-
#2820 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 09:35
-
Would seem Roger and Gilo have been busy on a new EmDrive patent application. Please note that both Roger and Gilo are the inventors:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035187289/PAMPH/WO2016162676.pdf
Plus more technical details than before.
It is going to be very interesting to see what Gilo Industries releases as their 1st EmDrive product.
Worth noting it is the first EmDrive international patent application.
Gilo Cardozo shares the invention with Roger Shawyer. The applicant is still SPR Ltd. and not their new joint-venture Universal Propulsion Ltd. though.
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
BTW the performance data data in the application seems to be for the 2009 non cryo Flight Thruster as it is rated at 326mN/kWrf and that data looks to match the attached Flight Thruster data.
-
#2821 by Willem Staal on 17 Nov, 2016 09:52
-
good luck, but im not convinced that a kitchen scale is a good way to measure thrust. But there is a other way to do that, not with a scale, but with sound. You could attach a piezo sensor on the end of the frustrum and "listen" to the thrust in stead of glaring to numbers. (just be sure that the frustrum "rest"on the element..Also I said that your coax could've heated up, perhaps it thermally expanded causing a slight moment and pushing down on the scale. Quick coax loss calculator says only a watt max wouldv'e been dissipated, so probably unlikely... But I really have no idea because I don't know the majority of the details about your experiment. Again if you had some sort of report with pictures, collected analyses, schematics etc that would help...
The Rf amp connector was aligned horizontally with the frustum connector plus the ~2kg frustum and the EMI shield were gravity stacked on the scale. Weight loss / gain followed frustum reversal.
So how will this arrangement, with 5 sec of Rf energy applied to the frustum, generate a 0.8g or 8mN weight increase or decrease, depending on frustum vertical orientation on the scale when the Rf connectors were horizontally aligned?
I have no photos as an incident occurred shortly later and it resulted in the Rf amp no longer working.
Should shortly reverse that situation.
Do have a picture of the 3kg x 0.01g scale.
The Rf amp was returned to the manuf for repair and the frustum was sent to my frustum fabricators to have flanges fitted to both end of the frustum and machined to be highly parallel and at right angles to the frustum axis.
I have due in mid Dec:
2 x 100W Rf amps.
2 x 250W Rf amps.
2 x spherical end plate Al frustums with multilayer very high Qu coating.
2 x flat end plate plate Cu frustums.
1 x rebuilt Cu original frustum.
Let the fun begin.
-
#2822 by flux_capacitor on 17 Nov, 2016 10:30
-
BTW the performance data data in the application seems to be for the 2009 non cryo Flight Thruster as it is rated at 326mN/kWrf and that data looks to match the attached Flight Thruster data.
Yes, it seems so.
Also, the two helical antennas in this patent show how to track and correct phase distortion (an issue raised by xyzzy in his last message): the main central helical antenna produces an input circularly polarised waveform, which is reflected by the major end plate. The reflected wave, of opposite polarisation, is detected by the second smaller counter-helical detector antenna. Any phase difference between the input and the reflected waves can be measured and the phase corrected for the next input waveform. This kind of PLL corrects Doppler shifts resulting of the acceleration of the cavity.
The EM frequency and phase tuning is also assisted by a physical tuning of the cavity thanks to piezoelectric actuators connected to the sliding minor end reflector, that modulate the axial length of the cavity to further compensate for the dynamic Doppler shift.
This new patent provides the dimensions for an exemplary design:
• Major flat end diameter: 145 mm
• Minor shaped end diameter: 97 mm
• Axial length between ends: ~67 mm
• Dimensions to shape the minor end reflector accordingly: see table and figures attached.
Someone should try those dimensions in FEKO to check what are the suitable mode & frequency.
-
#2823 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 10:53
-
FC,
Would expect those dimensions plus the small end cap dimension data to enable FEKO or other resonant cavity simulator to model the mode shape.
Clearly Giles, aka Gilo Cardozo has stamped his presence all over the Universal Propulsion JV and now the International patent application.
Roger did say there was to be a 2017 demo of a EmDrive wingless and propless drone. Maybe it straps to Gilo with a harness and allows him to fly around as he desires.
Seems Gilo likes to fly to friends and dinner parties, James Bond style:
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/personal-flying-machine-58928
Interesting times ahead.
