-
#1840
by
X_RaY
on 20 Oct, 2016 20:10
-
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.
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.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some reliable data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about the ammount of thrust being generated this way or using the suggested device and the used equation.
.
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
-
#1841
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Oct, 2016 20:13
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
-
#1842
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Oct, 2016 20:18
-
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.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
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.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Hey I just took the thrust curve in the patent and calculated the resultant cavity loaded Q and from that applied the Q to Roger's thrust equation. A Loaded Q of 3 billion seems high but accelerator cavities easily exceed that all the time and at a lot higher input power than 1kW of Rf.
Sure we await for the published data but assuming the patent thrust curves are correct and understanding EmDrive engineering, the specific force can be calculated.
-
#1843
by
rq3
on 20 Oct, 2016 22:45
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Assuming your hypothetical vehicle is performing this stunt on Earth, the 1 kilowatt of radio frequency energy is dissipated as thermal energy in the walls of the cavity as the vehicle accelerates from rest at 32 ft/sec^2 until it slams into the ground.
In the second case, the vehicle remains stationary, while the cavity dissipates the same 1 kilowatt.
Is there any proof, anywhere, from anyone, that this is not the case? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, I acknowledge that I'm ignoring your supposition that the Emdrive in your "thought experiment" can actually provide the thrust you suppose. Until someone, somewhere, uniquivocally provides proof of thrust, let alone kilograms of thrust, your question is as useful as the decades old "Saturday Night Live" skit titled "What If Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly".
Still waiting for your rotary test platform results. Not suppositions. Results. It's been over a year now. Anything to report that can be independantly verified as have been provided by the likes of SeaShells and Rfmwguy?
-
#1844
by
aero
on 20 Oct, 2016 23:22
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
-
#1845
by
dustinthewind
on 20 Oct, 2016 23:28
-
An interesting article by Harold White*, Jerry Vera, Paul Bailey, Paul March, Tim Lawrence, Andre Sylvester, David Brady,
"Dynamics of the Vacuum and Casimir Analogs to the Hydrogen Atom". The vacuum medium can be modelled as a virtual plasma consisting of predominantly electron-positron ephemeral pairs. Although there will be a spectrum of other fermion-antifermion particle pairs, the dominant members of the medium at any given time will be the e e- − + pairs.
...
This paper has explored the idea of the quantum vacuum not being an absolute immutable and non-degradable state, and studied the ramifications of the quantum vacuum being able to support non-trivial spatial variations in “density”. These considerations showed no predictions that were contrary to observation, and in fact duplicated predictions for energy states associated with the primary quantum number. An explicit function of vacuum density spatial variation was derived such that it also predicted correct energy levels for the primary quantum numbers, and provided a simple acoustic model that could be numerically studied using the multi-physics software tool, COMSOL. This study showed that the quantum vacuum can support longitudinal wave modes...
-
#1846
by
Rodal
on 20 Oct, 2016 23:48
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force.
The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force.
The total force is what matters, for physical purposes. You should not ignore the force due to the rate of change of the Poynting vector.
-
#1847
by
Monomorphic
on 21 Oct, 2016 00:00
-
Using the radius provided for CG on the minor end plate shape chart, I was able to derive the minor end plate radius using the 10° angle GCA. Using this information and the cavity geometry I was able to extrapolate the rest of the cavity dimensions for the recent Shawyer patent application. All dimensions are in cm.
It's pretty small and is probably operating in c-band.
-
#1848
by
aero
on 21 Oct, 2016 00:22
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
-
#1849
by
dustinthewind
on 21 Oct, 2016 01:21
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
I would guess the net force on air that can't escape from the cavity should also be expected to be zero, as would be the force of light that can't escape the inside of the cavity with a vacuum inside. Unless something escapes with momentum that is.
-
#1850
by
WarpTech
on 21 Oct, 2016 02:46
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
-
#1851
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Oct, 2016 02:59
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
-
#1852
by
WarpTech
on 21 Oct, 2016 03:18
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
Look up MASER and the resonant frequencies of water vapor.
-
#1853
by
aero
on 21 Oct, 2016 03:44
-
Simple question for Physicists:
Am I correct in concluding that the the derivative of energy density WRT length, when multiplied by volume equals the force exerted by the energy on the volume? Units seem to be right but someone could save me a lot of work if my conclusion is incorrect.
Thanks,
aero
Not in general, since (I keep repeating) you must calculate all force terms, including the time derivative of the Poynting vector to calculate a physically meaningful force. The force you are calculating, based on a component of sigma, is without much physical meaning for a transient problem as the one you are calculating (as shown by Haus and Penfield).
