-
#2960
by
rfmwguy
on 20 Nov, 2016 00:36
-
RotoSequence:
I need a clarification about the meaning of your below statement.
"It doesn't matter that force was measured, because they haven't shown divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry - which means they haven't proven that the conical cavity geometry uniquely affects more than the resonance mode, frequency, etc in their experiment."
I performed an experiment that did not make it into the final version of the EW in-vacuum report that demonstrated that if the TM212 mode is not excited in the same copper frustum test article utilizing the same RF power levels as when it is exciting the TM212 mode, its thrust production was greatly reduced, see attached slides. Is that what you are calling not demonstrating "divergence through a different, but likewise TM212 resonant geometry"?
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
I have been following this research for a few years now. In the AIAA paper I noticed an interesting discrepancy. All of the "forward" graphs show the distance measured by the optical displacement sensor increasing when RF is turned on. This is the opposite of the capacitor force. Fig. 2 (first graphic below) in the paper shows the two devices mounted on the same X-Y-Z stage on the small end side of the fustrum. In the paragraph labeled "5. Forward Thrust Overview" it says the forward thrust makes the device shown in Fig 14 (second graphic below) move to the left. This is the same movement that Shawyer reported. If the configuration shown in Fig. 2 was ever used the accepted direction of the em-drive thrust would move the mirror closer to the optical displacement sensor, resulting in a decrease in the distance measurement and the distance travelled due to the capacitor force device increasing. However what we see in all the graphs is the opposite. This discrepancy might just be oversimplification on their part and they may actually have two the X-Y-Z stages, one for the capacitor force generator on the small end side and the other for the distance sensor on the big end side.
Another interesting statement in their paper occurs in the same paragraph 5 I referred to above
quoted from AIAA paper
"
5. Forward Thrust Overview
The tapered RF test article was mounted on the torsion pendulum as shown in Fig. 14. Forward thrust was defined as causing displacement to the left in the photograph. Viewed from above, the torsion arm moved clockwise, causing the mirror attached to the torsion arm to move away from the optical displacement sensor, which appears as an upward motion or positive displacement in the plots of displacement vs time in Figs. 9 and 13. This displacement was also in the same direction as that due to the CG shift from thermal effects.
"
end quote
They are saying the displacement due to thermal change in CG is in the same direction as the measured "thrust". Yet there have been no calibration or baseline experiments done to determine how much of the measured thrust is due to this thermal effect. Thermal expansion could be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the displacement they are claiming indicates an em-drive thrust effect.
I also disagree with the use of the term "impulsive thrust". All the graphs show the capacitive test force. This is a step response. The first part, where there is a falling edge and undershoot is the impulse response of a damped second order system, ie: the torque pendulum. The rising edge also shows the same impulse response. The whole waveform is the step response of a second order system. Any force applied to the torque pendulum has to have this step response. What we see when RF is switched on is the step response of a first order system. I don't see any indication of a second order step response in the "thrust" waveform. The thermal effects have not been measured independently. It is entirely possible the "thrust" waveform is completely due to thermal effects; eg: the change in CG as mentioned in paragraph 5 above.
**Corrected**
From my own testing, the thermal forces have a much slower response time and are generally not considered an impulse response due to the slow absorption and radiation of heat. Copper is notoriously slow in this regard. I found this out first hand while using a blowtorch to seam solder the frustum. Then on the torsion beam, thermal effects at 400°F heatsinking of the magnetron core spread out very slowly. I made a half dozen videos of this on YouTube. So, cg variants would be very long periods on a copper mass of 7kg, not at all similar to the timing shown in the aaia paper. Paul will have insight on his config, but thermal displacement due to cg variation of a horizontal torsion beam are many time greater than the the impulse period in the aaia paper. Just my 2 cents Zen...
-
#2961
by
spupeng7
on 20 Nov, 2016 00:58
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
-
#2962
by
SeeShells
on 20 Nov, 2016 03:22
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
-
#2963
by
JonathanD
on 20 Nov, 2016 03:31
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
-
#2964
by
qraal
on 20 Nov, 2016 04:05
-
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
-
#2965
by
qraal
on 20 Nov, 2016 04:18
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
-
#2966
by
flux_capacitor
on 20 Nov, 2016 10:33
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
In all those simulated interstellar projects, nowhere we see
the amount and mass of the nuclear fuel needed onboard.
An interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri with 400 mN/kWrf propellantless EmDrive powered by a 2 MWe nuclear fission electric generator on board of a 90-ton spaceship would take about a hundred years, as explained in the NSF featured article
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive, quoting Harold White.
Has someone calculated the amount of nuclear fuel consumed to power
constantly a 2 MWe generator over a journey of 100 years? Whatever the type of fissible atoms you try,
it amounts to thousands of tons of fuel, more than 10x the mass of the ship itself!
Did I make the maths wrong? If so my apologies, but if this is right, all these interstellar projects with nuclear fission reactors onboard are nonsense.
-
#2967
by
rfmwguy
on 20 Nov, 2016 11:32
-
Angelo also quoted the following characteristics of a JPL Interstellar Probe study from 1985:
JPL Starprobe with Nuclear EP system (NEP)
* Advanced 1-GWe nuclear reactor with specific mass = 0.003 Kg/kWt
* Cluster of ion thrusters, 1 GW input power, 400,000 s specific impulse
for Mercury (200.6 AMU), 500 N thrust
* 250 tons of Mercury used in 65 years by the ion thrusters
* 5 tons payload
* 430 tons initial spacecraft mass
* ΔV = 3700 km/s (770 AU/year)
* Trip time to Proxima Centauri = 390 years
Eliminate the mercury propellant and an EM-Drive array powered by 1 GW power-supply would get ~1,200 N thrust. That could push a 180 ton vehicle to 0.0456 c after 65 years of thrusting. It'd fly-by Proxima in 125 years.
The TVIW papers from 2016 seem to be off-line. I've a copy if anyone wants a look.
Here's an application: EM Drive for a trip to Planet Nine, at 700 AU. Angelo Genovese had an interesting presentation at TVIW on using a laser to power a DS4G Ion-drive vehicle to 1,000 AU in 25 years. An 8 MW beam with 50% conversion efficiency would power an EM-Drive assembly with 4 MW of power. A thrust of 4.8 N, based on the EM-Drive getting 1.2 mN/kW, would deliver a bit over 7 tons of vehicle to 700 AU in 25 years.
In all those simulated interstellar projects, nowhere we see the amount and mass of the nuclear fuel needed onboard.
An interstellar trip to Alpha Centauri with 400 mN/kWrf propellantless EmDrive powered by a 2 MWe nuclear fission electric generator on board of a 90-ton spaceship would take about a hundred years, as explained in the NSF featured article Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive, quoting Harold White.
Has someone calculated the amount of nuclear fuel consumed to power constantly a 2 MWe generator over a journey of 100 years? Whatever the type of fissible atoms you try, it amounts to thousands of tons of fuel, more than 10x the mass of the ship itself!
Did I make the maths wrong? If so my apologies, but if this is right, all these interstellar projects with nuclear fission reactors onboard are nonsense.
Very good commentary. When I read about these concepts years ago, I came to the same conclusion. There are still those promoting these concepts, but the reality is they are not practical for interstellar missions. Multigenerational coasters are not where I'd like to see research money spent.
-
#2968
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Nov, 2016 11:37
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
-
#2969
by
RERT
on 20 Nov, 2016 11:54
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
-
#2970
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Nov, 2016 12:17
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
1x10^3kWRf at 50% conversion efficiency needs 2x10^3kWe or 2MWe generator that can operate for 10 ship years which is 3.6 ship years to get there, 3.6 ship years to get back and 2.8 ship years to explore the local system.
Seems doable for a 1,000t ship with a 2MWe power supply.
Of course local surface shuttles would be EmDrive powered and at 1g, the mother may be able to land.
-
#2971
by
sghill
on 20 Nov, 2016 12:23
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
1x10^3Rf at 50% conversion efficiency needs 2x10^3kWe or 2MWe generator that can operate for 10 ship years which is 3.6 ship years to get there, 3.6 ship years to get back and 2.8 ship years to explore the local system.
Seems doable for a 1,000t ship with a 2MWe power supply.
A ten year mission to explore new worlds, seek out new life, and boldly go...? I'm up for it!
-
#2972
by
flux_capacitor
on 20 Nov, 2016 12:44
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
Maybe you're right but 100% efficiency is a false assumption. This is not a nuclear bomb… Uranium does not undergo complete fission in a plant, and then there is the efficiency of the turbine and electric generator.
Using the numbers provided by the
World Nuclear Association (who is inclined to show their propaganda in their best light, as they promote nuclear fission energy), the state-of-the art 1000 MWe power plant (EPR with 5% enriched U and high burn-up) uses 19.1 tons of fuel per year at 100% output. Let's round this up to 20 tons.
That is (rough linear conversion, maybe it is not suitable) 4 tons of fuel to power a 2 MWe for 100 years. Doable indeed.
But I don't know how the efficiency of a small space nuclear reactor with limited cooling capacity (only radiation cooling to space) competes with a big Earth-based high-power generating unit with water and steam cooling towers. Thus my numbers may be completely off.
NB: TheTraveller often assumes a great EmDrive efficiency giving continuous 1g acceleration, but I used Eagleworks' more conservative specific thrust of 0.4 N/kWrf giving 1 milli-g of continuous acceleration, hence much longer interstellar mission times.
-
#2973
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Nov, 2016 12:56
-
Interesting video:
Lest we forget:
According to Roger Shawyer's public comments.
Boeing entered into an license agreement with SPR / Roger Shawyer in 2007 whereby SPR gave Boeing ALL of SPR's EmDrive technology.
2 years later, in 2009, Boeing enetered into a contact with SPR to design & deliver the design of a Flight Thruster, which SPR delivered in 2010.
Boeing, using the SPR design data built a Flight Thruster and informed SPR it worked to the contract specs and paid SPR as per the contract.
Boeing they cut all ties with SPR and publicly declared it was no longer involved with Roger Shawyer.
-
#2974
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Nov, 2016 13:00
-
RE: quantity of fission fuel. I may have made a mistake, but here is the back of my envelope:
2MWe = 5MWt for 100 years is 100X365X24X3600X5X10^6 = 1.6X10^16 J
U235 +n1 fission gives 215 MeV = 215*1.6*10^-13 J
Number of Fissions required is therefore 1.6*10^16/(215*1.6*10^-13) = (1/215)*10^29
Mass of Uranium source for one fission = 236*1 au = 236*1.66*10^-27 kg
Total Fuel mass = (236/215)*1.66*10^-27*10^29 = 1.9*10^2 kg = 0.19 T
Now, that's one 100% efficient fuel cycle, but 1000's of tonnes seems a long way off.
Maybe you're right but 100% efficiency is a false assumption. This is not a nuclear bomb… Uranium does not undergo complete fission in a plant, and then there is the efficiency of the turbine and electric generator.
Using the numbers provided by the World Nuclear Association (who is inclined to show their propaganda in their best light, as they promote nuclear fission energy), the state-of-the art 1000 MWe power plant (EPR with 5% enriched U and high burn-up) uses 19.1 tons of fuel per year at 100% output. Let's round this up to 20 tons.
That is (rough linear conversion, maybe it is not suitable) 4 tons of fuel to power a 2 MWe for 100 years. Doable indeed.
But I don't know how the efficiency of a small space nuclear reactor with limited cooling capacity (only radiation cooling to space) competes with a big Earth-based high-power generating unit with water and steam cooling towers. Thus my numbers may be completely off.
NB: TheTraveller often assumes a great EmDrive efficiency giving continuous 1g acceleration, but I used Eagleworks' more conservative specific thrust of 0.4 N/kWrf giving 1 milli-g of continuous acceleration, hence much longer interstellar mission times.
ALL the experimental data shows Force scales linear with (Q * Pwr).
For sure there are significant engineering challenges as Q increases. But nothing that good and clever engineers can't overcome,
-
#2975
by
jstepp590
on 20 Nov, 2016 13:51
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
-
#2976
by
TheTraveller
on 20 Nov, 2016 14:21
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth 
. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
The EmDrive worked in 2002:
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdfAnd in 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf2006 rotary test:
, sound is air compressor for rotary air bearing.
-
#2977
by
OnlyMe
on 20 Nov, 2016 14:31
-
At 1g half way there, then a flip & burn, then 1g deceleration the last 1/2 way, it is 3.6 ship years, 6 Earth years to Alpha Centauri.
For a 1,000,000kg (1,000t) ship that requires 1×10^7N of force. At 1x10^4N/kWrf that requires 1x10^3kWrf.
Doable.
Or at least within the realm of dreams.., with what is currently understood.
You are talking about relative velocities that could result in the destruction of the ship solely based on collisions with interstellar dust, atoms and ions (bare nuclei).
You'll need to add both mass and technologies to engineer a means to avoid such collisions... but then you will run into truly testing some of the predicted limitations associated with the energies required for acceleration within the context of special relativity.., and just how even low end relativistic velocities might affect boundary condition interactions between any massive object and the quantum vacuum (QV)... even assuming an immutable QV. Step into the world and potential of a mutable QV and you will almost certainly need even more new technology, like a warp drive...
The point is we are only just at the beginning of an era where the gap between what we know and what we imagine might be, begins to become significant and potentially testable.
If predictions of special relativity are even close to realistic and a QV does exist, it would seem, "
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."Just as what we have seen in accelerations associated with the Pioneer Anomaly tests the boundaries of our current understanding, so will any attempts at even greater adventures and excursions into the depths of the unknown.
-
#2978
by
jstepp590
on 20 Nov, 2016 14:42
-
Usually I try to stay away from commenting here as I am so far out of my depth . I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
Well there is the problem:
Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible.
So lets avoid consideration that the EmDrive gained momentum is at the expense of EM wave lost momentum as the internal Em wave experiences red shift from lost Em wave momentum.
Debate this all you wish as I will not engage until my data is ready to be published.
Uh actually I was not debating anything. What the paper points to is the exhaust being shot out is actually light, or specifically, photons that have become paired up with another out-of-phase photon in order to shoot out of the metal cavity and produce thrust. According to Arto Annila "Light at microwave lengths is the fuel that’s being fed into the cavity … and the EM drive exhausts backwards paired photons".
How accurate that is I am not qualified to argue or debate. I simply wanted to point out another possible theory I came across, no challenge intended.
The EmDrive worked in 2002:
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf
And in 2006:
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf
2006 rotary test:
, sound is air compressor for rotary air bearing.
Yes, I saw those years ago and are one of the reasons I started looking for data and found this site. I have been following it ever since. However, and this is a big however, what the drive lacked back then was credibility, something it struggles with to this day. That can only come from group effort from respected engineers and scientists, which is what we are following now. Whether it worked back then is irrelevant without credibility. Otherwise I would have been happily writing from my personal moon base by now.
-
#2979
by
RotoSequence
on 20 Nov, 2016 14:44
-
Has anyone, including Shawyer, managed to verify that EM Drive thrust scales as a straight multiple of Q-factor in their test data? Can we be sure that field intensity isn't the chief factor, or that it's not otherwise a more subtle and/or less potent numerical operator?
. I am an IT specialist, not a engineer or physicist. However I came across a paper that I am not sure has been seen on this site before. It is a peer reviewed paper from the COMSOL company as well as several academics with a new explanation for the thrust results seen on the EMDrive. I apologize if this has been posted before, but I follow this thread a lot and have not seen it discussed yet. Regards.