-
#2824 by flux_capacitor on 17 Nov, 2016 11:19
-
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
As I pointed out, neither Gilo Industries Group (or any of its subsidiaries) nor Universal Propulsion Ltd. (JV between SPR Ltd. & Gilo Industries) are involved in the new patent. The inventors are indeed listed as being Roger Shawyer and Gilo Cardozo (50/50) but the applicant (which becomes the assignee once the patent is granted) is only Shawyer's company Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd.
As explained here:Quote• Inventorship is who conceived of the invention. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention.
• The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
So it seems Shawyer has still more rights over Cardozo on this patent application, if ever granted. -
#2825 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 11:39
-
SPR owns 40% of Universal Propulsion and Gilo owns 60%. Plus Gilo now owns 50% of the new patent. On the Uk patent, he is not mentioned.
Would seem Gilo is now very much in control.
As I pointed out, neither Gilo Industries Group (or any of its subsidiaries) nor Universal Propulsion Ltd. (JV between SPR Ltd. & Gilo Industries) are involved in the new patent. The inventors are indeed listed as being Roger Shawyer and Gilo Cardozo (50/50) but the applicant (which becomes the assignee once the patent is granted) of the patent is only Shawyer's company Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd.
As explained here:Quote• Inventorship is who conceived of the invention. The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention.
• The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
So it seems Shawyer has still more rights over Cardozo on this patent application, if ever granted.
There is a earlier UK patent application that did not mention Gilo.
GB1505870.4:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000035220456/PDOC/WO2016162676.pdf
My point was Gilo has increased his leverage as I assume he pumps money into supporting EmDrive research and production. I would also speculate it is Gilo that is, in one way or the other, paying the cost of the International application.
-
#2826 by Peter Lauwer on 17 Nov, 2016 12:11
-
....
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
..
...
Mmmm, that's not a bad idea at all. By using several orientations of the horns (horizontal, vertical) it should be possible to find out whether they exert forces on each other. And when applying from above and having shielding around the frustum + scale, it should be possible to attenuate the stray fields enough so it will not influence the scale.
I'll keep this in mind for future experiments (my Mettler scale has 1 mg res and 1200 g capacity).
Peter
-
#2827 by Monomorphic on 17 Nov, 2016 13:17
-
This new patent provides the dimensions for an exemplary design:
• Major flat end diameter: 145 mm
• Minor shaped end diameter: 97 mm
• Axial length between ends: ~67 mm
• Dimensions to shape the minor end reflector accordingly: see table and figures attached.
Someone should try those dimensions in FEKO to check what are the suitable mode & frequency.
I'm not sure what this chart means by R3 (error) and Correction columns. Anyone?
-
#2828 by RERT on 17 Nov, 2016 14:28
-
Yesterday SPR filed their accounts for the year ending 31-Mar-2016. The total exemption small company accounts show only a skeletal balance sheet, with no P&L statement. Items of note are:
1) The P&L account in shareholders funds increased by £27,333, consistent with a profit of that amount, and down from £51,513 last year. The lack of a P&L statement means that revenue could be higher than this, for example if he had chosen to pay himself a substantial salary. Other shareholders with loans outstanding might not consider that very ethical of the controlling shareholder. Any salary of Shawyer's is likely to be modest.
2) Related Party disclosures show that Shawyer received £5,000 contributing to reduction in provisions and £20,000 last year. In both cases this was 43.93% of the reduction in provisions, which are indefinite-term interest free shareholder loans. It is a reasonable guess that Shawyer is owed 43.93% of the £182,848 outstanding debt of SPR, and the debt is being paid down pro-rata.
3) Current Liabilities are essentially nil. Either the balance sheet has been 'dressed' to avoid disclosure, or there is no current business activity. Either is quite possible.
4) Last year, the year-end cash balance was circa £11,646 and a very similar sum was returned to shareholders as loan repayments in the next year. This year there is a cash balance of £26,688 which one could speculate is earmarked for the same purpose.
The only firm conclusion is that SPR continues to have some income, which it does not disclose.
-
#2829 by LowerAtmosphere on 17 Nov, 2016 14:44
-
Dear All,
Last posts I discussed a refined take on what has aptly been termed the “sledgehammer approach”. I outlined using high intensity pulsed lasers to achieve higher E field densities, and how this potentially directly relates to local negative energy densities in the QV. I cannot prove it empirically due to lack of resources but I have a strong suspicion that the resonant frustum, among other effects, produces a spacetime distortion with a mass/energy gradient in the longitudinal axis. The related mechanisms are outlined in these papers. http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.5682
I have refined and revised my design suggestion regarding a metallic photon ‘lattice’ with feedback loop. I have dropped the idea of using entangled photons due to the practical impossibility of sufficiently regulating internal temperature.
Design idea(s):
1) Thin resonating cones (hollow needles) – Single high power solitonized pulse laser split at the top of the device aimed towards each of the needles via diffractive/beam splitting material or antennas. Top of the device has a tapered conical chamber shape where noise can accumulate and dissipate. Each thin cone resonates and has own propulsive effect. Net propulsion is Cones*laser input assuming relatively equal power distribution but slower loading. Concerns: resonance in open cone is impossible, how to implement one way mirrors on the tops of the cones?
Key point here is that E field density is several orders of magnitude higher than with magnetron designs. If linear scaling applies to thrust as experimentally suggested by Eagleworks then we have some serious potential thrusts.
2) Carbon nanotube lattice – Carbon nanotubes are absolutely fantastic tunable complex mini frustums. Q is low but imagine many tens of thousands being excited by a high intensity emitter. Regarding structure I suggest two options: many straight tubes. Second is honeycomb with multiple clusters stacked in multiple layers. Each layer will catch a certain % of total radiation from the emitter with sum adjustable by shifting layer position. Added bonus with honeycomb design is improved modularity, cooling and repairs to damaged or inefficient layers. Required reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.07352
Key point is the economy of scale which comes from many thousands of frustums. Additionally, carbon nanotubes can be tuned to facilitate phase lock and they can accept much smaller wavelengths. Areas to explore are nanotube architecture such as conical nanotubes (currently confined to um scale http://pyramid.spd.louisville.edu/~eri/papers_pres/Sunkara_Small_Materials_2008.pdf) and connected/feedback loops within nanotube mesh.
EDIT: I forgot to clarify, honeycomb design would apply on both macro and micro levels. Imagine on the macro level something analogous to racks in a grill.
I am currently investigating the implications of this paper on EM absorption. It, and much other literature, posits that carbon nanotubes dissipate EM energy via vibration, in fact it is an established use. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/17295/InTech-High_frequency_properties_of_carbon_nanotubes_and_their_electromagnetic_wave_absorption_properties.pdf
However, I am optimistic as http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/17303.pdf clearly demonstrates on pp 475-476 that wavelength decreases along the tube creating quasimomentum in the microfrustum(!!!), sounds familiar doesn't it? If sufficiently cooled (to prevent kinetic energy loss) there is clear theoretical support for this concept working in a similar way to existing designs.
Another related paper for the interested: http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier94/25.09062001.pdf
Final edit: The more I look into carbon nanotube properties the more alluring the idea seems. Would be interesting if somebody creates a honeycomb-like mesh of interconnected tubes (similar to graphene but perfectly aligned). Quite honestly, the potential interactions between high energy lasers and carbon-surface plasmonics in the context of such a design is beyond my current understanding and even my imagination. http://www.ece.rice.edu/ece/xugroup/Papers/Excitation%20of%20Plasmonic%20Waves%20in%20Graphene%20by%20Guided-Mode%20Resonances.pdf
All this being said, we are still at a frontier in terms of maximizing intra-cavity power, as 5.6kW is the last empirical limit I could find before severe kinetic degradation of the walls occur. Potential solutions include the layered graphene pseudo-tubes I mentioned, cooling techniques, and taking advantage of the sheer number of microfrustums. Here's a 2007 paper dealing with mode-locked high energy pulse lasers in carbon nanotubes and the practical limitations. http://www.photon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~maruyama/papers/07/SongAPL.pdf
Best Regards,
LA
-
#2830 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 16:02
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
-
#2831 by Bob012345 on 17 Nov, 2016 16:13
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here? -
#2832 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 16:23
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
-
#2833 by Bob012345 on 17 Nov, 2016 16:30
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far as forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts. -
#2834 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 16:51
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far a forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts.
The patent quotes this series of 2009 Flight Thruster data as attached. It is not cryo data but it does show force scales with power which is really Q * power. Read any accelerator reference and you quickly learn the stored energy is based on Q * Power.
I can add that building a room temp Cu Qu 50K thruster is not that difficult but as the Q climbs, the need for very accurate build dimensional accuracy increases as very high Q cavities need to be able to generate very low phase distortion travelling wave fronts or it all stops.
As I see it the Force does scale with Q but building high Q cavities is not simple, easy or low cost. The patent is very clever as it addresses a lot of the build issues and to me reflects a lot of man hours of engineering development into ways and solution to make KISS EmDrives.
When I 1st saw the frustum design, I immediately though, Roger you are a very clever boy.
Should add that assuming the Force curves are correct and the cavity has a 5x Tc fill and discharge time of 2 sec, or 1 sec charge time or 0.2 sec 1 Tc time, you can cale the Q that was needed to cause such lengthly fill and discharge times.
Tc = Qu / (2 Pi Freq) so Qu = Tc 2 Pi Freq, which suggests the cavity Q was around 3x10^9 which seems fairly conservation as high performance accelerator cavities are around 5x10^11.
-
#2835 by Bob012345 on 17 Nov, 2016 17:01
-
A tale of TWO Forces as told in the latest International EmDrive patent application.
But he claims elsewhere to be able to maintain the Q and thrust with compensation techniques. I wonder why no mention of that here?
The piezo cavity returners are in the patent as attached.
This is for freq broadening that moves the operational freq away from ideal during acceleration and drops Q. Not the same effect as below. This freq broadening doesn't cause cavity stored energy loss.
Acceleration also drops Q from transferring some of the EmWave momentum to the frustum. This is an additional per cycle energy loss that adds to eddy current loss, reducing cavity stored energy and Q.
So there are 2 effects that can drop Q. The cavity length extension handles / moderates one but not the other.
If you are in contact with him, I wouldn't expect you to divulge proprietary data but I surely hope he has some data on high Q superconducting cavities as far a forces go and that's it's not all just theory. At some point he's got to say if there are large forces or not so we all get beyond questioning the data as experimental artifacts.
The patent quotes this series of 2009 Flight Thruster data as attached. It is not cryo data but it does show force scales with power which is really Q * power. Read any accelerator reference and you quickly learn the stored energy is based on Q * Power.
I can add that building a room temp Cu Qu 50K thruster is not that difficult but as the Q climbs, the need for very accurate build dimensional accuracy increases as very high Q cavities need to be able to generate very low phase distortion travelling wave fronts or it all stops.
As I see it the Force does scale with Q but building high Q cavities is not simple, easy or low cost. The patent is very clever as it addresses a lot of the build issues and to me reflects a lot of man hours of engineering development into ways and solution to make KISS EmDrives.
When I 1st saw the frustum design, I immediately though, Roger you are a very clever boy.
Should add that assuming the Force curves are correct and the cavity has a 5x Tc fill and discharge time of 2 sec, or 1 sec charge time or 0.2 sec 1 Tc time, you can cale the Q that was needed to cause such lengthly fill and discharge times.
Tc = Qu / (2 Pi Freq) so Qu = Tc 2 Pi Freq, which suggests the cavity Q was around 3x10^9 which seems fairly conservation as high performance accelerator cavities are around 5x10^11.
In concept, Photonic laser thrusters have a gain medium that stabilizes the resonance so completely one can move one of the mirrors with ones hand and not stop resonance between the mirrors. That's been proven in the lab for photon recycling experiments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
I can't help but ask is there an equivalent concept one could use in the cavity to make the resonance and thus the Q extremely stable? -
#2836 by TheTraveller on 17 Nov, 2016 17:09
-
Thanks to Dave / RfMwGuy on Twitter, the EW in vac paper is officially released:
http://arc.aiaa.org/action/showMultipleAbstracts?doi=10.2514%2F1.B36120&href=%2Ftoc%2Fjpp%2F0%2F0&title=Journal+of+Propulsion+and+Power+%280%29
also attached.
Despite the Ew Cu frustum being copied from Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive, nowhere in the paper is Roger, SPR, EmDrive no any of his papers referenced.
-
#2837 by WarpTech on 17 Nov, 2016 17:11
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4 -
#2838 by Notsosureofit on 17 Nov, 2016 17:27
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
Yes, we've used similar in plasma systems here...... you can use rim clamps and wind solder on the surfaces for an electrical seal. -
#2839 by Bob Woods on 17 Nov, 2016 18:15
-
What do you think? It has a nice wide rim I can drill holes in to add a flat base plate to it.
I don't know Todd, at $38.64 a pop it might break the bank
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NG9FFI/ref=psdc_289696_t2_B002X3MUV4
Might get a better deal on Black Friday where you can buy several; say 6 so you can mount on X, Y and Z axis simultaneously for vector control. Mars awaits.
Might get a better deal on Black Friday where you can buy several; say 6 so you can mount on X, Y and Z axis simultaneously for vector control. Mars awaits.