There is nothing magic about the Maxwell stress tensor. It can be shown that there are many other ways to define a stress tensor. What matters is to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy, to have a physically meaningful force. The total force is what matters, for physical purposes.
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
surely you jest! Me read that, let alone understand it.
It seems to me like the force on neutral (uncharged) air particle is similar to the radiation pressure force on a solar sail and if the particle were part of the tail of a comet, there would be no problem understanding the force. The problem results from the end of the cavity reflecting radiation pressure to the other side of the air particle. The net pressure on the air particle would be zero if it were a point. But the particle is an extended body, it has thickness and so the forces cannot be equal on both sides. That is because the energy within the cavity starts at zero at the big end plate, reaches a maximum past the center of the cavity and reduces to zero again at the small end plate. Consequently any extended body within the cavity must experience an energy differential across its length WRT the axis.
This same consideration holds when instead of looking at energy, one looks at radiation pressure force (the integral of the Maxwell stress tensor by frequency over a detector area ) at locations from one end of the cavity to the other. The radiation force starts at zero at the big end plate, builds to a maximum past the center and diminishes to zero at the small end. Therefore, any extended body internal to the cavity must experience a differential force down its length WRT the axis. Unfortunately again, at any given point the radiation pressure force seems to be equal in both directions so again the point experiences no differential. Air molecules are not points however, they are extended bodies for my analysis.
So what I am hoping to find is an agreement on the nature of force exerted on an extended body that internal to the cavity.
I am trying to get a handle on this force. Whatever it is, it can't be zero and for now I don't really need to look at the side forces. If looking at the axial forces justifies looking at side forces, I will do so later.
-
#1854
by
WarpTech
on 21 Oct, 2016 04:03
-
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
surely you jest! Me read that, let alone understand it.
It seems to me like the force on neutral (uncharged) air particle is similar to the radiation pressure force on a solar sail and if the particle were part of the tail of a comet, there would be no problem understanding the force. The problem results from the end of the cavity reflecting radiation pressure to the other side of the air particle. The net pressure on the air particle would be zero if it were a point. But the particle is an extended body, it has thickness and so the forces cannot be equal on both sides. That is because the energy within the cavity starts at zero at the big end plate, reaches a maximum past the center of the cavity and reduces to zero again at the small end plate. Consequently any extended body within the cavity must experience an energy differential across its length WRT the axis.
This same consideration holds when instead of looking at energy, one looks at radiation pressure force (the integral of the Maxwell stress tensor by frequency over a detector area ) at locations from one end of the cavity to the other. The radiation force starts at zero at the big end plate, builds to a maximum past the center and diminishes to zero at the small end. Therefore, any extended body internal to the cavity must experience a differential force down its length WRT the axis. Unfortunately again, at any given point the radiation pressure force seems to be equal in both directions so again the point experiences no differential. Air molecules are not points however, they are extended bodies for my analysis.
So what I am hoping to find is an agreement on the nature of force exerted on an extended body that internal to the cavity.
I am trying to get a handle on this force. Whatever it is, it can't be zero and for now I don't really need to look at the side forces. If looking at the axial forces justifies looking at side forces, I will do so later.
Yeah... it's not as easy as I'd like it to be either, but atoms don't really behave like billiard balls. Pity, that appendix along with chapters 1 & 2, will teach you how to distinguish an inertial reference frame from a non-inertial reference frame, by measuring the spectrum energy density of the vacuum to determine your acceleration.
The direction of the momentum changes depending on if it is spontaneous emission or stimulated emission, and an atom doesn't simply absorb momentum unless it absorbs a photon. So there are lots of probability distributions to calculate, to find out that there is probably just a push "away" from the antenna. (My guess.)
Edit: What I can imagine happening though is this; If the antenna is at the small end, it will push the air mass toward the back, and move the frustum forward, such that the CM of the system stays put. Whereas, if the antenna is in the back, it will have the opposite effect. This is something that can be eliminated in hard vacuum, or at least evacuate the frustum.
-
#1855
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Oct, 2016 05:40
-
Just so you know for sure, what I am trying to calculate is the acceleration of an air particle embedded in the EM field within the cavity. The particle has radial dimensions on the order of 10s to 100s of pm (10^-12 meters) and the mass is very small, on the order of 10^-25 kg. That's why I've been hung up on a single coordinate direction. There are huge numbers of these particles and they could potentially dissipate a lot of energy as heat by striking the end of the cavity at velocity. Of course the same could be said for striking the sides of the cavity, too.
aero
Read Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum, Appendix B. It is the force on an atom in a Thermal field. You just need to put the field into an energy density per frequency mode and add it to Rho(w), where w is your mode frequency. The catch is, knowing the rate of spontaneous absorption and stimulated emissions from that atom.
