-
#1820
by
aero
on 19 Oct, 2016 22:58
-
The final data set shows the energy and the meep force within the cavity when resonating at the same 1996 MHz frequency with a narrow bandwidth of 19 MHz, or BWm = 0.010.
I was not surprised to note that the narrow bandwidth stored more energy in the cavity though Q was the same value irrespective of bandwidth. But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth. And no, I didn't get the two curves confused. Perhaps someone can explain that to me but clearly force calculations can not be substituted for energy calculations.
The force you are calculating using Meep cannot, as presently calculated, result in any thrust. As I understand it, what you refer to as a force is just the integration of a component of Maxwell's stress tensor. The force you are calculating is self-balanced in the equations of motion. The equations built-in in Meep satisfy conservation of energy and conservation of momentum and, as I understand your post (please correct me if this is incorrect) there is nothing that you have included in the analysis to "open" the system: no general relativity is included, or other external fields. Hence I am not clear as to what expectations did you have on this force calculation when you write <<But I was surprised that the force calculated was much lower at the narrow bandwidth than at the wider bandwidth>>. For example, for equilibrium considerations, there is also a force, as part of equilibrium, due to the time derivative of the Poynting vector that you have to consider in the analysis. The Poynting vector is not constant with time in your Meep calculation. You are calculating a solution in the transient regime.
Haus and Penfield (MIT Radiation Lab) wrote some time ago that there was not much physical significance to a component of the Maxwell stress tensor in a transient problem where the derivative of the Poynting vector is not zero...
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
-
#1821
by
WarpTech
on 20 Oct, 2016 03:48
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise 
to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to 
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130and
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
-
#1822
by
cuddihy
on 20 Oct, 2016 04:40
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing. 
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
-
#1823
by
RotoSequence
on 20 Oct, 2016 05:07
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing.
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
...sorry about that, Aero. I'll excuse myself from this part of the conversation for now.
-
#1824
by
dustinthewind
on 20 Oct, 2016 05:15
-
According to my model, we want Q to be very high at the small end and low at the big end, in order to push the frustum forward, with the small end leading. Since r is measured from the apex of the cone, AND since I would assume resistance will go up linearly with the diameter of the frustum, which is linear with r. I would expect the relationship to be;
Q ~ 1/r
Then, it gets smaller toward the big end and very large at the small end.
(1/Q) dQ/dr = -(1/r) = -Q.
AND....The thrust is still proportional to Q.
Also, it's been commented that Q is a "constant" of the cavity. Well, we have 2 choices. Either the mode frequency is constant and Q varies, or Q is constant and the mode frequency varies;
Q = (w0*tau)/2
tau is the decay time as a function of r. It will vary depending on the resistance in the circuit, dissipating power. I "know" there is a large probability that tau is changing with r. So which of the two remaining variables will vary, frequency or Q? If we insist that the mode frequency should be constant, then there is only one choice.
Todd
I'm just curious, if we consider the small end plus the side walls as facing forward it seems that is more surface area facing forwards than the single back plate facing backwards. That or the front profile has the same area as the back area. Heat radiated though all copper walls seems like more would be radiated forwards than backwards or maybe the same amount. Unless it could be because of the current patterns in the copper. (I'm reminded of the web page that had the modeled modes, energy density and heat patterns in the cavity.)
If more was being radiated forwards could it be a light drag effect, such as you mentioned to me once before when I was investigating near field phased arrays using dielectric's of high index, to get the phased arrays close together. That is light passing through a medium tends to drag it along with it? (placement of superconductive plate at large end?)
Or is it heat radiated backwards, similar to a thermal thrust. (superconductive plate at side walls and small end?)
Or maybe we are talking the transference of energy of light/currents to another medium by way of work. Leading to a thermal gradient? Just trying to get a grip on it.
No. Do not think something needs to get outside and interact with something. That is not the case. Momentum does not need to escape to the outside.
Nobody would argue that if I had a mass oscillating on a spring inside the frustum. As the mass oscillates from front to back, the frustum would oscillate the other way, and vise versa. Agreed?
Now, consider the Woodward effect. When the mass moves toward the front, it gains mass, and when it moves toward the back, it loses mass. We've all been thinking in terms of photons, but forget photons. Think about a classical wave in a resonant cavity, where we are constantly adding and subtracting energy at opposite ends.
