Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 965190 times)

Offline LasJayhawk

Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?

Offline TheTraveller

You cite Shawyer as a source with more experience than any of the other people I have mentioned. Even if that is true for experiments, I have posted on here before about the significant errors in his emdrive theory paper. Unless the issues I pointed out in his paper are resolved, Shawyer is not a good source for explanations of existing theory. From what I remember of Yang's paper it referenced Shawyer's hypothesis and stated his claims, but was focused on experiment, not theory.

Prof Yang developed a classical electrodynamics model of the EMDrive that predicted around the same Force levels as Shawyers theory predicted and both models predicted close to the measured Force levels.

Her 2013 peer reviewed paper predicts and graphs the Forces generated on all the surfaces and shows a net Force being generated.

Maybe have a read of her 5 peer reviewed papers?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401423#msg1401423

Like Shawyer, Prof Yang claims no new physics are needed to explain the EMDrive / Shawyer Effect.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Posted by: meberbs
« on: Today at 03:04 PM »

"While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence."

Meberbs:

I'm game. What will it take on the experimentation side of this question to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the the observed thrust like effect is real and engineer-able?  Just more thrust of say XX milli-Newton from say the EW lab, or perhaps just replication of our current EW lab's ~100 micro-Newton (uN) results in an independent lab like Glenn Research Center??  Or will it take a demonstration flight of an emdrive powered XX U-CubeSat where it raises its orbit by some predetermined number of km that can be explained in no other way???  And please do remember that someone has to pay for all these efforts...

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:02 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline TheTraveller

Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?

Distortion in the exciting EM wave may introduce phase distortions that may make forming the resonant standing wave difficult.

It is one of many possible effects I intend to checkout.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 03:46 PM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?

LasJayhawk:

Our RF amplifier is an EMPower Model 1165 unit that claims to be a Class-AB RF amplifier.  Their data sheet can be found here:  http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdf 

Dependent on how its Smith chart tuning is set up for our system, its been my experience to see efficiency numbers at 1937 MHz vary from ~25% up to ~35%.

As to rolling our own RF amplifier design and build, given enough resources that is possible, but only after the powers that be are willing to fund this development, and that won't happen until science folks like meberbs and NASA management consider the emdrive as a real functional thruster that can be invested in, no matter what the real physics behind it may end up being.   

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 860
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust for a given unit power by three orders of magnitude above current thrust levels, and drives a solid state flying machine.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:24 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
Still working getting in the insulation in my shop, slow going by yourself as I had to move most of the test stand and other junk in the shop by myself, my help bailed. lol

It's going to take me a little longer to get'er done but what else could I be doing, other then finishing off my drive??? sigh

Shell


Offline TheTraveller

I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:27 PM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 24
This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity)
....

Electromagnetism has been well incorporated into quantum mechanics, but general relativity and quantum have not been unified into a single accepted theory, although multiple theories attempt to do this. Most results unifying general relativity and electromagnetism are therefore part of what I consider new physics.
I am afraid that your rationale may conduct you to consider that even the General Relativity has to be considered as new physics. After all one of its major prediction : the existence of gravitational waves has not yet been directly confirmed  by measurements.

I dont't know if you accept the conclusions of James Woodward experiments, but all his theoretical analysis are based on the assumption of the validity of General Relativity  and on an approximate and partial solution to its gravitational radiation aspect which is a very difficult mathematical problem by itself.

In the final formulation of General Relativity, Einstein noticed a nontrivial connection between Maxwell’s electrodynamics and his theory of gravity.  He saw that by solving Maxwell’s equations in a gravitational field, not only does the electromagnetic field generate gravity, which is certainly believable from the mass-energy relation, but gravity can enhance a background electromagnetic field given the proper conditions.  This duality was one of the key features of physics that led Einstein and his followers to propose that there is a Grand Unified Theory of all the forces.

Relativity and Maxwell equations have already an experience of fruitfull cooperation : Maxwell equations played a key role in the birth of relativity in suggesting to Einstein that that there was no absolute rest frame, and that all inertial motion was relative.
Now if you want to observe by direct measurement all  the possible predictions of a theory  to not consider it as New Physics, we will have to wait the detection of Gravitational wave may be via its coupling with electromagnetic waves to convince you.  :)

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 860
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 05:02 PM by RotoSequence »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • California
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 371
...

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

There was discussion, on one of the earlier threads, that CG shifts due to heating could account for some of the anomalous thrust that was measured by EW.  I think Dr. Rodal did a very detailed analysis of this.   After the first vacuum tests I made the comment that the response certainly looked more thermal and that the insulating properties of the vacuum made the thermal response more evident and of longer duration.   At that time EW had done a lot to mitigate the error due to Lorentz force.   So we are on the same page as far as sources of measurement error are concerned.

