...Personally, I do not find Shawyer's equation to be that far off. I agree, his theory is flawed if you consider only perfectly conducting walls and group velocity. But, given asymmetrical losses, his assumption that F2 - F1 > 0 is exactly what it is. Two forces that are not exactly equal, opposing each other. The "how and why" are debatable, but the reality of it is not. Had someone done a Buckingham Pie Theory analysis of this, just based on input variables, the Max. potential thrust, 2*Q*P/c multiplied by an unknown Df based on the geometry, and whose value is to be experimentally determined, is exactly what you should get. Todd D.
Quote from: rfcavity on 05/19/2015 07:44 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 07:20 pmQuote from: squid on 05/19/2015 06:51 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 06:30 pmBoth Shawyer & the Chinese claim their many physical devices produce thrust and the measurement of that thrust is in agreement with their theoretical calculations. Both also claim no new physics is needed and CofE / CofM are conserved.I mean you say it can't work as they claim, yet it does and the measured thrust from many devices, measured in different ways, in different labs, in different countries all closely matched what their theory says the thrust should be.With respect, just maybe your explanation / understanding of what is happening inside the frustum is not at the same level as Shawyer or the Chinese?Or perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits? This is all standard physics, supported by a century of experiments all conducted with far more precision and rigor than anything published on the EM drive.Incidentally, after doing a brief literature search, I have attached an experiment performed in the early 90's on a superconducting frustrum cavity, with a Q of at least 20,000. The paper is nice in that it gives explicit formulae for the EM fields in such a cavity. Their classical model fits the data perfectly. I might also note that they didn't see the thing shoot out of their dewar...Guess you have not read the Chinese data:http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010testresults.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdfThe thrust measured was not the EagleWorks mosquito landing on your arm level. Maybe read the papers before claimingQuoteOr perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits?as a quick way to dismiss their results.A.single paper is not a magic wand which causes all previous results to disappear. It cannot chan ge the tens of thousands of previous measure ments that have taken place in the last 50years. How do you refute cavities in pillbox shape that are used in GPS satellite atomic clocks? These have been characterized down to sub nanowatt levels, and no mystery power draw is observed and no thrust is observed in the GPS satellites (the location of which must be known very well.)I don't refute the past nor existing devices as you should not. However that does not say they are all that is possible or that we know all possible variations of the theories thus embodied.There is not a single paper, there are many.Before signing a license deal with SPR, involving both the US and UK governments, Boeing would have crawled all over the SPR, all their devices, test rigs and especially the Demonstrator Engine and its static and dynamic test rigs. As part of that license deal, SPR built, tested and shipped the Flight Thruster to Boeing. SPR's claims for the results of the Flight Thruster are well known to Boeing. Never heard Boeing claim the Flight Thruster did not meet contract conditions.BTW on the EagleWorks slide showing the various SPR devices, the Flight Thruster is labelled as a "High Fidelity Test Article". As the slide is from NASA. I'm sure SPR did not write that on the slide.Just maybe something is happening that is inside the existing theories, yet largely unrealised. Both the Chinese and SPR state no new physics is needed and both CofE and CofM are conserved. Their theory math supports their claims and as well the theory math predicts the thrust they measured in 3 different ways.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 07:20 pmQuote from: squid on 05/19/2015 06:51 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 06:30 pmBoth Shawyer & the Chinese claim their many physical devices produce thrust and the measurement of that thrust is in agreement with their theoretical calculations. Both also claim no new physics is needed and CofE / CofM are conserved.I mean you say it can't work as they claim, yet it does and the measured thrust from many devices, measured in different ways, in different labs, in different countries all closely matched what their theory says the thrust should be.With respect, just maybe your explanation / understanding of what is happening inside the frustum is not at the same level as Shawyer or the Chinese?Or perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits? This is all standard physics, supported by a century of experiments all conducted with far more precision and rigor than anything published on the EM drive.Incidentally, after doing a brief literature search, I have attached an experiment performed in the early 90's on a superconducting frustrum cavity, with a Q of at least 20,000. The paper is nice in that it gives explicit formulae for the EM fields in such a cavity. Their classical model fits the data perfectly. I might also note that they didn't see the thing shoot out of their dewar...Guess you have not read the Chinese data:http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010testresults.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdfThe thrust measured was not the EagleWorks mosquito landing on your arm level. Maybe read the papers before claimingQuoteOr perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits?as a quick way to dismiss their results.A.single paper is not a magic wand which causes all previous results to disappear. It cannot chan ge the tens of thousands of previous measure ments that have taken place in the last 50years. How do you refute cavities in pillbox shape that are used in GPS satellite atomic clocks? These have been characterized down to sub nanowatt levels, and no mystery power draw is observed and no thrust is observed in the GPS satellites (the location of which must be known very well.)