When the wave moves toward the front, more energy is added by the antenna (which Shawyer has now moved to the small end, where it belongs). When the wave moves toward the back, more energy is lost due to heat dissipation, preferably on the big end plate. Even if the heat doesn't escape the heatsink for hours, it's irrelevant once the energy has left the cavity. It is the oscillation of the energy, combined with high damping (resistance) at one end and high Q and input energy at the other end.
Note: This all came to me as I started typing here... so it's kind of off the cuff, but accurate I think.
Todd
An issue just occurred to me, if the energy can't escape the cavity but we still have the gradient in thermal energy distribution. While there may be a thermal transfer of energy to the lower part of the cavity, that energy will build up at the large end, and will naturally want to flow by conduction to the narrow end. That flow of thermal energy back to the narrow end would possibly cancel what was gained by the initial flow of energy from the antenna to the large end. It seems to me something has to escape but in a way that most of the energy is lost from the currents/light.
For light striking an object the red shift (energy transfer) is ridiculously small so very little energy is naturally transferred by light upon any reflection. In the system with two free to move mirrors and recycled photons we can end up with the light being effectively drained of its energy by recycled Doppler shifting, which explains the efficiency increase over a laser thruster. Also momentum is conserved in the earlier mentioned system.
For heat escaping outside the cavity, I can see how momentum is conserved (skin depth penetration of heat) and escaping photons from just one side of the cavity.
I have a hard time understanding how the heat photons that do escape the cavity are effectively drained of their energy so that the energy is more effectively transferred to the cavity than by a laser thruster. To do recycled Doppler shifting of light in a closed cavity seems to require some asymmetric change in mass of the light inside, (to my limited knowledge) and to change the mass of the light inside seems to require some change in the vacuum. A change in the vacuum seems to require some change in the damping of light. A change in the damping seems as if you are saying it requires some gradient in dissipation of energy (thermally so to speak). Vacuum gains energy light loses energy, like climbing out of a gravity well? To me that sounds like a back reaction of light on the (not fully formed) vacuum pairs (which may be a bit of a leap on my part). Maybe I am being a bit short sighted so I'll just try and see how this develops for now and I might learn something.
-
#1825
by
ThinkerX
on 20 Oct, 2016 05:50
-
To do recycled Doppler shifting of light in a closed cavity seems to require some asymmetric change in mass of the light inside, (to my limited knowledge) and to change the mass of the light inside seems to require some change in the vacuum. A change in the vacuum seems to require some change in the damping of light. A change in the damping seems as if you are saying it requires some gradient in dissipation of energy (thermally so to speak). Vacuum gains energy light loses energy, like climbing out of a gravity well? To me that sounds like a back reaction of light on the (not fully formed) vacuum pairs (which may be a bit of a leap on my part). Maybe I am being a bit short sighted so I'll just try and see how this develops for now and I might learn something.
Wild thought: Perhaps this is where evanescent waves figure into the picture? (Evanescent waves as particles.)
-
#1826
by
LowerAtmosphere
on 20 Oct, 2016 11:33
-
Have had a nagging thought which I need to share regarding recent theories raising the importance and interactivity between the QV and the EM field densities. This is all highly theoretical but it would have great explanatory power.
Electromagnetic density excites QV causing dark matter effects!
Due to increased QV excitation by high gravity and correlated electromagnetic stimuli on QV, QV is excited and produces more massful particles. Due to short lifespan they cannot be seen but still exert an 'instantaneous' gravitational field. Implication is also that black holes produce their singularity due to runaway QV excitation. The more it is excited the more dark matter it produces, thus the more massive (consider EM fields in planetary and solar and galactic cores!) the more QV will be excited. However, system gravity does not increase beyond the capacity of local (we therefore assume variable QV due to modern interpretation of Coulomb's law, but this is uncertain) QV density + gravitational potential of mass already within the system. Electromagnetism thus could also be considered a symptom of the excitation of the QV. If QV is variable, perhaps higgs bosons are simply local extrema of QV energy density? I posit that when at ground state, the QV would still contain a pseudoparticle (discrete (?) Planckian superfluid/spacetime ether - NOT a brane) just an inobservable one. Perhaps gravitational waves (especially when harmonized) cause QV excitation, and thus the question is what is the threshold at which gravity would generate QV excitation and can a mathematical relationship between QV fluctuating mass generation and electromagnetic field density be established? Also what determines the type of QV virtual particle generated - is it a certain gravitational strength, if so then this process surely is not random?
-
#1827
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Oct, 2016 13:43
-
Anyone else wondering what Gilo Industries is doing with the JV with Roger?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392Shawyer has continued to develop the EmDrive, and over the last year began hinting that he is working with an unnamed UK aerospace company on a second generation superconducting thruster that will produce thrust many orders of magnitude greater than that observed by Eagleworks or any other laboratory (view his latest patent application here).
However, he has confirmed that the company he is working with is none other than Gilo Industries Group, the inventors of the personal aviation paramotor vehicle Parajet Skycar, which famously flew TV survivalist Bear Grylls close to Mount Everest in 2007 and is now being developed as an all-terrain flying car.
"Gilo Cardozo approached me. I confirm that we are in a joint venture. Universal Propulsion is the name of the joint venture and it's located in Dorset," said Shawyer.
"It's a very innovative, modern young company. He has an excellent track record. He employs professional scientists and engineers who reviewed the science of the EmDrive. Like many people who don't say much, these guys go through it very carefully. Gilo has the engineering expertise and resources to do this, so it's a good match between us."
-
#1828
by
RotoSequence
on 20 Oct, 2016 13:53
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
-
#1829
by
Stormbringer
on 20 Oct, 2016 14:08
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
you think that's behind schedule? Ha! I have been waiting patiently for Moller to produce their skycar since the mid to late eighties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycari even spent some couch cushion found change for some penny stocks--just in case.
-
#1830
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Oct, 2016 14:11
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
-
#1831
by
aero
on 20 Oct, 2016 15:50
-
I had expected force and energy to track one another, but instead I see the calculated force goes up as energy goes down. That doesn't seem logical. Maybe there is an explanation having to do with the way meep calculates force at frequencies spread across the bandwidth.
When the output of your calculations starts resembling homeopathy, it's time to step back and reconsider what exactly you're doing.
Read farther back rotosequence, he's calculating normal accepted physical forces here, not EMdrive forces...this is towards understanding what should be happening in the cavity, before we get to 'thrust.'
...sorry about that, Aero. I'll excuse myself from this part of the conversation for now.
eh - it happens - where I'm headed is to take a look at the interaction of atmospheric molecules with the forces internal to the cavity. That's because all experiments have been performed using cavities containing a significant number of particles. Even the vacuum chambers used have particle density on the order of 10^14 particles per liter while at atmospheric pressure the number of particles is Avogadro's number per 22.4 liters , 6.022140857 × 10^23. To my mind those are significant numbers and the particle behavior should be looked at.
-
#1832
by
dustinthewind
on 20 Oct, 2016 16:00
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130
and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043
R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
How about the circuit below. I used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactanceQl=w*L/R, Qc=1/(w*R*C), sub into Q=1/(1/Ql+1/Qc)
I get:
Q1=1/(R1/w/L+w*C*R1)
Q2=1/((R2/w/L+w*C*R2)
Qave=(Q1+Q2)/2
I was comparing it in my head to a ribbon on a boot where I pull the ribbon one way and apply more pressure with my boot for increased resistance. The other way I release pressure on the ribbon when sliding the other way. Should still be equilibrium forces between them.
Putting a thermal mirror between the resistors, more heat radiation should go one way than the other.
One thought was that the shape of the cavity gives the large end more thermal capacity at thermal equilibrium.
-
#1833
by
WarpTech
on 20 Oct, 2016 16:24
-
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to
Not to change the subject, but how would one determine the value of Q for the circuit below?
The value of Q changes on every half-cycle. So the energy lost per cycle in the definition of Q must be changed. What we have might be a system with 2 reciprocating Q values, based on the "equivalent circuit" below.
Edit: See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595130#msg1595130
and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1595043#msg1595043
R1 = 1 Ohm, R2 = 500 Ohm (or there about)
How about the circuit below. I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactance
Ql=w*L/R, Qc=1/(w*R*C), sub into Q=1/(1/Ql+1/Qc)
I get:
Q1=1/(R1/w/L+w*C*R1)
Q2=1/((R2/w/L+w*C*R2)
Qave=(Q1+Q2)/2
I was comparing it in my head to a ribbon on a boot where I pull the ribbon one way and apply more pressure with my boot for increased resistance. The other way I release pressure on the ribbon when sliding the other way. Should still be equilibrium forces between them.
Putting a thermal mirror between the resistors, more heat radiation should go one way than the other.
One thought was that the shape of the cavity gives the large end more thermal capacity at thermal equilibrium.
Thanks. I showed the parallel RLC you show the series RLC. I assume both are valid options. In the parallel circuit, there will be a DC offset in the current. In the series circuit, there will be a DC offset in the voltage. If you consider the stored energy in the cavity to have a DC offset, that will make the force/area on one end greater than on the other.
-
#1834
by
Bob012345
on 20 Oct, 2016 18:17
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too?
Good question and I'll try to answer very simply for basically it's not hard.
For this to potentially work and not violate Mother Nature (she abhors being violated) you must think of what processes can permeate the closed cavity and what energies can escape. For if I have a perfectly enclosed box, Mother Nature (Maxwell too) says nothing I do in the box will have an effect outside the box. But it's not a perfect box, is it?
Gravity exists inside and outside the box and can freely be felt inside, as gravity inside can be felt outside. If I took a tinny black hole and put it into the box and you put your hand on the box... you would know it's a black hole you were close too. So this means gravitational effects produced in the box can be seen and acted on outside the box.
Spacetime is inside and outside, somehow warp it inside the box and it's felt outside.
Some particles also share space inside and outside.
Magnetic fields generated in the copper walls from induced flowing currents create small fields outside the box.
Evanescent wave actions can also collapse inside the box past cutoff points and close to the antenna(s) produce energy that could escape.
This very short list of physics and Quantum actions comprise subjects that honestly we know just enough about to get us into trouble.
Gravity
Spacetime
Magnetic Fields
Some Particles
Evanescent Waves (Virtual Particles should be here as well)
Which one do you think is causing this anomaly of thrusts?
Best,
Shell
Thanks. You probably meant that as a rhetorical question but my gut reaction (for today only) is that the progression of likeliness goes as magnetic fields first, Evanescent waves next and gravity/spacetime last.
If it really were possible to somehow create a magnetic field in space such as to react against without creating the equal and opposite reaction on your device (but carried away by the field) that would seem to be the easiest to both understand and engineer. But I would start with a configuration and concept from scratch, not with the EmDrive cavity. Cannae claims their device uses Lorentz forces and I noted with interest that there is a section in Woodward's book regarding Mach Effect Lorentz thrusters.
Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
-
#1835
by
Gilbertdrive
on 20 Oct, 2016 18:32
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
-
#1836
by
Bob012345
on 20 Oct, 2016 18:47
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
He keeps the velocity low in the atmosphere and allows acceleration in space. Such a machine would spend about 20 minutes climbing, then gently apply acceleration to match the decrease in earth's pull to keep a constant 1g. It could land softly on the Moon in about four hours.
-
#1837
by
Monomorphic
on 20 Oct, 2016 18:49
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
With all this talk about flying cars, all Shawyer/Gilo need to do is show an emdrive thruster hovering under its own power in a laboratory setting. Even with a tether providing the power, that kind of demonstration could only be explained by it working or the demonstration being a special effects hoax.
-
#1838
by
Rodal
on 20 Oct, 2016 18:52
-
...Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
It is simple to show that there cannot be any evanescent waves transmitted through the
copper cavity thickness (which is much, much larger than the skin depth) of the EM Drives being tested, to the outside of the EM Drive, because they are supposed to be close cavities made of conductive metal with a thickness much larger than the skin depth (unless the EM Drive has gaps or holes in the cavity, in which case they would no longer be a closed cavity, and then they should be designed to enhance this, which is opposite to what Shawyer and others have proposed). Thus any evanescent waves are confined to the interior of a closed EM Drive cavity, and cannot result in self-acceleration of the cavity by themselves, due to conservation of momentum. Just like any other type of internal wave (for example, propagating waves or standing waves) cannot result in self-acceleration of an EM Drive by themselves. Rather, an interaction with an external field is necessary to explain any such acceleration. That's why McCulloch resorts to Unruh waves, White to a degradable vacuum, Notsosureofit to General Relativity, etc.
Please notice that several references on evanescent wave coupling appearing on NSF threads deal
instead with frustrated total reflection (FTIR), where a third medium with a higher refractive index than a low-index second medium is placed within less than several wavelengths distance from the interface between the first medium and the second medium. This process is called "frustrated" total internal reflection (FTIR) and is analogous to quantum tunneling. The transmission coefficient for FTIR is highly sensitive to the spacing between the third medium and the second medium (the function is approximately exponential until the gap is almost closed), so this effect has often been used to modulate optical transmission and reflection with a large dynamic range.
-
#1839
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Oct, 2016 19:52
-
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
With my predicted 1,000kg/kWrf thrust, a Gilo paraglider would only need 50kg thrust, driven by 50Wrf. Easily cooled by LN2 boiloff for a few hours of VERY SILENT flying.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
to be able to have a discussion. 