Does the interaction between microwave frequencies and atmospheric atoms and molecules even involve absorption and emission, of photons or EM waves? Or wouldn't it be more like the atoms/molecules are just being pushed around by the alternating polarity of the EM field?
Look up MASER and the resonant frequencies of water vapor.
Is resonance the same as absorption and emission.... (a retorical question)
I am sure you misunderstood my question. Water and water vapor interacts with microwaves because the polarized character of the water molecules interact with the alternating EM field... and heat up.
They don't absorb and emit the microwaves... unless I have missed something somewhere.
-
#1856
by
Chrochne
on 21 Oct, 2016 06:00
-
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.
Yes he said that Mr. Traveller. But I am not sure he wanted that company to be known to the public at the moment. If you want him to continue his work as I presume we all want we need to give him some space.
I hope that people here appreciate that he tries to be more open lately with what he is doing. We definitely know more about his research and development then at the start of this. Many things were cleared lately. Especially why he could not and can not release some information as MoD is watching almost everything he do. Many of the topics we know were only rumors and he confirmed some of them, which gives his research a bit more credibility. If you remember at the start we knew very very little and this shourd of mystery about it was perfect target for the critics.
I am sure that he might want to share more information, but NDA under the MoD in UK would permit them to observe questions asked by the journalist and scrap them if they do not like it.
Now it all gets to the crucial point. Only the data, tests and videos of the actual EmDrive units be it first or second generation will push us forward. As well as the scientific debate here.
If I may Mr. Traveller, make sure also that you carefuly ask Mr. Roger, what to release and what to keep off the public for the moment.
This is not ment as any offence to anyone. As I think that we all are trying to have same goal in the end - a clear explenation why it works or not and what this research gave us.
-
#1857
by
aero
on 21 Oct, 2016 06:41
-
Well, at the moment I don't know about forces but here is what the energy density looks like over one cycle. X view and Y view, I can't tell which is which.
-
#1858
by
TheTraveller
on 21 Oct, 2016 09:28
-
If I may Mr. Traveller, make sure also that you carefuly ask Mr. Roger, what to release and what to keep off the public for the moment.
Roger confirmed the SPR / Gilo JV in the IBTimes interview. The JV data is public knowledge on the UK Companies site.
Had Roger or Gilo wanted to keep the relationship secret, then Giles Cardozo would not be listed as holding 60% of the JV stock. Simple to use a trust or offshore company to do this.
Searching the UK companies site it is clear there was a major alteration in the structure and number of companies in the Gilo group about 2 weeks after the JV was registered. Could be nothing, could be a new structure to support the JV across all Gilo group companies.
-
#1859
by
TheTraveller
on 21 Oct, 2016 09:50
-
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Assuming your hypothetical vehicle is performing this stunt on Earth, the 1 kilowatt of radio frequency energy is dissipated as thermal energy in the walls of the cavity as the vehicle accelerates from rest at 32 ft/sec^2 until it slams into the ground.
In the second case, the vehicle remains stationary, while the cavity dissipates the same 1 kilowatt.
Is there any proof, anywhere, from anyone, that this is not the case? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, I acknowledge that I'm ignoring your supposition that the Emdrive in your "thought experiment" can actually provide the thrust you suppose. Until someone, somewhere, uniquivocally provides proof of thrust, let alone kilograms of thrust, your question is as useful as the decades old "Saturday Night Live" skit titled "What If Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly".
Still waiting for your rotary test platform results. Not suppositions. Results. It's been over a year now. Anything to report that can be independantly verified as have been provided by the likes of SeaShells and Rfmwguy?
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
As for my rotary test rig there is "movement at the station". End Nov should see me at the fabricator of my 2 machined, spherical end plate, multilayer coated thrusters and doing a few tests with a new custom 250W Rf amp. Once accepted, the program to fully qualify them on static Thrust force (small to big force vector) via a scale and accelerative Reaction force (big to small force vector) on a rotary test rig will start.
Will try to have something to "show and tell" this year. While there have been a few setbacks in the fabrication of the high Q thrusters, I expect to start doing public demos of the rotary test rig with dual pulse mode thrusters mid 2017.
Expected accelerative reaction force at 250W forward is around 500mN or 2N/kWrf. Liquid helium cooling may increase that to greater than 20N/kWrf.