ever so much for your report. Any idea +/- you might be conclusively finished with your work?  FL

You welcome FL.

No, I don't have a set date. I'm pushing very hard to get the structure up before the snow flies up here in the high Rockies, much depends on that, thank goodness we have had  good weather. I have to still build the prefab, insulate, provide power, heat, and cooling. Then stock it inside. The list is long. Maybe a very early or late spring. If and only if I can get one of my old senior electronic techs (who is an top notch ET) who retired to help, it could be sooner. I told him I'd feed him and let him lick 9 volt batteries if it helped. 

Shell

[Gs]

Really simple

[meberbs]

Do hope Dave's news about EW is not correct.

I am pointing this out, because you seem to have difficulty with the difference between fact and speculation, and recent articles which seem to have drawn their sources from this site should make clear the importance of keeping these distinct here. Dave did not have any "news" about EW, only his prediction of the future. His disclaimer is below:

Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.

[tleach]

Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard. I've had to try to stay with what is easy to build and cost effective, maybe if more funds come around I'll do it and have it made, although it's still easier to do with a small flat top.

True, but 3d printing (or lost wax casting or CNC machining if the graphite PLA doesn't work out) would take much of the difficulty out of a dual parabola design. I for one really like the way Monomorphic's FEKO runs look!

I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.

Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.

And while I appreciate that the early release of the NASA paper probably isn't ideal, I seriously doubt that the genie can be put back in the bottle at this point. Between the DIY advice and theories developed on this forum, I'm firmly of the opinion that ANY team with sufficient funding and technical expertise could build a working EM drive.

It's just a matter of time now.

And engineering...

And money...

[zen-in]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-leaked-nasa-paper-reveals-star-trek-microwave-thruster-does-work-1590244#

Check that video of moving EmDrive. The one in the middle. That is Dr.White right? I did not see that video yet.

As Galileo once said: "and yet it moves".

You are being quoted in the IBTimes article you are responding to, in the above post, by the article's author (Mary-Ann Russon) as follows:

The paper was leaked onto the Nasa Spaceflight enthusiast forum on Saturday 5 November by an Australian EmDrive fan called Phil Wilson, who goes by the username "The Traveller". ....For his part, Wilson says that he chose to release the data onto the Nasa Spaceflight forum because he didn't believe AIAA intends to actually publish the paper.

Are you being quoted accurately by this IBTimes article's author?   If so, what could possibly make you think that AIAA did not intend to publish NASA's paper?   

After reading the leaked paper today I realized it does have a lot of new information that was not disclosed or discussed last year.  I acknowledge now it does look like the peer reviewed paper everyone has discussed.   I also think it was wrong and damaging to the EW people for the paper to be released before publication.  That act by itself may be sufficient grounds for AIAA to now refuse to publish it. 

I stand by my earlier comments that there is no conclusive proof an em-drive thrust exists.   I don't want to detail the problems I saw in this paper because it is still embargoed pending publication.   The authors deserve a lot of credit for their careful experimental work and for their well written paper.   This kind of research needs to be done and they did good work.    It is unfortunate their hard work has been betrayed this way.

[Star One]

aie aie aie....Brace for impact guys/girls..... it's going around the globe.. FAST :

all articles not even 24hr old

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-paper-emdrive/

http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/16/11/8/n8471367.htm

http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/555961.htm

https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/11/09/emdrive/

http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20161108/filtracion-revela-nasa-desarrollado-motor-sin-combustible/1439122.shtml

http://www.techworm.net/2016/11/leaked-nasa-papers-show-impossible-em-drive-work.html

A severe storm cloud of half truth's and over-hyped articles is forming near the horizon...
Take shelter, be safe...

Not sure if you should be congrat, due to your "act" and regarding your place in future history Phil.

I am guessing that the result will be the eventual closing of this topic on nsf as a result of 2 suppositions on my part and my part only. Ew winding down and aiaa not proceeding with the publication by request.

Disclaimer...I have no special insight...only gut feel. I hope I am wrong.

I too worry about this unauthorized release of non-confirmed EagleWorks data by Phil. EagleWorks was under the gun when the press got wind of some information last year and went nuts and NASA told the EagleWorks group to go quiet. I understand that.

I suspect and only just a feeling because the papers and information was not released per NASA's requirements that we may not hear anything from the EagleWorks group or NASA on this mess. NASA apparently hates bad unsubstantiated press and truthfully I don't blame them. IMHO Phil used bad judgement in doing this when we were told that the a paper was to be released in December, jeez Phil cancer or no cancer it was less than a month away.

IMHO more damage will come from this than good and that saddens me for it now will make my work tougher to validate anything good from my testing. And please Phil don't even reply to this as IMHO you may have done more damage than good and I have lost all respect.

Off my Soap Box,
Shell

I can be fatalistic at times. My speculation is based on a worse case scenario, but...leaks from a politically driven entity usually have worse case scenarios associated with them. Trust broken is usually long term. On the bright side, even if ew goes away, experiments will not. Ew believed and I believe in the potential we have for spaceflight. Developments recently had me motivated to conformal coat 1701B early. I know you are thinking the same thing.

Hopefully the internet will be distracted by president Trump rather than irresponsible leaks of EM drive papers.

[Peter Lauwer]

Don't know if anyone remembers way back when I submitted this shape/geometry for a sim but folks were too busy to do one. Anyway would this guitar pick work well for TE013? Not a clue + what the Q would be, but perhaps a sim might be forth coming (recognizing not many have FEKO or COMSOL).

Aero ran a similar design months ago and it showed good results but for building it, it's very hard.
...

Building it may not be very hard if you can find the right copper lamp or vase. Some shapes come rather close to what we need (some examples in the attached pictures). I already bought some copper bowls for a test cavity.
Peter

[Monomorphic]

Building it may not be very hard if you can find the right copper lamp or vase. Some shapes come rather close to what we need (some examples in the attached pictures). I already bought some copper bowls for a test cavity.
Peter

Or if you're doing a build with spherical endplates, Why not go with parabolic dish antennas? RF port already included.
Minor end plate: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-58-ghz-29-dbi-solid-parabolic-dish-antenna
Major end plate: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-24-ghz-22-dbi-dual-x-polarized-dual-feed-parabolic-dish-antenna-n-female-connector#

[Peter Lauwer]

Hopefully the internet will be distracted by president Trump rather than irresponsible leaks of EM drive papers.

Not really. People like me use the paper to withdraw from the gruesome reality. 

[X_RaY]

Is there anyone who has study a half-sphere shaped resonator regarding the emdrive?
In contrast to a parabolic one (where the focal depth for rays much shorter than the size of the structure itself was equal to the point where the baseplate was present).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1607020#msg1607020


Now I did an FEA with the half-sphere shape. What I found is a massive fieldstrength, much higher than I ever have observed  in the sims before. The Q should be very high.

What are the boundary conditions that you use in the model?
PEC. Coudn't belefe therefor I used Copper, thickness 1mm

How is the quality factor (Q) calculated?

Thanks

1. FEKO
2. MOM & FEM
3. ?
A. No, no eigenvalue calculation,  magnetic Dipole (30mm above the flat plate at the central axis)
B. FEM
C. No FDTD

4.First time the boundary was defined to be PEC. Couldn't believe this numbers, therefore I used Copper, thickness 1mm for the second run (see diagrams).
Field pics are from the PEC-run.

5.No till now the Q is not calculated. My statement was due to the fieldstrength. 

You should redo the parabola in all Cu, instead of the SS base plate, to compare apples to apples. It would also be good to see the Brady frustum with the same input conditions and no dielectric.

The pic below is 2 parabolas, both with the concentric focus at 2.5" above 0. I think this would work with a very high Q at around 1.5 GHz.

Another Q: What was the input power set to?

Todd you asked for comparison of the 3 different shapes using Copper only, same source (magnetic dipole) and equal conditions for the simulations.
Mode is TE012 in the Brady cone without dielectric. For the half shere it depends on defilition either TE012 or TE021.
In the parabolic cavity the field pattern should be descripted as TE021.
Please note that the Resonant frequencies are not equal, to apply this I would need a few days. Since omega is involved in your set of equations I hope its not strictly needed to optimize all to the same frequency.