Quote from: squid on 05/19/2015 06:51 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 06:30 pmBoth Shawyer & the Chinese claim their many physical devices produce thrust and the measurement of that thrust is in agreement with their theoretical calculations. Both also claim no new physics is needed and CofE / CofM are conserved.I mean you say it can't work as they claim, yet it does and the measured thrust from many devices, measured in different ways, in different labs, in different countries all closely matched what their theory says the thrust should be.With respect, just maybe your explanation / understanding of what is happening inside the frustum is not at the same level as Shawyer or the Chinese?Or perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits? This is all standard physics, supported by a century of experiments all conducted with far more precision and rigor than anything published on the EM drive.Incidentally, after doing a brief literature search, I have attached an experiment performed in the early 90's on a superconducting frustrum cavity, with a Q of at least 20,000. The paper is nice in that it gives explicit formulae for the EM fields in such a cavity. Their classical model fits the data perfectly. I might also note that they didn't see the thing shoot out of their dewar...Guess you have not read the Chinese data:http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010testresults.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdfThe thrust measured was not the EagleWorks mosquito landing on your arm level. Maybe read the papers before claimingQuoteOr perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits?as a quick way to dismiss their results.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/19/2015 06:30 pmBoth Shawyer & the Chinese claim their many physical devices produce thrust and the measurement of that thrust is in agreement with their theoretical calculations. Both also claim no new physics is needed and CofE / CofM are conserved.I mean you say it can't work as they claim, yet it does and the measured thrust from many devices, measured in different ways, in different labs, in different countries all closely matched what their theory says the thrust should be.With respect, just maybe your explanation / understanding of what is happening inside the frustum is not at the same level as Shawyer or the Chinese?Or perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits? This is all standard physics, supported by a century of experiments all conducted with far more precision and rigor than anything published on the EM drive.Incidentally, after doing a brief literature search, I have attached an experiment performed in the early 90's on a superconducting frustrum cavity, with a Q of at least 20,000. The paper is nice in that it gives explicit formulae for the EM fields in such a cavity. Their classical model fits the data perfectly. I might also note that they didn't see the thing shoot out of their dewar...
Both Shawyer & the Chinese claim their many physical devices produce thrust and the measurement of that thrust is in agreement with their theoretical calculations. Both also claim no new physics is needed and CofE / CofM are conserved.I mean you say it can't work as they claim, yet it does and the measured thrust from many devices, measured in different ways, in different labs, in different countries all closely matched what their theory says the thrust should be.With respect, just maybe your explanation / understanding of what is happening inside the frustum is not at the same level as Shawyer or the Chinese?
Or perhaps they are all making basic mistakes in their sloppy experimental setups, pumping kW of microwave power into poorly shielded cavities and reporting thrusts near their error limits?
...It has not been ignored. Sgawyer has discussed the TC and time to recharge the cavity energy lost to kinetic.His superconducting space plane uses 8 EM Drives, arranged like 2 side by side 4 cylinder inline motors, driven in short pulses of less than 1 TC and phased apart to deliver continuous thrust.
Any portion of an atomic clock has been characterized to a degree many magnitudes greater than any of these test setups demonstrate. Just ask NIST. Unexpected results that have a divergence of the magnitude the papers you posted have claimed would have been identified during their development. If you so strongly believe that these are happening, the timing on the GPS satellites have no correction for the effects observed from Eagleworks and the Chinese lab. Therefore, you should not use GPS receivers or trust any computer time that receives its time from NIST (basically most computers connected to the internet) until this 'new physics' is characterized. Because it would have a huge effect on those calculations.
And in other news, our Roumanian pal Iulian has gone silent....
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/19/2015 11:42 pmAnd in other news, our Roumanian pal Iulian has gone silent....Iulian is a shining example to us all (myself included) as Iulian works silently and humbly and posts only when he has something new to report
Quote from: Rodal on 05/19/2015 11:48 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/19/2015 11:42 pmAnd in other news, our Roumanian pal Iulian has gone silent....Iulian is a shining example to us all (myself included) as Iulian works silently and humbly and posts only when he has something new to report he could have hurt himself. he was using no protection and was asked to rotate the thing a few times.
