NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: D_Dom on 08/19/2016 04:07 pm

Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: D_Dom on 08/19/2016 04:07 pm
This is a thread - Thread 8 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0

Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0

Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0
--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:

http://emdrive.wiki
http://rfdriven.com

Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 3.5 million thread reads and 850,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tcarey on 08/19/2016 07:16 pm
Monomorphic.  Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point?  I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward  direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort.  This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.

Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/20/2016 06:53 am
FWIW, emdrives.com currently redirects to the latest post in the latest page in this thread 8.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2016 12:24 pm
Monomorphic.  Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point?  I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward  direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort.  This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.

Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.

This would require significant changes to the current rig to accomplish. Also, the 3-axis accelerometer (748um/s2) isn't as sensitive as the Laser Displacement Sensors (3um). To put that into perspective, during some of my tests, which ran powered for up to a minute, the pendulum only moved a total of 750um (0.75mm). The primary purpose of the 3-axis multi-sensor is calibrating the torsional pendulum beam using the compass and gyroscope.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 08/20/2016 09:01 pm
Monomorphic, I don't have the funds or the know how to build a test rig. Once you are finished with your rig and testing, will you be open to testing other builds for a $ fee or other?
Do you yet know what the sensitivity and specificity is of/for your rig? Will you be building a cylindrical frustum to check for artifact et al., or?    FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2016 01:26 am
Monomorphic, I don't have the funds or the know how to build a test rig. Once you are finished with your rig and testing, will you be open to testing other builds for a $ fee or other?
Do you yet know what the sensitivity and specificity is of/for your rig? Will you be building a cylindrical frustum to check for artifact et al., or?    FL

Yes, I would be willing to test other's DIY emdrive builds. I made sure that the DUT can be "hot swapped" with relative ease. Though it would probably be best to wait until we have reliable/tunable 250W solid state RF. It's really hit and miss with the magnetron mounted to the emdrive. I'm not sure I would be confident enough with those results to do open testing.

As for sensitivity, I am positive I can achieve better than 10uN, maybe even in the realm of ~2uN.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 08/21/2016 04:02 am
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Shanebad on 08/21/2016 05:00 am
I do believe the EM drive is functional. Concidering the possibility of potentially charged particles around the sun causing the "heat ring" I think there is something in space. If it can be polarized it has mass, if it has mass, it can produce thrust. I believe the EM drive may be utilizing particles in space, however dense, to produce thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2016 01:44 pm
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?

It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2016 01:54 pm
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?

It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.

Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.

PLUS an automatic lowest VSWR freq tracker.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2016 02:11 pm
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?

It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.

Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.

Workin on it...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2016 02:15 pm
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?

It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.

Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.

Workin on it...

I can share a SPR verified TE013 spherical end plates design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jstepp590 on 08/21/2016 02:17 pm
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth  :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2016 02:19 pm
Awesome! Can your solid state unit be tuned to an/any extent? My last sim had me at just a little bit over 2.45 GHz. I'll speak with you more about it after you're finished with all of your building and testing. What is the predicted thrust for your frustum and for your wedge designs?

It will be able to be tuned between 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz.

Mate you REALLY need to build a TE013 frustum with spherical end plates.

Workin on it...

I can share a SPR verified TE013 spherical end plates design.

Email me the dimensions and i'll create a 3d mesh that can be used for rapid prototyping.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2016 02:22 pm
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth  :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jstepp590 on 08/21/2016 02:31 pm
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth  :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2016 02:35 pm
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth  :o. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.

This paper has been discussed here in depth and it has problems. Namely, the amount of thrust predicted by this theory is far below what is being detected in experiments. Another problem is that I was taught that photons that destructively interfere return to the source, not pass through solid metal. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRi4dv9KgCg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/21/2016 02:41 pm
Monomorphic.  Just thinking outloud. With you new enclosure and 3 axis measuring capability might it be useful to do a run with your frustum suspended by a single wire attached at the balance point?  I'm not thinking of a quantitative measurement here as much a qualitative measurement to get more of a sense of the various forces acting on the frustum. In the previous measurements everyone has constrained the frustum so that it can move in forward or backward  direction. This could be done with the attachment point moved to all three axes to look for torque on all three axes, however I suspect it might not be worth that much effort.  This test should help clarify the forces imparted by the power cables to the frustum.

Doing this test makes sense only if it is relatively easy to do with minor overhead.

This would require significant changes to the current rig to accomplish. Also, the 3-axis accelerometer (748um/s2) isn't as sensitive as the Laser Displacement Sensors (3um). To put that into perspective, during some of my tests, which ran powered for up to a minute, the pendulum only moved a total of 750um (0.75mm). The primary purpose of the 3-axis multi-sensor is calibrating the torsional pendulum beam using the compass and gyroscope.

I like your measurement device.  I think you could increase the sensitivity if you use the swing method.  I think basically you just remove much of the damping on the pendulum, find the resonant frequency of the pendulum/thruster, and synch your thrust to constructively add to that freuquency.  The maximum amplitude of displacement is a function of the energy stored in the pendulum system over time, so any thrust there will be energy stored in the system till the energy lost to heat matches the energy going into the system.  Minimizing the energy lost to heat in the form of damping make it more of a battery for stored energy and is why I suggested removing the damping fluid. 

Any DC components such as (DC heat) or constant DC magnetic/electric fields are eliminated from measurements with such a system.  Measurement would be of the two maximum displacements peaks from its osculation.  I posted the solution for maximum displacement a while back and can look it up if needed.  It was for a unidirectional sinusoidal force being applied to the pendulum.

I'll look up the previous post, here it is:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558493#msg1558493
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/21/2016 04:33 pm

  "Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible."  OK,  when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right?   This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.

This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.

I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve  .. in simple terms.

Marcel,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2016 05:04 pm

  "Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible."  OK,  when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right?   This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.

This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.

I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve  .. in simple terms.

Marcel,

What I can tell you is there is a red shift of the internal EmDrive EM waves as they transfer momentum to the accelerating EmDrive. So momentum is conserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/21/2016 05:14 pm

  "Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible."  OK,  when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right?   This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.

This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.

I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve  .. in simple terms.

Marcel,

What I can tell you is there is a red shift of the internal EmDrive EM waves as they transfer momentum to the accelerating EmDrive. So momentum is conserved.

If the red shift is only between the light and cavity then momentum isn't conserved.  That is light created in the cavity should have zero average momentum.  For that light to become heavier at one end would lead to a violation of conservation of momentum unless that light is becoming heavier at the one end because of a change in the index of the quantum vacuum. 

If the quantum vacuum changes in index then it would still conserve momentum I think.  Measurements have been done in water where it appears light becomes heavier and imparts more energy to a reflector and has been measured the back reaction on the water.  If the light is inducing a back reaction on the quantum vacuum then its possible we can still conserve momentum but that means even if the cavity isn't accelerating there will be a red shift because the cavity is accelerating the quantum vacuum. 

If the interaction is just between the light and the cavity then I don't see how if the cavity isn't accelerating that the light could lose energy but then I don't see how that kind of interaction could conserve momentum. 

Of the two choices, the cavity accelerating the quantum vacuum seems more plausible (if it can be shown to actually work). 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/21/2016 06:47 pm
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...

A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.

So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what?  Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential ?

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/21/2016 09:30 pm

  "Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible."  OK,  when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right?   This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.

This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.

I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve  .. in simple terms.

Marcel,

I am not sure what you mean by "rate of time." Assuming you mean the time dilation effect in special and general relativity, then your statements do not make sense. The faster something is moving then the larger the time dilation effect. Your hypothesis would then result in things accelerating without bound. Also, the time dilation in a gravitational well is part of gravity. This doesn't explain any of the other fundamental forces.

Also the exhaust requirement is really a requirement that momentum exchange with something. Rockets push their exhaust backwards to accelerate. When falling, you are also pulling the earth upwards to accelerate downwards. Same requirement remains in place, you just don't notice the earth accelerating, since it is absurdly massive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/21/2016 10:54 pm
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...

A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.

So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what?  Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential ?

Marcel,

I can't say this for sure but I suspected a connection to EM simulations of the EM drive.  The modeled wave form in the cavity appears to have longer wavelengths at one end of the cavity than the other.  In order for the simulations to stretch the wavelength in the cavity there must be something in the Maxwell equations that is doing this. 

I was supposing there was something happening where the simulations of the wavelength of the light in the cavity being stretched corresponded to the light becoming heavier/slowing in time (osculation).  The question was could this effect in the cavity have an effect on the quantum vacuum? 

(They suspect the quantum vacuum as accelerating near the earth)
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH?
The downward acceleration of the quantum vacuum is responsible for the Einstein Equivalence Principle and also for 4D Space-Time Curvature
Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029

and

(The paper below they show measurements of increased impulse from light in a medium and a back reaction on the medium)
Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium
Mikko Partanen, Teppo Häyrynen, Jani Oksanen, Jukka Tulkki
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07224
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 08/22/2016 03:06 am
Traveller, generally speaking, what would you say the difference is in Q between spherical and flat surfaced frustums. I have a Q of right around 19,000 in my current "flat surface" TE012 2.45 GHz design....how much (approximate) increase in Q do you think might I see were I to go spherical?  Thanks  FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/22/2016 02:52 pm
O.K. I ear you. Conservation laws follow logic as the “no magic” rule. Stuff just don’t disappear...

A red shift is observed in EM waves leaving a gravitational source i.e. moving from slower time rate toward a faster time rate. The red shift you talk about would indicate that there is such a time rate differential present in the device. In theory, it should be faster time rate at the back and slower time rate at the front similar (same) to the York time structure in White’s bubble simulation graphics.

So, a device that can red shift a wave using that same wave (energy of system is in the wave) and special configuration means what?  Is this the converse of the gravitational red shift? Is forcing the red shift of an EM wave using a special configuration causing a (required) time rate differential?

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RERT on 08/22/2016 05:53 pm
We've come across 'rate of time' before. It's a different perspective on things, but if you take the weak field Newtonian limit of GR, the only piece you need to create Gravity is a spatially non-uniform time dilation of the right form. By the same token, any non-uniform time dilation creates a gravity-like force. Interestingly the non-uniformity is tiny to create the earth's gravitational field. The time dilation effect is about 1 part in 10^-9 at earth's surface, changing at 1 part in 6 x 10^6 per metre, creating 1 g of acceleration with changes in the 'rate of time' of only about 10^-16 per metre. 10^-3 g would be fantastic for an Emdrive, so 1 part in 10^-19 would do the job. Feels like time is very 'stiff'!

The tiny little 64 trillion dollar question then becomes how to engineer a non-uniform time dilation...

I don't really get how this is the foundation of all forces though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/22/2016 10:21 pm
Dustinthewind:    Yes.  I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process.  But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....

Meberbs:  We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved.  ....”Things accelerating without bound”:  I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?

RERT:  Right! Small time rate differential  ..Big motion!  Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time.  I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.

I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 08/23/2016 12:24 am
Dustinthewind:    Yes.  I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process.  But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....

Meberbs:  We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved.  ....”Things accelerating without bound”:  I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?

RERT:  Right! Small time rate differential  ..Big motion!  Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time.  I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.

I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.

Marcel,

I think you guys are on the right track here. You asked how to create a time dilation field. Here is the math...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY)

Based on this, the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.

Todd

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 08/23/2016 03:09 am
...the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.

Quote
"What we're doing is the extreme case of nonlinear optics, where the light and matter are coupled so strongly that we don't have light and matter anymore. We have something in between, called a polariton."

"What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."

     ~http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html)

Any similarities and/or correlations with your theory? Zero-Point Energy resonantly exciting electrons in a cavity making those electrons behave as a single gigantic atom? Perhaps the polaritons could be creating more focused asymmetrical power fluctuations in the copper?

The researches claim that they're achieving coupling of vacuum Rabi splitting as large as 10 percent of the photon energy. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but 10% sounds like pretty strong coupling to me!

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/23/2016 03:12 am
Dustinthewind:    Yes.  I think the cavity accelerate the vacuum, which to me, is the explosive like time process.  But, I would not discount the effect on quantum fluctuations. I think these fluctuations could be separated and “pumped” in opposite directions where they coalesce to form the time rate gradient?
Thanks for the Ostoma reference....

Meberbs:  We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved.  ....”Things accelerating without bound”:  I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?

RERT:  Right! Small time rate differential  ..Big motion!  Part of the answer to the trillion dollars question is about understanding what you are really doing. We have to think not “time dilation” or time duration but rather one derivative below, the rate of time.  I believe a logically operational system, as the universe appears to be, requires that there be only one type of stuff out there. This is an explosive like process that we call time. In other words, make time a stuff of substance and work with that.

I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.

Marcel,

Your 1/T reference reminded me of this papper here: The Fundamental Physics of  Electromagnetic Waves
Juliana H. J. Mortenson General Resonance, LLC USA paper link (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7498212624230893803&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14) which you might find interesting but not sure it really contributes. 

After reading your paper I really feel what your looking for is that the quantum vacuum is anti-matter and matter combined.  That would give it the polarizable vacuum effect.  The leap I am making in that statement is that anti-mater if a form of anti-time.  I was thinking and it seems as if the PV matter/anti-matter vacuum could be polarized by the presence of matter in space.  That is anti-matter being attracted to matter might be attracted to large bodies of matter?  This could polarize the vacuum and if anti-mater is a form of anti time then this would slow the time in the vicinity of the matter.  I wonder if it would be with a gradient of 1/r^2.  That is matter would osculate with a positive time frequency and anti-matter would osculate with an anti-time frequency.  This polarization of the vacuum would then reduce the energy level in the large gravitational well and displace a percentage of the matter of the large body to a cloud surrounding the body which would be the field.  Does this work or am I mistaken?

Also with special relativity a ship that accelerates become flattened by realativity.  In front of the direction/velcocity it is traveling you subtract time and it contracts in front while you add time to the velocity behind also causing contraction.  If for some reason the ship accelerating causes a polarization in the quantum vacuum and anti-matter is pulled with it then maybe a wave is following the ship that is made of anti-matter and matter.  In front of the ship is the wave of anti-matter slowing time in front and behind the ship is the wave of matter speeding up time behind.  So in essence the polarization of anti-matter/matter would be responsible for gradients in time, length contractions, and gravity. 

Also the light you mentioned where the electric field points toward fast time to slow time (or maybe that is reversed) is similar in that maybe the light is the polarization of this matter/anti-matter which also causes a gradient in time.  It also seems to possibly match up with electro-magnetism when you think what ever they are they are oppositely charged so can also make the necessary magnetic fields. 

This also explains why when we collide particles we see both anti-matter and matter form. 

I thought it was an intriguing line of thought and maybe it could have implications to better understanding the QV and if we can truly manipulate it. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/23/2016 01:40 pm
Dustinthewind:  Thanks for the Juliana ref.  I said nothing about anti-matter or anti-time. The main point is that there is a spontaneous dynamic oscillation between something and nothing that allows something to exist from nothingness by avoiding the primitive rule of non-contradiction.  So, this time process is everything, in simple form is the vacuum, or in complex structure is matter and waves. The real take away is the interface between science and this metaphysics as the nature the electric and magnetic fields.

I don’t know if the time process itself can be polarized or if it is just the fluctuations that can. I imagined a rotating axial electric field (bottle brush style) to see if it could help sort out these fluctuation in order to create an accumulation and the causal structure. What I found is that these fluctuations get aligned just as the expected induced magnetic field would; are these two separate things, magnetic field and QF alignment, or is the magnetic field just that: an alignment of Q fluctuations? If so, it would be like saying that everything other than the strict time process is due to the organization of these fluctuations i.e. we are all riding on a very thin margin!

The light model presents us with another question. In normal representations, these are electric and magnetic vectors; the model is made of maths. What happen when we make the model out of stuff? A unidirectional  increase/decrease in the time rate is a monopolar magnetic entity.... a monopole?

You like conservation laws?  I believe that for logical reasons tied to the causality structure, there is also a law of conservation of structure. Also, an increase in time rate structure cannot be found without a decrease in time rate structure. That I believe is why we can’t find a quark alone... and monopole alone ...

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Notsosureofit on 08/23/2016 05:19 pm
FYI:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/nists-compact-gyroscope-may-turn-heads.cfm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/23/2016 05:51 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: aceshigh on 08/23/2016 06:16 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent?

1 million x zero = zero
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/23/2016 07:01 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 08/23/2016 08:09 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.

Typically, you buy disks, crush them and then make whatever shape you want from that. You just need to re-bake the YCBO into a nozzle shape.

IMO, this is a very strong magnet in the Earth's magnetic field. It looks like a compass to me. I wouldn't bother. The claim that it provides thrust with no power input makes everything about it suspect.

Todd
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 08/23/2016 09:12 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/23/2016 10:01 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL

Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/23/2016 10:13 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL
Monomorphic did a FEKO simulation in a TE013 and let FEKO calculate out the max E-fields while showing the field structure deformations. E-Field Kv/m
for the curved it was 7500 and flat 1750
dB = 10 * Log (Pout / Pin)
or a diff of 6.3db

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/23/2016 10:17 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

Does anyone know where to get the superconducting nozzle Dr. Nassikas uses? I purchased a high flux magnet with the idea of eventually testing this thruster.

Typically, you buy disks, crush them and then make whatever shape you want from that. You just need to re-bake the YCBO into a nozzle shape.

IMO, this is a very strong magnet in the Earth's magnetic field. It looks like a compass to me. I wouldn't bother. The claim that it provides thrust with no power input makes everything about it suspect.

Todd
I would have to agree with you Todd. Reminds me of a song "I want my M TV"... "Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free". Huge red flag for me to bring it into question.



Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/23/2016 10:23 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL

Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?

Thanks!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/23/2016 10:49 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL

Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?

Thanks!

Shell

These sims are of TheTravellers dims for a TE013 emdrive. ~2.4Ghz. I am working on designing a TE013 frustum with spherical end-plates that resonates at ~2.46Ghz. I am using a simple dipole antenna with side-wall injection. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/23/2016 11:23 pm
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL

Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Can you expand on this simulation and what frequency and what antenna you did this in?

Thanks!

Shell

These sims are of TheTravellers dims for a TE013 emdrive. ~2.4Ghz. I am working on designing a TE013 frustum with spherical end-plates that resonates at ~2.46Ghz. I am using a simple dipole antenna with side-wall injection.
If you pull out the formula for calculating the Q of a spherical frustum spectrum you'll notice that the Q will increase but also at the expense of a decreased cavity resonate bandwidth.

It becomes obvious that driving a flat plat frustum works with a splattering 20MHz BW magnetron attached and a solid state works well with a curved endplate.

Also curving the Small end in my runs have shown relative little difference, it was the Big End that was critical. Not sure if it has to do with my running the small endplate just the other side of cutoff or not.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 08/24/2016 12:06 am
...the objective would be to have asymmetrical power fluctuations within the copper frustum. Absorption, emission and dissipation. Dissipative process are not conservative and the copper is not a perfect conductor. There is dissipation involved and the asymmetry of the frustum may be allowing this to create thrust. Modeling this is not as easy though, because you would be modeling the kinetic energy of the copper atoms, not the MW field inside the frustum.

Quote
"What we're doing is the extreme case of nonlinear optics, where the light and matter are coupled so strongly that we don't have light and matter anymore. We have something in between, called a polariton."

"What we depend on is the vacuum fluctuation. Vacuum, in a classical sense, is an empty space. There's nothing. But in a quantum sense, a vacuum is full of fluctuating photons, having so-called zero-point energy. These vacuum photons are actually what we are using to resonantly excite electrons in our cavity."

     ~http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-merge-quantum-coupling.html)

Any similarities and/or correlations with your theory? Zero-Point Energy resonantly exciting electrons in a cavity making those electrons behave as a single gigantic atom? Perhaps the polaritons could be creating more focused asymmetrical power fluctuations in the copper?

The researches claim that they're achieving coupling of vacuum Rabi splitting as large as 10 percent of the photon energy. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but 10% sounds like pretty strong coupling to me!

Yes, there are definite similarities. It will take me some time to think about it, but thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/24/2016 01:51 am
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter. 

Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist.  That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate?  If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage.  That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up. 

This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:

I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties.  Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects?  That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter?  But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UOQbqk2Z0g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonathanD on 08/24/2016 03:05 am
Cannae's cavity looks much different than many of the DIYers here, who have been going more of the frustum Shawyer route.  I'm wondering, now that Cannae is ~apparently~ trying to put their money where their mouth is and planning to put a demo cube sat in orbit, has anyone reconsidered their approach?   Purely curious here, still watching all of this anxiously.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2016 03:13 am
...
Meberbs:  We may understand time dilation (a time duration) as the integration of a dynamic process. Would this integration be possible without its first derivative, a time rate, suggested here as 1/T?
...and yes. Momentum is conserved.  ....”Things accelerating without bound”:  I guess so. In a G field, we always end up hitting the source (Earth). But if the source of the field is moving with you ....?
...
I have work on this “different perspective” and wrote a paper (attached). Read it all. This is not the maths, but it is the thinking.

Marcel,
The answer to your first question is yes, it is possible. An integral does not require a derivative, those are inverse operations, similar to multiplication vs division, but not quite (the details don't matter right now). A key point is that you don't need to know anything about derivatives to do an integral, it has its own definition that only relies on limits of summations. Also 1/T is neither a derivative or part of the integration formula.

You didn't understand my statement, the accelerate without bound happens based on your statement to an object sitting in empty space, no gravity required. The object would experience time moving slower relative to its current reference frame if it was moving due to special relativity.

I looked at your attachment, and have quite a few issues I could point out in it, but I think it is best to take one point at a time. One thing that you have right in there is the rule of non-contradiction. One contradiction is enough to eliminate a theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 08/24/2016 04:21 am
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter. 

Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist.  That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate?  If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage.  That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up. 

This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:

I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties.  Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects?  That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter?  But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?


According to the Reissner-Nordstrom equation, the sign of the charge doesn't matter. The refractive index is dependent on Q2 and the affect is anti-gravity, or an increase in the rate of a clock. The R-N solution results in a highly charged blackhole, will have a naked singularity and no event horizon.

This is a very old paper. A lot of my understanding has changed since then, but this has not.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model)

Anti-matter does not have the affect of anti-gravity. Anti-matter has positive mass and opposite charge. However, you are correct in that, every point charge is surrounded by virtual electron-positron pairs. A real electron for example, will swap places with a virtual electron and this is called Exchange scattering. So at the scale of point charges, the vacuum is composed of matter-antimatter. But far from such strong fields, it is just photons IMO.
 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Kimight on 08/24/2016 05:14 am
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter.

Don't shoot me if I'm wrong as I've just started on my formal education a week ago. But concidering that all particles are just excitations in their respective field, and anti-particles are just in the opposite "direction". Is there any other way than viewing the vacuum as a superposition of particles and antiparticles in all of the fields? Or maybe this would be wrong for fermions because of Paulis exclusion principle?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/24/2016 09:06 am
Cannae's cavity looks much different than many of the DIYers here, who have been going more of the frustum Shawyer route.  I'm wondering, now that Cannae is ~apparently~ trying to put their money where their mouth is and planning to put a demo cube sat in orbit, has anyone reconsidered their approach?   Purely curious here, still watching all of this anxiously.

Up having a cup of coco before I head back to bed and read your post.

You're quite right, Cannae's Drive looks much like a pillbox accelerator, also realize there are other ways to manipulate EM fields and achieve a similar result. Look at what Nicola Tesla was doing with a conical shaped frustum so many years ago.

http://physics.bu.edu/neppsr/2007/TALKS-2007/Accelerators_Barletta.pdf

Coco's done and back to bed. Good observation.


My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Eusa on 08/24/2016 10:27 am
For Anyone re the above question....Hypothetical: two frustums +/- the same size and volume etc. one with flat end plates the other with spherical. By what % (+/-) does the "Q" increase in the spherical frustum over the flat endplate frustum?  Thanks anyone,   FL

Q increases with spherical end-plates. I am working on illustrating this via simulations. The end-plates need to be set up like a concave-convex optical cavity. Also, just slapping spherical end-plates onto your flat-end frustum will yield a different resonance. It has to be built from the ground up with spherical end-plates in mind.
Great! Maybe finally we will get the results I've been waiting for...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Eusa on 08/24/2016 10:45 am
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter. 
Up to this you make it reads nearly like my point of view on the vacuum issue. The mechanism in my model is the handedness changing alternately; the Higgs field would have both positive and negative value phases, average value being zero. Dual handedness change phases could be the way how gravitational and inertial vacuum quanta flow from the space to the time as massive matter structures and simultaneously the way how the charge/electricity gets its polarity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Willem Staal on 08/24/2016 11:53 am
The more i  think about the EM drive the more i am convinced you need to boost the power in the frustrum, the original cavity magnetron made  by Randall and Booth before the second world war had 6 cavities alternating to achieve maximum power. Maybe we need multiple cavities in a cycling  arrangement. Or even using  a hydrogen maser instead of a rf unit.. The effect is still too marginal and we need to boost the power to make is really work. Or even  thinking about a fractal  frustrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/24/2016 02:43 pm
Mberbs:  Thank you for reading the attachment and for the comments. The logical causal structure, for a higher probability of existence in one direction, that I derived from simple logic is exactly the one found in the Alcubierre drive. I could be wrong ... but it doesn’t look that way. I do maintain that this causal structure is what we are trying to achieve here.  How does that translate into an actual device?

I will start my own DIY work ... slowly.  Quick stupid question: why is everyone using a torsion pendulum and laser instead of an accelerometer (cheap and USD data ready)? Actual force measurements?

Thanks,

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2016 03:56 pm
Mberbs:  Thank you for reading the attachment and for the comments. The logical causal structure, for a higher probability of existence in one direction, that I derived from simple logic is exactly the one found in the Alcubierre drive. I could be wrong ... but it doesn’t look that way. I do maintain that this causal structure is what we are trying to achieve here.  How does that translate into an actual device?

I will start my own DIY work ... slowly.  Quick stupid question: why is everyone using a torsion pendulum and laser instead of an accelerometer (cheap and USD data ready)? Actual force measurements?

Thanks,

Marcel,
The logic from what your statement about objects going towards smaller larger time dilation results in the conclusion that my phone should fly off my desk and slam into the wall. You have not addressed why this doesn't happen

There is very little logic in your paper, you makes statements that are then followed by conclusions that do not actually follow at all. For example, at the bottom of page 8 you say "This does sound a lot like" to bring in quantum mechanics. "Sounds like" is not a step in any logical process, because it is extremely weak evidence. Assuming that 2 things are the same because they are similar is simply a fallacy. Also the similarity is the word probability which you appear to have pulled out of nowhere in the previous paragraph.

Here is a metaphysical description of quantum mechanics, showing that probability is not necessarily what the wave function represents*: The wave function represents a distribution of locations, energies momentum etc. where the particle posses all of these properties at the same time. There is not a 50% chance that at any given time it is on the left or the right, it is on both the left and right at the same time. If you run an experiment that forces the particle to only be on one side, then there is a probability associated what the results of the experiment will be, but this is only due to the action of the experiment that will alter the state in an unpredictable way.

*I make no claim that this is necessarily the correct explanation, no respected physicist would make such a claim, since quantum is too weird and no one quite understands it. This is the one I like the most given the constraints imposed by tests of Bell's inequality.

A torsional pendulum gives actual force measurements, at least as directly as an accelerometer. displacement for a given lever arm directly represents an experienced force. Most accelerometers internally measure displacements in effect, but are much less sensitive and accurate. They also still need mass to translate to force as well. Plus an accelerometer needs something like an air track to get a frictionless motion, but that brings in many more complications including air resistance.

The torsional pendulum has been used for all of the most sensitive force experiments I have heard of, so it really is the best setup for measuring these small forces.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/24/2016 05:33 pm
News on those Earth-size planet(s) in habitable zone of the Proxima Centauri reached the main media.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37167390

Lets hope that such news will have effect on imagination of scientists, engineers, dreamers and explorers.
We need new era of propulsion systems.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/24/2016 06:30 pm
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released.  Not sure of your question..
-  ...”there is little logic...”. Remember that once you have a single stuff or substance and a single cause, these inferences are not only logically possible but even necessary. Two causes are one and the same. And if I say “it sounds like” it is offered and to be taken as such; : “sounds like”. These will appear where and when I try to parallel the metaphysics and known physics.

- “Here is a metaphysical description...”. That is not metaphysics. In true metaphysics “your are not there”.  It is about what exists and what makes it evolve/change by itself. The time process was deduced from top-down according to what we know, and bottom-up, from a logical creation of the universe.This metaphysics is about what the universe is made of and what it does by itself spontaneously. Everything we know is about what we can do with the universe; it is on a need to know basis. The universe doesn’t need to know physics because it is ruled by simple logic. Metaphysics is extremely limited; substance, cause and some forms and shapes. That’s it! It has no predictive power; this is in the hands number logic or maths and physics.

- Ok torsional pendulum for measurement = quantitative, precise. But a simple accelerometer like the ADXL (MEMS) can show acceleration/gravity in g = as a first go/no-go or qualitative signal?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2016 06:58 pm

- Ok torsional pendulum for measurement = quantitative, precise. But a simple accelerometer like the ADXL (MEMS) can show acceleration/gravity in g = as a first go/no-go or qualitative signal?

That accelerometer only has a resolution of 4mg. That's 4 milli-gravities, not milligrams. The accelerometer i'm using has a resolution of 76 ug - 76 micro-gravities. http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?product_id=1044

Even at 76ug (748um/s2), it is still orders of magnitude less sensitive than a Laser Displacement Sensor capable of detecting 3um displacement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/24/2016 08:48 pm
Monomorphic: Thanks for the numbers in comparison ( I have an old ADXL serial and a Phidget 1056). Also, the mass of the pendulum has memory and it integrates any effect that would transient.

Thanks,

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/24/2016 09:32 pm
Something that strikes me as interesting is if the vacuum is really a superposition of anti-matter and matter. 

Supposing a bonded pair has the same charge but the anti-matter counterpart behaves as if it has the opposite charge because time is reversed then they will behave as opposite charges but annihilate each other and yet they still exist.  That is coming together means they cause a great disturbance in the QV which is the light created when they annihilate?  If anti-matter really runs backwards in time and separating them causes a gradient in the time field then inducing a gradient in the time field may be as simple as charging a capacitor to a really high voltage.  That is some charge on one plate will have an effect of slowing down time while the other would speed it up. 

This reminds me of WaiteDavidMSPhysics on youtube.com's videos here where he specifically addresses a charged capacitor effecting space time and find that it could induce a gradient in space time.:

I would suggest listinging to 34:00 where he specifically says either negative or positive charge will behave as if it has exotic matter properties which I think means negative energy properties.  Possibly like the anti-mater in the QV with time slowing effects?  That is one of the charges on the capacitor might attract the anti matter?  But then again there are both types of charges for anti-matter but maybe one charge of anti-matter is more massive than the other?


According to the Reissner-Nordstrom equation, the sign of the charge doesn't matter. The refractive index is dependent on Q2 and the affect is anti-gravity, or an increase in the rate of a clock. The R-N solution results in a highly charged blackhole, will have a naked singularity and no event horizon.

This is a very old paper. A lot of my understanding has changed since then, but this has not.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model)

Anti-matter does not have the affect of anti-gravity. Anti-matter has positive mass and opposite charge. However, you are correct in that, every point charge is surrounded by virtual electron-positron pairs. A real electron for example, will swap places with a virtual electron and this is called Exchange scattering. So at the scale of point charges, the vacuum is composed of matter-antimatter. But far from such strong fields, it is just photons IMO.

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

Thanks for the paper, I'll need to look it over when I get some time.  I just thought it interesting in that he suggested at 34:00 that one of the charges would have the properties of exotic matter in that it would reduce the energy level or mass of the charge which suggested to me that maybe the charge was attracting the presence of some type of negative energy density, possibly from anti matter of the QV.  I'm not sure his video is intentionally related to what I am thinking about, but I had an uncanny feeling of a similarity from it. 

Also isn't charge conserved?  If far away the QV was just photons then I don't understand how charge could just decompose into just photons.  Maybe away from the presence of strong fields the separation of charge in the QV doesn't show up because it takes a field to separate the charges in the QV?  Well, I probably need to read up more on the subject. 


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Notsosureofit on 08/25/2016 01:29 pm
FYI:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/grp07/measuring-tiny-forces-with-light.cfm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: therealjjj77 on 08/25/2016 01:37 pm

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/25/2016 03:20 pm
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released.  Not sure of your question..
My original statement was "results in the conclusion that my phone should fly off my desk and slam into the wall." What you responded with is a completely different situation. Let me try to clarify slightly "results in the conclusion that my phone when sitting on the floor should spontaneously fly off sideways and slam into the wall."

-  ...”there is little logic...”. Remember that once you have a single stuff or substance and a single cause, these inferences are not only logically possible but even necessary. Two causes are one and the same. And if I say “it sounds like” it is offered and to be taken as such; : “sounds like”. These will appear where and when I try to parallel the metaphysics and known physics.
No, you are drawing a conclusion based on a fallacy. You do not provide any separate logical justification, only this correlation based on similarity. Jumping to a conclusion based on this is equivalent to saying a fire truck and a Ferrari are both red, so they both must be intended for fire fighting. This is simply wrong.

- “Here is a metaphysical description...”. That is not metaphysics. In true metaphysics “your are not there”.  It is about what exists and what makes it evolve/change by itself. The time process was deduced from top-down according to what we know, and bottom-up, from a logical creation of the universe.This metaphysics is about what the universe is made of and what it does by itself spontaneously. Everything we know is about what we can do with the universe; it is on a need to know basis. The universe doesn’t need to know physics because it is ruled by simple logic. Metaphysics is extremely limited; substance, cause and some forms and shapes. That’s it! It has no predictive power; this is in the hands number logic or maths and physics.
What I gave was an explanation of why the particle behaves as quantum mechanics predicts as an attempt to state the truth of what is really happening. Just because it doesn't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it not metaphysics.

Also even metaphysics should have some predictive power. It can do this by showing how a branch of physics can be reformulated to closer match the truth of how the universe works. This enables physics to get a theory closer to grand unification and make more useful predictions. If this wasn't true, then the start of your paper claiming that if we had better metaphysics we wouldn't still be using chemical rockets would be wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bad_astra on 08/25/2016 04:13 pm
Quote
But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/
---------------------------------------------
A million times thrust with no energy spent? All I'll say is extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

Sorry guys and gals I've been very busy as of late but I haven't forgot anyone here and try to catch up when I can. Testing goes on and the anomaly still remains anonymous. A forced pulsed jerked dual mode of operation is providing some interesting clues. Much more later.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell


Extremely skeptical of the Nassikas claim in that link. But is it possible he's just made a very compact magsail?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/25/2016 09:08 pm
Uh actually I was not debating anything.

It's a rough crowd here.  Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors.  The first one to do so wins.  They do like debating tho!

Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Most of the designs here are closed cavities.  No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.

For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device.  Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.

I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey.  Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 08/26/2016 03:27 am
4N/kilowatt force/thrust will take us to Proxima Centauri b in 29.9 years.
In the presence of water the tidally locked PC b there would be a ring of temperate and breezy zones to live in.
Anyone for a large build yet?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/26/2016 12:25 pm
FYI:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/grp07/measuring-tiny-forces-with-light.cfm

Hah!

Check out what else they're doing with photons these days!

syntheticneurobiology.org/PDFs/10.06.boyden.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/26/2016 12:27 pm
Mberbs:
- My cell phone does fly off and slams into the ground when released.  Not sure of your question..
My original statement was...

Mberbs:  Nice rebuttal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/26/2016 12:31 pm
Nassika's patent:

www.google.com/patents/US8952773
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/26/2016 01:50 pm
Mberbs: The cell phone “statement” was not about exposing anything. You can do better than that.

...fallacy.  The first part of my work was to come up with a single type of substance and a single type of cause.  Let me put it this way;  everything that happen spontaneously in the universe is due to this single type of cause;  what exists, does so more where the rate of time is slower. Moving clouds in the sky, rolling waves on the ocean, galaxies forming, objects falling, atom forming  etc.  The deepest reason why is this “cause”.

.... Why... Physics says HOW things work. It always ask “why” they do so, as an intellectual move, but the methodology based on experience always return a “How” it happen. Equations connect facts and connected facts do not require any logical cause. The only answer to the “why” question is a bare bone logical cause. 

... Predictive power..  Here I just acknowledge the limitations of metaphysics and recognize what truly belongs to physics.  Prediction requires numbers and this metaphysics , as far as I understand it myself, stops at the number 1 and zero; existence and non-existence.

Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.

Thanks,

Marcel,   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/26/2016 03:34 pm

Four decades of BB, Alt-phys, forums etc. Some posts require an excruciatingly delicate balance between biting and begging. But being these weird humans, the two are about the same thing; connecting at a cost.”Biting” is connecting at the cost of hurting the other. “Begging” is connected at the cost of hurting yourself. If we did not feel the connection as so imperative, we could manage to do it without a cost. Yes..... we are weird... but so beautiful at the same time.

my apologies,

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2016 07:43 pm
...
Now, if you would care to stop playing with flying cell phone and red fire trucks and put out a real question, I would be glad to tackle the problem with you. Bottom line; we have a job to do here and if you can’t teach me or learn from me this, conversation is pointless.
I don't have any questions for you, except what did you not understand about my previous posts? You proposed some statements about how the universe works. I pointed out using the clearest explanations I could: why your statements are not consistent with how the universe works, and that there are flaws in what you refer to as logic.

Unless you choose to actually respond to these points rather than ignoring them, I do not know how to state this any clearer than I have. There is certainly more details we could discuss, but there is no reason for me to go further if you don't respond to what I have said so far. If you are unable to understand, then hopefully my explanations have helped other readers on this site understand the flaws in your hypothesis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/26/2016 07:49 pm
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 08/26/2016 09:01 pm
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 08/26/2016 11:15 pm
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/26/2016 11:47 pm

I wasn't saying that anti-matter had the property of anti gravity.  Rather I was suggesting the possibility that if anti-matter had the property of reverse time, that it would reverse the positive charge on anti-matter to behave as if it were a negative charge, or opposite of its counterpart.  I was then suggesting that the polarization of the property of time in anti-matter and matter in the polarized QV could then be responsible for what we perceive as gravity.  I was thinking of anti-matter as having positive stored energy if it is separated from matter in that if it comes back to matter, the electric field generated disturbs the quantum vacuum and makes the light seen from the annihilation effect.  The light being the polarization of the QV. 

