-
#280 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 11:22
-
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.
You are correct. Roger deserves a Nobel as a very big apology from the physics community. -
#281 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 11:31
-
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.
110% Agreed for the Nobel price, on condition it gets further validated.
-
#282 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 12:18
-
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.
Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.
You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.
Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment. -
#283 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 14:00
-
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.
Currently , we have a handful of theories and assumptions that attempt to explain what is happening.
It is only through making working experiments that we'll be able to pinpoint what theory holds the most value.
You might know more then me, because of your contacts, but as long I have not seen a clear relation between Q and the generated forces in an experiment, I'm not inclined to assume anything.
Prove, by experimentation, that Q scales in a linear fashion. That's all there is.
The rest is just a thought experiment and serves to backup the understanding of the experiment.
Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper? -
#284 by tleach on 03 Sep, 2016 14:19
-
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.
I still think that if the whole thing is as simple as resonating waves in and asymmetrical reflective cavity and momentum transfer from those waves into that frustum, then yes, it very well might work... Of course, I got shot down a couple of months ago when I proposed the same thing
I haven't heard about anyone trying though! -
#285 by Flyby on 03 Sep, 2016 14:57
-
.......
tbh, i have no idea...
Do you think the peer reviewed paper will come with an extensive theory on how they believe it to works, or is that asking too much of one paper?
I am , just as you, (im)patiently waiting for more news with absolutely no idea what the content will be of that peer review: positive? negative? inconclusive? -
#286 by SeeShells on 03 Sep, 2016 17:47
-
Hi All,
Just catching up on my reading this morning.
I see hand waving, posting test results from other groups and individuals and speculative theories as to how and why this drive may work. To me and this IMHO it boils down to a simple fact past hand waving. Advancement this EMDrive, Q-Thruster, EMTruster or even the WankerMobileDrive, real honest data is still king. Requiring you to roll up your shirt sleeves, shut off the phone, get off the computer, sit down in your lab, test and retest, again and again.
No amount of hand waving will replace the hard sweat and very repetitious testing called work that's needed to convince that this thing works. Fun to post you have the next big breakthrough in designing a force engine on paper, but you better be prepared to knuckle down and work hard to prove it in the lab. Even then you'll have critics, (even if works, or not).
Am I ready to say this force engine is ready to fly cars, no, Am I ready to say that this force engine will take us to Mars, no. Am I ready to say that it deserves the best testing I can do as a DYIer, yes.
Still testing all the theories I can and using one drive to do it. This is my 4th test bed and 4th drive (My first drive had too many holes in it
). I have advanced to where the test bed and drive should provide insights and good data.
I'll leave with this. Then I need to get to work.
My current drive incorporates and or can test one at a time or in a combination.
Dr. Woodward's and Dr. Heidi Fearn's Mach effect. B-fields and PZTs and Caps
Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster). Dielectrics
Roger Shawyer's EMDrive basic theory. Naked internal drive
notsosureofit Hypothesis. All configs
Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory. All configs
Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory A mix of several
Paul March mentioned something I read, that the effects seen by EagleWorks might be both sides of the same coin. Smart man I thought. After mulling it around I drew this idea (pic attached). I even posted these comments.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1539804#msg1539804
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1548562#msg1548562
My Best,
Shell
-
#287 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 17:47
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:QuoteFor the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
-
#288 by DIYFAN on 03 Sep, 2016 18:16
-
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.
As far as I'm concerned, if you show a video of the EM drive in a rotary configuration that is accelerating, aka Roger's video but hopefully for more rotations, then I would be pretty convinced, and would probably even want to buy one (depending on the cost, of course). -
#289 by Bob012345 on 03 Sep, 2016 18:20
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results. -
#290 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 18:40
-
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
Cannae tug design, as attached, quotes 26N from 40Wrf at 50 MHZ or 650N/kWrf.
Note lower freq = bigger cavity = higher Q = higher thrust per Wrf.
Of course higher Q = longer 5 x TC cavity charge time = more kWh of energy needed to fully charge the cavity and to drive the thrust generation effect.
Not Magic, just smart EmDrive engineering.
-
#291 by demofsky on 03 Sep, 2016 19:07
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I think there is also a question of scale here. At the micro Newton level of effects reported by EW and Tajmar there is unquestionably a very high bar for experimental conditions/control required. However, at the level now being reported by monomorphic, et al I am not sure that level of rigour is as needed.
I would love to see, say, monomorphic's rig with a battery powered RF source and also possibly, as someone earlier suggested, sealed and with a small vacuum pump to definitively eliminate gross jetting, thermals, etc. If that were achieved, then, for the level of thrust monomorphic is reporting I think anything else is probably chasing unicorns.
Of course, that is what referees may require for their publication...
-
#292 by demofsky on 03 Sep, 2016 19:27
-
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...
How can I say this?
Roger offered to help EW. For whatever reason that never happened and EW reinvented a non physically tunable flat end plate design approach (using a dielectric) that Roger abandoned in 2002. From his 2nd unit, The Demonstrator, and forward all designs are dielectric free and use shaped end plates.
His 1st Experimental dielectric design, with twin physical frustum tuning systens only achieved 18.8mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html
The 2nd Demonstrator, dielectric free, with spherical end plates achieved 214mN/kWrf.
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
3rd build, the Flight Thruster achieved 326mN/kWrf
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
See the progression?
Having thought about this I would have to say that this is actually a really, really important validation of the phenomena. That is, there is a learning curve to this technology, multiple independent investigators are all climbing up that learning curve with ever increasing levels of thrust.
This is, in my view, really, really key.
Now, from a science perspective as opposed to a pragmatic engineering perspective there are also important/essential refinements to the experimental design of these rigs and that is what MAY some day get some of this work published with more improvements and unicorn chasing.
But man, that learning curve really says to me that this is a very real phenomena that we are just starting to grapple with. -
#293 by TheTraveller on 03 Sep, 2016 19:55
-
Build update,
My 2 spherical aluminum thrusters should be ready for testing at the fabricators end Oct. If OK will return with the 2 thrusters, 4 x 100W Rf amps and a few other bits & pieces. So still hopeful of releasing a video of the rotary test rig spinning under acceleration from 50mN (5g) of thrust in 2016. There is still a lot of work to do, I may not make 2016 with the video but if I don't, will post the latest build photos.
When the rotary test rig is up and spinning I WILL POST VIDEOS.
Might build a symmetrical rotary rig with the 2 thruster on opposite sides of the rig to generate 100mN (10g) of thrust.
Next stage is designing in integrated 4 x 250Wrf smart modules and to drive the thrusters with 1kW of phase synced Rf via 4 couplers to achieve 0.5N (50g) of thrust in a single thruster module that only needs Dc power applied to generate thrust.
If anybody wishes to run the numbers here they are again:
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.
Should point out no one is funding this other than myself.
-
#294 by Carl G on 03 Sep, 2016 20:22
-
This thread is for a technical discussion of EM Drive and it will not be dominated by any one person.
It is not for armwaving. It is not for marketing. We will remove such posts. -
#295 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 21:04
-
The whole history of the EM drive seems so bizarre at points, that it verges on being an X Files episode.
I think it's better to stick to publicly known events and evidence, or we can lose ourselves in speculation.
NASA's EagleWorks and UT Dresden's experiments are at the forefront of what others call "institutional tests/experiments", because they are the only ones done in a vacuum and under very controlled conditions that can be accepted by peer reviewers. Because their tests have been accepted for publication already.
All other tests (done by scientists or not) have been done on air and under conditions that don't satisfy peer reviewed publications (yet).
They can be enticing demonstrations of a potentially real phenomenon, but their scientific value is at best, anecdotal and just adds up to the pile of evidence pointing out this can be real.
Therefore, the pretended level of thrust we can have more confidence to say is the "right" one, is that found and reported by NASA's EagleWorks. Which is still pending to be replicated and verified by others under similar conditions of rigorous test quality.
Thus, all that talk about tonnes-per-kilowatt thrusters is just fantasy and wild guessing right now. Show us a public demonstration of a flying self-propelled test article, and then we can accept to change that situation.
I completely disagree and no doubt the critics may be moved to the point of saying 'ok, maybe it exists but it's too small to be very useful...' That's completely predictable. That's their way of trying to gain control.
The NASA results do not invalidate, nor disprove the other results. They do not set a limit of the effect. Why NASA is determined to always work in the lowest possible levels is uncertain and certainly disappointing but it's no proof that that is all one can get. Fetta superconducting tests claimed nearly a Newton per kilowatt. I have no valid reason to claim that is not true and neither does anyone else.
Unless one thinks Shawyer and Fetta are simply lying, we should assume the real state of the art is way way way beyond these new NASA results.
I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget. -
#296 by DIYFAN on 03 Sep, 2016 23:01
-
I imagine the level they are working at is defined by their tiny budget.
Which is pretty sad given the giant wastes in government spending elsewhere... and yet we have highly emotional people running around the Internet screaming at how wasteful this tiny effort is. -
#297 by Tellmeagain on 03 Sep, 2016 23:12
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:QuoteFor the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
-
#298 by demofsky on 03 Sep, 2016 23:25
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:QuoteFor the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers. -
#299 by Tellmeagain on 03 Sep, 2016 23:28
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:QuoteFor the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.
). I have advanced to where the test bed and drive should provide insights and good data. 