Quote from: bprager on 05/19/2015 05:16 pmI was wondering if we would be able to get a faster turnaround with prototyping and maybe even cut costs if we could use 3D printing and e.g. conductive graphene filament like this one:We could share computer designs and use local 3D printing services. Would that work?That's what I've been planning on doing. Makes construction a great deal simpler for some of the pieces. I'm getting the bottom plate printed in aluminum and I will drill and tap the bolt holes myself. This makes it much easier to create the spherical concave surface.
I was wondering if we would be able to get a faster turnaround with prototyping and maybe even cut costs if we could use 3D printing and e.g. conductive graphene filament like this one:We could share computer designs and use local 3D printing services. Would that work?
Which is to say that you've missed the point being made about GPS systems.
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/20/2015 12:15 amWhich is to say that you've missed the point being made about GPS systems.No, not really. We have to correct for relativistic effects, but still have a margin of error.Fun fact: the GPS satellites all gave gamma ray detectors on them.
It doesn't matter what Boeing or SPR does, they can't change physics.Any portion of an atomic clock has been characterized to a degree many magnitudes greater than any of these test setups demonstrate. Just ask NIST. Unexpected results that have a divergence of the magnitude the papers you posted have claimed would have been identified during their development.If you so strongly believe that these are happening, the timing on the GPS satellites have no correction for the effects observed from Eagleworks and the Chinese lab. Therefore, you should not use GPS receivers or trust any computer time that receives its time from NIST (basically most computers connected to the internet) until this 'new physics' is characterized. Because it would have a huge effect on those calculations.
This is a 3D model of the "Shawyer Demo". I built it as close as I can figure that it has to be and examining the several photographs that have been shared here. The dimensions are from published values.rfFrequency=2.45*10^9;cavityLength=0.345;bigDiameter=0.28;smallDiameter= 0.128853power = 421 to 1200Q = 45000(measured force = 102.30 milliNewtons only reported for 421 watts, 243 milliNewtons/kW )measured ForcePerPowerInput = 80 to 243Force/PowerInput of a Photon Rocket =0.003337measured ForcePerPowerInput to the one of a photon rocket =23,980 to 72,830While this is a crude SketchUp model if anyone wants the model I'm happy to share it.
The engine was built to operate at 2.45 GHz, with a design factor of 0.844 and has measured Q of 45,000 for an overall diameter of 280 mm.
Quote from: phaseshift on 05/20/2015 01:35 amThis is a 3D model of the "Shawyer Demo". I built it as close as I can figure that it has to be and examining the several photographs that have been shared here. The dimensions are from published values.rfFrequency=2.45*10^9;cavityLength=0.345;bigDiameter=0.28;smallDiameter= 0.128853power = 421 to 1200Q = 45000(measured force = 102.30 milliNewtons only reported for 421 watts, 243 milliNewtons/kW )measured ForcePerPowerInput = 80 to 243Force/PowerInput of a Photon Rocket =0.003337measured ForcePerPowerInput to the one of a photon rocket =23,980 to 72,830While this is a crude SketchUp model if anyone wants the model I'm happy to share it. That is a really impressive job!I have recalculated the small diameter, using Shawyer's paper http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf, see page 7, where Shawyer states Quote from: ShawyerThe engine was built to operate at 2.45 GHz, with a design factor of 0.844 and has measured Q of 45,000 for an overall diameter of 280 mm. (Unfortunately, Shawyer does not provide the small diameter or the cavity length in his paper)I have used this information bigDiameter = 0.28 m;f = 2.45*10^9 Hz;cst = 1.7062895542683174; cM = 299705000 m/s (speed of light in air);Design Factor = 0.844, and inverted the equation for the Design Factor (see: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374110#msg1374110 ) to obtain the following correct dimension:small diameter = 0.09613 mTherefore, the dimensions should be corrected as followsrfFrequency=2.45*10^9;cavityLength=0.345; (ESTIMATED from Photographs)bigDiameter=0.28 m; (provided by Shawyer)smallDiameter= 0.09613 m; (obtained from the Design Factor, bigDiameter and frequency provided by Shawyer)
