-
#3040
by
flux_capacitor
on 21 Nov, 2016 14:57
-
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, congratulations for you work
Before you left Eagleworks, was a more advanced cavity (giving more specific thrust) being considered for future tests? I don't think about a superconducting unit, but a
TE012 or TE013 copper or aluminum silver-plated frustum with spherical end reflectors (same kind as Shawyer's Flight Thruster) instead of a TM212 cavity with flat end plates.
-
#3041
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:14
-
-
#3042
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:22
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
To keep neutrality on the subject you could also talk about Pr. Woodward's point of view which, although stating something unusual is going on with these experiments (please note he changed his mind since he dismissed the EmDrive before), restrains White's theory...
Thanks, I will write also about Woodward's models, but now I am trying to write a relatively simple popular summary of the theoretical ideas hinted at by White & co. in the last EW paper and previous theoretical papers.
-
#3043
by
Star-Drive
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:29
-
...better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives...
1) Thanks for all the posts here, they are gold
2) To your point of perfecting (or even improving) the results from these things, I'm wondering if you feel we (and by we I mean you and the other people that know what they are doing) have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs. This is made even more interesting by the fact that you made it sound like there are probably a broad variety of different form factors that could generate a similar result as long as they met a few key conditions. Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be? Or is the overall shape not as important at some point, as (possibly) suggested by your quote below?
ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
Johnathon:
"...have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs."
Yes we do and the obvious ones are adding frustum spherical endcaps optimized for maximum E&M production using the TE013 resonant mode. We also need to optimize the active tuning of these resonant cavities to maximize not only the E&M fields in them per input RF Watts, but also the dynamic thrust production from same.
"Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be?"
I'm not that smart to know what the optimal resonant cavity shape will end up being since no matter how appealing their E&M field production may look like via the COMSOL or FEKO E&M analysis tools, what counts is what their thrust production end up being for a given input power. And that information only comes about by building and testing them, at least until we have an engineering theory of operation that appears to work well enough to accurately (+/-10%) model this class of microwave thruster's thrust production.
Best, Paul M.
-
#3044
by
Star One
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:32
-
-
#3045
by
Star-Drive
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:34
-
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, congratulations for you work
Before you left Eagleworks, was a more advanced cavity (giving more specific thrust) being considered for future tests? I don't think about a superconducting unit, but a TE012 or TE013 copper or aluminum silver-plated frustum with spherical end reflectors (same kind as Shawyer's Flight Thruster) instead of a TM212 cavity with flat end plates.
Flux_Capacitor:
The only talk of a new thruster before I left the EW Lab was to make a thruster small enough to work in a 3U or larger CubeSat like Cannae is supposedly doing. Past that I have no clue what Dr. White wants to or will be allowed to build in this venue.
Best, Paul M.
-
#3046
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 15:34
-
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Paul, these are beautiful and inspiring words. I was born a few days before Sputnik, but watching Neil Armstrong walking on the moon (and seeing
2001 one year before that) sent my spirit to the stars. I was with ESA and other space research centers for a couple of decades, then moved on to other things. But my spirit is still among the stars and I hope our children and mind children will go there and beyond. I understand that you retired in September. Now that you don't have to spend time on boring paperwork and office politiks, your work to pave the way to the stars can go faster! Keep inspiring us, and we will follow you.
-
#3047
by
mwvp
on 21 Nov, 2016 16:49
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.php
And according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqth
However the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
I would think they are assuming the feedback system will regulate the frequency and power the circulator is operating in. I think you're correct to assume nothing is perfect. There should be a spec for load isolation (20 dB or something like that). In our context, with Q's 1000 and up, with drastic load, start transients and dynamics, more isolation could be required. Perhaps two (circulators) could be better than one? Maybe better control system/regulation.
My 2 cents, FWIW. I set up 100W cell sites with isolators & duplexers, kilowatt UHF systems, various small-signal processing devices and instruments.
-
#3048
by
RERT
on 21 Nov, 2016 16:58
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
-
#3049
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:05
-
It seems to me that the outline of pilot-wave theories that begins the theory part of the EW paper is - though intriguing and well written - only loosely related to the main considerations about the quantum vacuum as a virtual plasma that can support oscillations and transfer momentum (also explored in the two previous theoretical papers by White & co). So I am wondering why they start with pilot-wave theories. Am I missing something important?
-
#3050
by
WarpTech
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:06
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
-
#3051
by
Star One
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:12
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
In light of events this year I could say something but will resist the temptation.
-
#3052
by
TheTraveller
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:15
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Remember this from Roger?