With the Lorentz force effectively minimized, the ability to operate in a good vacuum allows EW to characterize the thermal effects independently.    If I was doing these tests I would apply stick-on mylar heating elements to the hottest part of the fustrum, as determined by the thermal imaging tests.   It's possible the feedline is also heating and pushing on the fustrum so some experimentation may have to be done to closely match the RF heating.    When the heating pads are powered up does this excitation show the same response, but with a different rise time as the RF power tests in a vacuum?   Then maybe apply a power ramp to the heating elements and try to match the rise time of the RF test.   When the best match is obtained, subtract the response from the RF power response and the remainder is actual force caused by this em-drive effect.  Earlier EW was doing the same kind of correction for the Lorentz force error.

I think the EW lab has done an excellent job investigating the em-drive.   I would be one of the last people to say it's a waste of time.    However I don't think you should be afraid of doing tests that could disprove this theory.   We need data from both sides of the fence.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 04:53 PM by zen-in »

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 177

As to rolling our own RF amplifier design and build, given enough resources that is possible, but only after the powers that be are willing to fund this development, and that won't happen until science folks like meberbs and NASA management consider the emdrive as a real functional thruster that can be invested in, no matter what the real physics behind it may end up being.   

Best, Paul M.

Sounds to me like you need some advice on how to steal lollipops from babies.

OK, let's say you need some money to finish this properly.  Let's pretend I can get someone to write you a check for whatever that # is.

Here's how the game works.

1st we get a conditional letter of intent from someone in NASA, NRO, USAF, to your prospective funder to conditionally purchase 10 test articles for whatever purposes they want, each guaranteed to produce > 100 microNewtons of thrust in LEO or an LEO simulator of their choice, for a minimum of 1 hour.  The price of each test article equals the $ amount of the money you need.  Standard Seed ROI request.

The condition is that when you are ready, and before you run out of money, the results are independently vetted by a committee of five reputable physicists, ideally with John Baez as the selector for the participants, and that this vetting fulfills the conditions to issue a purchase order, provided the committee concurs that real thrust higher than that expected from a photonic drive is happening and no propellent is outgassing from the system.  If the committee findings are negative, the investor walks, everything cancels.

If you pass, then your management works with the TTP folks to transfer any and all EW IP to your funder on a 3 year exclusive basis, and then place it in the public domain at the end of three years.  The letter of intent reverts to a live purchase order.

There are variations on this theme, but this is roughly how it would work.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 05:09 PM by glennfish »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
(...)

CW:

"If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated.  In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration."

Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...

BTW, IF QV spacetime flow is the root cause of the phenomenon we call gravity generated by mass, IMO there has to be at least one more spatial dimension beyond our normally perceived 3D universe to provide this QV gravity flow a "drain" back into the universal QV reservoir.  If you read the EW Lab's Bohr atom paper over at the NASA NTRS file server that I pointed to last night, you will note the 1/r^4 force dependency with distance of the Casimir force.  If you delve deeper into why this is so, you will find that this 1/r^4 force dependency requires an n+1 spatial dimension system or a 5d+time (6D) universe.   

Best, Paul M.

If I remember correctly, the higher dimensions are 'hidden' from our human everyday observations and only begin to affect objects as of sub-micron distances. Interestingly, the things 'living' in this region are the 'real' physical particles. If spacetime or quantum vacuum were a 6D-entity, then I think this would imply that particles themselves could be 6D (or ?D), too.

Were 'mass' just a measure of how much spacetime (or a subset hereof) flows into a ?D object per unit of 'time', one might argue that each known particle type with its distinct 'mass' could be interpreted as having a different 'spacetime aperture' through which spacetime can flow (wherever to in this 6D spacetime). I think that in this case, there should exist a sort of 'Kirchhoff's current law' for spacetime-flows: The sum of all spacetime influx and outflow must be 0 at all times ;) .

If gravity were actually an emergent spacetime flow phenomenon, caused by spacetime apertures into the higher spacetime dimensions through particles with 'mass', then this strange phenomenon that we call spatial expansion might be at least partially connected to this. In a 6D world, I can at least imagine that e.g. a ?D subset of spacetime-flow, that enters the 'parent' 6D spacetime structure through mass apertures into the 6D realm, could randomly pop up again literally anywhere in 4D space and be not even close to the particle mass aperture, through which it left our 4D space in the first place. This might at least give an idea how it can be even possible for 'space' to seemingly 'increase' in between astronomical objects. As long as there is considerably more empty spacetime than matter in the universe, then mass apertures sucking away spacetime into the 6D world and the spacetime appearing at a random location in 4D again could perhaps be a theoretical mechanism for apparent spatial expansion: It's just volumes of previously eaten up space, randomly reappearing elsewhere ;) .
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline TheUberOverLord

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • U.S.
    • Secure Methods To Display IP Cameras In Websites
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
Questions for all and any.

For those that ponder that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for reported thrust in prior EM Drive experiments or that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for some percentage of total thrust.