I don't think time works in this fashion. Time does not have a reverse per se. That's not to say that anti-matter will not mirror the opposite action of matter when formed(as in hurling in the opposite direction with an opposite spin), but it would do so in a forward time. Usually this comes from a misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity. You are thinking in the right direction, though, to look for a process causing gravity and not just the mere presence of mass. I have just submitted an article for publishing on this topic and will post it here once the article is published.

I found some interesting information on a cern link that touches on some history.  I was excited to see that Richard Feynman may have thought of anti-matter as traveling back in time.  It might be connected to the Wheeler-Feynman theory and the Feynman diagrams.  I'll probably have to look more into it.  Here is the link: http://cds.cern.ch/record/294366/files/open-96-005.pdf

This may also be connected and I suspect it appears to suggest dark matter as anti matter in another dimension where space time flows out of that matter and pulls our space time in leading to gravity but from another dimension?  I could be wrong on this as I still have to read this article.  I suspect it is what it is about because it was something that I had considered previously.  Link is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812021  They mention Feynman and reverse time for anti-matter also!  Mmmm, not quite what I expected I suppose.

How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D

I suppose I found it exciting because it got my mind thinking in a way I hadn't yet which was to make the connection of time reversal in anti-matter and that inducing gravity and relativity.  Not sure how solid that foundation might be yet but it seems there may already be some structure for it.  I was feeling the need to better understand the quantum vacuum if we are going to speculate we can push off of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/27/2016 12:24 am
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.
Are you able to share the name?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/27/2016 01:24 am
How on earth did we run into metaphysics? Without testable predictions, theories and ideas on the mechanics of the Universe are worse than useless.  :o

We are in a severe drought of experimental data to discuss.  ;D

If Dr. Rodal is correct in the paper from NASA being accepted for publication then I suspect the blog here will be jumping, of course it depends what's in the paper. NASA has been so very closed on this, it's been frustrating not seeing open information available like NASA, as a public entity normally operates. Geez, they even televised all the Shuttle and Apollo launches, good and bad.

I wrote to a dear friend a bit ago... "We are at the cusp of living a dream of many or being a memory of none".

Let's hope for the best.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/27/2016 02:05 am
Keep us posted, doc!
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/27/2016 09:25 am
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!


Hooray at long last. Thank you for that news. I wonder how long this news will take to spread wider online.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 08/27/2016 01:16 pm
With this peer reviewed success, we should be putting more projects like cannae in the sky soon no??? Onward and outward or what???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 08/27/2016 01:36 pm
If the effect is finally accepted as real, even if just 1mN/kW, then a lot more researchers will start digging around the edges, trying to increase efficiency.

That is, provided the Eagleworks paper provides enough detailed information so that others can replicate the experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: francesco nicoli on 08/27/2016 02:04 pm
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!

(http://replygif.net/i/457.gif)

So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/27/2016 02:20 pm
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to Dr. White, Paul March and the rest of the NASA Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!


So, if you didn't hear that from NASA, either they have a leak, OR you were among the anonymous reviewers...

I am not sure if it's diplomatic for you to ask that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Mezzenile on 08/27/2016 03:09 pm
The paris are open to guess which items are covered in the new test report/paper of Eagleworks  :):

1 - Emdrive effect shown to exist in vacuum condition.
2 - Emdrive thrust measured for a superconductive cavity.
3 - Emdrive effect shown to exist for a configuration which includes the power supply of the microwave generator.
4 - Emdrive thrust investigated for various RF input power and various electro-magnetic modes configurations.
5 - Emdrive thrust shown to exist in free fall condition (no acceleration).
6 - Statement that no Emdrive effect could be detected in a clean vacuum environment. :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jstepp590 on 08/27/2016 03:30 pm
Uh actually I was not debating anything.

It's a rough crowd here.  Nobody's yet floated the device across the conference room table for investors.  The first one to do so wins.  They do like debating tho!

Still, I threw an eyeball over the link you provided:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807

Most of the designs here are closed cavities.  No place for the photons to exit, for one thing.

For another, the paper's authors look to be trying to find the math before they have a device.  Here, they're trying to build a device before they have the math.

I have no idea what the best way to proceed is, but hey.  Thanks for posting.

Sure no problem, drill sergeants took care of any sniveling I had a long time ago so my feelings are not so easily hurt. I love to argue as well, if I am qualified to, which on these subjects I am not. I am an IT contractor, not an engineer or physicist. I have given money to Shell and do what I can to help because space has always been my dream. If anyone building these in Albany NY would like a motivated assistant to help them do their build I am absolutely jumping up in the air waving my hands!  ;D I just really love learning new things, which I have here almost every day.
I simply wanted to make sure that people saw the article so that we were not missing anything. I do not fully understand the explanation of it given in an article I read, about photons pairing and leaving the frustum as an exhaust that they had to use an interferometer to detect. I will let others here that are qualified decide the value of the article.

BTW, congratulation to the Nasa Eagleworks team on their peer review!!! The detected thrust is nowhere near what the original EMDrive claims were, but if the effect is real then I have every confidence that some of these intellectual heroes will find ways to maximize the effect.
Back to lurking...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/27/2016 03:50 pm
Considering anti-matter in the Quantum Vacuum and the possibility its presence may slow down time and then paralleling it to the Polarizable vacuum theory where when time slows down things become more massive as the QV decreases in energy.  Condensed negative energy in a positive energy region? 

Now consider that charging a capacitor may polarize the Quantum Vacuum and that the negative side of the capacitor would attract positive protons and positive electrons but the protons are more massive.  The reverse for the positive side of a capacitor.  They may induce a gradient of energy density in the QV which changes the mass of light or associated charges but the question is what magnitude. 

The thought occurred to me, "what if due to the shape of the frustum and the changing magnetic field inside caused free electrons to be pushed to one side of the cavity making the cavity some what of a capacitor.  The question being what if we purposely separated charge between the back and front of the frustum or a cylinder.  With repeated reflections of light inside and some changing mass of said light was induced. 

In the least it introduces another parameter to test that could possibly have an influence on the magnitude of thrust if there is any.  How it might be done is using a TE mode so that current follows a circular path.  Put a dielectric ring between the two sides of the cavity maybe making 3 sections - top, mid and bottom and separate charge between the top and bottom.  There should still be plenty of free charge to reflect light in the two sides of the cavity so that isn't an issue. 

Any thoughts on the matter?  Could we test it as a parameter?

Now that I think of it, it may be difficult to set up any electric field inside the cavity as the cavity tends to shield  everything inside. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: chucknorris101 on 08/27/2016 07:03 pm
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?

Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.

Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/27/2016 07:36 pm
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?

Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.

Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!

Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Gilbertdrive on 08/27/2016 07:43 pm
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?

Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.

Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!

Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.

I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 08/27/2016 08:14 pm
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?

Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.

Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!

While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even. Orrrrrr..... they've discovered something, and they just don't know everything about it and need more money and more experiments in order to fully discover its potential. Doesn't mean the door has to be closed though, so we just don't know yet.

P.S. I think the leak happened right here. Just sayin'.
#popcorn
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/27/2016 08:21 pm
I know everyone here is optimistic, but part of science is the negative as well, so the paper could be closing the door. Unless that is not how this paper review process would work?

Thinking back to things like the opera ftl neutrinos, there was alot of scientific hubbub before it was released / resolved, I know NASA has been sealed lips but with theory shattering results I imagine at least one peer reviewer would leak something.

Someone more familiar with the peer review process will hopefully set me straight or clarify!

Not in this case I wouldn't have thought due to the high interest & controversial nature of the whole topic.

I agree. It was clear, in my understanding, that the Eaglework paper submitted was showing positive results :)

But even positive results would be no good if it didn't bring any funding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/27/2016 11:39 pm
So after, what, 17 months, 8 threads and 3.5 million+ folks reading here I guess we all have to wait a while longer  ;D


Anybody want to opine how long before the paper is released, since I have no idea? Are we talking another month or two?  ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/28/2016 09:27 am
It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!

Thank you for the news Dr. Rodal. Whatever the results are, lets hope it will also help to decrease that war between supporters of this device (like me I know...)and the critics.

Dr. Rodal any idea if Paul March still visits this forum? Can he tell us which journal it will be published in?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Slyver on 08/28/2016 09:35 am

While I remain optimistic on the topic... You are probably right. My guess is, they've discovered something but its not scalable and limited in use to something like a cubesat or smaller even.

If they show compelling evidence of any force greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket without discernible reaction mass, it could be enough force to shatter the earth (It would be earth shattering). What it is capable of lifting at our current tech level is far down the list of what is important.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 11:14 am
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:

www.emdrive.com

2016 is such an interesting year for the EmDrive.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/28/2016 11:37 am
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com

Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.

It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 11:41 am
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com

Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.

It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....

The attached will explain.

I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward,  more papers will be shared.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/28/2016 04:21 pm
Roger just emailed me, the SPR web site has been updated:
www.emdrive.com

Very interesting papers. Some of those papers are even more than 10 years old. Still he speaks there about things this forum consider as the "latests news". I wonder where his work is now.

It is good to see that he still cooperates with the UK goverment. That is I guess a reason why I could not find a thing about his current research sigh....

The attached will explain.

I assume as the 10 year ago time line rolls forward,  more papers will be shared.

Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 04:38 pm
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations

SPR is was started by Roger. He had NDAs that have timers. Once the times expire, he can release data, as he does.

You need to review his latest peer reviewed paper (at www.emdrive.com) and maybe start to accept that he talks about is real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2016 04:57 pm
Interesting that Roger has now shared the dielectric he used

Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38

how he tuned the dielectric position and the full internal dimensions of his 1st Experimental EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/29/2016 03:13 am
Or if this new paper starts enough pressure on the company he works for. We might get new informations sooner. I think Mr. Shawyer said it himself. That outside push can help to release more informations

SPR is was started by Roger. He had NDAs that have timers. Once the times expire, he can release data, as he does.

You need to review his latest peer reviewed paper (at www.emdrive.com) and maybe start to accept that he talks about is real.
You don't get to say what anyone "needs" to do. I am not sure why you would bother to point someone to the peer review paper anyway (unless you mean the new papers, but since they weren't published in a journal, calling them peer-reviewed would be misleading). From what I remember, it is essentially a "what-if" description stating how interstellar travel would work assuming you had a drive with the properties Shawyer claims. There is only one paragraph I remember stating how the EmDrive supposedly works. Seeing the flaw in that paragraph would have required a different expertise than what most reviewers for that paper would have had.

The person who appears to have reviewed these 2 newly released papers states in one of his conclusions:
Quote
I do not feel qualified to pronounce upon the physical principles exploited by the invention but I understand others have done so.
The others I am aware of who have done so have all found flaws in the theory. Shawyer has claimed otherwise, but again, there is not a single name of someone who knows the relevant physics who thinks there is any merit to Shawyer's theory.

As to the experiment, the same author states in the other paper:

Quote
There is no justification for (a) in the main text, see Section 4.3.
The thermal test results are not quite as clear as implied by (e), see Section 4.4.
The  results  quoted  in  (j)  and  (m) are  not  supported  by  predictions,  see  Section
4.3.  In Section 4.4 I  also  point  out  some  apparent  anomalies  in  the  thrust  measurements which are not explained n the text.
There  is  no  justification  for  (n), which  should  have  its  own  section  in  the  main  text describing a possible flight engine design and its expected performance. There is likely to be significant further development required on a suitable space qualified microwave source.

The numbering doesn't seem to match up with the paper I believe he is reviewing, so it seems a different version of something may have been uploaded. I won't go into details about what I see in Shawyer's papers other than to note that this reviewer, despite admitting to lack in some of the background required for the theory was able to point out multiple potential issues. In addition, I do not recommend that anyone try to replicate Shawyer's spring + scale setup, since that setup fundamentally is prone to all sorts of anomalous results.

It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/29/2016 03:41 am
It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.

Here is the issue:

The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/29/2016 04:18 am
It would be nice if before you continued insisting that Shawyer is right about everything you actually tried to understand some of the many critiques that have been posted by me and others finding fundamental flaws in his papers.

Here is the issue:

The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.

Caveat emptor, being able to explain why something works is not the same thing as being right about why something works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/29/2016 04:39 am
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/29/2016 06:57 am
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.

Roger told me extensive discussion on his theory occured on both sides of the Atlantic and that in the end his theory held up. I suspect those discussions were engaged under NDA and will one day see the light of day.

Here is the kicker, Roger's thrust equation does predict the measured thrust. That equation is based on his theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 08/29/2016 08:20 am
Regardless some very impressive DIY builds, we still have to see any conclusive results.
So far we've seen interesting and intriguing results, but none are conclusively confirming the EMdrive effect.

This is not about "believing  or not believing" but gathering hard, irrefutable evidence that the effect is real. And , obviously, we're not there yet...

I suppose we're all eagerly waiting for the "eye opener of 2016 event", that TT promised us many months ago, else... he'll have no other option then to eat his hat... :)
4 months to go...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/29/2016 11:23 am
Once we know that we have an agreed upon effect, then everyone can theorize on the why and eventually figure it out. Roger gets the credit for making these experiments happen.

Roger told me extensive discussion on his theory occured on both sides of the Atlantic and that in the end his theory held up. I suspect those discussions were engaged under NDA and will one day see the light of day.

Here is the kicker, Roger's thrust equation does predict the measured thrust. That equation is based on his theory.
Discussion with who? he keeps repeating this claim of supporters for his theory, but no one with a relevant physics background has ever stated support for his theory. An NDA would not prevent him from saying "ask this physicist, they found my theory to be fine."

His theory is fundamentally contradictory. Using only the definition of force, I have shown that given Shawyer's assumptions the drive would move the other way. I have also shown using only the definition of conservation of momentum that the device, if it works by the mechanism Shawyer describes would break conservation of momentum, yet Shawyer claims that his device conserves momentum.

If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 08/29/2016 11:36 am
.....
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.

Blind faith and scientific methodology are like oil and water.... they don't mix very well... :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/29/2016 12:44 pm
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.

Yet it works and you can't explain it with your theory while Roger can explain it with his theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/29/2016 12:49 pm
Regardless some very impressive DIY builds, we still have to see any conclusive results.
So far we've seen interesting and intriguing results, but none are conclusively confirming the EMdrive effect.

This is not about "believing  or not believing" but gathering hard, irrefutable evidence that the effect is real. And , obviously, we're not there yet...

I suppose we're all eagerly waiting for the "eye opener of 2016 event", that TT promised us many months ago, else... he'll have no other option then to eat his hat... :)
4 months to go...

I could post some data that is confidential as of yet but I will not.
Interesting data from 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?

For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.

This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 08/29/2016 01:48 pm

I could post some data that is confidential as of yet but I will not.
Interesting data from 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?

For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.

This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.

It looked to me that this video showed that the rotatory apparatus started from speed 0, accelerated, reached a maximum, then decelerated,  then reached speed 0 again,  then the video was cut. It is attempting to predict that if the video were continued, the apparatus would have rotated backwards, making an oscillation, just like what a big compass would behave. Would you please ask Mr. Shawyer what happened after the video was cut?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/29/2016 02:00 pm
Here is the issue:

The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
But doesn't.

Fixed that for ya.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/29/2016 02:02 pm
You don't get to say what anyone "needs" to do.

Yeah I do.  Just chill.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 08/29/2016 02:04 pm
Not wanting to start a controversy here TT , so , my apology if you perceived my previous post as "hostile".

TT,  I would be genuinely happy if anyone could prove the EM drive works. It would have profound implication, especially for future space travel.
So...Don't mistake my skepticism for hand wavering or disapproval... :)

I too really want this to work, really , but... not at the expense of scientific rigor and common sense.

If Roger or you, or anyone else  succeeds in demonstrating the EM effect, with clear evidence and free from background noise, I'll be one of the first to congratulate that person.

As for the video, I'm well aware of the video and several threads ago, I formulate my remarks on it. Main issue i have with it is the gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump. It should have been turned 90°, through the rotating axis of the setup.
SeeShell also formulated the remark of vibrations with air-bearings causing circular movement of the setup.
It can indeed be due to the EM effect that it rotated, I will not deny that, but until all the other possibilities are ruled out, you're simply jumping the gun that it HAS to be the EMdrive. Maybe it is , maybe it is not...

You get to the truth through elimination, not through assumption...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Elrond Cupboard on 08/29/2016 05:25 pm
If you haven't realized it yet, people on this site are persuaded by evidence and logic, you seem to just be asking for blind faith. This is the wrong place to try that.

Yet it works and you can't explain it with your theory while Roger can explain it with his theory.
Of course the caveat to the Feynman quote is that even if your theory agrees with experiment, it's probably wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/29/2016 11:23 pm
A couple of last minute improvements before I resume regular testing. I've removed all zinc (ferromagnetic) machine screws from the build and replaced with all brass and some stainless steel.

I also added casters to my lab workbench. I can now move the entire build out into the room and 360 degrees with ease. With these casters I can support 800 lbs - far more than I will ever need.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 08/30/2016 12:39 am
TT,  I would be genuinely happy if anyone could prove the EM drive works. It would have profound implication, especially for future space travel.
So...Don't mistake my skepticism for hand wavering or disapproval... :)
This. Seriously, read this. It applies to me as well. Please keep that in mind we aren't enemies here.

Also, I am not sure if you realize the irony in responding to a post where I point out that Shawyer's theory and experiment disagree with that Feynman quote. I don't have a theory, but others have proposed theories that are at least plausible explanations if the device is shown to work.

Now back to waiting for data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/30/2016 02:12 am
I was back in thread 2 and found one of Dr. Rodal's old posts that caught my interest, I must have missed it at the time, or it took time for me to realize its significance.  It is this post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1357720#msg1357720  They are discussing a paper cited by Paul.  Rodal points out this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6380v5.pdf

I read through it and it appears to me they are suggesting the quantum vacuum is made up of anti-matter and matter?  Some charged and even uncharged.  This one appears to take into account spatial structure and the electro-magnetic properties.  Is it just me or does it suggest a capacitor could cause polarization of the Quantum Vacuum also?  Maybe the energies required would be too much but I wonder if there could be a frequency dependence or resonance of the QV. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: HMXHMX on 08/30/2016 02:25 am
Our own Dr. Rodal has his name in the paper:

http://tinyurl.com/zhu2had
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 08/30/2016 02:39 am
Our own Dr. Rodal has his name in the paper:

http://tinyurl.com/zhu2had

For a popular media article, this is pretty good. Seems the journalists did their homework this time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/30/2016 03:22 am
Agreed. They read it here first....   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tcarey on 08/30/2016 04:27 am
A couple of last minute improvements before I resume regular testing. I've removed all zinc (ferromagnetic) machine screws from the build and replaced with all brass and some stainless steel.

Monomprphic:
You don't mention testing the stainless steel to see it is magnetic or not. Some forms are quite magnetic others are not. Given your goal, I hope you have tested that hardware with a strong magnet.

Looks like your build is progressing nicely. Good testing with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: mwvp on 08/30/2016 05:18 am
... it appears to me they are suggesting the quantum vacuum is made up of anti-matter and matter?  Some charged and even uncharged.  This one appears to take into account spatial structure and the electro-magnetic properties.  Is it just me or does it suggest a capacitor could cause polarization of the Quantum Vacuum also?  Maybe the energies required would be too much but I wonder if there could be a frequency dependence or resonance of the QV.

I found:

http://lib.org.by/get/P_Physics/PQft_Quantum%20field%20theory/
PQed_Quantum%20electrodynamics/Milonni%20P.W.%20The%20quantum
%20vacuum..%20introduction%20to%20QED%20%28AP%2C%201994
%29%28ISBN%200124980805%29%28KA%29%28T%29%28536s%29_PQed_.djvu

from a reference in http://www.onlyspacetime.com/

Feast!

And thanks again to Shell's for the Reed paper  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: mwvp on 08/30/2016 05:34 am
...
Wonder what else may be released after the 10 year NDA period expires?
Wonder what other DIY EmDrive experiments have also built wireless and battery powered rotary test rigs that have rotation?

For sure there will be no hat eating, at least not on my side.

This is my last post on this subject until the EW paper is available for download.

Aw, don't be that way. I believe, FWIW. The papers you posted were very interesting and appreciated, for me anyways.

When I first read Shawyer's released theory papers, I didn't get the equations at all. After a year researching waveguide propagation, dispersion, field theory, the vacuum, et. They make sense to me.

Then again, I was looking for it, since from the outset I considered radiation counter-propagating at the speed of light to be an absolute reference frame (evidenced by such things as the Sagnac effect, and particle de Broglie wavelength, velocity and inertia of every freek'in Fermion in the Universe) as described in a number of the references that have been sited here. Even Shawyer too.

Please post more, and more of your experiments and results, and stop feeding trolls that bite and make you run away crying  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/30/2016 09:32 am
Latest developments are reaching more news sites. Daily mail was first to publish the news. It seems they were following the NSF quite a lot.

I also spot few that were just utterly wrong....Once again refering to EmDrive as Warp Drive...
This one is ok.

goo.gl/ECPpDn

Also Hi to guys from Hacked news site as they are following us closely now.

Edit: Another article just went live - goo.gl/702HhN

This article is also well written. I am glad to see that so far less articles exagerate and more focus on facts.

Dr. Rodal is in spotlight  ;D

Also IBTimes spoke directly to Mr. Shawyer - I have that confirmed from good source.

"He is also actively working to test the technology out on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), in the hope of creating feasible flying cars."

Shawyer is now actively working on the second-generation EmDrive with an unnamed UK aerospace company and the new device is meant to be able to achieve tonnes of thrust (1T = 1,000kg), rather than just a few grams.

"We're trying to achieve thrust levels that go up by many orders of magnitude, where the q values of the cavities are between 1 x 109 and 5 x 104. Once you reach the levels of thrust we anticipate we will reach, you can apply it anywhere," he told IBTimes UK. "Essentially, anything that currently flies or drives or floats can use EmDrive technology."

Second Edit: Used link shortener on advice of Mr. Chris below.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/30/2016 03:30 pm
Due to its contentious nature I am guessing this paper is going to have had a lot of peer reviewers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 08/30/2016 03:51 pm
May I have a question about NASA EW's plan? They once said that they were going to increase the force to 100mN, and only after that would they transfer the test apparatus to another NASA facility for validation. Given they now claimed 1mN/1KW in the paper that had just passed peer review, could we suppose that 100mN plan can not be achieved if the power is much less than 100KW so it is now abandoned? Note that 100KW is a lot of power, I suppose the frustum will be evaporated in seconds, and if not there is something seriously wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonB on 08/30/2016 04:03 pm
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 04:22 pm
Remember, if you have a massive URL, http://tinyurl.com/ it otherwise you break the internet ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 08/30/2016 04:26 pm
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.

Then think about heating 1kg of copper (the frustum) with that power.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: chucknorris101 on 08/30/2016 05:23 pm
Sorry if it has been asked already, but I didnt see it - now that we are in phase 2 of the waiting game, when will it show up on the preprint page or in the journal itself? Is there a typical timeline? Or are there edits/further things that could derail/delay this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 08/30/2016 05:31 pm
Sorry if it has been asked already, but I didnt see it - now that we are in phase 2 of the waiting game, when will it show up on the preprint page or in the journal itself? Is there a typical timeline? Or are there edits/further things that could derail/delay this?

The journal people is talking more about appears in a bi-monthly basis. The latest one is the September issue (with web content that is readable now), therefore the next one should be published in November (with web content probably available in October).  This is the technical publication I have heard referred to this:

http://arc.aiaa.org/loi/jpp
http://arc.aiaa.org/page/jpp/masthead

This is from an user in another forum, so please take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure the currently peer-reviewed papers appear in the very next issue, though. Probably there's some queue of papers waiting to appear.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonB on 08/30/2016 05:55 pm
Admittedly, I am not well versed in thermal dynamics. I'm not saying it isn't an issue for concern, but it isn't a deal-breaker. We are talking about dielectric heating as opposed to heating a series resistor. It's the difference between your oven's heating element and nuking something in the microwave, which is probably set to heat between 800 and 1000W. Granted you probably aren't putting anything conductive in your microwave, but I'm sure some sort of heat dissipation system will be used in the end to combat the thermal problems.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/30/2016 06:06 pm
Admittedly, I am not well versed in thermal dynamics. I'm not saying it isn't an issue for concern, but it isn't a deal-breaker. We are talking about dielectric heating as opposed to heating a series resistor. It's the difference between your oven's heating element and nuking something in the microwave, which is probably set to heat between 800 and 1000W. Granted you probably aren't putting anything conductive in your microwave, but I'm sure some sort of heat dissipation system will be used in the end to combat the thermal problems.
NASA Eagleworks did some of their testing in a vacuum chamber to eliminate thermal lift as a contributor, and some of that information is in older threads. We'll have to wait to see the full details in the paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 08/30/2016 06:22 pm
May I have a question about NASA EW's plan? They once said that they were going to increase the force to 100mN, and only after that would they transfer the test apparatus to another NASA facility for validation. Given they now claimed 1mN/1KW in the paper that had just passed peer review, could we suppose that 100mN plan can not be achieved if the power is much less than 100KW so it is now abandoned? Note that 100KW is a lot of power, I suppose the frustum will be evaporated in seconds, and if not there is something seriously wrong.
IIRC, the measured forces on the Eagleworks tests were in the order of 50-55-90 µN.... (see http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)
So they had to achieve 100µN to get secondary testing, not 100mN.

There was never a mentioning of "force per watt" (N/kW), just force (N). It was all about the sensitivity of the force measurement instruments, not about the efficiency of the EMdrive...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 08/30/2016 06:30 pm
IIRC, the measured forces on the Eagleworks tests were in the order of 50-55-90 µN.... (see http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)
So they had to achieve 100µN to get secondary testing, not 100mN.

There was never a mentioning of "force per watt" (N/kW), just force (N). It was all about the sensitivity of the force measurement instruments, not about the efficiency of the EMdrive...

Ah, Thank you, I must have had a bad memory. 100uN was definitely more likely the goal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: johnatan warp drive on 08/30/2016 09:01 pm
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/30/2016 10:03 pm
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?

The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/30/2016 11:54 pm
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
Both Shawyer and The Traveler have strongly recommended that the frustum ends be spherical to improve efficiency. To date the DIY folks have mostly used flat ends because it is easier and less costly if your goal is to just see any force.

The threads here are long with some exceptional discussions going on covering a vast array of information and theory. They are actually quite remarkable. It takes a lot of work but I would suggest you start skimming them around the end of March 2015.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: mwvp on 08/31/2016 01:13 am
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?

The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.

My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base  is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.

IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 01:22 am
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?
Hi Johnathan, drive builder here. I'm going to try to jump in here for a bit as you are asking honest questions.

Typically you can see an increase of around 6db by using semi-spherical ends although that is just in the Q.

This is a sweep in FEKO done by Monomorphic of one of my cavities with curved endplates that make give you a feel for what's happening. 2.40GHz > 2.42GHz loop driven sidewall.

Shell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhlFBjJDvo&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 01:24 am
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?

The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.

My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base  is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.

IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.
Love your brain!

Very true look at the sim I just posted and you'll notice that the small endplate isn't curved.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: johnatan warp drive on 08/31/2016 02:04 am
Thanks for the suggestions  :) :)

If this idea is promising, can yield a scholarship at MIT kkk

To improve efficiency , it would be something like this (Attachment) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 02:11 am
Thanks for the suggestions  :) :)

If this idea is promising, can yield a scholarship at MIT kkk

To improve efficiency , it would be something like this (Attachment) ?
This is easier to understand and see.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meekGee on 08/31/2016 05:02 am
Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Why would that be?

Momentum can be conserved without thrust.

When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.

If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine.  Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".

I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/31/2016 05:17 am
Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Why would that be?

Momentum can be conserved without thrust.

When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.

If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine.  Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".

I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".


For the test drives the walls of the room could be the mass that moves in the opposite direction. We can barely detect the force on the drive let alone the force on walls fastened to the ground.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meekGee on 08/31/2016 06:46 am
Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Why would that be?

Momentum can be conserved without thrust.

When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.

If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine.  Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".

I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".


For the test drives the walls of the room could be the mass that moves in the opposite direction. We can barely detect the force on the drive let alone the force on walls fastened to the ground.
Right, and for space drive applications, it could be tugging on the sun or the Oort cloud for all I know.  In theory.

Just want to get the exhaust-less thing out of the way.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bauhaus on 08/31/2016 07:04 am
Congrats.  I am an anti-skeptic(Marcello Truzzi) when it comes to scientific breakthroughs however, Dr. Shawyer's presentation seems to claim that when the superconducting features are added to the em drive then thrust will be increased by orders of magnitude.  So can someone knowledgeable explain to me why those testing the device don't just use a version that incorporates superconducting features?  Is it that its so much more expensive?  Is part of the problem here funding, as in few people are willing to even spend the money to test a device or scale up the size of the device so that it can clearly be shown to work or not?
2.  Also, assuming it does not produce much thrust isn't it true that even at some minimal thrust x, the device will go into production and just scaled up as solar powered thrust on a satellite needing no propellant is so much better than just plain old thrust requiring propellant?  Solar power for satellites will likely get cheaper and more powerful each year into the future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: 1 on 08/31/2016 07:30 am
Anyone know what would be the effect if the ends of Emdrive, instead of flat surfaces, were semi spherical ?

The bandwidth of the frustum decreases while increasing the resonance within the narrower range (increased q-factor). In Q-factor dependent theories, this should increase the measured thrust for a given center frequency.

My intuition tells me the orthodoxy here of using the ray-tracing concave at apex and base  is misguided. I believe fields vs. photons is the approach most optimally taken.

IMHO Higher Q will be realized by using convex at apex and concave at base reflection plates. Sharp, high-divergence bends result in high impedance to currents, hence loss. I would like to see an optimization of Q vs. dispersion for a resonator. Comsol I know can do this.


Loosely speaking, the way to increase Q is to set your cavity such that resonance occurs only at a single, 'pure' frequency rather than a base frequency + a(n infinite ) series of higher order harmonics. Again loosely speaking, this occurs when your cavity and your resonating fields 'belong' to one chosen coordinate system.

What does that mean?

Well, consider a cube. If your cavity is a cube, you'll have 'pure' resonance solutions in cartesian coordinates (x,y,z). Injecting, say, a single rectangular plane wave can cause a strong resonance if the frequency of that wave is well-chosen. Consider now an cylinder. This cavity will have 'pure' solutions expressed using bessel/hankle functions. If you excite the cavity with such, then you can again get strong resonance. If, however, you attempt to excite the cylindrical cavity with a rectangular plane wave (or vice-versa), then you'll have a mis-match between your wave and your cavity, and the malformed wave is then forced to convert into a form that matches the cavity. In layman's terms, this manifests as your original wave breaking into multiple different waves; spreading your energy out among multiple frequencies and modes. If you want a high Q (single, pure mode) this is bad. Therefore, one should chose a wave that matches the cavity.

The problem with a flat-ended frustum is that the cavity itself mixes coordinate systems. Flat endplates are very cartesian, however the curved wall is actually best thought of as a truncated cone, which belongs in the spherical coordinate domain. As such, the resonant modes in the cavity are never quite pure. A well designed setup can still produce good data, but you're always losing energy to this back and forth conversion game. Using curved endplates, such that the cavity geometry becomes a truncated spherical cone, restores the 'pureness' of the setup; and thus much higher Q factors can be achieved.

Well, at least theoretically. Engineering is pretty much the study of getting something built well enough to work as an optimal solution may not actually exist. It's the study of intelligent trade-offs and compormises. High Q is desirable. It's also more difficult to tune, more difficult to build, and more dependent on the rest of your hardware working near-perfectly. If a high-Q frustum falls out of resonance, it's going to fall fast and hard. Flat end plates are easier to work with; and won't bankrupt the home-builders here who are funding their own experiments out of pocket. (At least not as quickly. Some of the guys here are getting pretty into this: I half expect to see a vacuum chamber pop up here soon!)

For the more mathematically inclined, a good treatment is found here regarding closed form solutions to a truncates spherical cone. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) I don't remember seeing this posted before, but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been; all company considered.

The main takeaway from that page is that the sharp curves of the corners can often be rendered insignificant if one choses a (pure!) resonant mode such that the corners are null regions in your standing waves.  Scroll down about 3/4 of the way through that page to the "Current, Heating, and Q factors" section and look at the differences in some of the TM shapes. In this case, I believe the benefit to gentle corners would be vastly outweighed by the loss of Q in some of these more exotic cavity shapes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 08/31/2016 08:19 am
Congrats.  I am an anti-skeptic(Marcello Truzzi) when it comes to scientific breakthroughs however, Dr. Shawyer's presentation seems to claim that when the superconducting features are added to the em drive then thrust will be increased by orders of magnitude.  So can someone knowledgeable explain to me why those testing the device don't just use a version that incorporates superconducting features?  Is it that its so much more expensive?  Is part of the problem here funding, as in few people are willing to even spend the money to test a device or scale up the size of the device so that it can clearly be shown to work or not?
2.  Also, assuming it does not produce much thrust isn't it true that even at some minimal thrust x, the device will go into production and just scaled up as solar powered thrust on a satellite needing no propellant is so much better than just plain old thrust requiring propellant?  Solar power for satellites will likely get cheaper and more powerful each year into the future.

Yes It would be very expensive to make. Our DIYers here, that work on their frustrums run as well  campaings to raise funds for their projects. I believe it is at least 10000 dollars for each of them so far. And their are working "only" on the models that do not have superconducting features.

In this regard if some new folks are willing to add some dollar to the cause I am sure SeeShells, Rfmwguy (where is he by the way?) and Monomorphic would be glad for donations.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/31/2016 01:49 pm
REBCO HTSC cable is about 200 USD per meter, if I am not mistaken. Not sure how much you guys would need.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/31/2016 02:54 pm
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonB on 08/31/2016 04:04 pm
Found this as I was doing some research to catch up on the discussion:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0390.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.0390.pdf)

Interesting read, hope it hasn't been posted and discussed already, I'm only to thread 4 in review.... LOT of reading.

Is there a way to extrapolate 2D data into a 3D application?

*modified for spelling error
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 08/31/2016 05:16 pm
The paris are open to guess which items are covered in the new test report/paper of Eagleworks  :):

1 - Emdrive effect shown to exist in vacuum condition.
2 - Emdrive thrust measured for a superconductive cavity.
3 - Emdrive effect shown to exist for a configuration which includes the power supply of the microwave generator.
4 - Emdrive thrust investigated for various RF input power and various electro-magnetic modes configurations.
5 - Emdrive thrust shown to exist in free fall condition (no acceleration).
6 - Statement that no Emdrive effect could be detected in a clean vacuum environment. :(

1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Oakey on 08/31/2016 05:26 pm
Anyone else see latest experimental results suggest strong magnetic fields impart mass on electrons?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 05:45 pm
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!

Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*

Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 08/31/2016 07:16 pm
Anyone else see latest experimental results suggest strong magnetic fields impart mass on electrons?

I assume you mean this.

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/31/2016 07:43 pm
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!

Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*

Best,
Shell

Surprisingly, a little better with small end flat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/31/2016 08:37 pm
I also performed another 5-minute unpowered run with magnetic tap tests in both directions. This is the first time I have been able to monitor vertical beam displacement (what would be thermal lifting during powered tests). The second image is zoomed into the vertical beam displacement so you can see just how sensitive these Laser Displacement Sensors (LDS) are - able to detect minute vibrations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/31/2016 10:11 pm
Well there is the problem:

Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.

So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal EM wave experiences red shift from lost EM wave momentum.

Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.

Why would that be?

Momentum can be conserved without thrust.

When I fall towards Earth, there's no exhaust, but Earth compensates by falling just a little bit towards me.

If this magic drive somehow make the entire mass in the universe accelerate opposite of the ship, then it's fine.  Or maybe every particle in the universe, in some proportion to its distance, so nearer particles get more "tug".

I'm not attempting to explain the EM drive, just to say that "exhaust-less" is not the same as "reaction-less".

Thank you meekGee,

if all charges interact, and it is hard to imagine that they do not, then there is a mechanism of action for the emdrive which would be easy to define. The problem with this explanation is that the instant reaction of inertia requires the propulsive action of the emdrive to be instant at cosmic distances. This is only possible if time is complex, which it must be if physics is ever to be resolved as a seamless explanation for our observations.

John Newell..

Link to previously posted amateur paper on the subject.
http://www.bloomfieldeducation.com/resources/PDF38.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: keithpickering on 08/31/2016 10:31 pm
Whereas 100KW sounds like a lot of power. In the grand scheme it really isn't. We've created wind turbines and diesel generators that create more power than that. 1 mechanical horsepower is about 734 Watts, so a 100hp engine (like your car, except most cars produce more) creates 73,400 Watts of power.

On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/31/2016 10:50 pm
On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
About 500 kg worth of solar panels, I would estimate. Of course it would be more if you are planning to go to mars and beyond.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 11:07 pm
The concave-convex optical cavity setup yields the strongest E-fields.
NICE WORK Monomorfic!

Would you please do one more with a flat Small End and a curved Big End? Please please please. :-*

Best,
Shell

Surprisingly, a little better with small end flat.
Super!! Thanks so very much for that run monomorfic, you nailed it. It's what I've been seeing and wasn't sure if it was a measure fluke or my numbers were off.

My Very Best,
Shell

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1363096;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: D_Dom on 08/31/2016 11:27 pm
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Slyver on 08/31/2016 11:38 pm
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
^This

While I appreciate your discretion, man, are you killing us (me)! At the same time, these little hints are appreciated.

Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Stan-1967 on 08/31/2016 11:41 pm
On earth, 100KW isn't much. In space, it's enormous. You would be hard pressed to find any satellite that generates even 2 KW. Only the ISS, the largest spacecraft in history, can manage 100 KW.
About 500 kg worth of solar panels, I would estimate. Of course it would be more if you are planning to go to mars and beyond.

ATK puts a 100kW space based system at just under 1000kg.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/space-systems/space-components/solar-arrays/docs/FS007_15_OA_3862%20UltraFlex.pdf

That's with state of the art triple junction cells.  I think I recall GEO sats have power capability well in excess of 2kw for at least couple decades.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 08/31/2016 11:53 pm
Shell, Don't keep us guessing!
OK I Understand. Does it help if I say, "It works." Although that statement needs to be backed up at a high level.

Truthfully, I'm not ready to release data yet, although it is good data I still have more testing and configurations to do. I will say I am chasing a very different theory or a mix of theories and it's all good.

Hang in there, please. I'm working as hard as I can with what I have.

Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/01/2016 01:03 am
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.

****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?**** 
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways).  Cheers   :)   FL
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JBF on 09/01/2016 01:58 am
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.

****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?**** 
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways).  Cheers   :)   FL

According to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716  American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/01/2016 02:29 am
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.

****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?**** 
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways).  Cheers   :)   FL

The flat end was more a "gut" feeling from 50 years of smelling soldering flux.  :o If you're just a little past cutoff in the small end it forms its own spherical wall in the way it rounds off the cutoff. Also, it's a platform for other hardware I'm including in my build.

I can't speak for TT as I know he has faced some severe challenges in health and build. I wish him luck in both endeavors.

No, I have no idea of who will be publishing NASA's EW data.  Dr. Rodal never wrote anything here that wasn't spot on or incorrect information, he's very detailed in that way. Personally, I believe his post that EagleWork's has seen something and is publishing it carries a lot of weight.

If it's above a Photon Rocket as he posted it is indeed great news fo the team at NASA and EagleWorks and the rest of us.

Comparison to a Photon Rocket...

Quote
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, for example, a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket, the force per power input is as follows:
Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput = 1/c = 0.003336 mN/kW
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation.

It might mean new physics or a better understanding of physics is needed.


My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/01/2016 02:33 am
Shell, right along with what you've been saying about the flat small diameter and spherical large diameter! Kudos to both you and Monomorphic!!!!
I see TT was on several pages back, I did inquire (asked Traveller) about the construction of his frustums, He told me was having difficultly with the professionals getting the exact specs down on his builds, and that there would be a delay until early 2017. His builds are elaborate, and I can see why there might be difficulties in fabrication. I do have some experience in this.

****Does anyone know what Journal and when we might finally see the paper?**** 
This report, that the paper will soon be published, flies in the face of many claims made here at NSF. Don't know who to believe now. Does anyone know what the source is?
Perhaps Dr. Rodal is laying low because of the imminent publication of the paper (This would make sense in many ways).  Cheers   :)   FL

According to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716  American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
From their web page....

Quote
The World's #1 Source for Aerospace Information
AIAA is the premier provider of information on aerospace technology, engineering, and science. Our titles document the most important developments and the latest research in air and space history. Our publications make the exchange of technical knowledge and information possible among aerospace professionals. For general information on AIAA publications, becoming an AIAA author, and more, click here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 09/01/2016 03:19 am
ATK puts a 100kW space based system at just under 1000kg.
https://www.orbitalatk.com/space-systems/space-components/solar-arrays/docs/FS007_15_OA_3862%20UltraFlex.pdf

That's with state of the art triple junction cells.  I think I recall GEO sats have power capability well in excess of 2kw for at least couple decades.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/ultrathin-solar-cells-for-lightweight-and-flexible-applications-
They are getting better all the time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/01/2016 04:24 am
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted/removed from this site? (and by whom?)  : (
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/01/2016 04:35 am
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted? (and by whom?)  : (
What are you talking about?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/01/2016 05:06 am
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted? (and by whom?)  : (

What report are your referring to? The original post here remains unchanged.., and it appears to be the source of all current speculation. As Shell pointed out Dr. Rodal's information in the past has been reliable... So perhaps the speculation is more when it will hit the street, than if...

It is my understanding that Eaglework's new paper has been today accepted for publication in a peer-review journal, where it will be published.  I expect that Eagleworks should receive notification momentarily (it should be in the mail).  :)  Note: I have not heard this from anybody employed by NASA.

Congratulations to the Eagleworks team !!!!!!!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/01/2016 05:41 am
Shell, looks like you are getting some love over on the "other" forum.  Not sure if you even visit there anymore, but thought I'd give you a heads up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/01/2016 06:33 am
Not off my game, just getting conflicting reports about Dr. Rodal's report re the EWL paper soon to be published...that is was redacted or removed from this site. I did not know where is post was located, but y'all have straitened me out...it's still there, and I did locate it.
I 'spect nay-sayers are making false claims and surmise they believe that there are positive findings in the paper for the EM effect. (Will just have to wait for publication to see)
   Thank you all for the info.    :)    FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/01/2016 07:28 am
Just bumped into this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY

published yesterday...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/01/2016 01:30 pm
Shell, looks like you are getting some love over on the "other" forum.  Not sure if you even visit there anymore, but thought I'd give you a heads up.
Thanks.

Honestly, I don't visit much. I'm not posting on here much either. The goal during these last few months has been on my builds and testing. We all want data but it takes time to get it. 

Thank you all for your support, this is one heck of a group here.

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 09/01/2016 02:36 pm
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted/removed from this site? (and by whom?)  : (
FL I suppose what you are talking about is all of the various available news media articles that you are looking at that suggest Dr. Rodals' comment was deleted or removed. I think, it was only edited to remove the journal name and paper name which it is being published.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/31/0612233/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-peer-reviwed-paper-is-on-its-way

Where here it says.....

An independent scientist has confirmed that the paper by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories on achieving thrust using highly controversial space propulsion technology EmDrive has passed peer review, and will soon be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Dr Jose Rodal posted on the NASA Spaceflight forum -- in a now-deleted comment -- that the new paper will be entitled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" and is authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey." Rodal also revealed that the paper will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prominent journal published by the AIAA, which is one of the world's largest technical societies dedicated to aerospace innovations. Although Eagleworks engineer Paul March has posted several updates on the ongoing research to the NASA Spaceflight forum showing that repeated tests conducted on the EmDrive in a vacuum successfully yielded thrust results that could not be explained by external interference, those in the international scientific community who doubt the feasibility of the technology have long believed real results of thrust by Eagleworks would never see the light of day.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/01/2016 03:18 pm
That was one of the big sources....thank you for putting it up: dementia not onboard yet, TG!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/01/2016 03:42 pm
Here is the issue:

The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
But doesn't.

Fixed that for ya.

Not nice to quote my post and then add the last line I never wrote.

BTW maybe you should go here to listen to the man explain his theory:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: andygood on 09/01/2016 03:51 pm
Just bumped into this one...

*snip*

published yesterday...

So Mr Shawyer talks about the old side wall chestnut at the 08:42 mark... From memory, I'm not sure that he adds anything new to what was said previously?!

Anyone care to address his comments?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/01/2016 06:11 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/01/2016 06:35 pm
As a newbie, I'd like to ask, what is the central problem in getting these devices to work? Is it getting and keeping resonance? Has anyone here attained a large (10's to 100's milliNewtons) effect even briefly? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/01/2016 07:07 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

Nice to see the progress!  Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration.  So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)?  Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period?  (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/01/2016 07:19 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

Nice to see the progress!  Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration.  So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)?  Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period?  (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)

Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down

It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jmossman on 09/01/2016 08:30 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down

Any chance you could rerun multiple times in this configuration?   ;D

Maybe script up something to perform a 1 minute power on cycle every ~1.5 hours, and have it run overnight?    :P

Ambient temperature monitoring within your plexiglass enclosure would also be nice to have....  maybe both above and below the expected thermal plume region?   

BTW, you're doing a great job! (and staying objective)  It's so easy to make suggestions when the suggester isn't doing any of the work, so please filter accordingly.   ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/01/2016 08:40 pm
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down

It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.

Thanks, that makes sense.  This first run does seem quite intriguing.  What I don't understand is how the vertical displacement (presumably caused by thermal effects) interrelates with the horizontal displacement.  In other words, if there is thrust, then it would show up in the horizontal displacement regardless of the thermal effects manifested in the vertical displacement.  Or maybe i'm completely clueless.  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 09/01/2016 10:31 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/01/2016 11:13 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal.  8)

Indeed, that would seem the case.  But can thermal cause horizontal displacement at all?  It would seem that thermal would only contribute to the vertical displacement but of course, I could be wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/01/2016 11:20 pm
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2016 01:24 am
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.

If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.

Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?

It eventually returns very close to its original position. On the order of tens of minutes. I expect I would need to record for 20+ minutes for this to be documented. I will attempt this soon. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: CW on 09/02/2016 07:24 am
I have a question for the professional physicists on the board:

If photons have a spin of 1, and two photons perfectly overlap in the 'right' way, do the individual spins of '1' superimpose / add up to create a point in space where spin is '2' ? I'm asking because the graviton is supposed to have a spin of '2' and no electric charge (which would technically be the case if two photons overlap 'destructively' at the same point in spacetime, eradicating any 'charge'/electric field component).

BR
CW
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RERT on 09/02/2016 07:45 am
Monomorphic -

For some time we've been saying that apparent side-to-side motion of the frustrum might not be thrust, but might be caused by asymmetric vertical (possibly thermal) effects.

Can you exclude the reverse, ie that apparent vertical motion of the beam is caused by twisting due to horizontal movements of the frustrum? In particular, the movements vertically are very small - they are a completely different scale to the horizontal movements, which you've described earlier as comparable to the thickness of a sheet of paper. How large are the vertical movements just compared to thermal expansion of the pieces?

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: chongma on 09/02/2016 09:00 am
reversing the emdrive orientation and running the same test should show whether the direction of the thrust changes. if it is due to electro magnetic effects interacting with the environment then the thrust should be in the same direction again?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/02/2016 10:05 am
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.

If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.

The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Willem Staal on 09/02/2016 10:20 am
I don't know if im up to something, but i stumbled while reading a book about Fractals from  James Gleick where he quoted a dicovery from a Dutch scientist called Christiaan Huygens. He observed  synchronization of pendulum clocks, and he discovered that at some times they run in phase or in anti-phase  due to vibrations trought walls or on a table.

I think that a similar behavour occurs also in a EM drive frustrum where the amplitude of the waves are truncated by the shape of the frustrum while the waves forced into sychronization phase. So the energy of the amplitude needs to escape somewhere when a wave goes into phase..

The power of the rf transmitter needs to go somewhere! So why not outside the frustrum? but not as wave but as a phase or anti phase synchronization event.

Im not a scientist, who juggles with Unruh theories or similar, but this is the idea what im coming up with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2016 12:31 pm
reversing the emdrive orientation and running the same test should show whether the direction of the thrust changes. if it is due to electro magnetic effects interacting with the environment then the thrust should be in the same direction again?

I will run two more tests in the current configuration, and then reverse the orientation and run three more tests. Then I will move the emdrive into null position and run three tests. I won't have anymore test results until mid next week though - have other plans this weekend.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 12:58 pm
Interesting paper:

Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917

Quote
V. CONCLUSIONS
I have shown how a plane wave could produce a gravitational effect inside a cavity that
could be observed using a propagating laser beam inside it. The effect could be unveiled
using an interferometer or observing the components of the laser field outside the cavity.
Components with a shifted frequency, due to the modes inside the cavity, should be seen.
This could explain some recent results with interferometric setup obtained at NASA with a
resonator having the form of a box. A local warp of the geometry due to the electromagnetic
field pumped inside the cavity could be a satisfactory explanation. From a physical
standpoint this could be a really breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering.


Then, I considered a frustum in the form of a truncated cone. I have shown that general
relativity introduce a large scale that makes all the effects really miniscule. For the frustum
I have shown that the gravitational effects can be described by a susceptibility multiplying
the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field inside the cavity. Due to this
particular geometry, it can be shown that the susceptibility can be made significant by a
proper choice of the geometrical parameters of the cavity yielding thrust without violating
any law of physics. This effect could amenable to observation with a proper interferometric
setup.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Jose Rodal for a significant exchange of points of view on these
results that made possible a deeper understanding of them in aerospace applications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/02/2016 01:23 pm
Interesting paper:

Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917

...

I have posted an update few minutes ago at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1577139#msg1577139. I think this could like you more.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jstepp590 on 09/02/2016 01:34 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 02:05 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 05:08 pm
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/rumored-emdrive-paper-suggests-the-controversial-thruster-actually-works/

Quote
Update (2 September): It has been confirmed to IFLScience by the AIAA that a paper on the EmDrive is being published in December 2016. They said:

“The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Journal of Propulsion and Power has accepted for publication a paper in the area of electromagnetic propulsion. However, it is AIAA’s policy not to discuss the details of peer reviewed papers before/until they are published. We currently expect the paper in question to be published in December 2016.”
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 05:08 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!

What does that mean in plain English?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 09/02/2016 05:11 pm
I have a question for the professional physicists on the board:

If photons have a spin of 1, and two photons perfectly overlap in the 'right' way, do the individual spins of '1' superimpose / add up to create a point in space where spin is '2' ? I'm asking because the graviton is supposed to have a spin of '2' and no electric charge (which would technically be the case if two photons overlap 'destructively' at the same point in spacetime, eradicating any 'charge'/electric field component).

BR
CW

Addition of angular momentum is possible in a number of combinations of photons. In QED, in a Gaussian distribution, there is evidence of photons "bunching" into pairs and it's a prediction of the theory. However, there is no evidence for gravitons. They are a fiction, created to quantize GR in the same way we quantize EM. GR does not work this way, as many have realized and have moved on from this fiction.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 05:26 pm
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716

Quote
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/02/2016 05:47 pm
Interesting paper:

Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917

Quote
Inscrutable math...

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Jose Rodal for a significant exchange of points of view on these
results that made possible a deeper understanding of them in aerospace applications.

The good doctor has been using his abacus to good effect!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 06:06 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!

What does that mean in plain English?

Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.

Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/02/2016 06:13 pm
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716

Quote
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."

hmmmm...
very unfortunate quote, if you ask me, as such -dare I say - rather populist remark has a very high boomerang tendency...

I understand it comes from years of buildup frustration, of tedious swimming against the main current of scientific consensus,  but such a reaction doesn't help as far as credibility goes.

If the EM effect is indeed acknowledged, through experiments/peer review, then R.Shawyer deserves all the credit he can muster, but the backstabbing is - although understandable - really unnecessary...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: rhubley on 09/02/2016 06:22 pm
Understandable?  Maybe, but we do bear responsibility for explaining our concepts clearly.  Both the student and the teacher ( or two colleagues ) have to be up to the task.  I understand it is not always easy to address your critics but it never serves you well to ignore direct questions on or challenges to your theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: knowles2 on 09/02/2016 06:47 pm
Sawyer never had just a theory through, he had a prototype machine that produced thrust without expelling anything, everyone should have spent there time challenging his claims that produce thrust by building their own, instead of nitpicking over his papers. If they had done may we be a lot further down this road.

An many people just simply dismissed his engine just because it broke one of their gold rules rather than actually bothering to look at it.

One physicist even said it would take his students less than a day to prove it didn't work.

Even if it doesn't work it taken Nasa a couple of years to prove it doesn't work and having also stood up to numerous other tests carried out by experience engineers before hand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: emRocket on 09/02/2016 06:58 pm
Hi everybody!
An interesting paper which put the problem on the right frame is the Wave-Particle Duality. The paper suggests the relativistic Energy as discovered by Einstein does not address the wave-particle interaction. A new relativistic expression that is absolutely compatible with Einstein's Relativity shows the way to the stars and could be verified during EM interactions (acceleration within an electrostatic field):

Paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1604.0039v3.pdf (Page 15 and 11)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 07:10 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!

What does that mean in plain English?

Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.

Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?

Thank you. So it could hover a vehicle it was attached to?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 07:27 pm
Sawyer never had just a theory through, he had a prototype machine that produced thrust without expelling anything, everyone should have spent there time challenging his claims that produce thrust by building their own, instead of nitpicking over his papers. If they had done may we be a lot further down this road.

An many people just simply dismissed his engine just because it broke one of their gold rules rather than actually bothering to look at it.

One physicist even said it would take his students less than a day to prove it didn't work.

Even if it doesn't work it taken Nasa a couple of years to prove it doesn't work and having also stood up to numerous other tests carried out by experience engineers before hand.

It works.

As now reported on many sites, other than NSF, Dr Rodal quoted the EW tests reported consistent specific thrust of 1.2mN/kWrf. You can read the details below.

Peer-Reviewed Paper On EmDrive To Be Published In December
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/rumored-emdrive-paper-suggests-the-controversial-thruster-actually-works/

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: johnatan warp drive on 09/02/2016 07:34 pm
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?

"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!

What does that mean in plain English?

Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.

Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 07:35 pm
Thank you. So it could hover a vehicle it was attached to?

Please read what Roger has stated here:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 07:40 pm
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?

All we know is what Paul shared.

Would assume EW have done further work since then.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/02/2016 07:43 pm
"breakthrough paving the way to table-top experiments in
general relativity and marking the starting point of space-time engineering."

That is one powerful, and exciting, statement.

Marco predicts that the gravitational effects being generated in the frustums should scale with the square of the average energy density of the E&M field in the frustum.

That is VERY exciting!

What does that mean in plain English?

Double the EM field energy density inside an EmDrive and get 4x the gravational effect inside the EmDrive.

Remember those space warping (well artificial gravity like equivalent space warping) experiments Paul shared with us about shining a laser through a powered & non powered frustum?

That sounds like an implied Lorentz Force-esque relationship between whatever the EM Drive effect is and input power.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 08:12 pm
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/02/2016 08:17 pm
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.

This is true. The utility of the effect is going to depend greatly on which scaling relationships it obeys.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/02/2016 08:28 pm
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 08:29 pm
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.

This is true. The utility of the effect is going to depend greatly on which scaling relationships it obeys.

Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?

Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.

I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/02/2016 08:32 pm
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?

Not a bad idea, really.  Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer.  The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/02/2016 08:37 pm
Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?

Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.

I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.

Don't take me for gospel, I'm just a watcher reporting on what he understands of what he sees (which is a lot less than I'd like).  :-X
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 08:50 pm
Thank you for that confirmation. So I am right in thinking that even though it appears to work its utility is dependent on its scalability?

Hopefully this paper will open the door to funding into EM research being more forthcoming. NASA should now fund it as it does other emerging propulsion technologies.

I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.

Don't take me for gospel, I'm just a watcher reporting on what he understands of what he sees (which is a lot less than I'd like).  :-X

Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.

This is moving on social media but the view seems to be it will invalidate it, shame people are forgetting that part of the abstract was already posted apparently showing it does work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 09:07 pm
That article linked to up thread makes it sound like it only produces a minuscule amount of thrust.

A consistent 1.2mN/kWrf is the value stated by Dr. Rodal.

Roger's Flight Thruster, his 3rd design. delivered 326mN/kWrf as attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/02/2016 09:08 pm
From these findings, we can create artificial gravitational fields, warp drives ?

All we know is what Paul shared.

Would assume EW have done further work since then.
It's been a very interesting pleasure to watch what has unfolded here here Phil. You have taken a lot of heat over the last 24 months or so.

When the article comes out in full we'll see the complete story and we are all guaranteed to learn something.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/02/2016 09:09 pm
Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.

I'm excited, but I'm not qualified to say whether or not you should be excited.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 09:14 pm
Are we allowed to get excited about this yet, or should we hold off until December.

I'm excited, but I'm not qualified to say whether or not you should be excited.

Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/02/2016 09:16 pm
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.

Coincidence.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 09:23 pm
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.

Coincidence.

Yep but lucky.

And I was somewhat joking above.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 09:30 pm
I bet DARPA will be interested in this paper.

DARPA interested in the EW paper? I doubt it. DARPA,  Boeing, USAF & NSSO were all involved in awarding SPR the 2008 contract to build the Flight Thruster.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

Once SPR delivered it to Boeing,  it went dark. And yes it did work. One day that whole story will be told.

Here is a part of the story as told to me by Roger:

Quote
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.

Background.

  EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government
   and monitored by MOD experts.

  Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.

  Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007.

  End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is
   use on a test satellite.

  December 2008.
   Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.

  Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with
   Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010.

  2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China.

  All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/02/2016 09:34 pm
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?

There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact  them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: guckyfan on 09/02/2016 09:38 pm
If it can be established that the effect exists, I am not worried about using it. Any first device ever could be improved by a lot. Once the effect is proven there will be research money for improving on it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 09:40 pm
If it can be established that the effect exists, I am not worried about using it. Any first device ever could be improved by a lot. Once the effect is proven there will be research money for improving on it.

Doesn't it ask a bigger and more fundamental question that even working at this low level means somewhere our understanding of physics is faulty?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/02/2016 09:47 pm
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.

I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.

NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.

All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).

They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.

Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.

Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 09:53 pm
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?

There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact  them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...

How can I say this?

Roger offered to help EW. For whatever reason that never happened and EW reinvented a non physically tunable flat end plate design approach (using a dielectric) that Roger abandoned in 2002. From his 2nd unit, The Demonstrator,  and forward all designs are dielectric free and use shaped end plates.

His 1st Experimental dielectric design, with twin physical frustum tuning systens only achieved 18.8mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html

The 2nd Demonstrator, dielectric free, with spherical end plates achieved 214mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html

3rd build, the Flight Thruster achieved 326mN/kWrf
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

See the progression?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 10:02 pm
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?

There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact  them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...

I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 10:55 pm
You will all be happy to know, not, that you can expect another storm of ill informed commentary on this paper if the comments I am already seeing are at all illustrative.

I hope this isn't considered to OT but just wanted to give everyone fair warning for the next two or three months.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/02/2016 11:15 pm
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?

Not a bad idea, really.  Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer.  The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.

Well, any takers, any objections? Aside from the measuring instruments which I lack this type of test seems to be  in the cost range of 100 - 400$, liquid nitrogen and small superconductors are actually dirt cheap and DIYers fool around with those on youtube. And as far as I can tell there is no solid theory to calculate the efficient wavelength by the cavity dimensions so a test using a microwave oven magnetron on a cavity that small would be useful regardless of outcome. Or am I wrong?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 11:17 pm
In case anybody is interested here is the maggie Roger used in the Demonstrator EmDrive: GA4305

http://www.2450mhz.com/PDF/Manuals/930028%24.pdf

And guess what?  He also had maggie temp driven freq drift issues causing thrust variance as the freq passed through frustum resonance.

I REALLY suggest to read this detailed engineering report several times. I read it 4 times and leaned something new on each read.

Any engineer who reads this report will have no doubt the device works as claimed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/02/2016 11:23 pm
How much does a superconducting drive magnify its effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/02/2016 11:26 pm
Roger's quote is priceless:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-paper-has-finally-passed-peer-review-says-scientist-know-1578716

Quote
"People all around the world have been measuring thrust.
You've got guys building them in their garages and very large organisations building cavities too.
They're all generating thrust, there's no great mystery.
People think it's black magic or something, but it's not.
Any physicist worth his salt should understand how it works, or if they don't, they should change their profession."

hmmmm...
very unfortunate quote, if you ask me, as such -dare I say - rather populist remark has a very high boomerang tendency...

I understand it comes from years of buildup frustration, of tedious swimming against the main current of scientific consensus,  but such a reaction doesn't help as far as credibility goes.

If the EM effect is indeed acknowledged, through experiments/peer review, then R.Shawyer deserves all the credit he can muster, but the backstabbing is - although understandable - really unnecessary...

       Insight is a precious gift, comprehension above the norm is a grave responsibility and well... if you solve the big one then, you get to choose how you use the megaphone that comes with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 11:31 pm
You will all be happy to know, not, that you can expect another storm of ill informed commentary on this paper if the comments I am already seeing are at all illustrative.

You do understand the EmDrive may replace all forms of propulsion?

No more 3, 2, 1, ignition.
No more launch pad explosions to report on.
No more noise.
No more fire.
No more wondering if it will explode.
No more firey reentries.
No more astronaut space training.
Your old grandmother & her cat can go into space.

Just a silent and gentle lift to space & back down.

Mars in 3-4 days? Sure as long as you can tolerate 1g thrust gravity all the way there or back.

It all changes.
Lots of companies will lose a lot of money.
Others will make a lot of money.

Told you 2016 is the year the EmDrive comes out of the dark.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/02/2016 11:38 pm
How much does a superconducting drive magnify its effect?

Thrust Newtons = (2 Power Q DesignFactor) / c.

Copper frustum has Q 50,000.
Superconducting frustum has Q 1,000,000,000 or 20,000 times greater.
Q 50k = 0.4N/kWrf ~40g/kWrf thrust
Q 1b = 8,000N/kWrf ~0.8mt/kWrf thrust
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/02/2016 11:40 pm
Is it fate or providence that a planet is discovered so relatively close at hand at the same time.

Coincidence.

Serendipity :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/02/2016 11:45 pm
Looks like the moderators on the "other" forum have come up with some new expectations for participants there

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/50vw0m/expectations_of_participants_in_the_remdrive/

maybe this is a good thing
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/02/2016 11:55 pm
So let's keep it civil here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: ehawk777 on 09/03/2016 12:28 am
“The only way of discovering the limits
of the possible is to venture a little way
past them into the impossible.”

     Arthur C. Clarke (Clarke's second law)

“In order to do the impossible, you must see the invisible”

     David Murdock

]https://www.amazon.com/Aerospace-Reactionless-Propulsion-Gravity-Generator/dp/1530760534] (https://www.amazon.com/Aerospace-Reactionless-Propulsion-Gravity-Generator/dp/1530760534)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/03/2016 03:29 am
botched quotes
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/03/2016 03:35 am
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.

Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough.  If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day.  Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data.  You have nothing to lose.  Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: MikeGroovy on 09/03/2016 05:03 am
Is it just me or is the Nassikas Thruster II project giving thrust because of the second law of thermodynamics.. Warm ambient air near the wide end of the supercooled funnel is chilled, lower pressure from the chilling is making more air follow the path of least resistance. Isn't this why we need testing in a vacuum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/03/2016 05:31 am
Is it just me or is the Nassikas Thruster II project giving thrust because of the second law of thermodynamics.. Warm ambient air near the wide end of the supercooled funnel is chilled, lower pressure from the chilling is making more air follow the path of least resistance. Isn't this why we need testing in a vacuum?

I don't know.  But they did put the whole device into a foam box, and then strung the whole box up, to rule out that hypothesis, as I remember.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/03/2016 05:41 am
Engine thrust, T = 10 mN
Power consumption, P = 1 kW
Engine work time, t = 30 days
Satellite mass, m = 100 kg
Speed gain = (T/m) x t = 259.2 m/s

It appears that even with a thrust of 10 mN/kW a 100 kg satellite can increase its speed with 259.2 m/s per month (3.155 km/s per year) which is quite impressive.

Somebody here claims he obtained 85mN/kWrf. I do not know how much thrust he obtained per kW absorbed from the grid but it seems that more than 10mN/kW which means he is already in possession of a practical engine for small spacecrafts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/03/2016 05:54 am
A brainstorm type question: if the cost of building superconducting experiment for Q factor influence verification scales with dimensions of the setup, what's stopping from building a 2x2cm setup with commercially available superconductors at ebay/amazon, drilling the cavity and applying some duct tape?

Not a bad idea, really.  Would possibly bring the superconductive type build within the realm of possibility for a DIYer.  The challenge would be producing the EM content with the correctly sized wavelength, resonance, etc., which is above my pay grade.

Well, any takers, any objections? Aside from the measuring instruments which I lack this type of test seems to be  in the cost range of 100 - 400$, liquid nitrogen and small superconductors are actually dirt cheap and DIYers fool around with those on youtube. And as far as I can tell there is no solid theory to calculate the efficient wavelength by the cavity dimensions so a test using a microwave oven magnetron on a cavity that small would be useful regardless of outcome. Or am I wrong?

They've actually done quite a bit of that on this thread over the past year or two. The general consensus seems to be that the smaller the drive, the higher the frequency required to achieve resonance, which most theories hold is necessary to achieve thrust. And the small end should always be slightly larger than the cuttoff frequency of the RF frequency being used.

In fact, The Traveler has created a detailed spreadsheet that will allow the user to input values for length, large diameter, small diameter, frequency, Q-factor and then predicts the thrust of the resulting drive. I'm not 100% sure this is his final version, but it's very interesting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iUnlaXzc0OFVvc00/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iUnlaXzc0OFVvc00/view)

Monomorphic has been creating virtual frustums and modeling TE mode shapes at various frequencies for quite awhile now: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511076#msg1511076 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511076#msg1511076)

The Baby EM Drive ran at 24 GHz: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive (https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive)

Anyway, my point is that there is information available to help calculate the appropriate frequency needed to achieve resonance within a given frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 06:14 am
Monomorphic and myself are in a small group of 5 active EmDrive builders that share data. Recently I shared the dimensions, mode and operating freq of the commercial S band thruster I'm developing.

To Monomohic's great skill he quickly modeled the frustum and confirmed it's mode & resonant freq. Which shows as Roger has said, it is not magic and these devices can be built as long as you follow the engineering pathway Roger has created.

Additionally Monomorphic is close as to how to properly excite such a high Q cavity to get 0.4N/kWrf results. See attached. From those images note how the guide wavelength gets longer as the diameter drops. Just as Roger shows in his theory talk, which is now on www.emdrive.com

No magic, just applied microwave enginerring that has existed for 65 years.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 06:26 am
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.

Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough.  If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day.  Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data.  You have nothing to lose.  Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.

The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.

Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.

I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/03/2016 06:35 am
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.

Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.

I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.

I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 06:44 am
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.

Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.

I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.

I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time?

My 1st 2 commercial frustums are still being built. As long as they pass muster, they are sold.

What I did was to show there now exists others that possess the necessary engineering skills to take a few dimensions and successfully model a frustum design, verifying mode, freq & antenna design. Those that are willing to learn can master the necessary engineering skills to follow the pathway Roger has created.

Monomorphic now knows it works and joins the 4 others in our group that have all designed, built & successfully tested EmDrives.  It is no longer about proving it works. That phase is over. It is now about understanding the necessary microwave and other engineering skills needed to built working EmDrives.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 06:47 am
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.

One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.

I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 09/03/2016 06:51 am
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this.  :o :o :o
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.

But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 06:55 am
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this.  :o :o :o
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.

But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine.
The internet goes nuts every week over something or the other. Even now it is past this hurdle, many, many hurdles still remain between a device on a lab table and us all flying around in hover cars whilst travelling to Proxima B for our holidays.

If I see one more article saying it doesn't need fuel. No it still needs electricity that for a space based vehicle would have to be generated the same old way by solar panels or RTG.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 07:00 am
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.

One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.

I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.

If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.

So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 07:04 am
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.

One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.

I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.

If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.

So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
That wasn't quite my point. My point is to remove doubt for the sceptical peer reviewer they would need this kind of testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/03/2016 07:07 am
Does a truncated cone resonant cavity produce thrust if excited with ordinary sound?

The wavelength of sound with frequencies between 2kHz and 20kHz range from 17 cm to 1.7 cm so resonant cavities designed for microwaves in the domain 2.4 GHz - 24 GHz (12.5 cm and 1.25 cm) can also resonate if excited with tones generated by a computer.

I would be curious to know if a certain amount of thrust is obtained, if somebody already made the test or is willing to do it. Somebody who has already built an EMdrive has everything he needs. Just turn on a loudspeaker connected to the computer, adjust the frequency of the tone generated by it and put the loudspeaker in front of an EMdrive cavity which will resonate and maybe produce thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/03/2016 07:15 am
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.

Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough.  If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day.  Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data.  You have nothing to lose.  Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.

The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.

Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.

I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.

sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.

Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.

So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 07:24 am
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.

Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough.  If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day.  Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data.  You have nothing to lose.  Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.

The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.

Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.

I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.

sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.

Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.

So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer.

You are correct this is not a forum to promote / sell commercial product. As I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales,  I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 07:38 am
Interesting Tweet from the guy who designed Dr. White's IXS Enterprise warp ship and IXS Clarke EmDrive ship:

Mark Rademaker (@yard2380) tweeted at 5:16 AM on Sat, Sep 03, 2016:
I received the paper in January 2016 from White, it was already a year in review by that time.
https://twitter.com/yard2380/status/771796415668449280?s=03

So the whole paper is in circulation. Wonder who may also have a copy?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/03/2016 07:41 am
Quote from: TheTraveller
I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales,  I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.

You are like the Wright brothers in 1905 who were selling their plane but did not want to show it to anybody. Finally the aviation appeared in 1906 without their help and their first public demonstrations were done quite late in August 1908 in a moment when planes built by others were already able to fly for 20 minutes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 08:18 am
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?

There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact  them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...

I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.

As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.

Euh. I never implied it is "magic"...
My question was about the possible consequences of obtaining less force then projected/predicted.

As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.
This does not say i'm dismissing an EM effect, but that one should seriously question what part of the measured forces are due to a real EM effect.

As i said in the "other forum" i have my doubts about the linear scalability of the EM effect, in regards of the Q. I have a problem with the projection that going from a Q of ±5x10^4 to a Q of 5x10^10 (see supercooled Niobium cavities at CERN) will result in a force that is x1 000 000 times higher. The 1ton - flying car stuff...

The graph that R.Shawyer showed in his video (timeframe 12:48)is kinda misleading as it groups and bundles all kind of different tests (yang, dresden, nasa, shawyer, cannae, etc) and project them as if they all show a trend.
This is utterly wrong, because the huge differences between the actual experiments.

If you want to show a linear correlation between forces and Q, then you need to perform a test with the SAME setup and different Q values.

fe , you start with ambient temperature, then start gradually cooling in steps till you reach super cooling and /or change materials that dramatically impact the Q.
If you then still see a linear correlation, then yes, Q scales in a linear fashion.

The current argumentation based upon all those different tests is simply premature (at best). Maybe the EM drive does indeed scale linearly, but that is NOT the way to demonstrate it and it does not help for credibility.

In case your wondering, I'm trying to help. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 08:44 am
To be open here are the data I shared with Monomorphic:

All calcs in air and in m

0.3180 Big End diameter
0.4934 Big End radius

0.1590 Small End diameter
0.2467 Small End radius

0.2467 Axial end plate spacing / frustum side wall length

0.77339 DF
88,150 Q
2.4500 GHz resonance in TE013
2.2987 GHz small end cutoff

45.4mN Force at 100W forward

Again here are Monomorphic's results as attached, which shows the engineering works as the data was from my EmDrive design spreadsheet, also attached, to FEKO.

So there is no Magic to build an EmDrive. The data to do so it out there and I have posted most of it here on this forum.

If you look at the central graphic in my spreadsheet screen shot, note the modeled increasing guide wavelength as the diameter narrows (big end left, small end right). Exactly what FEKO modeled AND as per Roger's theory predictions.

I like it when the numbers match up!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 09:36 am
As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.

There is more to the Yang story than has been made public. Suffice it to say my info is her results were independently verified by another Chinese lab, plus she and others are hard at work on a Chinese superconducting unit.

Ever wonder about that guy who came on here, claimed Yang had retired and was writing poetry as she was denied further funding? You think that just maybe he was a plant to discredit her work and when that did not work, the next "Yang" paper was released to try to bury her results?

The reality is the EW device results, while positive thanks to a really good engineering effort by team EW, are from a dielectric frustum design that was abandoned in 2002 due to low thrust results. I can share that had they increased the dielectric thickness, the generated force would have been in the other direction.

Not speculation.
You may be right, you may be wrong..
There is currently no possibility to really asses the truth behind that, so.. it is and remains pure speculation...
I keep en open mind and am well aware that industrial espionage and contra espionage are a daily reality, but at the same time I'm careful not to step into the wild conspiracy theory pitfall...

Let's keep it to...speculation, will you?  Consequently it does cast a doubt about the validity of yang's results.
Besides, if you connect the dots as they are, including Yang's result, you don't see a linear scaling but a flattening exponential scale...

A lot of Shawyer's drawings and graphs give me the uneasy/uncomfortable feeling of being forced into storytelling, rather then an objective representation of experimental data. They feel more like a sales pitch graph then a scientific illustration. Again it is all about credibility and the sub-conscience ability to "feel" something doesn't add up...

 As said before, if you really want a scientific illustration on how Q scales linearly, use 1 setup and keep changing the Q values (by gradually increasing cooling, fe)
Piling up different tests to enforce a story of linear scalability sets off a few alarms in my head. Cant help it, sorry...

and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way...

and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 10:01 am
and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...

Try the attached for scaling.

BTW the one that doesn't seem to line up is from the 1st Cannae superconducting unit. so maybe not a true EmDrive result but it does show their thrust increased as the Q increased.

Then read all the experimental data from these 2 reports. Each has heaps of tests and reveals a lot of valuable engineering data that was never made public before.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bauhaus on 09/03/2016 10:36 am
Can anyone speculate if its true that the exhaust is photon pairs, why not flood the chamber with more photons say with a laser or two?  Also would it be possible to make the frustum out of transparent aluminum?  Lastly. If electromagnetic radiation can push against the "quantum vacuum virtual plasma"  or photon pairs, then doesn't it follow that other higher or lower intensities of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation could modify the effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 10:41 am
Interesting but...
notice how at the top left side, the scales goes up to..... 180mN...

I'm not going to do it for real, but scale that image up to 1 ton (as projected in a flying car emdrive), or 9806N, so bringing it to the same unit grade gives me... 9 806 000 mN
That means the idea of linear extrapolation of Q is based upon 0.0018% of the total projected force range.
Don't you think that is a bit premature?
To give you a visual clue : if the whole graph, with its 180mN scale, was 1 pixel high, the extrapolation towards 1 Ton force would be 556 pixels high...
A daring move, i must say...

The same can be said of the Q range varying from 5x10^3 to 5x10^4 from the real world experiments, that gets extrapolated to 5x10^10.
How can you extrapolate to 6 magnitudes without any other in between reference point, except the handful that lay in the first 0.0001% range of that Q spectrum?
If there were reference points at 10^6 or 10^7, then yes, linear extrapolation would be more credibly.

For me, as till today there is NO data that allows me to accept you can linearly scale up to 1 ton.
Such a conclusion based upon currently available data is overly optimistic and will most probably backfire.

I suggest you get some data with Q's at 100k or even Q at 1mil, before making claims of potential 1 ton thrust levels at magnitudes of 10^10...

At best, what you have here is a graph that more or less shows a linearity up to a Q of around 10^5 and a prognosis for 400mN.
That you can achieve 0.4N/kW, that is something I'm willing to accept based upon that graph...

but 1 ton? you'll have to show it to me first ...

oh, forgot to mention that the second graph is a force/input power relation, not a (specific) thrust/Q graph,
so the relation with the Q is kinda blurry


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/03/2016 11:12 am
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize

A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.

If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 11:21 am
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9

I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.

1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)

None of this is new.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 11:22 am
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize

A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.

If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.

You are correct. Roger deserves a Nobel as a very big apology from the physics community.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 11:31 am
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize

A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.

If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry.

110% Agreed for the Nobel price, on condition it gets further validated.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 12:18 pm
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9

I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.

1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)

None of this is new.

Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions  that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.

You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.

Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 02:00 pm
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9

I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.

1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)

None of this is new.

Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions  that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.

You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.

Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment.

Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/03/2016 02:19 pm
Does a truncated cone resonant cavity produce thrust if excited with ordinary sound?

The wavelength of sound with frequencies between 2kHz and 20kHz range from 17 cm to 1.7 cm so resonant cavities designed for microwaves in the domain 2.4 GHz - 24 GHz (12.5 cm and 1.25 cm) can also resonate if excited with tones generated by a computer.

I would be curious to know if a certain amount of thrust is obtained, if somebody already made the test or is willing to do it. Somebody who has already built an EMdrive has everything he needs. Just turn on a loudspeaker connected to the computer, adjust the frequency of the tone generated by it and put the loudspeaker in front of an EMdrive cavity which will resonate and maybe produce thrust.

I still think that if the whole thing is as simple as resonating waves in and asymmetrical reflective cavity and momentum transfer from those waves into that frustum, then yes, it very well might work... Of course, I got shot down a couple of months ago when I proposed the same thing   :'(

I haven't heard about anyone trying though!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/03/2016 02:57 pm
.......

Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper?
tbh, i have no idea...
I am , just as you,  (im)patiently waiting for more news with absolutely no idea what the content will be of that peer review: positive? negative? inconclusive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/03/2016 05:47 pm
Hi All,

Just catching up on my reading this morning.

I see hand waving, posting test results from other groups and individuals and speculative theories as to how and why this drive may work. To me and this IMHO it boils down to a simple fact past hand waving. Advancement this EMDrive, Q-Thruster, EMTruster or even the WankerMobileDrive, real honest data is still king. Requiring you to roll up your shirt sleeves, shut off the phone, get off the computer, sit down in your lab, test and retest, again and again.

No amount of hand waving will replace the hard sweat and very repetitious testing called work that's needed to convince that this thing works. Fun to post you have the next big breakthrough in designing a force engine on paper, but you better be prepared to knuckle down and work hard to prove it in the lab. Even then you'll have critics, (even if works, or not).

Am I ready to say this force engine is ready to fly cars, no, Am I ready to say that this force engine will take us to Mars, no. Am I ready to say that it deserves the best testing I can do as a DYIer, yes.

Still testing all the theories I can and using one drive to do it. This is my 4th test bed and 4th drive (My first drive had too many holes in it  :o).  I have advanced to where the test bed and drive should provide insights and good data.

I'll leave with this. Then I need to get to work.

My current drive incorporates and or can test one at a time or in a combination.

Dr. Woodward's and Dr. Heidi Fearn's Mach effect. B-fields and PZTs and Caps

Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster). Dielectrics

Roger Shawyer's EMDrive basic theory. Naked internal drive

notsosureofit Hypothesis. All configs

Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory. All configs

Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory A mix of several


Paul March mentioned something I read, that the effects seen by EagleWorks might be both sides of the same coin. Smart man I thought. After mulling it around I drew this idea (pic attached). I even posted these comments.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1539804#msg1539804
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1548562#msg1548562

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 05:47 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/03/2016 06:16 pm
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.

One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.

I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.

If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.

So no need for DIYers to test in vac.

As far as I'm concerned, if you show a video of the EM drive in a rotary configuration that is accelerating, aka Roger's video but hopefully for more rotations, then I would be pretty convinced, and would probably even want to buy one (depending on the cost, of course).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/03/2016 06:20 pm
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.

I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.

NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.

All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).

They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.

Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.

Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.

I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.

The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect.  Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.

Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 06:40 pm
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect.  Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.

Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.


Cannae tug design, as attached, quotes 26N from 40Wrf at 50 MHZ or 650N/kWrf.
Note lower freq = bigger cavity = higher Q = higher thrust per Wrf.
Of course higher Q = longer 5 x TC cavity charge time = more kWh of energy needed to fully charge the cavity and to drive the thrust generation effect.
Not Magic, just smart EmDrive engineering.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/03/2016 07:07 pm
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.

I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.

NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.

All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).

They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.

Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.

Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.

I think there is also a question of scale here.  At the micro Newton level of effects reported by EW and Tajmar there is unquestionably a very high bar for experimental conditions/control required.  However, at the level now being reported by monomorphic, et al I am not sure that level of rigour is as needed. 

I would love to see, say, monomorphic's rig with a battery powered RF source and also possibly, as someone earlier suggested, sealed and with a small vacuum pump to definitively eliminate gross jetting, thermals, etc.  If that were achieved, then, for the level of thrust monomorphic is reporting I think anything else is probably chasing unicorns. 

Of course, that is what referees may require for their publication...  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/03/2016 07:27 pm
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?

There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact  them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...

How can I say this?

Roger offered to help EW. For whatever reason that never happened and EW reinvented a non physically tunable flat end plate design approach (using a dielectric) that Roger abandoned in 2002. From his 2nd unit, The Demonstrator,  and forward all designs are dielectric free and use shaped end plates.

His 1st Experimental dielectric design, with twin physical frustum tuning systens only achieved 18.8mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html (http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html)

The 2nd Demonstrator, dielectric free, with spherical end plates achieved 214mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html (http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html)

3rd build, the Flight Thruster achieved 326mN/kWrf
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html (http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html)

See the progression?

Having thought about this I would have to say that this is actually a really, really important validation of the phenomena.  That is, there is a learning curve to this technology, multiple independent investigators are all climbing up that learning curve with ever increasing levels of thrust. 

This is, in my view, really, really key.

Now, from a science perspective as opposed to a pragmatic engineering perspective there are also important/essential refinements to the experimental design of these rigs and that is what MAY some day get some of this work published with more improvements and unicorn chasing.

But man, that learning curve really says to me that this is a very real phenomena that we are just starting to grapple with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/03/2016 07:55 pm
Build update,

My 2 spherical aluminum thrusters should be ready for testing at the fabricators end Oct.  If OK will return with the 2 thrusters, 4 x 100W Rf amps and a few other bits & pieces. So still hopeful of releasing a video of the rotary test rig spinning under acceleration from 50mN (5g) of thrust in 2016. There is still a lot of work to do, I may not make 2016 with the video but if I don't,  will post the latest build photos.

When the rotary test rig is up and spinning I WILL POST VIDEOS.

Might build a symmetrical rotary rig with the 2 thruster on opposite sides of the rig to generate 100mN (10g) of thrust.

Next stage is designing in integrated 4 x 250Wrf smart modules and to drive the thrusters with 1kW of phase synced Rf via 4 couplers to achieve 0.5N (50g) of thrust in a single thruster module that only needs Dc power applied to generate thrust.

If anybody wishes to run the numbers here they are again:

All calcs in air and in m

0.3180 Big End diameter
0.4934 Big End radius

0.1590 Small End diameter
0.2467 Small End radius

0.2467 Axial end plate spacing / frustum side wall length

0.77339 DF
88,150 Q
2.4500 GHz resonance in TE013
2.2987 GHz small end cutoff

45.4mN Force at 100W forward

Again here are Monomorphic's results as attached, which shows the engineering works as the data was from my EmDrive design spreadsheet, also attached, to FEKO.

So there is no Magic to build an EmDrive. The data to do so it out there and I have posted most of it here on this forum.

Should point out no one is funding this other than myself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Carl G on 09/03/2016 08:22 pm
This thread is for a technical discussion of EM Drive and it will not be dominated by any one person.

It is not for armwaving. It is not for marketing. We will remove such posts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 09:04 pm
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.

I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.

NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.

All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).

They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.

Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.

Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.

I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.

The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect.  Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.

Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.

I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DIYFAN on 09/03/2016 11:01 pm
I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget.

Which is pretty sad given the giant wastes in government spending elsewhere... and yet we have highly emotional people running around the Internet screaming at how wasteful this tiny effort is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/03/2016 11:12 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/03/2016 11:25 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c)

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.


As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to.  Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc.  One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.

The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/03/2016 11:28 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c)

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.


As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to.  Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc.  One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.

The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.

Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/03/2016 11:32 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
You could always wait for the paper to be published before jumping to conclusions.

Anything that doesn't come from Dr Rodal I am dubious about in relation to this paper. Why do you think even he deleted the little he did post because it could give the wrong impression if taken out of context.

Anyone who has seen the paper should respect the process and keep quiet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/04/2016 12:47 am
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference!  Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon!    Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/04/2016 04:55 am
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

...

What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper?  Have you seen the full paper?

I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/04/2016 06:49 am
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

...

What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper?  Have you seen the full paper?

I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.

There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.

So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/04/2016 06:57 am
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference!  Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon!    Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)

History shows Roger originally excited in TMxyz modes but abandoned them for TE01x, with TE013 being the preferred mode.

Why EW excited in TM212 is unknown but clearly they found resonance there. Maybe it was the most isolated from nearby modes and would stop their freq control system from locking to a nearby mode?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/04/2016 07:59 am
Traveller, re TM212, in EWL's frustum with HDPE mounted in the top, their test data was/is as follows  91.2 micro N/16.9 Watts, TM212, frequency 1.9326 GHz, 5.4 mN/kW. Perhaps X_Ray will perform a sim for us...I'll ask him. Despite arguments about Roger's theory, it appears many DIYers are building for TE013 or TE012... I don't recall for sure but I think Monomophics's wedge is TE013. If not, I'll be straitened out shorty. :). Going to PM to "spreche mit X_Ray jetzt"  Ciao   PS: attached is sim of NASA's frustum TE012 at 1.8804 GHz..2.6 Watts.
Two Dipole antennae placed equal distant in bottom, not just one on the side.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tcarey on 09/04/2016 08:05 am
Quote

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.

From what has been posted here it seems that the EW paper was submitted possibly a year or more ago.  If so, it represents where they were quite a while back.  Perhaps they have made progress since then as have the DIY folks here.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: X_RaY on 09/04/2016 09:26 am
@FL
This is what I get using FEKO.
All this pics show the E component of the field. The antenna was a magnetic dipole 34.3mm from the bottom at the sidewall. Its orientation is equal to a vertical aligned loop antenna.
The result is similar to the EW comsol calculations (lower pic)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: frobnicat on 09/04/2016 09:59 am
.../...
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1) for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.


As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to.  Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc.  One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.

The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.

Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.

I hope they could afford to spend the humongous amount of money (sarcasm) of the 6 copper coils and 3 current generators it gets to build a basic 3 axis Helmholtz coil "cube", and finally characterize quantitatively the "effect" as a function of ambient DC magnetic field, therefore proving beyond doubt that the system is not just an electromagnetic compas. And this would be much much better than rotating the experiment 180° (given the sensitivity to tilt, the chance to rotate some magnetic material with it etc... One really want's to see a purely solid state way to change ambient DC magnetic field with all other aspects untouched)

Why go to the trouble of a vacuum chamber to eliminate the "thermal engine" component if the interactions with ambient magnetic field as a stator are not characterized ? Only declarations of good will such as "it was mitigated", "it was greatly reduced", "the permanent magnet nearby was removed", "when reversed it should do this or that", "all wires are twisted", "it is battery powered", "and so on..." would be a great disappointment given the relative ease with which it can be done to characterize the coupling. Reduction by design of sources of error is good but however good it is never good enough to trust blindly. Quantitative characterization of the systematics (especially known ones) is a basic prerequisite of the validity of results, otherwise interpretations, however smart, are shot in the fog. Failure to do so would seriously cast doubt on the ability or urge of the team to get to the bottom of it, IMHO.

BTW, I'm not aware of any experiment so far, academic nor "amateur", with an output plot "effect vs DC ambient magnetic field". This would be a world first. Any taker ?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2016 11:24 am
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/04/2016 03:02 pm
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

...

What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper?  Have you seen the full paper?

I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.

There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.

So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?

If he read and quoted from the paper, why would he not have stated such?  The only thing he links to is this forum and previous articles.

And don't give this article any gravitas because it has "Forbes" at the top of the page. Note the disclaimer "Opinions formed by Forbes contributors are their own” and under his bio "The author is a Forbes contributor.  The opinions expressed are those of the writer".  (Emphasis mine).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/04/2016 03:26 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.

About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2016 05:16 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.

About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of.

Thanks for the link.

Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RonM on 09/04/2016 05:52 pm
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?

If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.

We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.

If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/04/2016 05:53 pm

...

Thanks for the link.

Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?

Of course no. In any way. Brans-Dicke theory is known since '60 as a serious competitor of general relativity. This is constrained through cosmological measurements and I expect agreement at that range of distances. Inside a cavity, with a strong e.m. fields, things can change significantly. The breakthrough here would already be the proof of validity of the Brans-Dicke theory in this way.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2016 06:15 pm
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?

If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.

We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.

If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time.

If it does work I am confident an exhaust of some type will be found. I really don't think it's all that different from anything that it breaks the rule that to put it bluntly you stick energy in one side & thrust comes out the other side. All that's different is this might be the first 'quantum' drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: X_RaY on 09/04/2016 06:25 pm
I am done with sims for different antenna orientations of the brady-cone with HDPE disc, optimized for both TE01 and TM21.

The .avi added below shows a frequency sweep with the antenna optimized for TE01. Due to this data I fully understand the problems to excite TE012 @ high Q.

Edit:
I have updated the pic since I realized that there was a mistake for the mode attribution.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/04/2016 06:26 pm
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286  0.2794  0.15875  0.3111  0.5475 14.78   extruded HDPE relative permitt. [email protected] 1.9367  16.7 18100  0.0501 3.00  899" 
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
Addendum: So my correction came in just after X_Ray's sims with different antenna positions. Indeed, X_Ray, very reveling!!!  Thank you for that X_Ray!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: X_RaY on 09/04/2016 06:33 pm
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286  0.2794  0.15875  0.3111  0.5475 14.78   extruded HDPE relative permitt. [email protected] 1.9367  16.7 18100  0.0501 3.00  899" 
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
No TM212 was right. Please take a look at the wall currents... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578225#msg1578225
although EW used TM211 to describe this mode in their (first)report. In fact there are additional lobes inside the HDPE and under the line that means p=2, therefore TM212.
The data published on http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results is correct in this regard!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: zen-in on 09/04/2016 10:17 pm
I have not seen anything in the Forbes article that refers to any new finding.  In fact the article is even-handed and points out other peer reviewed papers that were later retracted after being proven false.   I assume the following papers that are mentioned in the article were all retracted:

quoted from recent Forbes article
"
Does it mean the science is correct, the effect is real and that physics is broken? Consider that peer-reviewed journals publish all sorts of results that later turn out to be spurious, including:

    the faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable,
    the existence of the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb, which turned out to not exist,
    and the existence of a new LHC particle at 750 GeV, whose signal went away with more data.

"
end of quote
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/04/2016 11:11 pm
I have not seen anything in the Forbes article that refers to any new finding.  In fact the article is even-handed and points out other peer reviewed papers that were later retracted after being proven false.   I assume the following papers that are mentioned in the article were all retracted:

quoted from recent Forbes article
"
Does it mean the science is correct, the effect is real and that physics is broken? Consider that peer-reviewed journals publish all sorts of results that later turn out to be spurious, including:

    the faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable,
    the existence of the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb, which turned out to not exist,
    and the existence of a new LHC particle at 750 GeV, whose signal went away with more data.

"
end of quote
That last example is poor as I don't believe any of the multiple papers concerning that were ever peer reviewed, if for no other reason lack of time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/05/2016 01:46 am
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c

The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal.  It must be from the full paper:

Quote
For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.

I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.

I was thinking of a solution to eliminating the earths magnetic field from experiments.  One I liked earlier and I can't find the quote was using the 3 axis Helmholtz coils. 

I was thinking of another solution that might be possible is to enclose the EM drive and apparatus in soft iron.  That is a soft iron box is attached to the EM drive it self and moves with it on the pendulum and any magnetic field generated is contained inside the box.  Now to eliminate interaction with earths magnetic field we can use soft iron to enclose the entire pendulum which should shield the inside.  I was hoping it should effectively shield the the em-drive it self from the outside fields.  I ran some simulations to show how two iron boxes can shield interaction of two separate magnetic fields below. 

This seems to be on the same thought process so I added this link: http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magshield.htm quote from link, "What you'll find is that only steel and iron will work as a shield.  If it is very thin, it's effectiveness is decreased.  If you place more layers of the shield between the magnet and the probe, it will be more effective (or thicker pieces of material)."

changed the shielded image to better illustrate my point
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/05/2016 02:30 am
This is what TM212 looks like *without dialectric insert*. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: sghill on 09/05/2016 02:35 am
Jeez, I go on vacation for three days, and while I'm gone,  the global press goes wild over a single post on this subthread, which is buried in a speculative thread, inside a teeny tiny tech forum that lives off to one side of the Internet. Again!!!

It's a helluva important topic being silently followed all the time by people who don't post, but who are press members (and bots). Please use solid judgement on this thread friends.

...and I'm thrilled to be a part of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2016 04:01 am
To those playing with dielectrics, may I refer you to the best paper on the subject, giving all the frustum dimensions, modes and even the dielectric resonator model and manufacturer plus a detailed explanation of how the dielectric resonator was tuned (position adjusted). Also note the big end plate was also adjustable.

Quote
The thruster was designed around a Siemens dielectric resonator type LN89/52B with a dielectric constant (er) of 38. An operating frequency of 2450 MHz was selected to allow a commercial 850 W magnetron to be used as a power source. A tapered circular waveguide was designed with TM01 as the dominant mode of propagation.

Quote
Finally the overall electrical length of the thruster must be a multiple of e/2 where
e is the effective wavelength of the thruster. This effective wavelength will equate
to different values of physical length throughout the waveguide assembly.

The overall geometry was defined by building a mathematical model of the thruster
based on an Excel spreadsheet. The physical length was divided into 0.5mm sections
and the guide wavelength calculated for each section. The electrical length for that
section was calculated and the summation of the section electrical lengths calculated.
Thus variations of diameters, lengths and er could be modelled, with the target of
achieving an overall electrical length equal to ne/2.

The model also allowed the operation to be modelled in TE11 and TE12 modes, the
nearest unwanted modes. The design was optimised to avoid the possibility of any
unwanted mode operation.

Doing all this achieved a specific force of 18.8mN/kW.

Once you have read the 1st report a few times, as each time you may learn a bit more, you can then start on the excellent technical report on the construction and early static testing of the Demonstrator EmDrive.

Folks this is how EmDrive engineering 101 starts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/05/2016 05:00 am
Jeez, I go on vacation for three days, and the global press goes wild over a single post on this subthread while Im gone. Again!

It's a helluva important topic being silently followed all the time by people who don't post, but who are press members (and bots). Please use solid judgement on this thread friends.

...and I'm thrilled to be a part of it.
We've all been Rodal'd!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Willem Staal on 09/05/2016 06:54 am
With the  peer review paper coming in december, its easy to be overenthusiastic about the em drive.
Nothing wrong about the initial idea, but as Roger Shawyer stated very clearly: This device can be potentially dangerous! great fun, but you need to follow the safety rules.  The last thing anyone wants are electocuted corpses in a basement..
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2016 10:38 am
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2016 12:52 pm
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?

In space all that is needed is to shield the EmDrive from the sun and it will cool to a very low temperature with no auxiliary cooling needed. Cannae plan to use this form of cooling on their thrusters.

http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes

Quote
COOLING
The 5 thrusting cavities are cooled by radiative cooling to deep space. The maximum design temperature of cavity operation is 75 K. The cavities and structural elements around the cavities are coated with a high emissivity black finish. At design power, the thruster cavities receive a combined 73 watts of phase-locked RF power. This power is almost entirely consumed as ohmic heating in the walls of the cavities. The cavities continually radiate this heat to deep space.

The radiating surface area of the thruster section of the probe is approximately 90 square meters. The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters. When the cavities radiate more than 73 watts of thermal energy, the operating temperature of the cavities drops below 75 K, reducing the radiative power of the cooling mechanism. The system will reach a natural equilibrium temperature that radiates all ohmic heating from the cavity walls. This equilibrium temperature will be below the 75 K maximum design temperature.  Operating temperatures below 75 K will improve the surface resistance characteristics of the YBCO and improve the power-to-thrust performance of the propulsion system.

This radiative cooling system is passive. There are no moving parts to wear out or malfunction. This ensures that the cooling system operational life is sufficient to meet the design lifetime of the probe.

The smaller Cannae Drive cavities are operated intermittently to control the yaw, pitch, and roll of the probe. Cooling requirements on these cavities is minimal compared to the cooling load on the thrusting cavities. The small cavities in the probe also use passive radiative cooling (to deep space) to maintain operating temperature at or below 75 K.

EmDrive Engineering 101.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2016 02:30 pm
Quick question wouldn't a super conducting drive be of very little use at this time as we don't have practical room temperature super conducting materials so such a device would constantly have to be cooled down?

In space all that is needed is to shield the EmDrive from the sun and it will cool to a very low temperature with no auxiliary cooling needed. Cannae plan to use this form of cooling on their thrusters.

http://cannae.com/deep-space-probes

Quote
COOLING
The 5 thrusting cavities are cooled by radiative cooling to deep space. The maximum design temperature of cavity operation is 75 K. The cavities and structural elements around the cavities are coated with a high emissivity black finish. At design power, the thruster cavities receive a combined 73 watts of phase-locked RF power. This power is almost entirely consumed as ohmic heating in the walls of the cavities. The cavities continually radiate this heat to deep space.

The radiating surface area of the thruster section of the probe is approximately 90 square meters. The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters. When the cavities radiate more than 73 watts of thermal energy, the operating temperature of the cavities drops below 75 K, reducing the radiative power of the cooling mechanism. The system will reach a natural equilibrium temperature that radiates all ohmic heating from the cavity walls. This equilibrium temperature will be below the 75 K maximum design temperature.  Operating temperatures below 75 K will improve the surface resistance characteristics of the YBCO and improve the power-to-thrust performance of the propulsion system.

This radiative cooling system is passive. There are no moving parts to wear out or malfunction. This ensures that the cooling system operational life is sufficient to meet the design lifetime of the probe.

The smaller Cannae Drive cavities are operated intermittently to control the yaw, pitch, and roll of the probe. Cooling requirements on these cavities is minimal compared to the cooling load on the thrusting cavities. The small cavities in the probe also use passive radiative cooling (to deep space) to maintain operating temperature at or below 75 K.

EmDrive Engineering 101.

Cryogenic Engineering involves taking into account cryogenic losses, which does not appear to be explicitly accounted for in the above write-up:

A) Passive technology involves losses of cryogenics, which accumulate with time

18% loss for 6 months in LEO using passive technology according to NASA Ames Cryogenic Fluid Management, using current State of the Art

<<current State of the Art (SOA) for cryo-propellant storage is a loss rate of 3%/month in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) using passive technology. Advances in passive thermal control technology might reduce losses to 1%/month, still an unacceptable rate for a 2+ year mission to Mars. By using cryocoolers to balance the entire parasitic and internally generated heat loads in the cryo-tank, no propellant will be lost, resulting in a Zero Boil Off (ZBO) system, and eliminating the need for oversized tanks and extra propellant. Each pound of propellant tank mass saved is directly tradable for payload mass.>>

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/technology-onepagers/cryogenic-fluid-management.html

NOTICE: The claimed advantage of not having to exhaust propellant in this design is compensated by the loss of expensive Ne cryo-cooler   This trade-off should be analyzed !

What is the economic justification for a superconducting EM Drive with Ne passive cooling, involving cryogenic losses of 3% a month, even if it would work?

Observe the tanks for Neon in Cannae's drawing: to be used as a cryogenic fluid below (neon is an expensive choice, why are they showing Ne ?)


(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1365807;image)


* the losses are very dependent on the temperature design, Ne is an expensive choice, neon is useful to cryogenically cool from 25 K to 40 K.

* if the temperature is 75-77K why are they showing Ne instead of N2 in their drawing?

* The fact that they are showing Ne instead of N2, sounds like their design is more like 25 K to 40 K than the above write-up discussion of 75 K

* the colder the temperature, the tougher the problem is.

* Cannae's reported superconducting tests involved suspending their resonant cavity inside a liquid helium-filled dewar.  Liquid Helium's Lambda point (*) temperature is only 2 K - that is very cold in comparison with 75 K !!!
Compare these different temperatures (what they tested at, what they show in the drawing and what they discuss in the above write-up)

Using data from http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/917813 at Lawrence Livermore Lab:

He =   2.17 K  (This is what Cannae tested at)  (*)
H2 = 13.8 K
Ne = 24.6 K (This is what Cannae shows in the above drawings)
N2 = 63.1 K (Cannae discusses 75 K in their write-up)


Quote from:  http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/917813
On most spacecraft, one would use helium as a liquid cryogen of choice (regardless of the device
operating temperature) because the total enthalpy per unit cryogen mass available from the boiling
temperature to 300 K is highest for any fluid (except for hydrogen). Hydrogen is a special case. It has
good heat transfer properties and the largest total enthalpy of any fluid. The problem is its flammability.
Solid hydrogen can be used for space cryogenic cooling of devices (above 13 K) on satellites launched
using non-manned expendable rockets.


B) Active technology: the complexity involved with cryogenic fridge technology

So given the problem with 3% a month loss of cryogenics using passive technology, let's discuss the use of a fridge, to eliminate the losses of cryo-coolant:

* NASA has never deployed a liquid helium fridge in space. All missions (that need it), to our knowledge, have been Dewars + solid Hydrogen or liquid Helium reservoir.  And good luck buying a space-qualified liquid Helium refrigerator (that's what they tested at) to fit in a 6 U CubeSat  :)

*as an aside, cryo-compressed storage of hydrogen is the only technology that meets 2015 DOE targets for ground vehicle  volumetric and gravimetric efficiency

----------------------------------------

(*) to be scientifically rigorous, helium converts into a Superfluid, and has two different fluid phases. This point is called the Lambda point . It never becomes a solid no matter how close we go to absolute zero.  However in the literature (e.g. above report from Lawrence Livermore Lab) this is shown in charts as a triple point in comparison with the other cryogenics (thanks to Zen-In for emphasizing this, as it should have been noted)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonathanD on 09/05/2016 04:19 pm

Cryogenic Engineering 100...

All very interesting.  But at that point it's just a complex engineering problem, no?  If the concept itself is actually valid, the rest is just many hours of work and creative solutions.  That's a huge leap forward considering the entire idea has largely been characterized as a little-understood long-shot that is probably experimental error at best, and fraudulent quackery at worst.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2016 04:23 pm

Cryogenic Engineering 100...

All very interesting.  But at that point it's just a complex engineering problem, no?  If the concept itself is actually valid, the rest is just many hours of work and creative solutions.  That's a huge leap forward considering the entire idea has largely been characterized as a little-understood long-shot that is probably experimental error at best, and fraudulent quackery at worst.

This maybe the case for space if you're willing to resolve all the issues outlined, but such cryogenic engineering is hardly practical if you wanted to apply this to more terrestrial applications such as your flying car.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonathanD on 09/05/2016 04:31 pm
Understood, but if the concept is proven, the resources brought to bear on that engineering problem from private industry would be nothing short of massive.  Getting ahead of ourselves a bit, but certainly looking forward to the peer-reviewed article and the Cannae test flight.  TBH, never thought we'd see it get this far.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: zen-in on 09/05/2016 04:36 pm
Re: Liquid Helium fridges.   
I am familiar with the cryo work done at NASA Ames because I worked in that group for 5 years and contributed to the tests of the Spitzer IRAC focal plane image sensor.   There has been a long program of research in stirling cryocoolers there.  However I am not aware of any liquid Helium fridge development being done.  Among the problems one would have with trying to contain the cryogens are maintaining a sufficiently low pressure in the closed system.   Helium dewars require an insulating layer that shields the Helium from external IR radiation and that contains a high vacuum.    Surrounding that is a liquid Nitrogen dewar.   You cannot have a Helium dewar with any useful amount of hold time without a well designed IR radiation barrier and the surrounding liquid Nitrogen barrier.    Achieving a long cryogen hold time is a black art that few are practiced in.   So, from a practical point of view one would have 2 cryo systems to maintain closed loop.   The cryocoolers would have to keep up with the heat leakage as well as any heat load from the experiment.   If it couldn't do that there would be an explosion.    On the plus side a closed loop cryo system does not have the problem of thrust generation from escaping cryogens.  At least not until it explodes.

Heat dumping to space:
Even though outer space is widely considered a very cold place it is not easy to dump excess heat there because it is a high vacuum.   Heat can only be lost by radiative cooling.   If your cooling radiator or blackbody is illuminated by the Sun or Earth instead of exhausting heat it will gain heat.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RERT on 09/05/2016 05:00 pm
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.

The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?

Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.

But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.

I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2016 05:48 pm
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.

The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?

Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.

But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.

I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....

I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/05/2016 07:04 pm
In theory, would a pulse radar magnetron at 15Ghz, 200 kW, 0.2 us pulse produce a measurable force at first pulse with 4cm diameter frestrum out of stacked superconductors? Also, do you really need the shape to be round? Round shapes are kinda more expensive in this case
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2016 07:12 pm
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.

The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?

Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.

But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.

I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....

I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.

One can guess they might look more like Shuttlecraft. They would gently lift up with no need of runways or airports, climb to where the atmosphere is thin or basically none, no need to go more than a few Mach since no point on Earth is more than 12,000 miles away, then slow and gently land. I limit the speed so a failure of the lift engines would not force anything like a full orbital re-entry with all that heat. I would also add backup parachutes in my design so it could float back if necessary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/05/2016 07:19 pm
I find it hard to connect the quote from Cannae with the comments on cryo-coolers.

The Cannae quote speaks of passive cooling, which sounds like it needs no cryo-cooler, no?

Assuming they know what the advantage of propellant-less propulsion is, it's possible they may have twigged that needing a supply of coolant is a bad thing.

But: there are Ne tanks in the drawing, don't know what for. Maybe they need something which is still gaseous when passively cooled.

I agree this is better in space than in your regular flying car.....

I imagine any terrestrial flying vehicles using EM drives are going to be nothing like we know now. Weirdly this is the area something like this would be most useful outside of space as we already have electric cars but we do not have large electric planes for when jets must go.

One can guess they might look more like Shuttlecraft. They would gently lift up with no need of runways or airports, climb to where the atmosphere is thin or basically none, no need to go more than a few Mach since no point on Earth is more than 12,000 miles away, then slow and gently land. I limit the speed so a failure of the lift engines would not force anything like a full orbital re-entry with all that heat. I would also add backup parachutes in my design so it could float back if necessary.
One thing that some people online need to grasp is even if it works. Will it scale, what other technology do we need such as super conductivity & it's all gone to take a very long time to go from lab bench to trips to Proxima B if ever.

Just to refer back to the OP in this thread with the renewed interest in this topic individuals are quoting stuff out of this thread, it has been noted on a certain other place which follows this topic so please take care in posting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/05/2016 07:33 pm
Technology to get to Proxima B fast but in one piece? I'd guess - warping space in crossection of the ship so that to the external observer it would seem to be few millimeters in diameter. Not sure if I'm joking
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/05/2016 07:42 pm
Cannae states that they have a design max operating temperature of 45K. They want the ambient temperature within a closed loop system to not exceed 45K and they will undoubtedly shoot for an operating temperature of significantly less than that value.

Their claim is that the 90 square meters of heat sink, more than double the radiation they need to keep the system well under the 45K design.

Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.

If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/05/2016 08:00 pm
Perfect TE013 in spherical end-plate geometry using novel "offset loop" antenna. Special thanks to Shell for the final clue that eliminated the hotspot from a standard loop antenna.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRY6jwERQY
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2016 08:04 pm
Cannae states that they have a design max operating temperature of 45K. They want the ambient temperature within a closed loop system to not exceed 45K and they will undoubtedly shoot for an operating temperature of significantly less than that value.

Their claim is that the 90 square meters of heat sink, more than double the radiation they need to keep the system well under the 45K design.

Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.

If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice

* need to address the economic benefit that trades off not exhausting propellant and instead has 3% losses of Ne a month

*where is the 40 m^2 coming from ?

Quote
The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters.

If one calculates this, one would need more than the entire surface they write is available (90 m^2) when taking into account that:

*Not only the radiators have to be kept away from the Sun, but don't forget that the Earth's heat flux can easily be > 50 W/m^2 in LEO.   Maybe 100 W/m^2 ?  (*)

* unless Cannae is planning to put in a shield between the drive and the Earth and the drive and its radiators, or do both?

* if so, where is the design for that shield ?

(http://jwst.nasa.gov/images2/sunshieldhotcold.jpg)

(http://jwst.nasa.gov/images2/sunshieldcrosssection.jpg)

* please show how all of this is feasible to do in a 6 U (10 x 20 x 30 cm).

-----------------
-------------------------
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RERT on 09/05/2016 08:16 pm
There was a clear statement in an earlier post here that the Cannae 6U cubesat thruster was not superconducting. So the question of how to fit cooling in 6U does not arise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2016 08:26 pm
There was a clear statement in an earlier post here that the Cannae 6U cubesat thruster was not superconducting. So the question of how to fit cooling in 6U does not arise.
Where are the calculations that show that a 6U Cannae cubesat in LEO 150 km does not need to be superconducting to successfully accomplish that goal ?

Let's go over this:

Quote
Theseus is going to be launching a demo cubesat which will use Cannae thruster technology to maintain an orbit below a 150 mile altitude.  This cubesat will maintain its extreme LEO altitude for a minimum duration of 6 months. 

Run the numbers for LEO at 150 km

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063367900232


Quote
The satellite 1966-101G was launched on 2 November 1966 into an orbit with an initial perigee height of 140 km. A satellite with such a low perigee usually decays within a few days, but 1966-101G was exceptionally dense and remained in orbit until 6 May 1967. Analysis of the changes in its orbital period provides an unique opportunity for studying continuously for six months the variations in air density at a height near 150 km.
This paper records the results of such an analysis, applicable for the (medium) level of solar activity prevailing early in 1967. It is shown that at a height of 155 km the air density is greater by day than by night, with the maximum daytime density exceeding the minimum night-time density by a factor of 1.7: in contrast the COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere 1965 predicts that the density should be slightly greater by night than by day. It is also found that the night-time density increases as solar activity increases, and that the density scale height given by CIRA 1965 at heights near 150 km is too low, perhaps by about 20%.

 orbital data from a cubesat http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5792/minimum-orbit-altitude
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/f10FK.png)

They want 6 months on orbit at 150 km.

Assume that they present a surface of only 0.03 m^2.

A drag coefficient, CD= 2 (*)

Orbital velocity, v  ~ 7835 m/sec (*)

Assume  a margin of 2.5 (*) to make sure you would not deorbit if some event raised the density at high altitude.

For a 6 month mission, 150 km LEO, you will be in eclipse ~ 50% of the time (i.e., another factor of 2).  (*)

Then the calculation is that one needs a thrust/power of at least 1 milli Newton / Watt. 

To my knowledge, only the Cannae superconducting claims to provide 1 milliNewton/Watt. If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???

See:

details of the Cannae superconducting design and experiments, in this US Patent Application

https://www.google.com/patents/US20140013724

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
                                                               mN/kW
Cannae LLC, Superconducting                   761.9 - 952.4

-------------------------
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/05/2016 09:07 pm

Why choose Neon? It’s inert, is the least reactive noble gas, and has the narrowest liquid range of any element, between 24.55 K and 27.05 K. That means at 24 K or lower it’s in solid state. Helium on the other hand does not solidify until you hit 1K to 1.5K. That’s below the deep space ambient temp of 3 K.

If I wanted a closed system that manages phase changes with a radiative heat sink, it would seem to me that Neon is a better choice

* you have not addressed the economic benefit that trades off not exhausting propellant and instead has 3% losses of Ne a month

*where does Cannae get 40 m^2 from ?

Quote
The radiative surface area needed to radiate 73 watts from a temperature of 75 K to 3 K (the effective temperature of deep space) is 40 square meters.

Have you checked those calculations? 

One would need substantially more than what they say is available (90 m^2) for that

*Not only the radiators have to be kept away from the Sun, but don't forget that the Earth's heat flux can easily be > 50 W/m^2 in LEO.   Maybe 100 W/m^2 ?

* is Cannae planning to put in a shield between the drive and the Earth and the drive and its radiators, or do both?

* if so, where is the design for that shield ?

* please show how all of this is feasible to do in a 6 U (10 x 20 x 30 cm).
Calculations and feasibility is Cannae's job as it's their baby. I'm not qualified to do that level of work.


I'd like to point out that the Cannae picture you posted is their futuristic Space Freighter for deep space work, NOT the cubesat they are sending up. In fact Cannae speciffically states on their website: "Cannae is also commercializing a thruster that does not require superconducting operation in order to generate thrust" . [/font][/size][size=78%]http://http://cannae.com/the-technology/ (http://http://cannae.com/the-technology/)[/size]

I guess you assumed they were doing the Freighter in their cubesat. I assumed they are not.

Doc I do not have experience in cryogenic cooling systems. So I don't know  what the 3% loss is based on. Is there a difference in efficiency in those systems if you start with and store your material as a solid instead of a liquid or gas? I would guess it might be more efficient but that's only a guess.

What I do see is that Neon can be a solid, liquid and gas within a narrow temperature range of +/- 3.5 K at a temperature that seems to be within the range that Cannae is shooting for.

Basic chemistry shows energy absorbed in the change from solid to liquid, and again from liquid to gas. For neon in the operating parameters that Cannae indicates, you could have potentially 2 phase changes.  Neon also has a much higher density and thermal conductivity than helium at their respective boiling points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_(data_page) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_(data_page))

If Cannae can prove THEIR (not mine) statements that they can radiate off the heat they will generate, then they seem to have the potential to store their coolant as a solid and benefit from two potentially manageable phase changes.

PS: Fetta apparently has a degree in Chemical Engineering FYI.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2016 09:14 pm
....
I guess you assumed they were doing the Freighter in their cubesat. I assumed they are not.
....
No, rather than assuming things, one has to start by figuring out what is the thrust/PowerInput that would be required for a 6 month 150 km LEO [a low perigee] mission.  See:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578840#msg1578840  The calculation is that you need a thrust of at least 1 milli Newton / Watt. 
To my knowledge, only the Cannae superconducting version claims to provide the calculated requirement of 1 milliNewton/Watt.

So, it is not an assumption that a Freighter will be used, but instead it comes from a calculation of what is the thrust/InputPower required for a 6 month 150 km LEO mission, with a reasonable margin of safety, as discussed above.

If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???

???

Also, my superconducting discussion was in response to this post by somebody else (which you marked with a "like"):  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578614#msg1578614 that discussed superconducting operation of said Cannae EM Drive.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/05/2016 10:01 pm

If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???


Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.


The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2016 10:41 pm
...What I do see is that Neon can be a solid, liquid and gas within a narrow temperature range of +/- 3.5 K at a temperature that seems to be within the range that Cannae is shooting for. ...
One should not bunch together this huge temperature range (75 to 2 deg K)

He =   2.17 K  (This is what Cannae tested at)
H2 = 13.8 K
Ne = 24.6 K (This is what Cannae shows in the above drawings)
N2 = 63.1 K (Cannae discusses 75 K in their write-up)


The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which describes the rate of transfer of radiant energy, is as follows for an object in a vacuum

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ce87648e253879bfb34b9dc84d29971ebae56c12)

The formula for radiation heat transfer depends on the 4th power of the Temperature !
Such a nonlinear dependence is very unforgiving as the temperature goes down to absolute zero.

Comparing the 75 K in the write up with the 24 K for Ne is a factor of almost 100 times the radiator surface area

(75/24)^4 = 95

Comparing the 75 K in the write up with the 2 K they tested their superconducting at, gives a ratio of almost one and a half million:

(75/2.17)^4 = 1.4*10^6

Just trying to make sense with numbers here...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/05/2016 10:45 pm

If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???


Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.


The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?

I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/05/2016 11:47 pm
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
2)The LEO tug as seen in the pic (previous page(s)) is enclosed and I am not sure how the Neon is to be used to aid in cooling---the tug is reported to be able to work for many years without servicing...I think this would indicate a closed atmosphere around the cavities where the gas is circulated in and out via pump.(gets cold when released and hot when compressed: basic air conditioning) A radiator of X size would probably be required on the shadow side of the tug outside of the enclosure.
3) the "deep space" probe is passively cooled with a special coating on the cavities which is reported to aid in the radiation of heat. These cavities would also remain in shadow except for periodic trajectory change or communication. Based on Cannae's claims pertaining to thrust/watt I was underwhelmed at the probes speed performance, but am left to recon that if more power were injected into the cavities they would exceed their 45 degrees K "rating" and become less efficient.
Once again Cannae doesn't say much, so we're left with logical speculation (Mr. Spock would not like this)!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 12:09 am
Problem I have with all this is talk is cheap especially in the grey area of this technology. Verifiable actions are a whole other matter. Some of this talk has been going on for years so where is the practical nuts & bolts results?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 12:17 am
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
...
So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-oqg9Zm5VA/VWj7lqFeUJI/AAAAAAAAGtM/8qbeCmGPNz8/s400/goodgrief.gif)

150*1.60934=241

So their orbit is really 241 km ?

That makes a difference ! Thanks

I calculated with 150 km.  (I recall pointing this out weeks ago, when they first announced, that instead of using customary SI units, Cannae is using Miles, oh well  ;) )

Just like the probe that crashed on Mars years ago (different units !)

Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )


US Survey mile = International mile =1.60934 km
Nautical mile =  1.852 km
Roman mile = 1.481 km
Chinese mile = 0.5 km
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/06/2016 12:28 am
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )

I reckon it's either that or nautical miles  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/06/2016 12:33 am
Star One, in reality the only data we have pertaining to Cannae is what we got from NASA. The rest is indeed marketing from/by Cannae...not to long ago I said they were a little to slick for me, and was criticized even for that comment. Unfortunately Monomorphic has been too busy to perform sims on several of Cannae's designs that I've dug up as part of my study.
I'm hoping for excellent results in his test campaign and look forward to digging into what IS out there about Cannae. I'm sorry if I disturbed you with the above mentioned...Cannae ticks me off (politely put)   FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/06/2016 03:41 am
Perfect TE013 in spherical end-plate geometry using novel "offset loop" antenna. Special thanks to Shell for the final clue that eliminated the hotspot from a standard loop antenna.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBRY6jwERQY

I am just curious what this "offset loop" antenna is supposed to look like.  I would assume a loop symmetric with the axis of the cavity but in what way is it offset?  Position maybe?  Tried looking up images but didn't get anything definitive.  Maybe I flunked my search.  I remember Shell mentioning having one flat and one curved end plate.  I am assuming this arrangement of plates helped with the placement of the antenna to maximize the interaction of the antenna with the radiation in the cavity.  Possibly maximizing the electric field in its vicinity. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/06/2016 04:19 am
dustinthewind, probably like this antenna , but in a frustum instead of a Cannae RC.....by "offset" maybe he means suspended away from the wall, top or bottom plate, and not located on it.?
+ note it's a hoop (round) and not a loop...I wonder if that's a distinction without a difference : )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 06:51 am
Any wiser heads than mine want to comment on the criticism of the experiments contained in the OP here.

https://m.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/51b1r8/nasas_eagleworks_em_drive_testing_searching_for/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/06/2016 08:18 am
Any wiser heads than mine want to comment on the criticism of the experiments contained in the OP here.

https://m.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/51b1r8/nasas_eagleworks_em_drive_testing_searching_for/

The only thing I've gleaned thus far is that my reading comprehension sucks at 1 AM.  :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 09:31 am
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.

If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.

The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.

The new version of the paper appeared today on arxiv at

http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917

Here I get a general equation for the gravitational constant in the Brans-Dicke model determined by the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside the cavity. As already said, the gravitational constant, in this case, is modified just inside the volume of the cavity making the effect markedly larger than expected from Einstein gravity. In such conditions, the device does not appear reactionless, as claimed by somebody, but just use gravity.

Brans-Dicke model is a serious contender to Einstein's general relativity since '60 when was formulated. Presently, cosmological tests constrain it but does not rule it out at all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 10:23 am
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.

If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.

The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.

The new version of the paper appeared today on arxiv at

http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917

Here I get a general equation for the gravitational constant in the Brans-Dicke model determined by the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside the cavity. As already said, the gravitational constant, in this case, is modified just inside the volume of the cavity making the effect markedly larger than expected from Einstein gravity. In such conditions, the device does not appear reactionless, as claimed by somebody, but just use gravity.

Brans-Dicke model is a serious contender to Einstein's general relativity since '60 when was formulated. Presently, cosmological tests constrain it but does not rule it out at all.

I looked this theory up on Wikipedia and it was quite hard to follow for a layperson such as myself how it differs from Einstein's theory and why it isn't regarded as applicable to reality?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/06/2016 10:33 am
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get me far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.

I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?

It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.

I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 10:40 am
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get you far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.

I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?

It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.

I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..

Is this theory related to the idea that Gravity is different at the local scale in the universe than to the far scale, which is an alternative to Dark Matter theory?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/06/2016 11:22 am
No, I dont think it was dark matter related.  I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)

added:
 I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

from his post (colored for emphasis):
Quote
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.

If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 11:38 am
In that case if you attached a number of increasingly large EM drives to a test rig wouldn't that make things a whole lot easier to detect and measure?

Is it financial limitations that EW are using such a small device?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2016 11:39 am
No, I dont think it was dark matter related.  I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)

added:
 I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

from his post (colored for emphasis):
Quote
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.

If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.

Seems Cannae are following that approach in their Space Tug, that is to achieve greater area, Q and thrust to design in lower freq. Where lower thrust is OK, then to use higher freq, which results in smaller cavities, which use less volume.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/06/2016 12:09 pm
In that case if you attached a number of increasingly large EM drives to a test rig wouldn't that make things a whole lot easier to detect and measure?

Is it financial limitations that EW are using such a small device?

I suppose the main problem is to find the right generator, so that physical dimensions match with the frequency, in order to obtain the required resonance mode.

The reason to why most DIY frustums are around 20-25cm long, is due to the easy availability of commercial magnetrons that have that ±2.4ghz range.

I have no idea if any cheap Rf generators are available in, fe, the sub 1ghz range?
Construction of a larger frustum maybe be a bit more tedious, but not really problematic, from a technical point of view.

For the moment, it is still a pure intellectual challenge so see if all these theories end up with the same conclusion, that bigger is better...
But if the EMdrive effect is indeed confirmed by the Eagleworks papers, better more conclusive evidence and experiment repeatability will be required.
Larger sized frustum operating with lower frequency might then be a better path to proceed, no?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/06/2016 12:42 pm
I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)

added:
 I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

from his post (colored for emphasis):
Quote
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.

If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.

Not only the Q and the generated force should increase, but bigger frustums would also allow an easier control over tuning the distance between end plates, controlling their deformation, as well as better radiative cooling.

Financial requirements appart, only from a state-of-the-art (not DIY) engineering point of view, do you guys know how much large could a frustum be built? The size of a fridge? A church bell? A room? Even bigger?

What about the availability of the required RF generators and the associated frequencies? Are RF wavelengths way outside of the domain of microwaves allowed for a big RF cavity? (in a nutshell: f < 1 GHz and λ > 30cm)

EDIT: basically I have the same concern as Star One and Flyby in their post before mine.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 12:50 pm
Also if you scale up the drive if there is evidence of other effects such as gravitational couldn't this be raised to a dangerous level? I mean can we even theorise the effects of large EM drives?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 01:08 pm


...

I looked this theory up on Wikipedia and it was quite hard to follow for a layperson such as myself how it differs from Einstein's theory and why it isn't regarded as applicable to reality?

The idea in Brans-Dicke theory is to add a scalar field (something that has as a value just numbers over all space and time) to standard general relativity. To do that, one assumes that the Newton constant is not really a constant but exactly that scalar field. Anything that has energy couples to gravity, so such a scalar field has an effect back on gravity and vice versa.

This theory is considered a contender to Einstein's theory as it recovers all the tests the general relativity and it could be used to see how far is our universe from Einstein's theory by giving a measurement of the parameters that make the difference between these two theories.

So, on cosmological and planetary scales, one gets that these theories are identical for all practical purposes provided a parameter (omega) is taken large enough.

What makes the difference for a resonant cavity is that you get a significant amount of energy well localized and tests of the two theories in this case are not known. It could be that Brans-Dicke theory performs better in this case supporting the conclusions by NASA on their measurements (remember that we have to see their paper yet).

I hope this help. I can expand if you need it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/06/2016 01:15 pm
I recall a post of dr.Rodal where he made the observation, through formula's, that Q increased with bigger frustum. As it is a consensus that obtained force is related to Q, it would mean bigger resonating frustums generate bigger forces (on condition the effect is real, ofc)

added:
 I think I found the topic :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

from his post (colored for emphasis):
Quote
Therefore one concludes that the force per input Power (for all three theories: McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit) scales like the square root of any geometrical dimension, for constant resistivity and magnetic permeability of the interior wall of the cavity and for constant geometrical ratios, constant medium properties μr,εr, and for the same mode shape m,n,p.

If confirmed, it indicates that research should not be searched in miniaturization, but just in the opposite direction.

Not only the Q and the generated force should increase, but bigger frustums would also allow an easier control over tuning the distance between end plates, controlling their deformation, as well as better radiative cooling.

Financial requirements appart, only from a technical point of view, do you guys know how much large could a frustum be built? The size of a fridge? A church bell? A room? Even bigger?

What about the availability of the required RF generators and the associated frequencies? Are RF wavelength way outside of the domain of microwaves allowed for a big RF cavity? (in a nutshell: f < 1 GHz and λ > 30cm)

The problem is also in power output for available RF generators at different frequencies and price of superconductors if you are going to go gen2 at some point. I think there's a confusion in objectives here. Scalability is a long-term engineering task which will be solved one way or another, what is more crucial right now IMHO is to prove that it can produce significant forces and do it as cheaply as possible for others to easily reproduce, write peer reviewed papers about and post youtube videos. That's why I'm asking questions about pulse magnetrons that are used in radars. Those go from $1000 to around $5000 apiece if sourced from the right places.
See here for a general idea:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Radar%20Transmitter.en.html (http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Radar%20Transmitter.en.html)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 01:37 pm
StrongGR,
Although i really tried to understand what you did, i must admit the math is just beyond my understanding.
To give you an idea, the first time I ever heard about tensors was here on NSforum. And self study doesn't get me far enough that i can fully grasp whet you did..
But...
I noticed something: between (72) and (73) you give an example with real numbers, using a frequency of 210ghz for a frustrum 100mm high, r1=25mm and r2=100mm to ensure the correct resonance mode.

I do recall a post of Dr. Rodal about the observation that lowering the frequency and making the frustum bigger would generate more force.
As I do not fully understand what you did in developing your ideas, could you have a look into dr Rodal's idea by using real numbers?

It would be nice to know if the notion of "bigger is better" is also supported by your elaborated theory, as it would help to orient future experimental research.

I'll try to dig up dr. Rodal's post, it was outside this topic, but EMdrive related, but cant find it for the moment..

With the first version of the paper, I made a Maple worksheet available with the computations. It evaluated the frequency of the mode and from it it yielded a value of the expected thrust. We agreed with Dr. Rodal that the numbers were way too small with respect to the measured ones  (if ever confirmed). This made the paper interesting but not directly applicable to the case. If you like, I can provide the Maple worksheet for you to play with.

This new version fits the bill and should yield values of the thrust in agreement with those NASA has found. For the new version, I have not yet done numerical work. This is somewhat more complex as I have to solve numerically an integral equation. Work for the near future. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 01:41 pm

...

Is this theory related to the idea that Gravity is different at the local scale in the universe than to the far scale, which is an alternative to Dark Matter theory?

Not exactly so. You should imagine a theory where the Newton constant G, the one entering into the well-known equation -Gm1m2/r2, varying from point to point. It was invented before any idea of dark matter and so, was not aimed for it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: PNeilson on 09/06/2016 01:44 pm
Marco

  As the cavity fills up with photons - what happens to the relative permittivity and permeability in the cavity? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 01:57 pm
Marco

  As the cavity fills up with photons - what happens to the relative permittivity and permeability in the cavity?

As far as I can tell, these are constants depending on the material put inside the cavity.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 02:06 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 02:14 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?

Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 02:37 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?

Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.

This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/06/2016 02:45 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?

Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.

This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?

No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.

Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 03:11 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?

Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.

This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?

No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.

Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.

Thank you. It's a shame the two things have been decoupled.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 03:23 pm
I hope there is no confusion re the various projects going on at Cannae...as folks know I've been conducting a study of them
1) for the cubesat, they say they are orbiting it at less than 150 miles...not kilometers. Mr. Feta told me there would be no super-cooling of this device. I'm left to conclude that the cooling of their thruster will be passive and that the thruster will be kept in shadow at all times
...
So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-oqg9Zm5VA/VWj7lqFeUJI/AAAAAAAAGtM/8qbeCmGPNz8/s400/goodgrief.gif)

150*1.60934=241

So their orbit is really 241 km ?

That makes a difference ! Thanks

I calculated with 150 km.  (I recall pointing this out weeks ago, when they first announced, that instead of using customary SI units, Cannae is using Miles, oh well  ;) )

Just like the probe that crashed on Mars years ago (different units !)

Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )


US Survey mile = International mile =1.60934 km
Nautical mile =  1.852 km
Roman mile = 1.481 km
Chinese mile = 0.5 km

Let's work through the numbers for Cannae's proposed Cubesat mission, using 240 km instead of 150 km:

http://cannae.com/cubesat/
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

The publicity picture appears to show a larger than 1x3U Cubesat, the second link talks about a 6U Cubesat
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/35/980x490/landscape-1472765657-cannae-12.png)

Orbit (assume circular orbit at published distance, interpreted as US Miles)
ro=150 USmile *1.60934 km/USmile ~ 240 km

Orbital velocity (Assuming circular orbit at 240 km)
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ff5595cb6d81d417863e0f83dfa78c4e7dc0479d)
G=6.67408 * 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
M=5.972 * 10^24 kg (mass of the Earth)
R=6.371*10^6 m (mean radius of the Earth)
r = R + ro
  = 6.371*10^6 m+ 240*10^3 m
v=7765 m/sec

Drag Surface area: assume a minimum cross-sectional area, for a 1x3U Cubesat with cross-sectional drag surface  of 0.10m x 0.30 m, perpendicular to the orbital plane(this assumes that the solar panels are always parallel to the orbital velocity vector)
Assume minimum configuration:
1x3U Cubesat (Notice that picture shows a larger Cubesat and link discusses a 6U Cubesat.  The thrust necessary for larger Cubesats can be obtained by simple scaling of the appropriate cross-sectional area.  For example, a 2x3U Cubesat will have twice the minimum cross-sectional area of a 1x3U Cubesat)
A=0.10m *0.30m
  = 0.03 m^2

Drag coefficient
CD=2  (*)

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Reynerson/publication/221910818/figure/fig16/AS:[email protected]/Fig-33-Drag-Profile-For-Cubesat-Using-ESM-Plate-Model.png)

Reynerson, "Aerodynamic Disturbance Force and Torque Estimation for Spacecraft and Simple Shapes Using Finite Plate Elements  Part I: Drag Coefficient"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221910818_Aerodynamic_Disturbance_Force_
and_Torque_Estimation_for_Spacecraft_and_Simple_Shapes_Using_Finite_Plate_Elements_
Part_I_Drag_Coefficient/figures?lo=1

de Vries, "Cubesat Drag Calculations "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/433600.pdf
Olttroge et.al.,"An evaluation of Cubesat Orbital Decay",
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=smallsat

Atmospheric Density
MSISE­90 std atmosphere (for 240 km)
(References: 
This link enables the computation and plotting of any subset of MSIS parameters:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/msis_vitmo.html
http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/modelinfo.php?model=MSISE ) (*)
@Mean solar activity rhoMean= 9.91 x 10^-11 kg m^-3
@Maximum solar activity rhoMax= = 4.08 x 10^-10 kg m^-3
rhoMax/rhoMean=4.117

The solar cycle is very important,
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Skylab_Solar_flare.jpg/300px-Skylab_Solar_flare.jpg)
since air density, and hence drag, is very much dependent on solar activity.  It is what brought Skylab down ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Solar_activity ):
Quote
British mathematician Desmond King-Hele of the Royal Aircraft Establishment predicted in 1973 that Skylab would de-orbit and crash to earth in 1979, sooner than NASA's forecast, because of increased solar activity. Greater-than-expected solar activity heated the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere and increased drag on Skylab.



Observe the chart below for where we are now, and the predicted activity in the future:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_progression_and_prediction.gif)

Drag Force
DMax =(1/2) CD rhoMax A v^2
         =(1/2) 2 (4.08 x 10^-10 kg m^-3) (0.03 m^2) (7765)^2
         =7.38*10^(-4) N
DMean = DMax/4.117
          =1.79*10^(-4) N

Solar radiation pressure is negligible: 4.5 (absorption) to 9 (reflection)  μN /m2, so radiation force will be less than 0.27 μN. (For LEO, the radiation pressure from the Earth is hard to model as it depends on cloud albedo, but it is smaller than solar and thus also negligible).

Mass = 1.33 kg/U
             3U =4 kg
             6U =8 kg

Acceleration due to Atmospheric Drag

For  3U, mass=4 kg
aMax= DMax/Mass
        =7.38*10^(-4) N/4 kg
        =1.85*10^(-4) m/s^2
aMean=DMean/Mass
         =1.79*10^(-4) N /4 kg
         =4.40*10^(-5) m/s^2

Maximum Power available from sunlight = 10 watts

From Cannae's announcement: http://cannae.com/cubesat/

Quote
Our thruster configuration for the cubesat mission with Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power to perform station keeping thrusting.
Effective power available , assuming a common-low-to-moderate-inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude, as shown in this picture by Cannae:

(http://cannae.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Snapshot11.bmp)


and hence taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time, and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*)
 =5 watts

Assume no safety margin: SafetyMargin=1

Necessary thrust
TMax= SafetyMargin* DMax
        = 7.38*10^(-4) N
TMean= TMax /(rhoMax/rhoMean)
       = 1.79*10^(-4) N

Necessary Thrust/PowerInput

TMax /PowerInput= 7.38*10^(-4) /5 W
                          = 148 μN/W
TMean /PowerInput= 1.79*10^(-4) N /5 W
                          = 36 μN/W




Conclusion:

The orbit makes a big difference, concerning the requirements for such a mission.  While a 150 km would require ~1 milliNewton/Watt to ensure no deorbiting, an orbit of 240 km requires substantially less thrust/PowerInput.   Note that most Cubesat launches are at 300 - 400 km - The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda module or visiting spacecraft.


Cannae's mission for keeping in orbit for 6 months a Cubesat, assuming:

*  minimum configuration 1x3U Cubesat, with cross sectional area of only 0.03 m2
*  no safety margin
*  mean Solar activity
*  that the solar panels are kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector (otherwise drag will be much greater)

requires a Thrust/PowerInput= 36 microNewton/Watt which is consistent with NASA's previously reported results for copper resonant cavities excited at ~2 GHz :

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf 

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

However, maximum Solar activity would require about 150 microNewton/watt. 

If the solar panels are not kept parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, drag will be much greater, and hence much greater thrust would be required.

Furthermore, this assumes no safety margin.

Also this is based on a minimum configuration 1x3U Cubesat, with minimum cross sectional area of only 0.03 m2

The Cannae publicity picture appears to show a larger than 1x3U Cubesat configuration instead, and if so, a larger cross-sectional area which would require a proportionally larger thrust force to overcome atmospheric drag.

The link http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-cubesat-thruster/ describes a 6U Cubesat.  If it is a 2x3U Cubesat, then the minimum cross-sectional area is twice what is calculated above and therefore the atmospheric drag will require twice the thrust calculated above for a 1x3U Cubesat.



Also, worthy of note when planning a 6 month mission in Low Earth Orbit:

I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.

_________________________________________
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/06/2016 03:45 pm
Plan does not match aspiration then in your opinion?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 04:48 pm
Plan does not match aspiration then in your opinion?
This was just a numerical analysis on available information for their planned mission.  The assumptions in the analysis were clearly stated.

Cannot provide further objective comments until there is more information, and hence clarity on exactly what is planned.  To engage in further comments, need further engineering information on the planned mission.

As you see from the analysis, it makes a big difference whether the planned orbit is 150 km or 240 km.

Solar activity is crucial: it is what brought down Skylab ahead of NASA's early predictions.

If anybody knows of any public information that has not been taken into account in the above analysis let us know, and then we can elaborate further  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/06/2016 05:05 pm
...

Cannae's mission for keeping in orbit for 6 months a 6U Cubesat, assuming:

*  no safety margin
*  mean Solar activity
*  that the solar panels are kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector (otherwise drag will be much greater)

requires a Thrust/PowerInput= 36 microNewton/Watt which is consistent with NASA's reported results for copper resonant cavities excited at ~2 GHz . 

However, maximum Solar activity would require about 150 microNewton/watt. 

If the solar panels are not kept parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, drag will be much greater, and hence much greater thrust would be required.

Furthermore, this assumes no safety margin.[/b]

Also, worthy of note when planning a 6 month mission in Low Earth Orbit:

I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.

_________________________________________
(*) Thanks to Marshall Eubanks for providing these estimates. I am responsible for any errors in using them.

Thanks Dr. Rodal.  I just ran my atmosphere models and got slightly different absolute numbers, but similar variance.  My point is always - why in the world would you try to demonstrate performance in an environment where external forces can vary (undetectably) by a factor of 4? 

Best case, if you can show that thrust is exceeding drag, you still cannot accurately estimate the magnitude of that thrust unless it far exceeds the highest likely drag value.  And any conclusion such as "well, the orbit is decaying more slowly that you would expect" would depend on assumption of actual atmospheric density in the exosphere (not to mention spacecraft attitude excursions which change Cd), both of which would be highly speculative.

Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/06/2016 06:48 pm
A question I would like some thought to. Please don't get mad if this seems stupid.

These devices seem critically dependent on high Q to enhance and multiply the force differential which is extremely difficult to achieve since destructive interference has infinite possibilities to happen.  I wonder if there is fundamentally a different way to get to the same end yet without needing to sustain resonance. What  I'm thinking of is an asymmetrically designed device that acts more as a waveguide to recirculate the radiation as opposed to bounce it back and forth interacting with the ends. This mode of operation would be similar to photon recycling schemes recently validated by experiment.

BTW, concerning resonance, in recent photon recycling experiments by Y. Bae, an effective resonance was set up between mirrors so stable, the author could move the mirror around with his hand and maintain the resonance. He used a so-called gain medium in the loop. Do you builders have an analogy with microwaves? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/06/2016 07:02 pm
Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.

If they're pushing a millinewton per watt (baseless conjecture), they'd probably feel confident about their demonstration satellite.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/06/2016 07:17 pm
Again, it seems to me that reducing error sources in the lab is highly preferable.
If you're a commercial space venture and you need access to capital, a space demonstration is a lot sexier than more lab work.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/06/2016 07:22 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/06/2016 07:46 pm

If a copper Cannae drive would provide the same 1 milliNewton/Watt thrust/InputPower as what is claimed for the superconducting version, then what is the point of their superconducting version, with all its complexity ???


Fair question, it's just that I've never seen any specific claim from Cannae as to what their superconductor thrust/watt is.


The overall truth should come out after they launch their baby: Does it work at all, and if so, how efficient?

I know I sound like a broken record, but I would really like to know how they plan to separate out thrust effects from the high variability of atmospheric density at those altitudes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By turning it off and on again?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/06/2016 07:56 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/chamberlin/stkview.bmp)

Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.

Best to all,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2016 07:59 pm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?



Best to all,
Shell

I recommended a sun-synchronous orbit but then deleted the comment because Cannae's image of their orbit doesn't look sun-synchronous.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: punder on 09/06/2016 08:06 pm
Pardon me if this has been mentioned and shot down before, but what about a "control" satellite, in the same orbit? A duplicate of the experiment satellite in every way, except the EM drive isn't turned on.

I'm guessing collision issues and cost are the main arguments against, and perhaps drag models are so good it isn't needed. But it would make a statement that's dramatic and difficult to explain away (which is what I'm worried about with a single satellite, considering the small forces involved).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 08:13 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?


Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.

Best to all,
Shell

Thanks for the rocking  ;)

To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a  Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.


Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.


These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit.  Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.

The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km 


Quote from: Wikipedia
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.

(*) Compared to the advantage of  launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation.   (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ). 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/06/2016 08:27 pm
Pardon me if this has been mentioned and shot down before, but what about a "control" satellite, in the same orbit? A duplicate of the experiment satellite in every way, except the EM drive isn't turned on.

I'm guessing collision issues and cost are the main arguments against, and perhaps drag models are so good it isn't needed. But it would make a statement that's dramatic and difficult to explain away (which is what I'm worried about with a single satellite, considering the small forces involved).
I'd imagine that depends on your budget strategy ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/06/2016 08:36 pm
Does the EM drive then distort gravity within the cavity and/or outside it as part of the 'exhaust'? And scaled up sufficiently would this in any way be visually apparent?

Just inside the cavity where the e.m. energy resides. I think that the effect of the exhaust is really tiny to be seen in some way. The smart thing to do is to shot a laser beam through the cavity in a interferometric experiment. EW just did this. It is ongoing work yet.

This hopefully will be covered in the AIAA paper then?

No, indeed. As far as I know, Dr. White was asked to remove any physical explanation in the paper to appear and publish it on a physics journal. I am not involved in EW activities.

Also, the interferometry studies are ongoing work yet and so, nothing will be said about.

It has intrigued me as well the first time I ran across the laser interferometer testing. They used a circular resonator for the testing and I had to ask how I could in some future testing do it on a Frustum. It was staring right at me in the quartz rod I have through the center of the frustum. Thinking you could use two equal lengths of fiber optics or even the quartz rod, one through the cavity and one on the outside to measure time differentials in beam travel.

Also if your using a TE012 or better yet a TE013 mode there is a center line through the frustum virtually free of fields, magnetic and electrical.
https://youtu.be/wBRY6jwERQY

I'm not there yet although it is on the bucket list.

Back to testing.

My Best to all,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/06/2016 08:46 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/chamberlin/stkview.bmp)

Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.

Best to all,
Shell

Thanks for the rocking  ;)

To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a  Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.

Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.

The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric circular orbit at 240 km 


Quote from: Wikipedia
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.

(*) Compared to the advantage of  launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation
Thanks, that clears it up perfectly. I did ask.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/06/2016 09:02 pm
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 09:09 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, the drag force is going to increase dramatically, and hence the needed thrust is going to increase concomitantly, particularly if you have the solar panels perpendicular to the orbital local plane, as the surface area of the solar panels is much greater than the considered minimum cross-sectional area.

To minimize drag forces one wants to present the smallest cross-sectional area to the flow, instead of presenting the largest cross-sectional area.

(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/06/2016 10:53 pm
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
We'll see if it works and let you know.
Shell
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/06/2016 11:11 pm
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
 =5 watts...


Does the illustration of the Cannae cubesat show the solar panels oriented properly? 

I would have described the panel orientation as being perpendicular to the orbital velocity vector.  For more efficiency, the panels would be aimed at the Sun when the cubesat was out of Earth's shadow.
As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times, the drag force is going to increase dramatically, and hence the needed thrust is going to increase concomitantly, particularly if you have the solar panels perpendicular to the orbital local plane, as the surface area of the solar panels is much greater than the considered minimum cross-sectional area.

To minimize drag forces one wants to present the smallest cross-sectional area to the flow, instead of presenting the largest cross-sectional area.

(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)

Well, that's a great point. One could:

1) maintain a sun-pointing attitude where you would get constant power (for half the orbit anyway) but have a varying drag coefficient (because your orientation with respect to the velocity vector is changing), or

2) maintain a constant attitude with respect to the velocity vector giving you a constant drag coefficient, but varying power input.

(Come to think of it, 1) won't work because the thruster orientation would be changing also)

One would have to assume there are enough batteries on board to maintain constant power to the thruster even during occultation and non-optimal array pointing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/06/2016 11:15 pm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?



Best to all,
Shell

I recommended a sun-synchronous orbit but then deleted the comment because Cannae's image of their orbit doesn't look sun-synchronous.

Generally, CubeSats don't get to choose their orbits. They hitchhike to wherever the main payload is going (or get ejected into the Space Station orbit).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2016 11:16 pm
...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?


Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.

Best to all,
Shell

Thanks for the rocking  ;)

To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a  Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.


Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.


These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit.  Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.

The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km 


Quote from: Wikipedia
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.

(*) Compared to the advantage of  launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation.   (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ).

Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.

http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/

Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX

Quote
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/06/2016 11:39 pm
Shell, is an off-set antenna a loop or hoop that is suspended away from the wall or top or bottom caps?
Well what you drew FL looks a lot like what I drew before.  I think it is supposed to be about 1/4 wavelength from the wall where the electric field is maximum.  I believe the perimeter of the loop, where the wires separate and form the circle, should be 1/2 wavelength long, but that depends on how long the wavelength is in the wire.  I was just curious if it was the same concept as I had posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1536201#msg1536201  .  Seems like it might be.  Maybe if the perimeter is smaller there wouldn't be a problem but if larger there might.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: sghill on 09/06/2016 11:47 pm
Will recalculate with 150 miles tomorrow (Is it US Miles ??? )

I reckon it's either that or nautical miles  ;)

Fathoms
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/07/2016 12:03 am
One would have to assume there are enough batteries on board to maintain constant power to the thruster even during occultation and non-optimal array pointing.
Unless they don't plan on constant power.

No orbit is perfectly round. Maybe they plan power as they approach perigee, then power off so the systems cool down.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 12:25 am
...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?


Dr. Rodal, love your breakdown, you rock math.

Best to all,
Shell

Thanks for the rocking  ;)

To be in constant Sunlight all the time,a  Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) is required that combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planet's surface at the same local solar time.


Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96–100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98° (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth's rotation: 0° represents an equatorial orbit and 90° represents a polar orbit). Since they are not exactly 90° they are not purely polar orbits.


These orbits, (near 90 degrees inclination) are not minimum drag, as the atmosphere opposes the motion of the spacecraft even in a polar orbit.  Rather, maximum drag is associated with low orbits, and to minimize atmospheric drag the best thing is to use higher orbits.

The market for such orbits is much smaller and they require higher thrust from the rocket to put them in orbit (*), so to me it sounds like a much more expensive proposition, than sending a Cubesat to a geocentric low-inclination circular orbit at 240 km 


Quote from: Wikipedia
The Sun-synchronous orbit is mostly selected for Earth observation satellites that should be operated at a relatively constant altitude suitable for its Earth observation instruments, this altitude typically being between 600 km and 1000 km over the Earth surface. Because of the deviations of the gravitational field of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere that are quite significant at such relatively low altitudes a strictly circular orbit is not possible for these satellites. Very often a frozen orbit is therefore selected that is slightly higher over the Southern hemisphere than over the Northern hemisphere. ERS-1, ERS-2 and Envisat of European Space Agency as well as the MetOp spacecraft of EUMETSAT are all operated in Sun-synchronous, "frozen" orbits.

(*) Compared to the advantage of  launching near the Equator for a low inclination orbit to take advantage of the Earth's rotation.   (Anything on the surface of the Earth at the equator is already moving at 460 meters per second (1670 kilometers per hour ) ).

Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.

http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/

Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX

Quote
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.

It's a good bet then it could be on this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2016 01:01 am
...

Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.

http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/

Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX

Quote
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.

It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).

This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest


http://www.spacex.com/missions

Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits with a Falcon 9 before?

We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.

This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.

Also this most recent one is supersynchronous instead of sun sync:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/05/27/thaicom-8-mission-photos

This 2015 user's guide for SpaceX has them launching from Vanderbeg for sun synch orbits, using either a "Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy"

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf

The Falcon Heavy is not yet operational:

<<Following the Falcon 9 CRS-7 failure investigation in 2015, repeated rocket development delays, and given a very busy Falcon 9 launch manifest in 2016, the first Falcon Heavy launch is now expected in early 2017>>
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 01:07 am
...

Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.

http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/

Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX

Quote
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.

It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).

This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest


http://www.spacex.com/missions

One has to wonder whether with such a launch they can get the necessary altitude for a sun sync orbit.

Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits before?

We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.

This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.

If the manifest for the launch was almost full as they seemed to indicate I wonder why it has disappeared.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/07/2016 01:27 am
...

Spaceflight Services plans a dedicated 2017 launch for sun sync.

http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-to-provide-more-frequent-cost-effective-rideshare-availability-for-small-satellite-industry/

Credit: communication from NSF Member HMXHMX

Quote
Spaceflight’s 2017 Sun Synch Express mission manifest includes satellites as small as 5 kg 3U CubeSat up to 575 kg satellite. Over 20 satellites will be deployed during the mission, with commercial customers pursuing a range of endeavors and government-sponsored scientific research originating from six different countries. The manifest is nearly at capacity.

It's a good bet then it could be on this.
That was an article from a year ago (September 2015).

This flight claiming a sun sync orbit is no longer on the SpaceX manifest


http://www.spacex.com/missions

One has to wonder whether with such a launch vehicle (Falcon 9) they can get the necessary altitude for a  real sun sync orbit.

Anybody know whether SpaceX has launched to sync orbits before?

We know that SpaceX has launched into a supersynchronous elliptical Geostationary transfer orbit, (which is not a synchronous orbit) , instead it is an orbit with a somewhat larger apogee than the more typical Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) typically utilized for communication satellites.

This technique was used, for example, on the launch and transfer orbit injection of the first two SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 GTO launches in December 2013 and January 2014, SES-8.

Also this most recent one is supersynchronous instead of sun sync:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/05/27/thaicom-8-mission-photos

This 2015 user's guide for SpaceX has them launching from Vanderbeg for sun synch orbits, using either a "Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy"

If they really need a Falcon Heavy to execute a real sun-synch, such a launch vehicle (Falcon Heavy) is not yet operational:

<<Following the Falcon 9 CRS-7 failure investigation in 2015, repeated rocket development delays, and given a very busy Falcon 9 launch manifest in 2016, the first Falcon Heavy launch is now expected in early 2017>>

A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2016 01:34 am
...

A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/07/2016 02:24 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHfIByopUpE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2016 02:25 am
...

A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?
Doesn't it also take extra power to rotate the orbit 90 degrees over 3 months so that the orbit stays sun synchronous?

Ok I am mistaken.  quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit "Sun-synchronous orbits can happen around other oblate planets, such as Mars. A satellite around the almost spherical Venus, for example, will need an outside push to be in a sun-synchronous orbit."

So it appears it is the oblateness that allows them to do such an orbit with out the need for extra power.  Never mind then.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/07/2016 02:29 am
...

A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?

Don't know myself but it is no different that inserting into any other orbit, except for deltaV and launch azimuth constraints.  It's really not an issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2016 02:48 am
...

A sun sync mission would not require a FH vehicle; F9 can can easily perform it.
Yes ,as noted, as claimed in their 2015 User's Guide, but has SpaceX actually successfully launched a real sun synch mission before?

Don't know myself but it is no different that inserting into any other orbit, except for deltaV and launch azimuth constraints.  It's really not an issue.
OK but direct insertion launching into Sun-synchronous orbits (SSO) is  different from other orbits, in that SSO require high injection accuracy.  The launch window needs to occur at the time of day when the launch site location is aligned with the plane of the required orbit. To launch at another time would require an orbital plane change manoeuvre which would require a large amount of propellant.

There is also the issue of approval.Was this Sun Synch Express mission officially approved to launch? Did it ever appear in the SpaceX manifest?

The high inclination of SSO orbits causes satellites with similar semi-major axes but differing right ascension values to have intersecting orbit planes near both poles. Avoidance maneuvers are not uncommon among high value active SSO satellites to avoid other active satellites and orbital debris.

An older USAirForce satellite, DMSP-F13, blew up in February 2015 after a battery failed, creating tens of thousands of pieces of small debris and a potential problem for other satellites operating in sun-synchronous polar orbits. ( https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/13/dmsp-satellite-debris-expected-to-remain-in-orbit-for-decade/ )

One way to reduce the frequency of avoidance maneuvers and the risk of collision is to place active satellites in strategic orbits and restrict the amount of allowable drift from that original orbit.
_________________________
Several announcements about SpaceX going to launch a Sun Synch Orbit (SSO), but apparently (?) SpaceX has NOT launched a single SSO yet (?):

SSO missions still on SpaceX manifest:

Argentina's SAOCOM:

http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-signs-argentinas-space-agency-two-falcon-9-launches

<<Originally, the launch was announced for 2010 (1A) and 2011 (1B), but later due to delays in satellites development both launches were postponed for 2012 and 2013.Further delays pushed the launches date back tentatively towards 2014 and 2015. As of February 2016, SAOCOM 1A was later scheduled for launch in December 2016 and SAOCOM 1B in December 2017. As of April 2016 the scheduled launch dates for 1A and 1B are were further pushed back to October 2017 and October 2018. Falcon-9 rockets will be used for the launches>>

Taiwan NSPO satellite AKA Formosat-5

The news reports about it are from 2010 (And, yet, it is still on the SpaceX manifest.)

http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-and-national-space-organization-nspo-sign-contract-launch

<<Formosat-5 is slated to launch as early as December 2013 from SpaceX's launch site on Omelek Island at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii.>>

That's 3 years ago...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/07/2016 03:16 am
dustinthewind, yes to your question, and could the hoop not also be suspended from the bottom?  And while we're at it what about the from the side?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/07/2016 01:25 pm
SpaceX isn't launching anything until they can figure out why their second stages keep exploding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 02:10 pm
SpaceX isn't launching anything until they can figure out why their second stages keep exploding.

That goes without saying I would have thought.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/07/2016 02:47 pm
I'd like to point out that the Cannae picture [that was] posted is their futuristic Space Freighter for deep space work, NOT the cubesat they are sending up.

Thanks for that.

So they are using miles instead of kilometers to specify an orbit?

Hah!  The early space standards were all American!  Note that the various constants and what have you, are Mother Nature's and do not fit in with SAE or SI units.  But still, it would be nice if the simplest of information could be shared by the Cannae people.

The key factor, besides altitude, in Jose's calcs, I think, is the efficiency of the solar panels, and this is dependent on the chosen orbit of the sat, as well as the sat's ability to optimize the panels to face the Sun.  Keep in mind that there will also be stationkeeping requirements, which encourages one wonder how they plan on achieving all this.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a circular polar orbit place the cubesat in sunlight all the time and also place the extended solar panels in a minimum drag configuration?

That is correct, but note that the term "parallel to the orbital velocity vector" has many answers, since "parallel" can rotate about its vertical axis and still be parallel.  The illustration is incorrectly oriented for a helio-synch orbit, for the most part.

See the chart in the oracle for the direction of the velocity vector:

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

One crucial peice of info not provided in the thread as of the moment, is whether or not the Cannae cubesat has been placed in a geosynch orbit, where I believe that it would have better than 50% solar cell efficiency.

Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600–800 km in altitude...

Which, solo dicendo, is much higher than the advertised orbit.  And SpaceX hasn't yet launched such an orbit, according to, well, their manifest.

As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...

Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs?  How did you get the 50% efficiency factor?

Sounds like the future launch of this sat is speculative.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2016 02:56 pm

As discussed in my post, if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...

Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs?

NO, not at all.

As it was clear clear to SeeShells and Monomorphic (who deserve the credit for suggesting a SSO orbit]  I did not assume, in my calculations, anything even close to a Sun-Synchronous Orbit


How did you get the 50% efficiency factor?


I implicitly assumed (but let's make it explicit now) a low-to-moderate inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude:

Quote from: Rodal
Power available from sunlight (from news that Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power) = 10 watts
Effective power available taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*) and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)

I'll edit my original post to make that low-to -moderate inclination orbit assumption explicit  ;) to read:

mille grazie

Quote
Power available from sunlight (from news that Theseus is anticipated to require less than 1.5 U volume and will use less than 10 watts of power) = 10 watts
Effective power available , assuming a common low-to-moderate inclination circular orbit at 240 km altitude, and hence taking into account that solar panels will be experiencing eclipse ~ 50% of the time, and considering that solar panels must be kept always parallel to the orbital velocity vector, at all times)
P=(1/2) 10 watts (*)
 =5 watts
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/07/2016 03:41 pm

... if you don't keep the solar panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector at all times...

Right, but... were you assuming a helio-synch orbit in your calcs?

NO, not at all.

HAH!  'Cause I was assuming an SSO!  I just couldn't see the sat stationkeeping in the shadow on battery power and only 50% efficiency for recharging and at that low-ish altitude.

Just for laffs, in an SSO, you can minimize drag by orienting the panels parallel to the orbital velocity vector, AND you can minimize solar efficiency by ensuring that the panels point away from the Sun!

On the serious side, the sat would be a success if it could keep itself in orbit, and be able to report data back to Earth.

It seems clear that the launch is speculative.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/07/2016 04:07 pm
Heads up again about Cannae and their designs: re the previous picture posted, Cannae does not have a "deep space freighter"....they have a design for a LEO to higher earth orbit "tug", and a design for a deep space probe. What was posted earlier was the propulsion module for the tug (which is enclosed with an apparent active Ne cooling system). The deep space probe is fully exposed to space. Please see attached. tug is 1st, DS probe is 2nd
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 04:33 pm
New article summing up the latest developments, even managed to get Cannae's proposed cubesat in there.

http://www.universetoday.com/130649/nasas-em-drive-passes-peer-review-dont-get-hopes/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/07/2016 08:17 pm
from the article :

Quote
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....

euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 08:33 pm
from the article :

Quote
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....

euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?

Yes I did a double take at that as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2016 08:53 pm
dustinthewind, yes to your question, and could the hoop not also be suspended from the bottom?  And while we're at it what about the from the side?
I was fairly sure that a while ago Dr Rodal suggested that for efficient energy transfer from the antenna it should be in the area of greatest electric field?  Hopefully I didn't miss anything important in that.  This is why I chose the top because that is where the electric field is the greatest.  I also chose to drop the twisted wires through the center because the fields are weak there, but I think technically once the wires are twisted they could exit out the side or however you like.  There would probably be some impact on interfering slightly with the fields to some small degree. 

I know the part of the wire that induces the radiation in the cavity (the untwisted part) should match the shape of the electric field.  This is because the time retarded acceleration of the electrons electric field is what induces the shape of the electric field and the counter currents in the cavity. 

The half wavelength, perimeter of the circle is so all the electrons in the wire are moving in the same direction at some instant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/07/2016 09:16 pm
Not sure if it has been linked here before, but the Aachen guys also want to send a cubesat Emdrive into space in 2017:

https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive
http://tinyurl.com/zurl9mc

Looks like more than one Emdrive is going to space.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/07/2016 10:21 pm
from the article :

Quote
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....

euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?

I'd file that under interesting, but dubious; these guys are erroneously parroting the claim that Rodal deleted his post, which suggests that they're not doing much in the way of fact checking.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 10:26 pm
from the article :

Quote
....A team of engineers in China is also hoping to test their design of the EM Drive in space,....

euh? this is the first time i hear about that...
or is that the wacky rumor mill of half truths and make-believes, once more ?

I'd file that under interesting, but dubious; these guys are erroneously parroting the claim that Rodal deleted his post, which suggests that they're not doing much in the way of fact checking.

That's been repeated not just by then about the deleting that is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/07/2016 10:37 pm
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon

P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2

Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)

So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.

(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/07/2016 10:40 pm
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon

P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2

Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)

So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.

(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )

This is one of the oldest hypothesis to be put to the test, and Eagleworks' vacuum experiments have long since shown that the effect is not a thermal balloon.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/07/2016 10:43 pm
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon

P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2

Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)

So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.

(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )

This is one of the oldest hypothesis to be put to the test, and Eagleworks' vacuum experiments have long since shown that the effect is not a thermal balloon.

It's a bit depressing to see people keep trotting out this long debunked theory and a perfect example of the misreporting around the EM drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/07/2016 10:58 pm
A microwave resonant cavity is a hot air balloon

P = 101325 Pa
T_ambient = 300 K
T_envelope = T_amb + 1K
V = 1 dm^3
R = 287.05 J/kg*K
g = 9.80665 m/s^2

Lift = (V*P/R) x (1/T_amb - 1/T_env)*g = 38.33 micro N (the formula that gives the lift as a function of the balloon envelope temperature)

So, if the copper walls of a 1 litter truncated cone resonant cavity are heated with 1 degree Celsius, then a lift of 38.33 micro N appears. This is consistent with the force reported on this forum as obtained by NASA in a recent series of tests.

(Somebody made some experiments with a resonant cavity and he said that the temperature of the frustum had changed with 1 - 2 degrees, no more, see: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size )
Very easy to test and factor thermal effects in drive orientation if thrust is a given direction.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/07/2016 11:00 pm
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/07/2016 11:13 pm
dustinthewind, also correct: I don't know where his post is, but Dr. Rodal did discuss the placement and size of the hoop antenna....if memory serves, I believe he indicated there was very little wiggle room re size and placement (my words). If he's on line perhaps he might confirm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2016 11:18 pm
A question I would like some thought to. Please don't get mad if this seems stupid.

These devices seem critically dependent on high Q to enhance and multiply the force differential which is extremely difficult to achieve since destructive interference has infinite possibilities to happen.  I wonder if there is fundamentally a different way to get to the same end yet without needing to sustain resonance. What  I'm thinking of is an asymmetrically designed device that acts more as a waveguide to recirculate the radiation as opposed to bounce it back and forth interacting with the ends. This mode of operation would be similar to photon recycling schemes recently validated by experiment.

BTW, concerning resonance, in recent photon recycling experiments by Y. Bae, an effective resonance was set up between mirrors so stable, the author could move the mirror around with his hand and maintain the resonance. He used a so-called gain medium in the loop. Do you builders have an analogy with microwaves? Thanks.

Here is an experiment I was thinking of related to this.  It is based on the high Q mirrors but there is a large voltage on the mirrors and the mirrors are not free to move with respect to each other. 

The question is if the mass of the light will vary depending on which mirror it strikes (based on the charge density on the mirror).  If so the mirror system may accelerate, similar to the Woodward effect but not by changing the mass of a capacitor, rather the light.  It would possibly be related to the cavity because the difference in the photons impulse would be amplified by the Q of the cavity.  The idea being the capacitor may some how polarize the vacuum modifying the mass of light.  Some number figures would be needed for a prediction. 

If DC voltage is too hard to ramp up it may be possible to use AC voltage (capacitance/inductance) to ramp up the voltage stored on the capacitors/mirrors and pulse the light such that when the light strikes the mirrors the system appears static in charge.  I'm not sure if a dielectric may be required to pull such a stunt off or not to slow the light between the mirrors.  Preferably not, because one would want the vacuum to be polarized more so than some dielectric, I think. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/07/2016 11:25 pm
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.

There was also Dave's first frustum, which used copper mesh and did not appear to be capable of thermal ballooning. We've looked pretty hard at the thermal effects for more than a year now, and this forum likewise determined that thermal effects could produce the forces measured, but not all the frustums and experimental setups tested could produce those kinds of thermal effects.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2016 11:30 pm
dustinthewind, also correct: I don't know where his post is, but Dr. Rodal did discuss the placement and size of the hoop antenna....if memory serves, I believe he indicated there was very little wiggle room re size and placement (my words). If he's on line perhaps he might confirm.

I was speculating on the antenna experiencing propulsion inside the cavity but it turned out if the antenna experiences a force due to being in the magnetic field it develops an electric field in the magnetic field that is not in synch with the radiation in the cavity.  I think the force on the antenna would be countered by the impulse from the light developed that then strikes the cavity itself. 

This led me to a dead end for a form of propulsion by this method but I found it interesting that if you had a loose antenna in the cavity, I think it was that it should be pushed toward the region of high electric field.  That region being where there isn't force on the antenna by F=q(v x B).  If one measures the force on the antenna and you already had radiation in the cavity it should tell you exactly where to place the antenna in the cavity.  It would probably be better to have a sensing antenna mounted separately for measuring radiation in the cavity.  Preferably in a not so sensitive region.

The other option to using an antenna is what Shell and others were using, and is the wave guide method.  I'm not sure how to determine exactly your mode using waveguides, but it probably has to do with current stimulation and shape on the surface of the waveguide at the mouth/throat. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/07/2016 11:36 pm
Cooper mesh or not, it does not matter too much because the pressure of the hot air inside the balloon (cavity) and that of the cold air outside are identical, just their densities are different, so the hot and cold air will not mix so easily.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/07/2016 11:37 pm
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c)

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.


No. NASA Eagle Works debunked this by running their tests in a vacuum chamber. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2016 11:40 pm
Cooper mesh or not, it does not matter too much because the pressure of the hot air inside the balloon (cavity) and that of the cold air outside are identical, just their densities are different, so the hot and cold air will not mix so easily.

Buoyancy only effects a drive in a direction parallel to the force of gravity.  Most tests I have seen are perpendicular to the force of gravity.  Even if the test was in the vertical direction you could just flip the drive over in the down direction and see if the force reverses.  Correctly done, buoyancy is eliminated. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: simplex1 on 09/07/2016 11:58 pm
This is what an experimenter said after he had changed the orientation of the truncated cone:

"I flipped the cone and I had the thrust pointing in the opposite direction. Unfortunately this thrust is around 7 times smaller." (Source: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size)

The thrust should be the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/08/2016 12:02 am
The thrust should be the same.

This is only true if there are no thermal effects, which is obviously not the case.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/08/2016 12:09 am
This is what an experimenter said after he had changed the orientation of the truncated cone:

"I flipped the cone and I had the thrust pointing in the opposite direction. Unfortunately this thrust is around 7 times smaller." (Source: http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/tag/emdrive-frustrum-size))

The thrust should be the same.
I suggest you go back to earlier threads and start reading and you will find vast amounts of discussion on this and other items. Around March 2015 would be a good start.


But there is no thermal lift in a vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jay343 on 09/08/2016 12:50 am
Considering that the frustum is asymmetrical and that outer surface heating is not uniform, it's hard to estimate the net effect of heated air flowing around the device under test. But what if you eliminate it? Suppose you enclose the frustum in a symmetrical styrofoam jacket. Maybe that would eliminate any aerodynamic effects of heated air flowing around the frustum...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/08/2016 01:04 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/08/2016 01:58 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: masterharper1082 on 09/08/2016 02:27 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
No, not worse. Air jet is a transient effect. There's only so much mass in the frustum to jet. Unless you have hooked up an air compressor to it.

Buoyancy force is parallel to gravity, and perpendicular to thrust from torsional pendulum experiments, which have the best thrust measurement capability.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: masterharper1082 on 09/08/2016 02:35 am
Considering that the frustum is asymmetrical and that outer surface heating is not uniform, it's hard to estimate the net effect of heated air flowing around the device under test. But what if you eliminate it? Suppose you enclose the frustum in a symmetrical styrofoam jacket. Maybe that would eliminate any aerodynamic effects of heated air flowing around the frustum...
As the frustum is powered, it dumps resistive heat into the copper. Its temperature will rise much more with an insulating blanket - could cause a problem with material compatibility, and throw the unit even further out of tune unless using automatic retuning  (mechanical or frequency-based).

Why not apply a blanket electrical heater on the inside of the frustum to characterize the natural convection force?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2016 03:40 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
No, not worse. Air jet is a transient effect. There's only so much mass in the frustum to jet. Unless you have hooked up an air compressor to it.

Buoyancy force is perpendicular to gravity.
Most designs seal the inside pretty well, so the air jets should be small and possibly continuous for the entire time the power is on in many cases. At the force scale we are discussing these small jets could be quite significant.

Buoyancy is purely vertical as a force, but there are multiple ways depending on the experimental setup that it could be translated to a horizontal deflection, not to mention that some experiments have used vertical orientation.

Most emDrive experimental data I have looked at has had clear non-signal noise factors comparable to the "signal." Also I have noticed a trend that the more sensitive an experiment, and the lower the noise floor, the smaller the apparent signal. This is an indication to me that most experiments likely have multiple layers of error sources, and it is not clear any apparent signal is real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 04:28 am
The balloon effect could be mitigated entirely by filling (actually pumping out) the frustum via a Schrader valve to a pressure that is below ambient and is calculated not to exceed ambient  when heated to maximum by the RF + I'd charge the frustum with nitrogen. This would be a very simple and inexpensive step in building a frustum. This has been mentioned several times before....any disagreements?  Please?  I've made the calculations and a 1/16" frustum should not collapse with the relatively small amount that the internal pressure is to be reduced.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 04:45 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

How is your build going?

BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.

Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 04:53 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.

Would suggest you ignore that data, as from what I'm told it is not even close to the paper's results as the thrust is reported to be much higher and uncertainty is much lower.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 04:58 am
Traveller, What data is it that you suggest we ignore?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 05:07 am
Traveller, What data is it that you suggest we ignore?

Ignore the thrust was 30-50uN and the min force recordable was 10 to 15uN. From what I'm told that is not correct and that the paper's thrust was much higher and the thrust uncertainty was much lower.

We know from other EW papers that thrust can be measured at the 1uN level. Question is the uncertainty.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 05:17 am
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better results in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL.   Ciao!
BTW  thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it,  wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or?    FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2016 05:25 am
...
BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.

Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?

Where is your info from on this?

This seems to contradict the fact that Yang retracted her original results, because she realized a flaw in the experimental setup, and a better setup did not produce significant force. (I forget if it was a 0, or just below experimental error, but those basically mean the same thing)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 05:27 am
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL.   Ciao!
BTW  thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it,  wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or?    FL

Single freq Rf via solid state Rf amp. Coax feed to 1/2 loop antenna on the side wall as is standard excitation method with accelerator cavities.

Bit smaller than this. More info in the document.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 05:33 am
...
BTW I have had feedback that Prof Yang has not retired, is still working and that her positive results were verified at another Chinese facility.

Roger has stated he is doing cryo work with a UK aerospace company. Others tell me that there are more companies working on cryo EmDrive drives, so why not the Chinese?

Where is your info from on this?

This seems to contradict the fact that Yang retracted her original results, because she realized a flaw in the experimental setup, and a better setup did not produce significant force. (I forget if it was a 0, or just below experimental error, but those basically mean the same thing)

When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?

BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.

That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 05:44 am
Damn! beautiful workmanship!!!  Re the "big" build...I was scared off by the comment that was made that the frustum could be resonating well (say in TE013) but not produce thrust. I didn't want to put several thousands of dollars into a build that was going to fail. While I do understand confidentiality and NDAs, there are folks out here like myself who just what to contribute before we leave. Some one on Reddit asked about the size of Emdrives just yesterday...Imagine scaling your TE013 frustum up to the size of the inside diameter of a rocket fairing: +/- 4.5 meters for the base -large diameter...imagine the Q and the concomitant thrust that such a cavity would produce. I only wish to build a x 2 larger cavity that would resonate in the upper Megahertz range. But x 4 the surface area and x 8 the volume...how much would that increase Q?...am looking forward to the day when I can build big cavities and blast away!  : )  K 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 05:56 am
Traveller what about antenna like this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/08/2016 06:02 am
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL.   Ciao!
BTW  thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it,  wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or?    FL

Single freq Rf via solid state Rf amp. Coax feed to 1/2 loop antenna on the side wall as is standard excitation method with accelerator cavities.

Bit smaller than this. More info in the document.

That's some good looking RF hardware.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2016 06:11 am
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528157#msg1528157)

Yang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).

You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 06:14 am
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528157#msg1528157)

Yang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).

You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.

Knowing the EmDrive works is not bias, it is fact.

3mN min force on her torsion pendulum is almost unbelievable as DIYers here achieve 10uN or less plus she did not use a min VSWR freq tracker, which means she will never achieve good thrust.

Those are the EmDrive Engineering 101 facts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 06:35 am
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the document the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 07:47 am
One important part of EmDrive Engineering 101 is understanding why thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth.

As the freq moves off best resonance, two effect occur, Q drops and forward power drops because reflected power increases.

As both Q and Forward power are part of the force equation F = (2 Qu FPwr Df) / c it can be seen that force will drop away much quicker than either the Q drop or the forward power drop alone.

SO, this is why precise freq adjustment MUST track on lowest reflected power or the freq just a bit off may result in very much reduced thrust as both Q and forward drop as the freq moves away from ideal resonance.

I doubt any freq tracking system that adjusts based on a 2nd port sensor as Prof Yang did will ever achieve any significant thrust.

This is not a guess. It is EmDrive Engineering 101. And yes both Roger and another major EmDrive experimenter have verified that thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth. So either blast away with a maggie broad band freq shotgun or develop single freq tracking that works on minimum reflected power as the goal to obtain optimal freq and thrust generation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/08/2016 07:47 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 07:52 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?

Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.

Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 08:22 am
How to design an EmDrive min reflected power freq tracker.

Freq tracking based on a 2nd sense port may or may not work very well. Experience shows the attached works very well, all the time and easily tracks frustum thermally driven dimensional changes. It also stops locking to adjacent undesired modes.

One other very experienced EmDrive builder found that using such a freq tracker (he calls it a S11 tracker) resulted in solid freq locks and much improved thruster performance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 09/08/2016 09:02 am
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 09:25 am
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?

Roger did say he was working on a military drone.

Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/08/2016 09:34 am
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?

Roger did say he was working on a military drone.

Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.

Are you implying its operational?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 09:52 am
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?

Roger did say he was working on a military drone.

Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.

Are you implying its operational?

Roger said there would be a demo in 2017. Here he meant of a levitating EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/08/2016 11:23 am
[sarcasm modus]

hmmmm....

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367028;image)

I thought you said it wasn't magic, yet what do I see there ? ? ? "magic happens inside"  ::)

[/sarcasm modus]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/08/2016 11:30 am
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?

BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.

That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.

May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/08/2016 12:10 pm
Will this thread be going to part 9 when the AIAA paper is published so that can be pinned to the OP?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/08/2016 12:56 pm
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?

BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.

That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.

May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
I think a 2nd antenna would be effective in that you could see when the cavity starts storing energy.  The fields would build up inside and the antenna would pick that up.  This is when heat generation is maximized.  I think Traveller doesn't like the idea of another hole in the frustum to measure this with a 2nd antenna.  He would rather use the same antenna and instead I believe measure the DC current on one of the wires going in to the antenna per applied voltage at some frequency.  I think this does about the same thing.  When heat generation is maximized, because of currents in the cavity, the returned AC wave is slightly less in amplitude than the wave sent.  This results in a traveling AC wave symbolic of the power being transmitted to the cavity which can be measured as DC current.  This seems to be connected to the VSWR and bypasses the need for a 2nd antenna. 

As the frequency changes from resonance the current to the cavity will drop and power won't be lost to the cavity so that the DC component of the AC wave should be lost. 

An old link with some more info on reflected waves that form standing waves: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1550968#msg1550968

the image is of a traveling wave moving one direction and the same superimposed traveling wave moving in the opposite direction with slightly less amplitude. 

What is interesting is if any extra power was being lost other than just due to heat it should show up in the power lost so maximizing the power lost should be important.  Maybe both a 2nd antenna to measure the radiation in the cavity to see what should be being lost as heat as compared to the power lost through the VSWR method could give us an idea if something strange is going on?  Like energy being lost due to doing work rather than being lost to heat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2016 01:28 pm
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the doc the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
She concluded that the original measured force was almost entirely an artifact. This doesn't rule out that the emDrive works, or that there was an undetectable signal, but it does rule out using either of her experiments as evidence that the emDrive works. It also calls into question anyone claiming to "confirm" the high thrust levels of the original experiment since the original experiment was determined by Yang to be an experimental artifact.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: rfmwguy on 09/08/2016 01:35 pm
Was asked to appear on a Podcast to help celebrate Star Trek's 50th anniversary of the premier TV episode in 1966. This science fact/fiction/fantasy (entertainment) radio show has been diligently following me since the beginning and I agreed to make a guest appearance to help them denote the occasion. Of course, I spoke about all things EmDrive, my summer's test results and its implications for the first time in public:

http://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/dave-distler-9-8-16/



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: foob on 09/08/2016 01:50 pm
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Absolutely false. See hot-air balloon. Gas is free to move in and out of the envelope yet there is buoyancy and lift because the air inside is hotter and therefore less dense than ambient.

This whole simplex1 discussion is moot because the relevant forces can be measured along multiple axes while buoyancy is confined to one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 01:58 pm
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?

BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.

That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.

May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.

Another side of that question is how to sense the level of reflected power from the input port via a secondary sense port on the frustum?

Sort of like trying to control the rpm of an ICE engine via sampling C02 emissions in the exgaust pipe. Yes there is a relationship but it is not how to effectively monitor & control engine rpm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 02:02 pm
[sarcasm modus]

hmmmm....

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367028;image)

I thought you said it wasn't magic, yet what do I see there ? ? ? "magic happens inside"  ::)

[/sarcasm modus]

Since when isn't software running around inside an embedded microprocessor considered magic?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 02:14 pm
I think a 2nd antenna would be effective in that you could see when the cavity starts storing energy.

Here is a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101.

Take a empty cavity. Apply a Rf 100Wrf signal. Monitor the Forward and Reflected power. It will follow a typical 5 x TC charge curve. IE the Forward power will start out at 0 Watts and slowly increase to full value after 5 cavity TCs. 1 TC being Qu / (2 Pi Freq). Likewise Reflected power will start out at 100W and slowly decrease to the min value as per the final VSWR.

Nothing new here. This is known accelerator cavity engineering as attached.

In fact you can measure the cavity Qu by monitoring the time the Forward power takes to rise from 0 to 63.2% of the final value, that time being 1 cavity TC (Time Constant).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/08/2016 02:24 pm
There was some discussion of the effect of drag on the Cannae cubesat.  The chief assumption, if I'm correct was that the sat would be launched in a "typical" orbit of about a 23.5 degree inclination, and a 150 mile altitude, with about a 90 minute period.

Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector. The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun.  This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow.

See the attached sketch.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/08/2016 02:48 pm
Dear NASA Spaceflight EM Drive forum members,

A short introduction of myself and my plans. I am setting up a replication experiment of the EMdrive. Although I have learned already a lot from the reports, discussions, simulations, etc. you have presented on this forum (I am very impressed what has been done so far), I think I can use some advise now and then so that I can make a useful contribution in this field.
I am a physicist, living in the Netherlands, but not currently working in a field related to this topic (microwave technology or space technology). I have some experience with RF though (but mainly up to 500 MHz) and with the measurement of small forces.

The experiment:
•   The forces will be measured with a torsion balance (in the horizontal plane),
•   The RF will be rather low power (~5 W), battery-fed, remote controlled or programmed,
•   All components will be mounted on the torsion balance arm,
•   I will make a frustum that resembles the ones used by Brady et al. (2014),
•   Preferably I will work in the range, say, 1.8 – 2.2 GHz (the upper bound is because I have a 6.7 GHz Agilent spectrum analyzer, so I can see at least the next harmonic signal),
•   At normal atmospheric pressure (maybe in argon, later). The big vacuum vessel I have access to, cannot really reach high vacuum (indeed, the electric discharge in a bad vacuum…).
•   I will very likely also use dielectric inserts in the cavities.

The torsion balance already exists. It uses optical sensors to monitor its position and a magnet-coil system to keep the position ‘fixed’ (so you can say it is not really a torsion balance, the wire is only used as low friction suspension). It was designed for research on other claims of  anomalous forces, years ago. The resolution is of the order of 0.2 micronewton, but that will depend on the modifications I am making at the moment (a more compact setup, the damping, etc.).
Therefore:

•   Forces in the rance 10 – 50 micronewton will be sufficient for this setup (but, of course, depending on the disturbing signals which the RF system might generate).

Schematically it will look like the attached scheme (I came to realize, though, that VCOs may not be stable enough to remain tuned at resonance and PLLs may be needed).

At the moment I am making my first cavities. Of cylindrical form, in order to experiment with coupling loops, surface treatment of the copper, etc.
I might first experiment with cylindrical cavities on the balance. If forces are observed that are of the same order as what you expect for the conical shapes (i.e., the ‘EMdrive signal’), it might not be useful to proceed.

I will keep you informed, but it may take a month or two before I have anything interesting to write. It is a lot of fun to work on this project, I have to say. I am rather sceptical about the reality of this phenomenon, but even if it turns out it doesn’t exist, I lear a lot and it is a nice technical/scientific challenge.

Cheers,
Peter Lauwer
Title: EM Drive Developments: a critical remark
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/08/2016 03:02 pm
One critical remark I should like to make is that when the force of an EM Drive is only a function of P, Q and the shape&dimensions of the cavity, an EM Drive would be a very simple system and would have been developed out by now. I have the impression that the confusion, e.g. the reported influences of dielectric inserts point at: 1) the positive results are either due to experimental errors, or 2) something more complicated is at work.

But that is nice: more work to do for the experimentalist. '-)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 03:22 pm
Assuming frequency is "dead on" to a given frustum, load time is nearly immediate (some argue less than one second, others less than 2 seconds). This not nearly enough time for thermal forces to come into the mix. Thrusting "should" ostensibly be immediate...once again this is when the frustum and RF being fed in are a match to one another. Later on RF heating of the cavity can create thermal lifting effects, and "warp" the frustum walls, thus sending it out of "tune". Is this not the reason PPL tech and or adjustable end plate are incorporated in many builds? As many have agreed here it's best to be able to tune your antenna, with maggie got's to physically tune the frustum. Traveller reminded me of this.
  Thanks   FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2016 03:31 pm
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?

Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.

Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.

There seem to be a lot of time delays in the data of the just released Shawyer report. Does that worry anyone here?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: krio on 09/08/2016 03:44 pm
Well, I'm still wondering how it should play out in theory for a pulse magnetron 200 kW source in a single 0.2 us pulse but at a small superconducting frustum (1cm - 4cm diameter)  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 04:39 pm
Assuming frequency is "dead on" to a given frustum, load time is nearly immediate (some argue leas than one second, others less than 2 seconds). This not nearly enough time for thermal forces to come into the mix. Thrusting "should" ostensibly be immediate...once again this is when the frustum and RF being fed in are a match to one another. Later on RF heating of the cavity can create thermal lifting effects, and "warp" the frustum walls, thus sending it out of "tune". Is this not the reason PPL tech and or adjustable end plate are incorporated in many builds?
Yes?  , No?   I do want to make sure I've got this right.  Thanks   FL

The min Reflected power tuning system I developed was very manual and involved doing manual freq changes while observing Reflected power. As my amp has a 31dBm attenuator and inbuilt Forward and Reflected power outputs, it was possible to do the tuning at low power, step up the power a bit, recheck the tuning and step it up to full power without involving much heating. As the Rf amp has a master PA enable, it is possible to do very short pulses of Rf of say 30us and watch the Forward power climb as the Reflected power drops.

5 x TC cavity fill time for my commercial build is around 30us, so in effect it fills and discharges fairly fast.

With this tuning method, which avoids frustum heating while tuning, the frustum once tuned and the Rf power pulsed on for a few seconds, yes the thrust generation is immediate.

Physical tuning is only needed if the Rf source is not freq adjustable as is a maggie, so there you need to physically tune to the maggie freq.

I expect when I receive my 2 thrusters, the initial tuning will take a few seconds but will be done initially at low power and then adjusted, at full power, as the reflected power drifts off min.

This multi stage tuning approach is why I designed a variable attenuator as then initial tuning can be done at low power and not affected by thermal changes that occur at high power.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2016 04:51 pm
I will keep you informed, but it may take a month or two before I have anything interesting to write. It is a lot of fun to work on this project, I have to say. I am rather sceptical about the reality of this phenomenon, but even if it turns out it doesn’t exist, I lear a lot and it is a nice technical/scientific challenge.

Cheers,
Peter Lauwer

Hi Peter,

Welcome to the club.

I would suggest the EW copper frustum is not a good build to follow as it does not resonate in TE013 mode at 2.45GHz.

Having a working freq tracker that can lock to the lowest VSWR at the target freq and in the target mode is vital.

Build accuracy and high polish are critical as are antenna design, position and orientation.

You need to be able to model the frustum and check for resonance in the desired mode, which can be determined by observing the end plate eddy current patterns which are unique to each TMxy and TExy mode.

It is not easy to build a working EmDrive but as time progresses the basics of EmDrive Engineering 101 are starting to be understood.

Monomorphic runs a builders only forum at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueEmDrive/
I have one at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/08/2016 05:45 pm

May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.

Another side of that question is how to sense the level of reflected power from the input port via a secondary sense port on the frustum?

Sort of like trying to control the rpm of an ICE engine via sampling C02 emissions in the exgaust pipe. Yes there is a relationship but it is not how to effectively monitor & control engine rpm.

But the purpose of high Q is related to the field strength in the cavity, and a second port is perfect to just sense that. VSWR, on the other hand, is indirect because it senses power loss, which is proportional to the square of field strength. You used a not so accurate analogy, but you did not answer my question.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2016 05:50 pm
Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector

Incorrect statement.  On the contrary, it is well known that atmospheric drag is minimized by minimizing the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the drag force. 
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/sized.gif)

Thus, the minimum drag orientation is indeed flying with solar array paralell to the orbital velocity vector. This is known in Aerospace Engineering as flying "edge on" or flying in the low-drag feathered position. Flying edge on significantly reduces drag (as it is easy to verify by calculation, since the drag is proportional to the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the drag force).

If flying a spacecraft with solar arrays on gimbals, in the edge-on position the alpha gimbal is fixed.  If desired, the alpha gimbal could be removed to lower weight.

This is what was assumed in my calculations: edge-on flying, with no gimbal, the solar array being fixed to the Cubesat, as in Cannae's picture.

The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun.  This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow....
No.  There is no law that imposes such a solar-array orientation as the only option.

When designing a solar array orientation for a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) there are several options for orientation of the solar array:

1) Sun pointing

The spacecraft may maintain (if so desired) a fixed orientation with respect to Earth, and a gimbal (alpha gimbal) can be used to track the Sun as the spacecraft rotates in orbit.  A beta gimbal (rotation around the longitudinal axis of the solar arrays) can compensate for variations in the angle of the Sun to the orbital plane.

This is not the only alternative. 

You propose a more extreme version of the sun-pointing configuration where the solar-array is fixed to the Cubesat and hence the whole Cubesat has to rotate continuously in order to keep Sun-pointing all the time.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1367201;image)

This is a flying configuration that produces a much greater drag force.
In addition, since you are using no gimbals, you have to rotate the whole spacecraft to accomplish your proposed Sun-pointing at all times.  Thus, you propose, as the only choice available, a flying configuration that produces greater drag, and that in addition requires rotating the spacecraft.

 If one calculates this, one arrives at the conclusion that flying with sun-pointing configuration at all times will require a thrust that exceeds the published claims for copper EM Drive. (The kind of EM Drive that Cannae is reporting will fly in this mission). (*)

2) Hybrid. For example Sun pointing during iluminated position of orbit, and edge on during eclipse (to minimize drag).  During eclipse the solar array can be gimbaled edge on to the orbital velocity vector, which will require a rotation of ~70 to 75 degrees twice per orbital period.

For example, the ISS adopts a hybrid solar array orientation: it points the solar array at the Sun (and takes the drag penalty) when in light, goes into a perpendicular mode in the dark. The ISS "furls" its solar panels when in darkness.

3) Edge on during the entire orbit.  This is the option that what was assumed to minimize drag in my  calculations, since EM Drive's (assuming that they would work somehow) are very limited in the thrust/PowerInput available.  This was made very clear in the calculations.

This is what was assumed: edge-on flying during the entire orbit, with no gimbal, the solar array being fixed to the Cubesat, as in Cannae's picture:

(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/35/980x490/landscape-1472765657-cannae-12.png)

Flying with the solar-arrays "edge-on" means that the amount of power available from the solar arrays will be decreased.  This reduction was explicitly taken into account in my analysis !

Flying edge-on during the entire orbit, besides minimizing drag, has the advantage that it keeps the spacecraft facing the Earth at all times, which may be beneficial for missions to monitor the Earth.

This is not an option that is impossible, or that I invented "out of thin air".  It is a well-known configuration option.
See articles by G. Landis and C. Lu, (AIAA) and by Anigstein and Sanchez Pena (IEEE) on analysis of solar panel orientation in low altitude satellites.

You state that flying with the solar-arrays Sun-pointing all the time is the only option.  This is not so.  It is simple to run the numbers and show that the option you appear to consider as the only possible option (Sun-pointing) will require significantly greater thrust, and that according to published claims for a copper EM Drive (if it were to work as claimed) would not be able to overcome.

____
(*) As a minor detail, being picky, the sketch and absolutist demand for such a complete rotation once per orbit needs further consideration.  As we all know, the Earth rotates around the Sun once per _year_  (the Earth's orbit).  Hence, the sun rotates once per _year_ in an inertial reference frame tied to the Earth's orbit Not once per spacecraft_orbit_. 

The ISS itself rotates once per orbit to keep one side always looking at the Earth (it has an "up" and a "down" side - the cupola, for example, is on the down side and always points at the Earth) and that means that its solar panels _counterrotate_ when the Sun is up.

Hence the Sun-pointing option, besides involving greater drag, involves a level of complexity that is undesirable for a smallsat mission like the one proposed by Cannae. 

By contrast, the flying "edge on" or flying in the low-drag feathered position is much simpler, involving minimum drag, and complexity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/08/2016 06:36 pm
Monomorphic runs a builders only forum at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueEmDrive/

As a correction, I'm a moderator of https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/   not /r/TrueEmdrive/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/08/2016 06:42 pm
Peter, the NASA frustum operated best (force/watt) at TE012 (I don't believe TE013 was ever modeled or tried for). The sim of TE012 works well but with the antenna(s) in a different position.
NASA had difficulty operating their frustum inTE012 with the antenna in the original position on the side...(couldn't get more than 2.6 Watts into it at 1.8804 GHz + other modes close by).
If you want to keep everything the same in the NASA frustum TM212 is the way to go, but the Q is not nearly as high as with TE012.  X_Ray just recently (a few pages back) showed some sims as to why TM 212 was much easier to stimulate than TE012. I'll go back and try to locate the specific page(s).
Attached is the NASA frustum 1st in TE012 and 2nd in TM212 (marked TM211)    FL
These sims were performed by X_Ray.  Thank you X_Ray
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/08/2016 06:47 pm

Roger said there would be a demo in 2017. Here he meant of a levitating EmDrive.

Meaning no disrespect, I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: johnatan warp drive on 09/08/2016 08:11 pm
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?

Roger did say he was working on a military drone.

Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.



There is An UCAV technology demonstrator project underway !

TARANIS

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis

several companies involved as
QinetiQ , Rolls Royce , BAE Systems, are all British aerospace companies

They could be working on a VTOL version with emdrive ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: JonB on 09/08/2016 08:49 pm
First question, Is there a way to use constructive interference with multiple frequency gens and amps to increase the amount of power transmitted into the frustum? Obviously you would need to synchronize with a small margin of error.

Second question, does multi-phase (like your homes power) resonate at the base frequency? or does the phase shift screw all that up?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/09/2016 12:28 am
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.

I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?

Roger did say he was working on a military drone.

Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.


there is technology demonstrator project underway !

TARANIS

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/taranis

several companies involved as
QinetiQ , Rolls Royce , BAE Systems, are all British aerospace companies

They could be working on a VTOL version with Emdrive ?

Hmmm no.

A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://youtu.be/nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/09/2016 12:29 am
There was some discussion of the effect of drag on the Cannae cubesat.  The chief assumption, if I'm correct was that the sat would be launched in a "typical" orbit of about a 23.5 degree inclination, and a 150 mile altitude, with about a 90 minute period.

Atmospheric drag on the sat is measurable, but it cannot be ameliorated by always keeping the sat solar array parallel to the orbital velocity vector. The satellite must rotate about its own axis about once every 90 minutes to keep the array pointed at the sun.  This rotation will continue in Earth's shadow.

See the attached sketch.

It doesn't HAVE to keep a solar pointing attitude. It could have sufficient array area combined with batteries to accommodate the varying solar power input. It HAS to have some anyways to survive eclipsing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/09/2016 12:49 am
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell

Very unlikely, IMO. Taranis was always designed to fill the niche of low-observable, unmanned combat drone, with the same envisioned timeframes as the US' own programs, and aircraft systems integration is increasingly time consuming, especially in multinational endeavors. Packing in experimental propulsion technology that can barely be shown to work into a new combat air system that's already been in development for ten years would be an extra layer of complexity that would gravely endanger the whole program, and force them to find a new way to field any sort of drone based air combatant should the propulsion elements fail. With respect to the solid black bars, it looks like the video is censored. The exhaust system is something BAE's been particularly secretive about, presumably for classified infrared signature reduction features.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/09/2016 01:07 am

A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell


If you watch it closely, especially when the landing gear retract, it looks like CGI animation. I bet VAX could verify if that's the case.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/09/2016 01:42 am
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell

Very unlikely, IMO. Taranis was always designed to fill the niche of low-observable, unmanned combat drone, with the same envisioned timeframes as the US' own programs, and aircraft systems integration is increasingly time consuming, especially in multinational endeavors. Packing in experimental propulsion technology that can barely be shown to work into a new combat air system that's already been in development for ten years would be an extra layer of complexity that would gravely endanger the whole program, and force them to find a new way to field any sort of drone based air combatant should the propulsion elements fail. With respect to the solid black bars, it looks like the video is censored. The exhaust system is something BAE's been particularly secretive about, presumably for classified infrared signature reduction features.
I can see where they would do CGI over the exhausts. Thanks.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/09/2016 01:44 am
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell

I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet...  :-X


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: masterharper1082 on 09/09/2016 02:35 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
  Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air

Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?

Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.

Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
A phase change wax can work well for a short duration test to sort out physics, but once the phase change is completed, temperature will run away again. Eventually we will need something that can operate in a cycle, like a heat pipe or the frustum acting as an evaporator in a vapor compression cycle. A frustum could make a nice steam generator!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: DrLOAC on 09/09/2016 03:58 am
Just wanted to add a couple of things to this overview of solar array positioning.

There are several attitude options for a solar powered vehicle in LEO:
1) LVLH - Local Vertical  Local Horizontal. Basically the vehicle flys like an airplane with the same side of the vehicle always facing Earth. 

If you have an alpha gimbal it rotates around 4deg/min. Power is maximized (especially if a beta gimbal is also available) but drag increases when the arrays are face on to the velocity vector.

If the arrays are fixed facing vertical the vehicle recieves the most power at solar noon. Drag is reduced as the arrays remain edge on for the entire orbit. Power is reduced compared to alpha tracking, (beta angle losses can be mitigated if other constraints allow rolling the vehicle to reduce effective beta angle)

Arrays fixed facing directly into or away from the velocity vector significantly increase drag and reduce power below the other LVLH options but may be required due to other constraints, (comm, thermal, thruster, etc).

2)Solar Inertial. The vehicle attitude remains fixed  in relation to the sun.  This maximizes power even without gimbals at the expense of some drag as the vehicle rotates the array face into and out of the velocity vector. 

3)Various Spin Attitudes - these are generally good for thermal issues as all sides of the vehicle spend time in the sun.

There are other attitudes but probably aren't applicable here.   The ISS has flown many of these attitudes over the years but these days the only acceptable long term attiude is LVLH +XVV or -XVV

The array biasing schemes for the ISS are also a bit more complicated than just for drag reduction. Sometime you want to increase drag to lower altitude to be in place to rendezvous with another vehicle. We also bias to increase power at high beta angles where one array starts to shadow another.

The constraints this 6U cubesat EM drive test article will have to deal with will be partly influenced by the:
- direction of the EM drive thrust
- solar array gimbal capability of the satellite
- orbit to orbit power requirements across 6 months of beta angle changes
- comm requirements
- thermal constraints.
Among others.

Solar array pointing ca actually be a huge pain in the ass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/09/2016 04:43 am
Re the drone...I always like to observe very carefully. I've never seen a structure like this which appears to be smack dab in the middle of the center of gravity. Notice the round structure in the middle. Comments folks? I don't have a clue. This reminds me of "Project Greenglow" Is this image seen in the video a true representation? Note the turbine extended (sticking out) of the back (not seen in vid) Hmmm...I don't think they'd be that flagrant about spilling the secret beans.  Still...damned interesting!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/09/2016 10:32 am
Peter, the NASA frustum operated best (force/watt) at TE012 (I don't believe TE013 was ever modeled or tried for). The sim of TE012 works well but with the antenna(s) in a different position.
NASA had difficulty operating their frustum in TE012 with the antenna in the original position on the side...(couldn't get more than 2.6 Watts into it at 1.8804 GHz + other modes close by).
If you want to keep everything the same in the NASA frustum TM212 is the way to go, but the Q is not nearly as high as with TE012.  X_Ray just recently (a few pages back) showed some sims as to why TM 212 was much easier to stimulate than TE012. I'll go back and try to locate the specific page(s).
Attached is the NASA frustum 1st in TE012 and 2nd in TM212 (marked TM211)    FL

Thanks a lot, FL. I certainly want to try out several modes, certainly the TM212 and TE012.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/09/2016 11:45 am
The Taranis powerplant is well known: a Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk951 dual flow, moderate by-pass ratio turbofan jet engine. It is a collaborative engine between Rolls-Royce of the UK and Turbomeca (SAFRAN S.A.) of France, with a thrust range from 28.9 kN (6,570 lbf) dry to 37.4 kN (8,500lbf) with reheat. ( http://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/engine-partnerships/partnerships/adour/adour )

Compare these thrust ranges (over 30,000 Newtons) with what has been claimed for the EM Drive:
NASA: less than 100 microNewtons, Shawyer: less than 175 milliNewtons.

Several orders of magnitude less !

That is 300 million times less for NASA and 170,000 times less for Shawyer's claims.



The improvements in the Adour 951 engine include the use of optimised materials in the hot section for higher durability, a new fan design to provide higher thrust and digital rather than hydrodynamic control. Full authority digital engine control (FADEC) will provide engine surge protection, and automated control and recovery. It has a target maintenance interval of 4,000 hours.


Adour was originally developed primarily to power the Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguar fighter-bomber, achieving its first successful test run in 1968, practically 50 years ago !

More than 3,000  Rolls-Royce Adours have been produced, for over 20 different armed forces with total flying hours reaching 8 million in December 2009.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/RRTurbomecaAdour.JPG/300px-RRTurbomecaAdour.JPG)

(https://mcgraphics.blob.core.windows.net/blogimages/1380/image2.jpg)

(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_UAV_Neuron_Mock-up_Paris_2005_lg.jpg)

Pictures of the exhaust while flying:

(https://onfinalofficial.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/6200f-dew.jpg)

(http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/06/766-taranis-inflight-2.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: bad_astra on 09/09/2016 03:48 pm
Has anyone tried suspending one of these emdrive test articles in a fluid medium? I would be interested to know whether there is any chance that the thrust-section of the frustrum causes any sort of cavitation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: johnatan warp drive on 09/09/2016 06:58 pm
Re the drone...I always like to observe very carefully. I've never seen a structure like this which appears to be smack dab in the middle of the center of gravity. Notice the round structure in the middle. Comments folks? I don't have a clue. This reminds me of "Project Greenglow" Is this image seen in the video a true representation? Note the turbine extended (sticking out) of the back (not seen in vid) Hmmm...I don't think they'd be that flagrant about spilling the secret beans.  Still...damned interesting!

This resembles the inlet of the turbine.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Fan Boi on 09/09/2016 08:10 pm
Here is another possible way to measure "thrust" using two of these devices: Bolt two of them together facing each other but with a "squeeze-ometer" in between. Power on both and see if there is any squeezing going on. I understand there are squeeze meters that can measure the Casimir affect so they must be super sensitive. Doing that would also allow you to orient the assembly in any orientation you want and the squeeze should remain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Carl G on 09/09/2016 11:06 pm
Thread cleaned of nonsense.

1) Do not insult other members. If they are talking nonsense, provide your reasoning. If could be 2,000 words long, but if it includes "you're an idiot" you're losing your post. Forum rules.

2) Don't multiquote to crazy levels. It makes people go blind when reading.

3) If you're only here to say "It doesn't work", you're trolling. You may be right, but posting it 10 times doesn't make you win an argument.

4) Turn off your "sent via tapatalk via my iphone" setting if using tapatalk. It's annoying.

These threads have been very civil over recent months, so the alerts today to nonsense means we stop it immediately and that's why we did today, to the benefit of those providing interesting posts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/09/2016 11:50 pm
Here is a thought.  Let's measure the power in through the antenna.  Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum.  Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time.  Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat. 

If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat.  We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated?  Bad or good idea?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: cee on 09/10/2016 12:48 am
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell

I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet...  :-X


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIKb68YDeo)
Looks alot like the Northrup XB47B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gG-EFqrndM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: MaxIsp on 09/10/2016 01:24 am
A little strange that where you would expect the exhaust from the rear it's just blacked out and looks solid. Am I not seeing it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-TMhvZ1pU?t=63)

I remember in WWII they stuck fake propellers on the new jets to hide the fact they were jets.

Just saying. It's probable that it could just be a black screen or something.

Shell

I guess it could be. Even more telling than the blacked out "exhaust" vent is the fact that none of the actual, real, in flight images or videos of the Taranis seem to show the air inlet. Sure, you can find pictures of the inlet while it's sitting on the ground, but never video footage of the inlet while it's in the air. Maybe there is no inlet...  :-X



Well there better be some place for the air to go in and the exhaust from the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine to exit. It is well documented that this is the actual engine in use on this vehicle.


I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: MaxIsp on 09/10/2016 01:28 am
Well I did not back track enough to see we were talking Taranis not X-47.


I believe the Taranis is basically the same design with respect to stealth features. And Uses an existing engine as Dr. Rodal pointed out below.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Prunesquallor on 09/10/2016 01:51 am
NASA tests: "For the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c

The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).

It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.

Would suggest you ignore that data, as from what I'm told it is not even close to the paper's results as the thrust is reported to be much higher and uncertainty is much lower.

In this, TT is correct.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/10/2016 02:56 am
I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.

Time to let it go, MaxIsp, I was just joking around. I guess I should have used more smiley faces to better communicate that fact...

Besides, everybody knows that the military's real EM Drive testbed is actually the X-37B. They've been performing extensive in orbit EM Drive testing under the cover of testing a Hall Effect thruster since 2015.   ::) :-X :o ??? ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: MaxIsp on 09/10/2016 03:04 am
I think what you are seeing or "not seeing" is the fact the the inlet is "serpentine" with a twisting air path to the jet engine compressor. There is a ramp that goes upward just past the inlet lip. That ramp makes it look like the inlet is closed up. Past that I would suspect the back side of the ramp drops to the compressor face of the engine and changes to a round shape. The exhaust is also diverted from the round exhaust off the end of the jet engine to a flatter and wider slot. It is all about stealth - hiding hot and metallic surfaces from thermal imaging and radar.

Time to let it go, MaxIsp, I was just joking around. I guess I should have used more smiley faces to better communicate that fact...

Besides, everybody knows that the military's real EM Drive testbed is actually the X-37B. They've performing extensive in orbit EM Drive testing under the cover of testing a Hall Effect thruster since 2015.   ::) :-X :o ??? ::)
I think my visual filter on smiley faces was turned on or my eyesight is just getting worse. Those are just fuzzy yellow dots....
Right?


Thanks.


Back to EMdrive design, building, testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/10/2016 12:51 pm
In this, TT is correct.

I'm told the EW paper is in circulation.
Highly doubt AIAA will be the 1st to do a public release of the paper.

Then there is what happened after the 2015 in vac test program was completed and what happened after that next test program was completed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: chongma on 09/10/2016 01:28 pm
Where is the paper? Is it possible to download a copy from somewhere?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/10/2016 03:08 pm
Where is the paper? Is it possible to download a copy from somewhere?

It's not published until December.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: chongma on 09/10/2016 03:39 pm
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation.  does that just mean in academic circles?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2016 04:01 pm
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation.  does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.

Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/10/2016 06:03 pm
Here is a thought.  Let's measure the power in through the antenna.  Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum.  Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time.  Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat. 

If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat.  We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated?  Bad or good idea?

Another test is to completely enclose the device and put it into a neutral buoyancy tank. Also, short of space itself, one could set up some tests in zero gee with the vomit comet. Net thrust ought to be evident over the thirty second or so zero gee phase.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/11/2016 03:31 pm
Here is a thought.  Let's measure the power in through the antenna.  Doing so we should know the amount of heat that should be present in the frustum.  Immerse the thing in a substance that has heat capacity and run it over a period of time.  Later we measure the temperature and we get the time accumulated energy dumped into heat. 

If there is any work being done on something that is escaping the frustum, then some of that energy will be lost and not show up as heat.  We would have some discrepancy in the energy put in and the heat generated?  Bad or good idea?

Another test is to completely enclose the device and put it into a neutral buoyancy tank. Also, short of space itself, one could set up some tests in zero gee with the vomit comet. Net thrust ought to be evident over the thirty second or so zero gee phase.

neutral buoyancy could still be effected by thermal gradients.  Zero gee in the vomit comet I think has been mentioned before by someone I think but you would be limited on time and costs but maybe.  You might still have the problem of thermal gradients in the vomit comet also. 

The idea of just measuring the power put in and the increase in heat is to eliminate force measurements plagued by other effects and look for thermal anomalies.  If something is escaping the cavity and carrying away momentum it should show up as missing energy. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: zen-in on 09/11/2016 04:44 pm
I came across a treasure-trove of magnetrons at an electronics flea market yesterday.   I didn't buy them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/11/2016 06:20 pm
Thermal buoyancy could still be effected by thermal gradients.  Zero gee in the vomit comet I think has been mentioned before by someone I think but you would be limited on time and costs but maybe.  You might still have the problem of thermal gradients in the vomit comet also. 

The idea of just measuring the power put in and the increase in heat is to eliminate force measurements plagued by other effects and look for thermal anomalies.  If something is escaping the cavity and carrying away momentum it should show up as missing energy.

Forgot to mention just floating the device in a large controlled enclosed space with helium balloons or configured as a mini Zeppelin. If accelerations of at least 0.01 m/s2 could be achieved it would be pretty clear it works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/11/2016 06:53 pm
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation.  does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.

Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.

mmmm, for once I agree with TT (but don't get used to that!)

Unless a paper is really controversial (like this might be the case) or it contains very sensitive information (again, this might be the case) it's rather common practice among scholars to circulate their papers in their circles, usually even before submitting, precisely to have a better grasp of the (informed) public's reaction.
Myself (a scholar in a completely different field) I always circulate my working papers well before they even go to review to get comments  & suggestions back.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/11/2016 08:39 pm
ah...thought the traveller said it was in circulation.  does that just mean in academic circles?
Since it has been peer reviewed, the reviewers will have seen it, plus probably some other distribution within NASA.

Contrary to TT's comment, I do not believe it is common for papers to leak before publication. Most reviewers have at least that much integrity, and it would not be enough people involved that the odds of a bad apple would be particularly high.

mmmm, for once I agree with TT (but don't get used to that!)

Unless a paper is really controversial (like this might be the case) or it contains very sensitive information (again, this might be the case) it's rather common practice among scholars to circulate their papers in their circles, usually even before submitting, precisely to have a better grasp of the (informed) public's reaction.
Myself (a scholar in a completely different field) I always circulate my working papers well before they even go to review to get comments  & suggestions back.

You've laid out two very good reasons this paper may not have been circulated far.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: anorman07 on 09/11/2016 11:27 pm
Does anyone have any recent information on the laser interferometer ("warp field") experiments at Eagleworks, related to the EM Drive?

I hear quite a bit about it last year but not since...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2016 01:40 am
Does anyone have any recent information on the laser interferometer ("warp field") experiments at Eagleworks, related to the EM Drive?

I hear quite a bit about it last year but not since...

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1579130#msg1579130

Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities
Marco Frasca
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/12/2016 06:21 am
Quote from: Marco Frasca http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0508246v3.pdf
A lot of physics could be extracted by further
analysis of this perturbation equations in different situations that at present can be
managed only numerically.

Quote from: Marco Frasca http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.06917v2.pdf
The special case of four dimensions implies that, being the energy-momentum tensor
of the electromagnetic field traceless, the scalar field does not couple directly with the
electromagnetic field

I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the passages I quote above. Rather, I ask those that do understand them...

Would Frasca's Brans-Dicke model for EM Drive operation make any other easily testable predictions? Any chance a theory like this could account for flyby anomalies?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 06:50 am
Quote from: Marco Frasca http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0508246v3.pdf
A lot of physics could be extracted by further
analysis of this perturbation equations in different situations that at present can be
managed only numerically.

Quote from: Marco Frasca http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.06917v2.pdf
The special case of four dimensions implies that, being the energy-momentum tensor
of the electromagnetic field traceless, the scalar field does not couple directly with the
electromagnetic field

I'm not going to pretend that I really understand the passages I quote above. Rather, I ask those that do understand them...

Would Frasca's Brans-Dicke model for EM Drive operation make any other easily testable predictions? Any chance a theory like this could account for flyby anomalies?

The first quote just points out that the equations we have to cope with are too much complicated that, to solve them, generally a computer is needed. This is an ongoing activity with a lot of interesting results so far. But you can fix any geometry, like that of a frustum, and you will get a general solution by putting all the data into a machine and let it crunch them. Anyhow, in the case at hand, some simple approximations can help to avoid to use a computer and get some useful equation to understand what is going on.

The second quote just states that the gravitational constant, that in Brans-Dicke model is not really a constant, can change inside the frustum in a significant way. This can only happen through the square of the energy density of the e.m. field by an indirect coupling with the warped space-time inside the truncated cone because the effect of the e.m. field is not a direct one on the gravitational constant.

Testable predictions can be extended to laser interferometry, an ongoing activity at EW labs, but, having a complete theory, you can think to build any setup and compute the expected effects.

I would like to emphasize that, if it is confirmed that Brans-Dicke model is at work inside the frustum, this would be already a breakthrough in physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2016 11:57 am
The second quote just states that the gravitational constant, that in Brans-Dicke model is not really a constant, can change inside the frustum in a significant way. This can only happen through the square of the energy density of the e.m. field by an indirect coupling with the warped space-time inside the truncated cone because the effect of the e.m. field is not a direct one on the gravitational constant.

Testable predictions can be extended to laser interferometry, an ongoing activity at EW labs, but, having a complete theory, you can think to build any setup and compute the expected effects.

I would like to emphasize that, if it is confirmed that Brans-Dicke model is at work inside the frustum, this would be already a breakthrough in physics.

Marco, I have three questions:

1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?

2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?

3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/12/2016 01:06 pm
Though I put this in a separate thread, this was an error it's really more applicable in here being an example of an asymmetry from what little I now understand, which is probably wrong.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/floquet-time-crystals-could-exist-and.html?m=1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 01:08 pm

...

Marco, I have three questions:

1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?

2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?

3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?

1) Differently form Minotti's approach, Brans-Dicke theory (it is not mine) is a model accepted by the community since '60s. It has been a workhorse to unveil possible deviations from general relativity. It introduces a set of constants, the most important is omega, that provide an understanding about how Einstein's equations could change. For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.

2) Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.

3) No, I fear this is impossible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/12/2016 02:12 pm
Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.

So, a resonating symmetrical cavity with high Q factor, due to the highly concentrated EM field, will alter the gravitational constant (and be testable using laser interferometry), but will not produce any thrust because this alteration is symmetrical in relation to the cavity's center of mass?

The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2016 02:25 pm
For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show.

Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.

But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 02:27 pm

...

So, a resonating symmetrical cavity with high Q factor, due to the highly concentrated EM field, will alter the gravitational constant (and be testable using laser interferometry), but will not produce any thrust because this alteration is symmetrical in relation to the cavity's center of mass?

The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?

This was already discussed with Dr. Rodal. Newton constant does not count in this case. All you need is an asymmetry. With the original computation, you needed practically a cone to get a tiny effect. Here, due to the change in the Newton constant, the need for a conical cavity can be dismissed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 02:34 pm

...

Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.

But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?

The scalar field in the Brans-Dicke theory is a genuine relativistic scalar field while the component of the metric gtt reduces to Newton potential (let me call it V rather than φ to avoid confusion) in the limit of weak fields. The Newton potential enters into the metric tensor (the way geometry is changed) while the scalar field of the Brans-Dicke theory just decides what value should take locally the Newton constant.

About the stress-energy tensor, you are right. There is no generally accepted definition for it in general relativity. But I am working with weak fields and there is no problem whatsoever in this case. Also, I am using a covariant form of stress-energy tensor as was originally formulated by Landau and Lifshitz and generally accepted in the scientific community.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2016 03:24 pm

...

Playing devil's advocate, the point of a locally varying constant in Brans-Dicke theory reminds me of a skeptical discussion I followed some time ago on another forum about Brans' view in 1962 (and what is understood nowadays from his view) stating that gravitational potential energy-momentum is not locally defined in Einstein's GR, because the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor is not a covariant quantity, hence that no meaningful covariant values can be assigned locally to this quantity. That would be the main issue for the local aspects of Brans-Dicke theory related to the EmDrive.

But trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges leads to how φ is defined respectively in the Brans-Dicke theory, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. In The Meaning of Relativity, discussing 1916 GR, Einstein was talking specifically about gtt/2 as the GR version of the Newtonian potential φ. But Brans-Dicke φ is an invariant scalar field, unlike gtt(x), and not Einstein's own original φ as per his earliest attempts at a relativistic theory of gravity. Can you clarify this point?

The scalar field in the Brans-Dicke theory is a genuine relativistic scalar field while the component of the metric gtt reduces to Newton potential (let me call it V rather than φ to avoid confusion) in the limit of weak fields. The Newton potential enters into the metric tensor (the way geometry is changed) while the scalar field of the Brans-Dicke theory just decides what value should take locally the Newton constant.

About the stress-energy tensor, you are right. There is no generally accepted definition for it in general relativity. But I am working with weak fields and there is no problem whatsoever in this case. Also, I am using a covariant form of stress-energy tensor as was originally formulated by Landau and Lifshitz and generally accepted in the scientific community.

Dr. Frasca, any comments on latest upper limit experimental observations of the change of G with time and space, would be appreciated

Reference:

page 110 (for change with time) of Wheeler's book:

http://bit.ly/2cR6KAv

Gravitation and Inertia
By Ciufolini and  Wheeler
Princeton University Press
ISBN-10: 0691033234
ISBN-13: 978-0691033235

Also page 111 change in G with space.

It has been 20+ years since this book was published.  So comments are appreciated.

Also

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

where

Glab = value of G measured in the lab using nearby masses
G= G far from the gravity generating body

Wheeler also writes that Brans Dicke ω >~620 from light deflection measurements, Radar time delay experiments and especially the Lunar Laser Ranging analysis.

Comments on the constraint on the minimum value for Brans Dicke ω >~620 and its ramifications for the EM Drive calculations, are also appreciated.

Thanks

Attachment: a chart from Chen (2015) showing larger minimum values for Brans Dicke ω
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/12/2016 04:03 pm
Just to say I'm fascinated by the latest exchanges of Dr. Frasca and other knowledgeable posters. Seems like this could be a strong candidate to explain both the thrust and the puzzling optical effects reported by Star Drive... and it could offer proof of an alternative to Einstein's GR.

Exciting developments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 04:44 pm

...

Dr. Frasca, any comments on latest upper limit experimental observations of the change of G with time and space, would be appreciated

Reference:

page 110 (for change with time) of Wheeler's book:

http://bit.ly/2cR6KAv

Gravitation and Inertia
By Ciufolini and  Wheeler
Princeton University Press
ISBN-10: 0691033234
ISBN-13: 978-0691033235

Also page 111 change in G with space.

It has been 20+ years since this book was published.  What is the latest data regarding upper limit observations for changes in G in time and in space?

Also

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

where

Glab = value of G measured in the lab using nearby masses
G= G far from the gravity generating body

Wheeler also writes that Brans Dicke ω >~620 from light deflection measurements, Radar time delay experiments and especially the Lunar Laser Ranging analysis.

Comments on Brans Dicke ω >~620 and its ramifications for the EM Drive calculations, are also appreciated.

Thanks

These are really interesting questions. The frustum with a localized energy density is a rather lucky situation. Due to the fact that the energy density arises from an e.m. field, the omega constant is not relevant at all for the discussion. People generally takes it to be very large to get agreement with general relativity but I would like to emphasize that the discussion of how one recovers general relativity from Brans-Dicke theory has gone an extended discussion in these later years. This limit is not so easy to understand and, in some cases, it is not just to take omega becoming larger. This is especially true for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell theory.

What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered.

As soon as I will get some time, I will put done some mathematical worksheet to get numerical values for the gravitational constant inside the frustum. Of course, I should invent values to put in as we are all expecting December...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2016 04:47 pm
The thrust is generated because of the asymmetrically offset alteration of the gravitational constant in relation to the cavity's center of mass? Hence, the greater the offset achieved (TE212 vs TE013 for instance), the greater the thrust measured (assuming the same Q value)?

Q varies with the mode. TE212 with or without a dielectric has a lower Q than TE013.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2016 04:54 pm
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result.  Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, requires small value of Brans-Dicke ω for a significant change in (1-Glab/G) and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover  1-Glab/G=0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 05:04 pm
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result.  Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover  Glab=G

There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2016 05:10 pm
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result.  Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover  Glab=G

There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.
And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?

I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/12/2016 06:06 pm
...What I get is a consistency equation that is independent from omega (this is easy to check just by inspection) and, just locally, yields as a solution a coupling constant different inside with respect to outside where standard Newton constant is indeed recovered...
Yes, this local independence from Brans-Dicke ω inside the truncated cone cavity appears to be a new, unfamiliar result.  Certainly different from the discussion in Wheeler's book:

Glab≈G[1-U/(ω+2)]   Eq. 3.2.25

which has a clear inverse dependence on Brans-Dicke ω, and where for ω->∞ we clearly recover  Glab=G

There is a technical explanation for this: The stress-energy tensor of the e.m. field is traceless.

Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 07:40 pm

...

And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?

I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...

Because nobody studied large concentrations of e.m.field energy in a small volume and nobody thought to put it on a pendulum. Please, note that the solution outside the cavity is the Newton constant. This is smoothly joined with the inside solution. On a large (cosmological) scale, Brans-Dicke model coincides with general relativity provided at least omega is large enough (indeed, for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell model things are not that simple).

Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 07:43 pm

...

Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?

Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/12/2016 07:56 pm

Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.

Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/12/2016 08:09 pm

Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.

Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?

This is an interesting question. The answer relies on the simple fact that, while e.m. fields are shielded by the cavity and so, no net momentum can be observed, gravitational disturbances can escape the cavity providing the needed reaction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2016 09:59 pm

...

And the reason why this would not have been measured before is because the forces involved in asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavities are too small (microNewtons) and nobody had attempted to measure them before?

I wonder whether there are any Cosmological events that have functioned as an equivalent of an asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity to verify whether there is indeed a resulting self-acceleration...

Because nobody studied large concentrations of e.m.field energy in a small volume and nobody thought to put it on a pendulum. Please, note that the solution outside the cavity is the Newton constant. This is smoothly joined with the inside solution. On a large (cosmological) scale, Brans-Dicke model coincides with general relativity provided at least omega is large enough (indeed, for Brans-Dicke-Maxwell model things are not that simple).

Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.

Consider the case of an astrophysical maser: a naturally occurring source of stimulated emission,  in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  A naturally occurring analog of the man-made man-invented MASER. (*)

(http://www.naic.edu/~astro/highlights/artistconcept.jpg)

(http://images.nrao.edu/images/Blackhole1_lo.jpg)

(https://science.nrao.edu/science/highlights/fy2011-1/images/Untitled2.png)

However, naturally occurring masers lack the resonant cavity engineered for terrestrial laboratory MASERs.

Now think of the Brans Dicke solution you obtained for the asymmetric resonant cavity, where it experiences an acceleration as a result of gravity in this Brans Dicke model.  Can you think of a naturally occurring cosmological events that can function as an equivalent of the asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity ?

Of course it is hopeless to find a naturally occurring event that has a copper asymmetric cavity. A copper asymmetric cavity is clearly a man-made object.  But just like astrophysical masers are naturally occurring analogs of man-made Masers, that lack the resonant cavity of man-made Masers, it would be interesting if there would be a naturally occurring analog of your solution as well.

Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:

A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course  ;) )

B) it may further and more strongly validate your solution, which would be interesting, given the controversial nature of EM Drive experiments up to now.

----------------------
(*) Before their discovery in 1965, many scientists thought that molecules could not exist in space.  The emission was at first attributed to an unknown form of interstellar matter named by UC Berkeley astronomers as Mysterium  see:  http://bit.ly/2cSmIWL   ;), but the emission was soon identified by Harvard and MIT astronomers as line emission from OH molecules in compact sources within molecular clouds.

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/images/466928a-f1.2.jpg)

Later, H2O emission in 1969, CH3OH emission in 1970 and SiO emission in 1974 were discovered, all coming from within molecular clouds. These were termed "masers", as from their narrow line-widths and high effective temperatures it became clear that these sources were amplifying microwave radiation.

Even later, naturally occurring Masers were discovered around highly evolved Late-type stars . Naturally occurring Masers were also discovered in external galaxies in 1973, and in the Solar System in comet halos.

Another unexpected discovery was made in 1982 with the discovery of emission from an extra-galactic source with an unrivalled luminosity about 106 times larger than any previous source. This was termed a megamaser because of its great luminosity; many more megamasers have since been discovered.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/13/2016 01:34 am
.....As soon as I will get some time, I will put done some mathematical worksheet to get numerical values for the gravitational constant inside the frustum. Of course, I should invent values to put in as we are all expecting December...


I have to say that it would be very interesting to see calculations based on this approach to compare with known results from some of the builders here as well as published results.  For instance, if they are close then we may have a guide as to how many artifacts a particular apparatus is introducing.

And can I say that this forum really amazes me at times!!   The dialog today between Dr. Frasca, Dr. Rodal and others has been pure pleasure!! 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: birchoff on 09/13/2016 02:18 am

...

Marco, I have three questions:

1/ Can you explain in layman terms how his your Brans-Dicke theory different from Minotti's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5690v3.pdf) who also explains the anomalous thrust of asymmetric EM resonators?

2/ Does your development of the Brans-Dicke theory predict if a powerful and efficient (superconducting or not) asymmetric RF resonant cavity, or array of cavities, can achieve enough thrust to lift a body within Earth gravitational field (aka lift engine) or does the predicted thrust/weight ratio is always tiny, containing the space flight applications to deep space probes only?

3/ EmDrive apart, if the effect can scale up at the square of the energy density of the EM field and hence can truly alter some physical constants, do you think a huge amount of concentrated energy could warp spacetime enough so it could locally go beyond neutrons' critical density threshold and create a mini black hole?

1) Differently form Minotti's approach, Brans-Dicke theory (it is not mine) is a model accepted by the community since '60s. It has been a workhorse to unveil possible deviations from general relativity. It introduces a set of constants, the most important is omega, that provide an understanding about how Einstein's equations could change. For these reasons, it has been and is today an accepted theory by all the scientific community. What it is seen is that the agreement between Einstein's theory and Brans-Dicke theory is perfect provided the omega parameter is taken large enough. So, this for the cosmological and planetary scales. But, inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.

2) Now, one has formulas to project an optimized cavity to take thrust to its maximum from a physical standpoint. For a superconducting cavity what really matters is the Q factor and this largely increases thrust. This is all due to Einstein's theory of general relativity with the proper correction arising from Brans-Dicke model (just a change in the Newton constant). This change should be computed in the design phase.

3) No, I fear this is impossible.

What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/13/2016 03:40 am

Of course, this is not self-accelerating. It accelerates at expenses of gravity.

Excuse my meddling, but what do you mean by this? in this theory, does the Emdrive act as a "gravity dampener" and only works in a significant gravity field (e.g. around Earth)? or does it create a gravity-like effect and then it 'falls' on it?

This is an interesting question. The answer relies on the simple fact that, while e.m. fields are shielded by the cavity and so, no net momentum can be observed, gravitational disturbances can escape the cavity providing the needed reaction.

Would it be possible that what is happening in the cavity is the index of free space may be being modified (by the idea you mentioned), changing the mass of light.  As the light gains mass/slows in time, there is a back reaction on the dielectric of free space pushing the free space back, and as the light strikes the front of the cavity, the light provides more impulse than it did at the back of the cavity.  Energy is then lost from the light to the vacuum.

This polarizeable vacuum possibly being some mix of matter/anti-matter.  The anti-matter being negative mass but runs backwards in time (Similar to Richard Feynman's proposal Wiki Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory)) so appears to be positive mass but reverse in charge.  This anti-matter having the effect of modifying time (This may be my own modification of the idea so far as I am aware) when it is polarized in the presence of normal matter leading to the effects of Lorentz contraction for fast moving objects or large gravitational bodies.  Gravity being some gradient in the passage of time or possibly the vacuum being accelerated because of the gradient in time?

The idea coming from papers concerning light being measured to have more momentum inside water, having a higher index of refraction, and them having measured a back reaction of the light when entering the water.  Is it possible with the vacuum too?

Or is this not really connected to what your talking about?

The Woodward effect is also mentioned in the wiki link at the bottom.

Closed timelike curves?
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.3
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 06:38 am

...

Consider the case of an astrophysical maser: a naturally occurring source of stimulated emission,  in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  A naturally occurring analog of the man-made man-invented MASER. (*)

(http://www.naic.edu/~astro/highlights/artistconcept.jpg)

(http://images.nrao.edu/images/Blackhole1_lo.jpg)

(https://science.nrao.edu/science/highlights/fy2011-1/images/Untitled2.png)

However, naturally occurring masers lack the resonant cavity engineered for terrestrial laboratory MASERs.

Now think of the Brans Dicke solution you obtained for the asymmetric resonant cavity, where it experiences an acceleration as a result of gravity in this Brans Dicke model.  Can you think of a naturally occurring cosmological events that can function as an equivalent of the asymmetric electromagnetically resonant cavity ?

Of course it is hopeless to find a naturally occurring event that has a copper asymmetric cavity. A copper asymmetric cavity is clearly a man-made object.  But just like astrophysical masers are naturally occurring analogs of man-made Masers, that lack the resonant cavity of man-made Masers, it would be interesting if there would be a naturally occurring analog of your solution as well.

Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:

A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course  ;) )

B) it may further and more strongly validate your solution, which would be interesting, given the controversial nature of EM Drive experiments up to now.

----------------------
(*) Before their discovery in 1965, many scientists thought that molecules could not exist in space.  The emission was at first attributed to an unknown form of interstellar matter named by UC Berkeley astronomers as Mysterium  see:  http://bit.ly/2cSmIWL   ;), but the emission was soon identified by Harvard and MIT astronomers as line emission from OH molecules in compact sources within molecular clouds.

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/images/466928a-f1.2.jpg)

Later, H2O emission in 1969, CH3OH emission in 1970 and SiO emission in 1974 were discovered, all coming from within molecular clouds. These were termed "masers", as from their narrow line-widths and high effective temperatures it became clear that these sources were amplifying microwave radiation.

Even later, naturally occurring Masers were discovered around highly evolved Late-type stars . Naturally occurring Masers were also discovered in external galaxies in 1973, and in the Solar System in comet halos.

Another unexpected discovery was made in 1982 with the discovery of emission from an extra-galactic source with an unrivalled luminosity about 106 times larger than any previous source. This was termed a megamaser because of its great luminosity; many more megamasers have since been discovered.

Dr. Rodal, I am not an expert in cosmology unfortunately. People were going on looking for substantial differences between Brans-Dicke and Eisntein theories but, so far, it was only possible to fix a higher limit on omega. On a scale for a cosmological maser, I would expect no significant difference between these two models. But things could be interesting if the intensity of the emitted e.m. radiation by the cosmological maser is large enough to get a backreaction on gravity. This, in turn, could modify the value of the coupling constant making possible to observe some deviations, even if really small. This effect is similar to that of the resonant cavity. Otherwise, we can safely neglect any correction due to the scalar field and take it a constant. The game changer for the resonant cavity is just the energy density of the e.m. field in a small volume.

Let me emphasize, once again, that if this effect should be confirmed in the resonant cavity, consequences for our understanding of gravity would be overwhelming.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/13/2016 06:38 am
Q varies with the mode. TE212 with or without a dielectric has a lower Q than TE013.

I wasn't asking about the dielectric and I specifically stated that Q should be constant for the purposes of my inquiry.

Intuitively, just by looking at monomorphic's resonant cavity renderings, it appears to me as though a TE013 mode results in a high EM field density locus that is further from the center of mass of the frustum than it is in the case of a TE012 mode.

https://youtu.be/wBRY6jwERQY

https://youtu.be/E27Y5fjprs0

What I'm asking is, with Q being equal (the Q factor, as defined as 2π times the ratio of the stored energy to the energy dissipated per oscillation cycle (is that the definition we settled on? I can't remember...), could be maintained, independent of the mode, by controlling the amount of energy dissipated per cycle), would TE013 yield a higher thrust than TE012? If so, why? Is it due to the larger asymmetry observed in TE013?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 06:40 am

...

What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?

A dielectric can increase thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 06:44 am

...

Would it be possible that what is happening in the cavity is the index of free space may be being modified (by the idea you mentioned), changing the mass of light.  As the light gains mass/slows in time, there is a back reaction on the dielectric of free space pushing the free space back, and as the light strikes the front of the cavity, the light provides more impulse than it did at the back of the cavity.  Energy is then lost from the light to the vacuum.

This polarizeable vacuum possibly being some mix of matter/anti-matter.  The anti-matter being negative mass but runs backwards in time (Similar to Richard Feynman's proposal Wiki Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory)) so appears to be positive mass but reverse in charge.  This anti-matter having the effect of modifying time (This may be my own modification of the idea so far as I am aware) when it is polarized in the presence of normal matter leading to the effects of Lorentz contraction for fast moving objects or large gravitational bodies.  Gravity being some gradient in the passage of time or possibly the vacuum being accelerated because of the gradient in time?

The idea coming from papers concerning light being measured to have more momentum inside water, having a higher index of refraction, and them having measured a back reaction of the light when entering the water.  Is it possible with the vacuum too?

Or is this not really connected to what your talking about?

The Woodward effect is also mentioned in the wiki link at the bottom.

Closed timelike curves?
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch07/ch07.html#Section7.3

Quite different matters. I am just solving well-known theories of gravity coupled to e.m. fields. Yours seems a completely diverse approach.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:04 am
What I'm asking is, with Q being equal (the Q factor, as defined as 2π times the ratio of the stored energy to the energy dissipated per oscillation cycle (is that the definition we settled on? I can't remember...), could be maintained, independent of the mode, by controlling the amount of energy dissipated per cycle), would TE013 yield a higher thrust than TE012? If so, why? Is it due to the larger asymmetry observed in TE013?

Each mode has different eddy current losses.

There is also the real issue of building a phase compliant coupler that factors in the near field effects of the dual reflected travelling waves crossing the coupler. Nice of all 3 are in phase.

Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Please note Roger excites his Cryo frustum via a central choke opening in the side wall. That opening position can be made to be phase compliant between excited Rf and dual reflected travelling waves.

EmDrive Engineering 101.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/13/2016 07:18 am
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Alrighty then... What about other modes? TE014, TE015, TE016, etc.? Certainly TE013 can't be the only mode that allows a "1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge [to be] adjusted to be phase compliant".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/13/2016 07:26 am
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:40 am
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Alrighty then... What about other modes? TE014, TE015, TE016, etc.? Certainly TE013 can't be the only mode that allows a "1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge [to be] adjusted to be phase compliant".

You may be right. I can't say as I design for TE013, as per Roger's recommendations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 07:49 am
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.

The interesting thing about Roger's solution is the engineering solutions it provides, allowing real devices to be modelled to the desired mode and resonant freq, built and for thrust to be measured. And ever more interesting is the predicted thrust is damn close to what is measured.

I gave Monomorphic the frustum design specs and he quickly verified they were correct and the edge 1/2 loop was a good solution.

While I can make no claim Roger's solution is correct, what I can say it is allows engineers to verify frustum designs and to build functional EmDrives.

As an engineer that is enough for me.

Eventually the theory will be verified but long before, many people will have working EmDrives and understand EmDrive Engineering 101.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/13/2016 07:53 am
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.

from the topic:
The one piece of evidence that gives me some optimism that there really might be something to this thing... by dangerousfoolishness in EmDrive

Quote
[–]StarDriveEW 25 points 14 hours ago
The skeptics will have plenty of firefighting to do when the December/January edition of the AIAA journal is released with our paper.
Quote
Thanks for the welcome. Before you ask I will not reveal details of the upcoming paper, but I have just today scanned this page (I'm new to reddit) and have made a few general comments. Did we speak with each other on Nasaspaceflight forums?

Quote
No I'm afraid not. If a copy leaks out then I'm positive it will not be from one of the group.

Quote
It is in a propulsion journal because it is an experimental propulsion device.
We have rectified the issues with using the dummy load.
The QVVP theory is not part of the paper.
I detect hostility towards me. Why?

Quote
Someone mentioned Harold's QVVP theory. There are currently interferometry tests being conducted at Eagleworks inside a resonant cavity. A paper is upcoming.

Quote
We did indeed address the damping issue.


Seems that Paul March has a bit more liberty to talk then before or is that just a perception of mine?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 08:03 am
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.

Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/13/2016 09:00 am
From what I can make up from his reaction(s), the peer review article is definitely positively oriented for an EMeffect, and they took precautions to distance themselves from Dr. White's QVVP theory...

Personally, I consider it a very good choice to publish in an propulsion engineering journal, simply because there is no solid theory yet that supports these findings. There is really no point in publishing in a physics oriented journal if you don't have any clue about the "how" it works...

At the same time, as a front seat observer in this topic, I'd like to thank dr.Frasca, dr Rodal, Todd Desiato and many others i might have forgotten, for their continuous POSITIVE and inspiring theoretical contributions.
Visiting reddit more often lately, made me realize how much (uncomprehensive) hostility there is in the scientific world. I salute your tenacity and honest will to get to the bottom of this, regardless what is being said and regardless what the final conclusion on this topic will be...
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2016 11:50 am
From what I can make up from his reaction(s), the peer review article is definitely positively oriented for an EMeffect, and they took precautions to distance themselves from Dr. White's QVVP theory...

Personally, I consider it a very good choice to publish in an propulsion engineering journal, simply because there is no solid theory yet that supports these findings. There is really no point in publishing in a physics oriented journal if you don't have any clue about the "how" it works...

At the same time, as a front seat observer in this topic, I'd like to thank dr.Frasca, dr Rodal, Todd Desiato and many others i might have forgotten, for their continuous POSITIVE and inspiring theoretical contributions.
Visiting reddit more often lately, made me realize how much (uncomprehensive) hostility there is in the scientific world. I salute your tenacity and honest will to get to the bottom of this, regardless what is being said and regardless what the final conclusion on this topic will be...

You're a braver person than I as there seems to be a different atmosphere there than here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/13/2016 01:35 pm
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.

Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.

And this is what he said about which mode (TMxxx,TExxx) will produce thrust and which won't,
Quote
[–]StarDriveEW 5 points 19 hours ago
There is no magical 'correct' mode.

I interpret that as any mode will produce good amount of thrust, albeit some may produce more and some less.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/13/2016 01:58 pm
Experimentation has shown that exciting with a 1/2 current loop coupler at the frustum edge can be adjusted to be phase compliant. According to my research, TE013 allows that to happen and TE102 does not.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my original question was intended to be in reference to StrongGR's Brans-Dicke solution, not Roger's direct momentum transfer solution.

The interesting thing about Roger's solution is the engineering solutions it provides, allowing real devices to be modelled to the desired mode and resonant freq, built and for thrust to be measured. And ever more interesting is the predicted thrust is damn close to what is measured.

I gave Monomorphic the frustum design specs and he quickly verified they were correct and the edge 1/2 loop was a good solution.

While I can make no claim Roger's solution is correct, what I can say it is allows engineers to verify frustum designs and to build functional EmDrives.

As an engineer that is enough for me.

Eventually the theory will be verified but long before, many people will have working EmDrives and understand EmDrive Engineering 101.
Not refuting what your saying TT on the sidewall injections, although I'd like to offer some of my thoughts on it.

Side wall injection on particle accelerators are not truly a closed resonating cavity like the frustum. Small discrepancies in sidewall loop antenna couplings are not amplified by the actions of reflecting off endplates. Small deviations in beams can adjusted out downstream with other downstream injectors to make the beam travel a linear path.  It was one of the issues that many were concerned about and the reason we designed the Streak Camera imaging system for the SCC in Texas a few years back. 
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5230204_1436438764.938.jpg)

Using a single loop antenna on the sidewall with a high Q frustum cavity where small coupling discrepancies in loop build and injecting into that asymmetrical cavity will be amplified. This can lead to amplified parasitic effects that will effect your mode generation.

Maybe you can tune it out in your build, but consider when Arero and Dr. Rodal and I were running loop antennas placed in the side walls using meep. (Dr. Rodal took the data files to give a poynting direction for 10 slices from a full cycle). It became apparent that the sidewall loop has it's advantages and disadvantages. One being it's not a symmetrical injection in a amplifying high Q cavity.

This is why I had monomorphic do a offset modified loop, centered in the cavity, symmetrically within the frustum, positioned within the maxium B field location and the only coupling changes that should be needed is in the Z direction (plate to plate).

I'm attaching the gifs we did in meep and calculated poynting vectors showing what can happen.

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 02:18 pm
Although I can not identify the poster "stardriveEW" with 100% certainty, I have the impression that Paul March from Eagleworks visited the Reddit Emdrive forum yesterday.
I believe it might indeed be him , due to the very personal nature of what he says.

Agreed it does sound like Paul. Have emailed him to confirm.

And this is what he said about which mode (TMxxx,TExxx) will produce thrust and which won't,
Quote
[–]StarDriveEW 5 points 19 hours ago
There is no magical 'correct' mode.

I interpret that as any mode will produce good amount of thrust, albeit some may produce more and some less.

StarDriveEW is NOT Paul March.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: jötunn on 09/13/2016 02:54 pm
How do you know?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2016 02:59 pm
How do you know?

He did provide a link up thread, but it seems to have disappeared.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 03:55 pm
How do you know?

I emailed him and asked.

Quote
Phil:
I just went to the below reddit.com URL and I have no clue who is writing it other than someone who has some inside information.
It will be interesting who it turns out to be and why they are writing now on reddit.com…

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

https://www.reddit.com/user/StarDriveEW
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/13/2016 04:18 pm
How do you know?

I emailed him and asked.

Quote
Phil:
I just went to the below reddit.com URL and I have no clue who is writing it other than someone who has some inside information.
It will be interesting who it turns out to be and why they are writing now on reddit.com…

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

https://www.reddit.com/user/StarDriveEW

I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/13/2016 04:48 pm

...

Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?

Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 05:19 pm

...

Can you offer practical methods to greatly increase the thrust or is all the Brans-Dicke discussion just academic?

Yes, of course. This was already done in the previous part of the paper where the dependences on the radii of the cavity, its angular opening and other parameters as well were all clearly stated.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.

General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.

Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2016 05:26 pm
I just hope this isn't someone trying to pin the blame of any potential leaks on Paul.

If what Dr. Rodal disclosed about the abstract is correct, the paper will turn the world of propulsion physics on it's head.

Imagine what will happen to Ion and other exotic propulsion projects and budgets worldwide. There may just be a few who have investments & paychecks that do not wish the EW paper to have credibility or even to be published. I do trust Paul and others have taken measures to ensure the paper is published, no matter what. Can't imagine anyone would impersonate Paul to do good deeds.

Oh BTW Paul told me the paper will be a free download. Dr. White paid AIAA to make that happen, so
Dr. White, THANK YOU.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/13/2016 05:30 pm
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Quote
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.

Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/13/2016 05:40 pm

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.

General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.

Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.

Thanks. So you're  saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 05:44 pm
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Quote
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.

Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?

These are correct questions but, until I do not provide numbers, an answer to them there is not. I am working on this. The point here is that what happens inside the cavity is a local effect driven by the density of energy of the e.m. that, due to the coupling with gravity, could modify in some unexpected way the Newton constant. This could be a game changer together with the geometrical set-up and the characteristics of the cavity. You should consider that these are completely new scenarios for general relativity and theories alike.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 05:46 pm

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.

General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.

Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.

Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.

Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/13/2016 06:05 pm

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.

General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.

Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.

Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.

Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.

Ok, don't laugh at me but has anyone looked at the work of Jefimenko who related EM to gravity and derives some new, possibly useful effects? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2016 07:23 pm

...

What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?

A dielectric can increase thrust.

Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect.  When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".

So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper. ;)

------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing.  At the time that Mariner 10 was launched (November 3, 1973, to fly by the planets Mercury and Venus) however, there was no hostility from the physics community to what NASA was doing, because the sling-shot maneuver and the effect of gravity was easy to explain.

The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2016 07:25 pm
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 07:28 pm

...

What role if any does the dielectric play in the solution you have proposed?

A dielectric can increase thrust.

Strictly speaking, there is no thrust as such according to the analysis in your paper: where it is explained as a Brans-Dicke gravitational effect.  When a spacecraft uses gravity assist (a slingslot or swing-by maneuver) to accelerate (altering the path and speed of a spacecraft), we don't call the change in speed as due to "thrust".

So perhaps this effect should more rigorously be denoted as <<A dielectric can increase the (Brans Dicke) gravity assist>> according to your paper. ;)

------------------------
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing. The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).

Indeed, you should take the previous formula for thrust and substitute the Newton constant obtained by the consistency equation. Both will depend on the dielectric constant of the medium inside the cavity. A rather involved relation indeed. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/13/2016 07:32 pm
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2016 07:35 pm
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o

You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate. But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tchernik on 09/13/2016 07:51 pm
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o

I find it quite evocative that, after Michelson and Morley's experiment, studying light in specific contexts could bring another potential scientific revolution on this century.

Because anyone can object to minuscule thrust experiments, blaming it all to noise and sloppy experiments, but our abilities to measure light's interference with itself are much better than our skills to measure thrust, and the potential causes of certain light behaviors are much more restricted than experimental error. There are simply no known ways to mimic light warping caused by space warping/gravity in a vacuum.

Basically, if there are certain repeatable anomalous interference patterns, then it's almost certainly a real effect, even if the thrust is minuscule.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2016 08:32 pm
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.

Quote from: StrongGR
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.




According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2016 09:48 pm
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.

Quote from: StrongGR
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.




According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.

So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Fugudaddy on 09/13/2016 10:54 pm
Just as a quick aside;
I've expressed this before but the truth of it is that this forum is still an amazing teaching tool about *science*.
How questions get asked, how skepticism and pointed analysis lead to better designed experiments, how collaboration and building on ideas happens...
And in this particular instance, there are things happening that we don't yet understand.
New Science and New Frontiers in human understanding is a real possibility. Still a small one, but growing in confidence it seems.
That s**t is exciting, yo.  :P
Keep on with the amazing work, there's a bunch of us out here just watching with amazement and wonder.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/13/2016 11:55 pm
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.

Quote from: StrongGR
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.




According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.

So it looks like the Mach theory may be the correct line to follow all the way along.

I have a feeling if there is a truth to this matter, and we get to the bottom of it, and many of the proposed concepts are grounded in reality, that many of them are subtly linked.  I think GR mentioned gravitational disturbances escaping the cavity.  To me that implies what ever space time is made up of escaping which makes one ask what is space time and may possibly be connected to other ideas.  The energy density in the cavity modifying gravity in GR's proposal may possibly give insight along with the Polarizeable Vacuum theory where gravity modifies the vacuum density which may then be related to equations changing the mass of light providing more impulse of light in water and a back-reaction on the water.  (parallel that to the index of vacuum changing).  When we start changing the mass of light in a cavity bouncing back and forth, well that sounds really similar to the Woodward effect now.  We also have White's proposal of the quantum vacuum rocket.  Maybe it could even Parallel back to ideas of Richard Feynman.  Its like puzzle pieces.  When ideas start to match up that are grounded in reality from multiple perspectives we might begin to see the bigger picture of what's possible. 



Edited3.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/14/2016 12:34 am
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o

You scientists can certainly get fiery when big scientific issues are at debate.(http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji3.png) But rather than weapons words become your missiles & no prisoners are taken. There seems a long history of such verbal sparring in the scientific world.


Not to mention the manly art of fisticuffs - which were known to happen from time to time at early conferences on quantum mechanics or the denial thereof.   :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 09/14/2016 12:39 am
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o

Can you elaborate a little more please, regarding equations (79) through (81) in your Brans-Dicke paper? I'm trying to understand the relationship between "G" and "Eta". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that as the mode "k" increases, and energy density increases, 1/G is increasing, or G is getting smaller. You simply say that the gravitational constant is "modified", but in what way? What are the relationships between say, the Maxwell field, E & B, and G? I saw that you said the change is proportional to U4, but G or 1/G?

The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.

In the PV Model, the coordinate velocity of light as observed by a distant observer in flat space-time, is modified by the gravitational  field, using a refractive index, K.

c(K) = c/K

Therefore, since c4/G must remain invariant in the frame of the distant observer,

G(K) = G/K4

In the PV Model, K is directly proportional to the energy density, U. So as the energy density increases, G(K) decreases. i.e.,

1/G ~ U4

it seems like we're on the same page but I think more details in the paper are in order since the integral of equation 81, is rather complex.

Thank you.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/14/2016 01:57 am
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Fugudaddy on 09/14/2016 02:19 am
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?

(Thanks google translate)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: demofsky on 09/14/2016 03:18 am
我开始做实验了,TE013模的天线匹配难度很大,请问大家有没有好的建议?
I started doing experiment, TE013 mode antenna matching is very difficult, do you have any good suggestions?

(Thanks google translate)

This is the best post I have seen on this recently:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583043#msg1583043 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583043#msg1583043)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: birchoff on 09/14/2016 03:28 am


Why would it be interesting? because beyond being interesting for its own scientific sake, it would be interesting because:

A) it may explain some naturally occurring cosmological phenomena hereto unexplained to this date (there are many unexplained cosmological phenomena of course  ;) )


As a possible explaination for the trans-Planckian problem with Hawking Radiation?

A black hole is a closed cavity full of EM of sorts, and we observe radiative behaviors that are inconsistent with our predictions in that black body environment.

Does it even really matter that the EM Field is confined? Or is the requirement really that the EM Field in a region of space time be denser than surrounding environment. If the later then I would think there would be alot of astronomical entities one could investigate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: tleach on 09/14/2016 03:29 am
As a side note, gravity assist (used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards) seems to violate conservation of energy and momentum, apparently adding velocity to the spacecraft out of nothing.  At the time that Mariner 10 was launched (November 3, 1973, to fly by the planets Mercury and Venus) however, there was no hostility from the physics community to what NASA was doing, because the sling-shot maneuver and the effect of gravity was easy to explain.

The linear momentum gained by the spaceship is equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet, so the spacecraft gains velocity and the planet loses velocity. (The planet's enormous mass compared to the spacecraft makes the resulting change in the planet negligibly small).

I think what you mean to say is that the linear momentum gained by the spaceship is ALMOST equal in magnitude to that lost by the planet  ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly#Possible_explanations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly#Possible_explanations)

Or, I suppose it might have just been a loose cable... If it was that pesky cable again, well gosh darn it, I'm definitely going to have to say something to the IT department this time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: birchoff on 09/14/2016 03:31 am
So if it's generating a gravity assist where is getting the assist in gravity from?
According to my understanding of Dr. Frasca's paper, it is getting an assist from the electromagnetic energy density inside an asymmetric resonant cavity which modifies the local gravitational field.

Quote from: StrongGR
inside a resonant cavity, with a large e.m. field, things could be quite different as I show. Particularly, Newton constant could become quite large due the square of the energy density of the e.m. field inside. This kind of physical setup has not been analyzed before for Brans-Dicke theory and the results appear to be absolutely striking.




According to Woodward/Sciama/Mach/Hoyle/Narlikar it is getting a gravitational assist from all the distant masses in the Universe that are responsible for inertia.

If that is true then in a super conducting frustum where losses would be negligible. Once should be able to detect a reduction in the momentum transfer if it were possible to simply power up the SC Frustum and  never recharge it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: birchoff on 09/14/2016 03:35 am
Someone posted this over Reddit:
Quote
Because these modifications of the gravity coupling constant are kind of the Brans-Dicke thing. It is just what makes it distinct from GR and worth studying. If the presence of some asymmetrical field caused a 1016 or so enhancement of the gravitational coupling constant, we'd see macroscopic effects. Under such an enhancement, the gravitational force between two oranges held half a meter apart would be almost 5 tonnes! It'd be very hard to miss.
I can't speak to whatever it is that they're doing in private, of course. But this is what I think based on what's in the paper.
[…]
The point of the example is to show that if such enhancements were possible given something as mundane as a field inside an asymmetric cavity, we'd have seen similar enhancements in other contexts. Waveguides are extremely well-studied objects. We would know that Brans-Dicke is the correct theory, because its effects would be unmistakable.
At any rate, I don't see any of his equations that could plausibly give an enhancement factor of 1016.

Marco, what is that 1016 enhancement of the value that would be required for a closed asymmetric cavity to produce thrusts observed according to Brans-Dicke theory? Where would it originate from and is it legit or a misunderstanding of your work? Is gravity coupling constant x 1016 the kind of rough estimate we could expect from asymmetric frustums powered by a few hundreds of watts of RF power?

These are correct questions but, until I do not provide numbers, an answer to them there is not. I am working on this. The point here is that what happens inside the cavity is a local effect driven by the density of energy of the e.m. that, due to the coupling with gravity, could modify in some unexpected way the Newton constant. This could be a game changer together with the geometrical set-up and the characteristics of the cavity. You should consider that these are completely new scenarios for general relativity and theories alike.

I was operating under the impression that most if not all of the graviational effect would be isolated within the frustum. Is this not true? If so then unless people have been playing with asymmetrical frustums of the sort used to create EmDrives, then there is zero reason that anyone would have ever detected anything. In addition would the gravitational effect affect everything or just the frequencies of the EM Field reflecting inside the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: birchoff on 09/14/2016 03:43 am

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong paper. I'm looking at the paper by Frasca. It estimates a thrust for typical geometries of 6E-22N. Perhaps by 'practical' you get excited by the most minute possible effects but this does not relate to the thrusts reported for practical devices in the literature so I do not understand what you are saying. Six ten thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of one Newton is nothing to get excited about. At least for me. Do we have a disconnect? Thanks.

General relativity grants a tiny effect indeed but the effect is there, anyway. This is important for physicists because one can think to observe gravitational effects in a lab. Who thought the emdrive being reactionless was just wrong.

Speaking with people at NASA, they just said that the effects they see seem to imply a varying Newton constant. This was the clue for the revision of my paper. Using a well-known theory, Brans-Dicke, you can have this and increase the effect by magnitude orders. I am on the way to get some numerical estimations. I hope to post some numbers in the next few days.

Thanks. So your saying you hope the numbers you get soon will match the experimental numbers people are getting. Hopefully in your theory it's still an effect that works in deep space, away from any other gravitating body.

Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.

If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.

P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/14/2016 06:09 am
And so it starts:

Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:

Quote
Thought you should know this.  The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:

"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"

My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games.  But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable.  Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others.  We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.

I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/14/2016 06:30 am
I am probably going to get slapped down for suggesting this but is the EM drive in any way a gravity drive or am I just utterly wrong?

We will know this for sure when Dr. White and his collaborators will publish their results obtained with the interferometer.

Just a comment. All this seems the starting of an earthquake for the scientific community. Resistance should be expected for sure. The storm is due on December.  :o

Can you elaborate a little more please, regarding equations (79) through (81) in your Brans-Dicke paper? I'm trying to understand the relationship between "G" and "Eta". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that as the mode "k" increases, and energy density increases, 1/G is increasing, or G is getting smaller. You simply say that the gravitational constant is "modified", but in what way? What are the relationships between say, the Maxwell field, E & B, and G? I saw that you said the change is proportional to U4, but G or 1/G?

The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.

In the PV Model, the coordinate velocity of light as observed by a distant observer in flat space-time, is modified by the gravitational  field, using a refractive index, K.

c(K) = c/K

Therefore, since c4/G must remain invariant in the frame of the distant observer,

G(K) = G/K4

In the PV Model, K is directly proportional to the energy density, U. So as the energy density increases, G(K) decreases. i.e.,

1/G ~ U4

it seems like we're on the same page but I think more details in the paper are in order since the integral of equation 81, is rather complex.

Thank you.

You should not just focus on these two equations. The missing relations are in the computations given in the preceding sections. Then, I will explain how to proceed to get numbers out.

The square of the stress-energy tensor is provided by eq.(59) and following. Please note that here I will apply some severe approximations by averaging on cos(θ0) and in time. The idea is to see if eq.(82) admits a solution in φ and, if affirmative, the order of magnitude one obtains for the gravitational constant. L0 is obtained by mediating on the cavity eq.(47) (it is an integral average). Here there is the dependence on G that will be taken as a varying field as expected on a Brans-Dicke model. The dependence on r is obtained by eq.(69).  Eq.(66) fixes the value of the energy density and its dependence on k.

I expect from this a rough estimation to understand how things go, due to the heavy approximations I used. One can refine all the arguments by providing an exact solution to eq.(79). This could be afforded numerically but all I want to do is to obtain an order of magnitude.

I do not know what the PV model is and why you should expect c4/G being a constant. I am using a well-known model, widely used by researchers to test general relativity, that takes as gravitational coupling the inverse of a scalar field. This is mathematically and physically consistent as already shown at its inception in the '60s. So, if this is your proposal, you could be diverging from the Brans-Dicke model and general relativity as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/14/2016 06:36 am

...

Welcome. Please, note that this object is self-contained and does not need external bodies to work. It is the e.m. field inside the cavity that provides the proper gravitational disturbances to move it.

If no gravitational body is needed. Then how is motion being generated. If it requires a gravitating body. Then I can easily imagine a scenario similar to buoyancy. If not then the only other thing I could fathom is there is the asymmetrical frustum would be creating a gravity gradient that is contained within it but just off center from the center of mass of the frustum. Which would leads to the frustum wanting to move along the gradient.

P.S. If one were to plot gravity like we do elevation technically if you zoomed out of that picture you would realize that we are never outside the effects of a gravitating body. It just becomes a question of how large the effect of gravity is away from the source. There is the gravity field of Earth, the field of the sun. The field created by all the mass in our solar system, the field created by all the mass in our galaxy and the field seemingly created by all the dark matter permeating our galaxy. I think the only place you could really find flat space time is in the spaces between galaxies.

When I read this I think about all the educational books about general relativity: matter says to space-time how to curve and space-time says matter how to move. So, here the "body" is the e.m. field inside the cavity that, by changing space-time, gets back a reaction that moves it along with the cavity (the change in space-time applies both to the field and the cavity).
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2016 06:52 am
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/14/2016 07:09 am
Just to explain why I posted that recent discovery about the possible reality of time crystals, I realise now I hadn't really given any proper explanation of something that would look OT. It was to give an example of something that was thought impossible in physics even breaking a fundamental rule. But upon further closer study over time and improved technology in certain areas, ion traps in this case, actually turned out to be possible in theory and in reality too. Something I think is paralleled by the EM drive.

Yes, indeed. But if I would have sent such an idea to that journal (time crystals went out by Frank Wilczek, Nobel winner, on Physical Review Letters), it would have been straightforwardly rejected. It is important also the person who makes the proposal to get an idea through (authority principle).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/14/2016 07:37 am
And so it starts:

Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:

Quote
Thought you should know this.  The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:

"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"

My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games.  But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable.  Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others.  We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.

I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.

pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...

I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.

A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information.... ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/14/2016 08:18 am
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/14/2016 08:20 am
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 09/14/2016 08:33 am
And so it starts:

Received from the Reddit EmDrive moderator Always_Question:

Quote
Thought you should know this.  The fake "Paul March" StarDriveEW sent me this PM on reddit:

"It's become clear on reading reddit today that I have made an error of judgement in posting to your page. It is full of conspiracy, suspicion and anger. I am very displeased that one of your friends TheTravellerReturns has faked an email from me. To what end he has done this escapes me. It is this person who should be distrusted. If he is the same person as the user on Nasaspaceflight then he is guilty of doing more to harm resonant cavity research than anyone else I have come across. Yours Paul March"

My guess is a disgruntled banned user playing some games.  But his posts to the sub were very subtle and initially quite believable.  Probably in the hopes of building up some cred and then using that somehow to damage the EmDrive efforts of others.  We'll probably see many more smokescreens leading up to the release of the paper and probably well beyond then.

I can assure this forum that Paul March did not write those words.

pffff... seriously?...
What kind of sick and pathetic mind would try to impersonate and potentially damage the reputation of Ir.Paul March (and that of EagleWorks and/or NASA)? Such a person belongs in a mental institute...

I think the world is already challenging enough for engineers/scientist that it really doesn't need another layer on intrigues, political maneuvering and deceptions.

A good thing you have kept a personal contact with ir Paul March to correct this deception and disinformation. Before you know it, the complete popular world press would/could have picked up incorrect information.... ::)

You are right. It could have caused more trouble for this project. This happened, and paper is not even out for the public. To the defens of the news paper guys. Many of them know they do not fully understands what is going on and are open to hear from more educated people on this matter, thus correct their mistakes in the text. Of course this subject is very hard to explain to the public, so they need to make it "understandable".

EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Chrochne on 09/14/2016 08:36 am
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Flyby on 09/14/2016 08:56 am
....

EmDrive topic really made a community of sorts here. It is nice to see that you debunked that imposter together.
Most of the credits of defacing the imposter goes to TT, as he took the effort to contact Ir. Paul March.

I mentioned it here on this forum, because I found it strange that Ir. P. March decided to communicate on Reddit , rather then inhere , which is a much more discussion-friendly and professional environment.

Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...

It is quite shocking, tbh...
Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind.
It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/14/2016 10:23 am
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/14/2016 10:46 am
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: qraal on 09/14/2016 11:44 am

Tbh, I had some (small) doubts, but considering the degree of social engineering (fe calling Dr.White by his first name Harold, as if they were close friends), I admit I really did consider it to be ir.Paul March. I just found it an odd behavior, but I wasn't thinking about an imposter...

Pseudo-March's first mistake was calling him "Harold" - everyone calls him "Sonny". Even the real Paul March.

Quote
It is quite shocking, tbh... Call me naive, but that kind of vicious behavior is not the first thing that comes to my mind. It's something I'm not used to deal with. That's more CIA, NSA, propaganda oriented stuff...
Not my cup of T...

Never attribute to design or malice, what can be explained by stupidity or attention-seeking. There are some very self-delusional people in Academia, and no doubt big Institutions like NASA, who think that astro-turfing and sock-puppeting opinion is the *best* way to promote their pet theories. Plenty would love to shut down divergent and competing viewpoints to their own.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Tellmeagain on 09/14/2016 11:54 am
I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线

This result is consistent with the numbers obtained from HFSS simulation. I used single ring coupling antenna. --human translator
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Fan Boi on 09/14/2016 12:56 pm
Maybe this is sort of like half an Alcubierre drive, space-time is being warped slightly (expanded or contracted) and the center of mass follows along?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/14/2016 02:25 pm
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: SeeShells on 09/14/2016 02:33 pm
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线

Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?

Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/14/2016 02:39 pm
I need some help. Could anybody out there give me the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields inside the cavity, varying power source, mode frequency and so on? Thanks.
I would like to help but I am unable to do so for the next three weeks due to unrelated-business travel, and a conference presentation on breakthrough propulsion. 

There are many people that may be able (?) to help, I would suggest Monomorphic or X_Ray (in alphabetical order  ;)) if they could re-post one of the many solutions they already posted or, if you could detail a specific geometry or other information they could solve the particular geometry and input you are most interested in   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: oyzw on 09/14/2016 03:16 pm
我测量到了TE013模,2.54G  S11 -8.1

I measured the TE013 mode , 2.54G S11 -8.1   -google translator

-8.16 dB S11 rtn loss is NOT a good number. Something is seriously wrong.
[/quote这个结果符合HFSS仿真得出的数值,我采用的是单环耦合天线

Need to know everything with your design.
Cavity size, all parameters
Spherical end plates or flat?
Materials used?
Loop location or locations
Loop orentation
Loop size radius
Wire size used for loop
Coax lengths
Type of coax
Coax insertion point into frustum
How are you adjusting the loop position internally?

Dr. Rodal and a few others have summarized much of what has been talked about here in a must read blog. This is beautiful work and a gold mine of information. (Thank you Dr. Rodal and those who contributed!)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347

Shell
这是我的仿真结果,与实测基本一致
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Rodal on 09/14/2016 03:47 pm

这是我的仿真结果,与实测基本一致



You state that your calculated results are consistent with your measurement, but in your post you show completely different variables for what is calculated (electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1369726;image)


 as opposed to what you measure (the input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency). 


(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40959.0;attach=1369729;image)


Where is the verification showing consistency of calculation vs. measurement, showing the same calculated variable for comparison with the measured variable?   ???

A verification would consist of:

*showing calculated input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency [NOT SHOWN]
and comparing with
* measured input port voltage reflection coefficient, S11 vs frequency [DONE]

or

*showing calculated electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone  [DONE]
and comparing with
* measured electric field in volt/meter vs. geometrical location in the truncated cone  [NOT SHOWN]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: RERT on 09/14/2016 07:20 pm
StrongGR -

From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.

If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.

Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: StrongGR on 09/14/2016 07:46 pm
StrongGR -

From recent remarks of yours I understand that you believe that distortion of spacetime could be the 'exhaust' which carries away momentum from the EMDrive.

If I'm correct in that reading of what you are saying, then it is interesting to note that because the observed effects are much larger than a photon rocket, at first blush it appears the distortions carrying momentum must have a much higher ratio of momentum to energy than regular gravitational waves.

Please tell me if mis-understood what you were saying, but if not, could you comment?

R.

This appears only possible if the Newton constant changes inside the cavity. I proved this possible in the Brans-Dicke model. I am computing the order of magnitude of this effect to see if it could be acceptable as an explanation for the observed thrust at EW, in view of the December's paper. Anyhow, it is interesting to note that the effect exists and depends on the geometry of the cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2016 07:51 pm
Do you believe this effect would scale in a linear fashion with an increase in size of the cavity? Therefore become more measurable with a larger cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/14/2016 08:25 pm
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c4/G?

This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant) κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.

The key to that finding is hereby described:

"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.

However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c2 must be constant.

Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."


The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8
Post by: WarpTech on 09/14/2016 09:28 pm
The reason I ask is, in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR, it is not mentioned but c4/G must be invariant, as are all measurements of Force. Any change in G must also be a change made to c4, because all forces should be invariant in a gravitational field, including this, the Planck force.
Can you elaborate on why the only invariant constant in the PV model would be c4/G?

This reminds me of a work a few years ago about unearthing Einstein's constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant) κ and its roots in general relativity, which surprisingly does not force c and G to be absolutely invariant constants (as well as all the other so-called "constants" of physics), leading to the fact that all physical constants would be allowed to vary (though time, or through local energy density modifications, or another process to be defined) in a joint gauge process, letting all physical laws untouched.

The key to that finding is hereby described:

"The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the stress–energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate would be violated.

However, since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be unvarying constants themselves, the only postulate derived from conservation of energy is that the ratio G/c2 must be constant.

Depending on the choice of natural units, this ratio can be set to a defined constant value; subject to measurement is the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant, variation in which would not necessarily amount to violation of the conservation of four-momentum."


The mathematical development leading to this conclusion is detailed in the Wikipedia link I provided in this post.

Dimensional Analysis & Consistency!
In the PV Model, we have the relationships between space-time and the refractive index, K, in the frame of a distant observer where K=1. Where, he is comparing to observations in gravitational fields, regions where K > 1.

x = x0 / K1/2
t = t0 * K1/2
m = m0 * K3/2

By dimensional analysis;

Force F = m*x/t2 = m0*x0/t02  is independent of K

If this were not true, then electromagnetic forces would be variables in a gravitational field. They are not. Atoms and their atomic transitions are scaled in space-time, but the forces between constituent particles are the same, regardless of the gravity well they