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010. Boeing confirmed to SPR that the Flight Thruster met contract specs.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Sort of difficult to accept the NASA data that the EmDrive works and not accept the earlier data from Roger as being valid.
-
#3053
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:19
-
Politics is rarely smart or rational. - Todd
In light of events this year I could say something but will resist the temptation.
Just had the inspiration for a rant titled "Donald Trump and the Awesome EmDrive" ;-) ;-)
-
#3054
by
Bob012345
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:40
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, what's your opinion on whether a working EmDrive can provide a constant thrust for a given constant input electrical power. Some folks here just can't accept that claiming energy conservation is fundamentally violated. Thanks.
-
#3055
by
PotomacNeuron
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:52
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
It could be the other way around, that you probably know something he doesn't.
-
#3056
by
jstepp590
on 21 Nov, 2016 17:59
-
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.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Oh no, thank you sir. With our current technologies my odds of going to space before I died of old age are so low that I doubt even Dr. Rodal could have calculated it. Now I have at least a 1% chance, which is an order of magnitude greater than I had before.
-
#3057
by
flux_capacitor
on 21 Nov, 2016 18:07
-
Remember this from Roger?
[…] This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Must be kidding:
UK FOIA is effective since 2000. Whereas
US FOIA is effective since 1967! The US version is like the mother of the other Freedom of Information Acts.
The name of end-user is indeed "The Boeing Company" on the contract you provided. But as you said "End User Undertaking" more specifically indicates the end user is the
"armed forces" and purpose is use on a test satellite.
So it appears the contract does not involve a conventional branch of the Boeing Company (which is a vague term since Boeing is a vast multinational corporation) but rather a defense business unit of Boeing tied to the US Air Force. This may be Boeing Phantom Works.
Since the US Armed Forces are part of the US Department of Defense, any US citizen could ask their federal government for the release of the SPR-Boeing-Air Force records under a formal FOIA request. Boeing should not oppose such a demand, as a representative officially stated about the EmDrive that "the company is no longer pursuing this avenue".
https://www.foia.gov
-
#3058
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Nov, 2016 18:39
-
A couple of days ago I recalled what a colleague of mine said years ago: "If an apparently smart, rational person, faced with the same data as you, comes to a seemingly irrational conclusion, then he probably knows something you don't."
Why mention this? Faced with the data from EW - one or two years ago! - there still seems a question about whether NASA should fund an extension of the work.
That's just irrational. I imagine there is hardly anyone, skeptic or enthusiast, who can't see that this avenue needs to be pursued and nailed down. The prize is just too great to submit to dogma over experiment.
So. What do they know that we don't? Or do we have to have them fail the premise of 'smart and rational'?
Remember this from Roger?
In response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010. Boeing confirmed to SPR that the Flight Thruster met contract specs.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Sort of difficult to accept the NASA data that the EmDrive works and not accept the earlier data from Roger as being valid.
The way I have read the discussion/debate the issue is not so much a question of data from NASA or Shawyer that the EmDrive works (though much of Shawyer's "
data" appears more like claims than experimental results).., it is more about the theoretical basis promoted describing how and/or why it works! And to some extent the validity of the certainty of the upscaling projections that have as yet to be publicly confirmed.
Challenging a theoretical basis is not the same as challenging practical results. Though again, for what ever the reasons might have been, much of Shawyer's EmDrive past performance, has been presented more like claims, even hearsay, than as explicit detail of design and experimental data. NDAs may have been valid reasons for the way Shawyer has released detail, where he has, but they don't change the perception.
-
#3059
by
Star One
on 21 Nov, 2016 18:41
-
Remember this from Roger?
[…] This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
Must be kidding: UK FOIA is effective since 2000. Whereas US FOIA is effective since 1967! The US version is like the mother of the other Freedom of Information Acts.
The name of end-user is indeed "The Boeing Company" on the contract you provided. But as you said "End User Undertaking" more specifically indicates the end user is the "armed forces" and purpose is use on a test satellite.
So it appears the contract does not involve a conventional branch of the Boeing Company (which is a vague term since Boeing is a vast multinational corporation) but rather a defense business unit of Boeing tied to the US Air Force. This may be Boeing Phantom Works.
Since the US Armed Forces are part of the US Department of Defense, any US citizen could ask their federal government for the release of the SPR-Boeing-Air Force records under a formal FOIA request. Boeing should not oppose such a demand, as a representative officially stated about the EmDrive that "the company is no longer pursuing this avenue".
https://www.foia.gov
What happens if they did oppose though, that still might not mean anything.
