-
#260 by RotoSequence on 03 Sep, 2016 06:35
-
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time? -
#261 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 06:44
-
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
I don't follow. If you're happy to show the resonance models and other salient data, why aren't you happy to show pictures of the apparatus and graphs of test data at this time?
My 1st 2 commercial frustums are still being built. As long as they pass muster, they are sold.
What I did was to show there now exists others that possess the necessary engineering skills to take a few dimensions and successfully model a frustum design, verifying mode, freq & antenna design. Those that are willing to learn can master the necessary engineering skills to follow the pathway Roger has created.
Monomorphic now knows it works and joins the 4 others in our group that have all designed, built & successfully tested EmDrives. It is no longer about proving it works. That phase is over. It is now about understanding the necessary microwave and other engineering skills needed to built working EmDrives.
-
#262 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 06:47
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing. -
#263 by Chrochne on 03 Sep, 2016 06:51
-
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this.
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.
But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine. -
#264 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 06:55
-
Internet is starting to go nuts on EmDrive. I never seen anything like this.
The internet goes nuts every week over something or the other. Even now it is past this hurdle, many, many hurdles still remain between a device on a lab table and us all flying around in hover cars whilst travelling to Proxima B for our holidays.
Of course now lets see what is in the paper.
But it is really exciting to now humanity can now have first ever non-combustion engine.
If I see one more article saying it doesn't need fuel. No it still needs electricity that for a space based vehicle would have to be generated the same old way by solar panels or RTG. -
#265 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 07:00
-
The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.
So no need for DIYers to test in vac.
-
#266 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 07:04
-
That wasn't quite my point. My point is to remove doubt for the sceptical peer reviewer they would need this kind of testing.The problem surely for the amateur builder is obtaining the facilities to test his or her device in as hard a vacuum as possible to rule out other factors that may produce spurious results.
One of the reasons that EW's devices got through peer review I expect was their ability to test in a vacuum chamber.
I am hoping that this paper will confirm they were able to use a second set of facilities as they were talking of doing, with a second independent group of people testing.
If you review EW's earlier in air results, they are the same as the final in vac results. Only issue was early in vac results were not good due to a few issues the EW team apparently sorted out.
So no need for DIYers to test in vac. -
#267 by simplex1 on 03 Sep, 2016 07:07
-
Does a truncated cone resonant cavity produce thrust if excited with ordinary sound?
The wavelength of sound with frequencies between 2kHz and 20kHz range from 17 cm to 1.7 cm so resonant cavities designed for microwaves in the domain 2.4 GHz - 24 GHz (12.5 cm and 1.25 cm) can also resonate if excited with tones generated by a computer.
I would be curious to know if a certain amount of thrust is obtained, if somebody already made the test or is willing to do it. Somebody who has already built an EMdrive has everything he needs. Just turn on a loudspeaker connected to the computer, adjust the frequency of the tone generated by it and put the loudspeaker in front of an EMdrive cavity which will resonate and maybe produce thrust. -
#268 by francesco nicoli on 03 Sep, 2016 07:15
-
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.
Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.
So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer. -
#269 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 07:24
-
Quote
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Traveler, with all due respect, enough is enough. If your device has produced thrust on that scale - or even if it has not - then post the results here and let the math types have a field day. Citing decade old arguments from Shawyer doesn't cut it, not in the presence of new data. You have nothing to lose. Such interaction would help you spot potential flaws with you design, as well as avenues for improvement.
The only people I'm interested to show operational results to are customers.
Those seeking knowledge should read Roger's detailed engineering build reports. BTW nice photos of the Demonstrator in early build & static tests.
I'm not the only EmDrive builder that will shortly release battery powered, wireless, EmDrive rotary test results & videos.
sorry, but this is rather Incorrect.
For once, this is not a forum for commercial sellers. If you claim you have results then you have to show them. Saying you have results but you will show it only to your customers sounds very, very much like an advertisement to me.
Second, as a community of scientists, we exepct people to ground their claims in their models and back their claims with evidence. If haven't done either of them: afaik your model is dotted by theoretical contradictions and you have no results to show.
So please: get your model right & publish your results.
Otherwise, you are just a scammer.
You are correct this is not a forum to promote / sell commercial product. As I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales, I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.
-
#270 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 07:38
-
Interesting Tweet from the guy who designed Dr. White's IXS Enterprise warp ship and IXS Clarke EmDrive ship:
Mark Rademaker (@yard2380) tweeted at 5:16 AM on Sat, Sep 03, 2016:
I received the paper in January 2016 from White, it was already a year in review by that time.
https://twitter.com/yard2380/status/771796415668449280?s=03
So the whole paper is in circulation. Wonder who may also have a copy? -
#271 by simplex1 on 03 Sep, 2016 07:41
-
Quote from: TheTraveller
I'm engaged in commercial EmDrive development, manufacture and sales, I will no longer mention my commercial product nor activity on this forum.
You are like the Wright brothers in 1905 who were selling their plane but did not want to show it to anybody. Finally the aviation appeared in 1906 without their help and their first public demonstrations were done quite late in August 1908 in a moment when planes built by others were already able to fly for 20 minutes. -
#272 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 08:18
-
so... where does that leave us, with 1.2mN/kW, instead of 400mN/kW ?
Is it still meaningful for interplanetary missions?
There is still a substantial gap (± x300 times)between what the guys at eagleworks got and what Shawyer claims. If the10 year old NDA has expired on the demonstration device, maybe it would be a good idea for R. Shawyer to contact them and send over that "obsolete" model.
But that's wishful thinking of me , ofc...
I have done 8mN @ 95Wrf or 84mN/kWrf. In build design will do 0.4N/kWrf. Others I know of are around 0.4N/kWrf for 2nd or 3rd build units.
As Roger has said, this isn't magic. There are design guidelines to build 0.4N/kW units. That said building a high Q commercial quality total system (frustum, Rf amp & control system) is not easy, quick nor low cost.
Euh. I never implied it is "magic"...
My question was about the possible consequences of obtaining less force then projected/predicted.
As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.
This does not say i'm dismissing an EM effect, but that one should seriously question what part of the measured forces are due to a real EM effect.
As i said in the "other forum" i have my doubts about the linear scalability of the EM effect, in regards of the Q. I have a problem with the projection that going from a Q of ±5x10^4 to a Q of 5x10^10 (see supercooled Niobium cavities at CERN) will result in a force that is x1 000 000 times higher. The 1ton - flying car stuff...
The graph that R.Shawyer showed in his video (timeframe 12:48)is kinda misleading as it groups and bundles all kind of different tests (yang, dresden, nasa, shawyer, cannae, etc) and project them as if they all show a trend.
This is utterly wrong, because the huge differences between the actual experiments.
If you want to show a linear correlation between forces and Q, then you need to perform a test with the SAME setup and different Q values.
fe , you start with ambient temperature, then start gradually cooling in steps till you reach super cooling and /or change materials that dramatically impact the Q.
If you then still see a linear correlation, then yes, Q scales in a linear fashion.
The current argumentation based upon all those different tests is simply premature (at best). Maybe the EM drive does indeed scale linearly, but that is NOT the way to demonstrate it and it does not help for credibility.
In case your wondering, I'm trying to help.
-
#273 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 08:44
-
To be open here are the data I shared with Monomorphic:
All calcs in air and in m
0.3180 Big End diameter
0.4934 Big End radius
0.1590 Small End diameter
0.2467 Small End radius
0.2467 Axial end plate spacing / frustum side wall length
0.77339 DF
88,150 Q
2.4500 GHz resonance in TE013
2.2987 GHz small end cutoff
45.4mN Force at 100W forward
Again here are Monomorphic's results as attached, which shows the engineering works as the data was from my EmDrive design spreadsheet, also attached, to FEKO.
So there is no Magic to build an EmDrive. The data to do so it out there and I have posted most of it here on this forum.
If you look at the central graphic in my spreadsheet screen shot, note the modeled increasing guide wavelength as the diameter narrows (big end left, small end right). Exactly what FEKO modeled AND as per Roger's theory predictions.
I like it when the numbers match up!
-
#274 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 09:36
-
You may be right, you may be wrong..As the nullification tests of prof Yang showed, the observed forces can easily have different origin then an EM effect.
There is more to the Yang story than has been made public. Suffice it to say my info is her results were independently verified by another Chinese lab, plus she and others are hard at work on a Chinese superconducting unit.
Ever wonder about that guy who came on here, claimed Yang had retired and was writing poetry as she was denied further funding? You think that just maybe he was a plant to discredit her work and when that did not work, the next "Yang" paper was released to try to bury her results?
The reality is the EW device results, while positive thanks to a really good engineering effort by team EW, are from a dielectric frustum design that was abandoned in 2002 due to low thrust results. I can share that had they increased the dielectric thickness, the generated force would have been in the other direction.
Not speculation.