Why does there seem to be so much of a difference between reported thrust levels with experiments conducted in a vacuum vs. in our normal atmosphere?

Do some think there is some higher tuning required to get equivalent thrust results in a vacuum vs. our normal atmosphere which still needs to take place?

I'm asking because I thought that "Virtual Particles" are created and disappear in about the same quantities in both a vacuum and our normal atmosphere.  Am I wrong about this assumption? If not then why does it appear/seem that past results of EM Drive build experiments in a vacuum, have lower thrust results?

Can current thrust estimates being used for EM Drive builds in our normal atmosphere be applied to those EM Drive builds tested in a vacuum or does one need to modify the calculations even when using the very same EM Drive build equipment? With or without attributing some or all of the EM Drive thrust to "Virtual Particles".

Don

 
EM Drive builders can use these free Interfaces to show their tests live using any IP Cameras in websites Click for live demo examples

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9710
  • UK
  • Liked: 1850
  • Likes Given: 183
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.

You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 07:03 PM by Star One »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell

Shell,

within what spatial distance do evanescent waves decay again? I'm asking because there might be a connection between higher physical dimensions coming into effect in the sub-micron distance regime, and the evanescent waves decaying very quickly. Evanescent waves carry quite a number of momenta, right? Perhaps they get quickly sucked away into 5D+ spacetime and can serve as a means to sink 4D momentum into 5D+ spacetime.
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline RERT

Wow! Momentum carried away on a plume of distorted space time... As a candidate for a completely invisible exhaust, it has a lot going for it! CW, if I'm right and that was your spot, thank you.

It does appear from a quick search that gravitational waves do carry momentum.

Does the approximate scale work? Would a plume capable of carrying off 1N of thrust be monstrously huge or undetectably small?

Does the relation P = E/c still apply? If it does, we may still be stuck....

R.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell

Shell,

within what spatial distance do evanescent waves decay again? I'm asking because there might be a connection between higher physical dimensions coming into effect in the sub-micron distance regime, and the evanescent waves decaying very quickly. Evanescent waves carry quite a number of momenta, right? Perhaps they get quickly sucked away into 5D+ spacetime and can serve as a means to sink 4D momentum into 5D+ spacetime.
Exponentially decaying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field#Evanescent-wave_coupling

In electromagnetics, an evanescent field, or evanescent wave, is an oscillating electric and/or magnetic field which does not propagate as an electromagnetic wave but whose energy is spatially concentrated in the vicinity of the source (oscillating charges and currents). Even when there in fact is an electromagnetic wave produced (e.g. by a transmitting antenna) one can still identify as an evanescent field the component of the electric or magnetic field that cannot be attributed to the propagating wave observed at a distance of many wavelengths (such as the far field of a transmitting antenna).

And

Although all electromagnetic fields are classically governed according to Maxwell's equations, different technologies or problems have certain types of expected solutions, and when the primary solutions involve wave propagation the term "evanescent" is frequently applied to field components or solutions which do not share that property. For instance, the propagation constant of a hollow metal waveguide is a strong function of frequency (a so-called dispersion relation). Below a certain frequency (the cut-off frequency) the propagation constant becomes an imaginary number. A solution to the wave equation having an imaginary wavenumber does not propagate as a wave but falls off exponentially, so the field excited at that lower frequency is considered evanescent. It can also be simply said that propagation is "disallowed" for that frequency. The formal solution to the wave equation can describe modes having an identical form, but the change of the propagation constant from real to imaginary as the frequency drops below the cut-off frequency totally changes the physical nature of the result. One can describe the solution then as a "cut-off mode" or an "evanescent mode";[1] while a different author will just state that no such mode exists. Since the evanescent field corresponding to the mode was computed as a solution to the wave equation, it is often discussed as being an "evanescent wave" even though its properties (such as not carrying energy) are inconsistent with the definition of wave.
<end>

This has and will be a large red flag for a wave that carries no energy. Maybe some should revise the Wikipedia pages to include recent findings, evanescent waves have energy and they can and they do transfer energy in the near fields.

I find some of his writing very interesting in explaining the evanescent conundrum.
http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf

So to ask someone who would know, how this could all fit. Paul M. Are you still using dielectric blocks in the frustum?

My Bestest....
Shell



Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
Paul,

just before you and the complete Eagleworks research went off-radar last May, you mentioned your intend to use a stronger microwave generator (700W iirc).

The result you mentioned recently, of getting an excess of 100µN from 80W, was that done on the old setup or on the earlier mentioned new 700W device?

In that respect, do we have to see the 100µN/80W as the most efficient result obtained from the test range or as the maximum measured value?

I realize it might be on or over the edge of your NDA, so please, if you don't feel comfortable answering , say so. Do not get yourself into trouble...

Arrhhh..curiosity killed the cat...it's going to be a long, long wait to get the final reports out... ;)

Tags: