-
#1420 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 21:16
-
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years.
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
What Q is needed to make fly a drone stationary ? It seems difficult.
Maybe consider the 1st gen EmDrive UAVs may have wings but no propellers and almost NO NOISE. -
#1421 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 21:17
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example
-
#1422 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 21:20
-
I'm sure if NASA rolled out the red carpet and allocated a few 100 million for R&D, they would have sometime in 5 to 10 years.
You did read Roger is predicting a EmDrive wingless and propellerless drone in 2017? How many times have I read, "Show me it floating over my head"?
Well it seems that is going to happen. I suspect the space application of the technology will happen REALLY FAST after the drone starts flying over people's heads.
What Q is needed to make fly a drone stationary ? It seems difficult.
Maybe consider the 1st gen EmDrive UAVs may have wings but no propellers and almost NO NOISE.
That is true. If your drone has a fineness of 10 (not sure that fineness is the right word in English) it asks 10 times less thrust that stationary flight.
But in that case it does not replace a parrot -
#1423 by Flyby on 11 Oct, 2016 21:23
-
I can't possibly understand why making a space oriented EMdrive, producing 0.4N/kW (±40gf), would be more difficult then developing an EMdrive producing 1 ton (9800N) of lifting power... Seriously?
I would be inclined to say it is actually the opposite...
In space there is no need to self-lifting/earth gravity defying devices to find applications that really make sense... -
#1424 by wicoe on 11 Oct, 2016 21:26
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes. -
#1425 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 21:27
-
Even with superconductive Emdrive, I do not see how it could be competitive with Electric cars. Except of course if it is giving constant thrust for constant power. In that case the first application should be a power generating device. A big rotating system at high speed linked to alternators. If the speed is high enough, it gives more energy that it needs. (I shall not speak of free energy, because it can be stolen to QV, fields, etc)
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
Roger has already run the numbers on his rotary test rig and sorry to say but no free energy and A = F/M rules the day.
I do not see why I should consider another frame reference than Earth. If I get Energy on earth, that is not a problem if I do not get energy in another reference frame.
Also, In Emdrive Theory paper 9.4, shawyer clearly claimed that F was decreasing with the speed. With this model, there is no energy generation. But with the new model of constant F, there is energy generation. -
#1426 by as58 on 11 Oct, 2016 21:27
-
But in that case it does not replace a parrot.
There's been a lot of strange statements in this thread, but this one takes the victory. And it is also indisputably true, unlike most strange statements.
Edit: Ok, it seems that something was lost in translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot_AR.Drone -
#1427 by Bob Woods on 11 Oct, 2016 21:33
-
The information that TT and you, Dr. Rodal, posted in the previous messages established a couple of things:
So Shawyer, who initially titled his company Satellite Propulsion R. , now, more than a decade later tells the press that Space is a waste of his time ?
Well, the title of this thread is still <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> and not to Mass Transportation close to the surface of the Earth, so most of the people at NSF do not share his present view of Space as being a waste of people's time...
Anyway, looking forward to any successful demonstration of a self-levitating EM Drive
A self-levitating EM Drive close to the surface of the Earth will be a convincing proof for any skeptic to see
1) The new venture is a 60%/40% split with Shawyer on the 40% side, and
2) The new partner is into flying cars and such and I assume is putting up the cash to fund things, and
3) Making money is something we all have to consider, even hedge fund creators.
I would take the "space is a waste of time" as a a throwaway remark that is more directed to potential investors and clients, not to the physics community.
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen. -
#1428 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 21:38
-
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen.
I doubt Gilo Cardozo would have bothered with the Universal Propulsion Ltd JV if he didn't believe Roger could deliver. Seeing the Gilo 60% share ownership says heaps. Says to me this is a done deal and this deal has been baking for over a year. -
#1429 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 21:44
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated. -
#1430 by rq3 on 11 Oct, 2016 21:58
-
If he DOES make a EM hovering drone, the money will come in by the billions, and I'd guess that space travel will never be the same again.
IF he makes it happen.
I doubt Gilo Cardozo would have bothered with the Universal Propulsion Ltd JV if he didn't believe Roger could deliver. Seeing the Gilo 60% share ownership says heaps. Says to me this is a done deal and this deal has been baking for over a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ -
#1431 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 22:02
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ? -
#1432 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 22:12
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
Easy to do a generator with an continously increasing RPM... until a certain point. Than let it slow down and start again. Wind generators doesn't have constant RPM, and still works.
-
#1433 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 22:17
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ?
You really do need to carefully read what he has said he never stated F will reduce as per velocity gain relative to departure. There is an internal doppler shift that occurs as the ship gets moving really fast and this does reduce F.
When an EmDrive accelerates, there are internal doppler shifts. With very high Q cryo cavities this can move the freq outside the very narrow cavity bandwidth. To counter this effect, the latest cryo designs vary the length of the cavity to adjust for the doppler shifted freq and bring the cavity back into resonance. -
#1434 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 22:27
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
Easy to do a generator with an continously increasing RPM... until a certain point. Than let it slow down and start again. Wind generators doesn't have constant RPM, and still works.
DC wind gen maybe but not AC mains synced.
There is no free energy and the EmDrive accelerates with constant force, constant acceleration. I have seen the data. That is the reality. Believing all the frames will see the same KE is madness as that is not how it works.
Look we have no idea how entanglement works, yet it does. The EmDrive works and produces constant force, which produces constant acceleration, well if properly designed to handle internal doppler shift. -
#1435 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 22:37
-
That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
I do not see why A=F/M should show anything about F.
If F decrease with the speed relatively to the departure referential, as stated originally by Shawyer, still A=F/M
A=F/M is still compatible with Shawyer's A=Pk/(M*v)
if I write F=A*M I get F=Pk/(M*v)*M=Pk/v
So, F=Pk/v, and still A=F/M
Why did Shawyer changed his mind ? Why is he now claiming constant force instead if his preceding assertions of force inversely proportional to the speed ?
You really do need to carefully read what he has said he never stated F will reduce as per velocity gain relative to departure. There is an internal doppler shift that occurs as the ship gets moving really fast and this does reduce F.
When an EmDrive accelerates, there are internal doppler shifts. With very high Q cryo cavities this can move the freq outside the very narrow cavity bandwidth. To counter this effect, the latest cryo designs vary the length of the cavity to adjust for the doppler shifted freq and bring the cavity back into resonance.
fig 3.2 page 10. Shawyer states that when Unloaded Q tends to the infinite, the thrust limits to 333mN/Kw
I have already made the calculus of the maximum force if the thrust is inversely proportional to the speed in the departure reference frame.
I note F the force of the emdrive (the thrust) and V the speed in meters per second. I note W(1s) the work of the force F during one second
We have W(1s)=F*V
It makes F=W(1s)/V
The speed is 3km/s, and I shall take a work W of 1 KJ (1000 Joules)
So, it gives us F=1000/3000=0,333 N/Kw. It makes, 333 mN/Kw
Is it a coincidence if I find exactly the same number ?
In my understanding of old Shawyer papers, the doppler shift was due to the work done. There was no doppler shift for a non moving drive, and an increasing doppler shift for increasing speed.
There is a problem of course because the drive can loose resonance, but that is a different thing of the Doppler shift itself. For each gain of Kinetic Energy of the drive, there is a loss of the Energy of photons, in form of the Dopler shift. (it is not a waste loss, it has been converted into Kinetic Energy)
So, we must not confound the dopler shift itself, that means that Energy has quit the frustrum, and the problem of resonnance. Even if resonnance is maintained, the force is inversely proportional to the speed. (In the old Shawyer Theory) -
#1436 by Gilbertdrive on 11 Oct, 2016 22:41
-
Look we have no idea how entanglement works, yet it does. The EmDrive works and produces constant force, which produces constant acceleration, well if properly designed to handle internal doppler shift.
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ? -
#1437 by flux_capacitor on 11 Oct, 2016 23:26
-
Even if resonnance is maintained, the force is inversely proportional to the speed. (In the old Shawyer Theory)
Do you at least agree that, in Shawyer theory, this Doppler shift correspond to an energy proportional to the speed ? (I.E. if the ship goes 2 times faster in it's departure reference frame, each photon loose 2 times more energy by doppler shift) ?
The EmDrive cannot know its "speed", because speed is not an absolute value, it is always relative to something else. Also, "speed" implies a movement at a constant pace. Alternatively, are we talking about Δv? Shall the correct phenomenon when such a "doppler shift" may occur within the cavity rather be when the drive is accelerating (and more exactly, when it is undergoing a proper acceleration). -
#1438 by meberbs on 12 Oct, 2016 02:29
-
Bottom line is:
There is no clear evidence that that statement is true. I will continue waiting for you to provide any of the promised demonstrations.
1) EmDrive does work2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
The momentum that the em wave has originally came from the ship, so this is like saying you can move a car by sitting inside and pushing on the steering wheel.
And even if there was em momentum stored inside the cavity, this is limited by the momentum/energy ratio of a photon which is 1/c, and in less than 1 nanosecond, those photons will have reflected, reversed direction and caused the cavity to start moving in the other direction.3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
You keep ignoring that the ship frame is noninertial. CoE is broken in ALL frames by propellantless thrusters, but you have to include "fictitious" forces to realize it in noninertial frames. (If photons were leaving the device, that would not be propellantless, and it would be no better than a laser for force generation.)Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
The claim of not producing force if it can't accelerate does not make any sense. Put an EMDrive up against a brick wall. The wall will have no effect on the drive unless the drive first applies a force to the wall. What you are proposing is then that the emDrive magically knows there is a wall in the way and won't generate force to begin with.
Besides, as was stated by GilbertDrive above, it is easy to turn just let it accelerate while hooked to a generator, or to let it run up to speed then hook up the generator to slow it down and take the kinetic energy. If you think constant rotational velocity is needed by generators, then you don't know how electric generation works. Wind turbines can feed the grid, and with inverters, and similar devices, who cares whether the free energy you are getting is AC or DC? -
#1439 by wicoe on 12 Oct, 2016 04:32
-
A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
So we can forget about hover cars, and those tests that show "anomalous" force when the EmDrive is standing on a scale or attached to a torsional pendulum are invalid (since there's no acceleration)?