There is currently no possibility to really asses the truth behind that, so.. it is and remains pure speculation...
I keep en open mind and am well aware that industrial espionage and contra espionage are a daily reality, but at the same time I'm careful not to step into the wild conspiracy theory pitfall...
Let's keep it to...speculation, will you? Consequently it does cast a doubt about the validity of yang's results.
Besides, if you connect the dots as they are, including Yang's result, you don't see a linear scaling but a flattening exponential scale...
A lot of Shawyer's drawings and graphs give me the uneasy/uncomfortable feeling of being forced into storytelling, rather then an objective representation of experimental data. They feel more like a sales pitch graph then a scientific illustration. Again it is all about credibility and the sub-conscience ability to "feel" something doesn't add up...
As said before, if you really want a scientific illustration on how Q scales linearly, use 1 setup and keep changing the Q values (by gradually increasing cooling, fe)
Piling up different tests to enforce a story of linear scalability sets off a few alarms in my head. Cant help it, sorry...
and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way...
and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...
-
#275 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 10:01
-
and let's be honest... 7 data points (with only 4 matching the prediction) are simply not enough to draw such a profound conclusion from...
Try the attached for scaling.
BTW the one that doesn't seem to line up is from the 1st Cannae superconducting unit. so maybe not a true EmDrive result but it does show their thrust increased as the Q increased.
Then read all the experimental data from these 2 reports. Each has heaps of tests and reveals a lot of valuable engineering data that was never made public before.
-
#276 by bauhaus on 03 Sep, 2016 10:36
-
Can anyone speculate if its true that the exhaust is photon pairs, why not flood the chamber with more photons say with a laser or two? Also would it be possible to make the frustum out of transparent aluminum? Lastly. If electromagnetic radiation can push against the "quantum vacuum virtual plasma" or photon pairs, then doesn't it follow that other higher or lower intensities of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation could modify the effect?
-
#277 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 10:41
-
Interesting but...
notice how at the top left side, the scales goes up to..... 180mN...
I'm not going to do it for real, but scale that image up to 1 ton (as projected in a flying car emdrive), or 9806N, so bringing it to the same unit grade gives me... 9 806 000 mN
That means the idea of linear extrapolation of Q is based upon 0.0018% of the total projected force range.
Don't you think that is a bit premature?
To give you a visual clue : if the whole graph, with its 180mN scale, was 1 pixel high, the extrapolation towards 1 Ton force would be 556 pixels high...
A daring move, i must say...
The same can be said of the Q range varying from 5x10^3 to 5x10^4 from the real world experiments, that gets extrapolated to 5x10^10.
How can you extrapolate to 6 magnitudes without any other in between reference point, except the handful that lay in the first 0.0001% range of that Q spectrum?
If there were reference points at 10^6 or 10^7, then yes, linear extrapolation would be more credibly.
For me, as till today there is NO data that allows me to accept you can linearly scale up to 1 ton.
Such a conclusion based upon currently available data is overly optimistic and will most probably backfire.
I suggest you get some data with Q's at 100k or even Q at 1mil, before making claims of potential 1 ton thrust levels at magnitudes of 10^10...
At best, what you have here is a graph that more or less shows a linearity up to a Q of around 10^5 and a prognosis for 400mN.
That you can achieve 0.4N/kW, that is something I'm willing to accept based upon that graph...
but 1 ton? you'll have to show it to me first ...
oh, forgot to mention that the second graph is a force/input power relation, not a (specific) thrust/Q graph,
so the relation with the Q is kinda blurry
-
#278 by simplex1 on 03 Sep, 2016 11:12
-
A thrust of 0.4N/kW = The Nobel Prize
A 200 kg spacecraft equipped with such a motor gains each 30 days (0.4N/200kg)*30days = 5.184 m/s or 63.1 km/s per year.
If you have such an engine you have already revolutionized the space industry. -
#279 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 11:21
-
Because currently there is no data that extends far enough to make such an extrapolation acceptable.
show me some data with Q's at 5x10^5 or 1x10^6 and if those still lay on that linear path, then i'll start to accept the projections at 1x10^9
I explained to you how the thrust generated is based on the energy stored inside the cavity. The amount of that stored energy is simple physics that depends on power input versus time to charge the cavity. The cavity charge time is driven by the Q. The higher the Q, the longer the charge time. The longer the charge time, the more energy that flows into the cavity and thus the internal cavity stored energy is higher and from that the force generated is higher.
1 x TC = Qu/ (2 Pi Freq)
None of this is new.
