-
EM Drive Developments Thread 1
by
EdT
on 27 Jun, 2012 23:52
-
-
#1
by
QuantumG
on 27 Jun, 2012 23:56
-
I hear North Korea is building one too.
-
#2
by
docmordrid
on 28 Jun, 2012 00:10
-
I *think* there was an article about an Infinite Improbability Drive around here somewhere..
Answer: not much that is credible.
-
#3
by
JBF
on 29 Apr, 2013 00:45
-
New information up on
http://www.emdrive.com/November 2012
China publishes high power test results
The prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences has published a paper by Professor Yang Juan confirming their high power test results. At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust. The results have clearly been subject to extensive peer review following the NWPU 2010 paper. The measurements were made on a national standard, thrust measurement device, used for Ion Engine development. Details of the measurement system and calibration data are given in the paper. A professional English translation is given here:
http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdfWell, newer than the last comment in any case.
-
#4
by
grondilu
on 03 May, 2013 21:42
-
At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.
A photon has energy E = hf and momentum p = hf / c = E / c
F = dp/dt = dE/dt / c
So even if all the energy was converted into photons all emited in the desired direction, that would make a force:
F = 2.5e3/3e8 = 8e-6 N
That's 90 000 times less than 720 mN.
Where am I wrong?
-
#5
by
Nathan
on 03 May, 2013 22:10
-
At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.
A photon has energy E = hf and momentum p = hf / c = E / c
F = dp/dt = dE/dt / c
So even if all the energy was converted into photons all emited in the desired direction, that would make a force:
F = 2.5e3/3e8 = 8e-6 N
That's 90 000 times less than 720 mN.
Where am I wrong?
Read the papers. You are missing the q factors, relativity etc. work thru the math in the paper then make a post. I did it and even though I'm not entirely convinced I am thinking that it is a possibility- especially given that the effect has been independently confirmed.
It needs a serious look.
-
#6
by
IslandPlaya
on 31 Jul, 2014 15:04
-
-
#7
by
Stormbringer
on 31 Jul, 2014 16:38
-
say...one of the names of that paper as opposed to the Wired article on this has:
Brady, David (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
White, Harold G. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
March, Paul (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Lawrence, James T. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Davies, Frank J. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States)
Harold white of QVPT and warp drive fame and Paul March of Machs Principle fame.
i sense a disturbance in the force...
it's as if the forces of maverick science reached out and slapped establishment science with a wet tuna.
-
#8
by
Star One
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:13
-
-
#9
by
KelvinZero
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:43
-
New paper describing encouraging results from the testing of an 'EM-drive' like device.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Hope it stands up to further scrutiny. Could be a real game changer!
Yep.. free energy. Forget the heat death of the universe, we will just keep creating additional mass locally.
Hmm.. actually perhaps this answers the Fermi paradox.
It may simply be impossible for a species spread across the stars with access to free energy and mass to have the discipline to not create more living space exponentially, and eventually suck its local group into a black hole.
-
#10
by
Dunners73
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:44
-
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
-
#11
by
Star One
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:45
-
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
-
#12
by
Stormbringer
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:54
-
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
i think they are part of a broad classification of propulsion, etc labelled Space drives? maybe that is why?
-
#13
by
Dunners73
on 31 Jul, 2014 18:03
-
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
I dont think they are very similar at all. - The Q thruster attempts to act upon underlying virtual particles to produce thrust without reaction mass while the EMdrive is trying a scheme of pumping microwaves into a sealed high Q (which equates to highly internally reflective) chamber, where one end is a different geometry to the other.
I suppose the results might be similar..
-
#14
by
john smith 19
on 31 Jul, 2014 18:35
-
Well it's appeared again.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
This is the main link.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Anyone notice Harold 'warp drive' White is one of the authors on this?
Reading the NASA papers (which is damm strange. It's more like an extended abstract. Is this
due to be presented somewhere) shows it's
nothing to do with the Chinese EM thruster work but is Sonny White's Quantum Vacuum Thruster
Here's the weird thing.
"within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure. "
Personally I could see that 35-50 micro Newton (1x10^-6) being a microwave heating effect on the
air. 
Show that with door on the chamber closed and the air pumped
out makes the situation much more interesting.
Clearly the dear old Wired reports have conflated the QVT work with the EM thruster work, although I have to admit from a
superficial reading the two seem similar.
-
#15
by
Star One
on 31 Jul, 2014 18:45
-
Is it me or did that Wired article do this topic no favours, this stuff is right on the edge of technology and understanding and conflating things like that isn't helping?
Those more knowledgable than me is the NASA link helpful at all?
-
#16
by
NovaSilisko
on 31 Jul, 2014 18:56
-
And so begins the flailing by the uninformed once again.
-
#17
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 31 Jul, 2014 19:12
-
Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both test
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce
thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
This looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
-
#18
by
Star One
on 31 Jul, 2014 21:19
-
-
#19
by
IslandPlaya
on 31 Jul, 2014 22:29
-
Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both test
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce
thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
This looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
Can you explain more about the power supply being in a different reference frame?
Surely it is not. It is at rest compared to the test device.
