Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.
I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
That's a short summary of Montillet's theory. Observe that Montillet distinguishes the Lorentz force from the triggering of the effect due to fluctuation of the energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper.
What broad suggestions could you share to go from trying to maximize the EMDrive by the usual assumptions to maximizing the fluctuation of energy density for the Mach effect? Would it look completely different? Thanks.
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Are you referring to TheTraveller referring to "Roger" or to someone else? There has been no mocking on my part. I was referring to documents and other correspondence posted by "TheTraveller" purporting that they were authored by "Roger." The purpose of the quotation marks is to take no position as to who "Roger" is, but to just quote the original post.
If TheTraveller is stating that these were indeed authored by the real inventor of the EM Drive, then he should refer to him in those posts as Roger Shawyer instead of as "Roger". Otherwise the reader has no way to tell whether indeed those documents were authored by the inventor of the EM Drive, or by some other "Roger", and when referring to such a post, the best thing is to use the same reference: TT referring to "Roger".
As to your call for professionalism and objection to using "Roger" in quotes, a poster alleging that a document or correspondence was authored by "Roger" should instead post the real name of the author, instead of a common first name that is shared by many other individuals,
and a verifiable source for such a document that verifies who is the real author. It would be more professional to cite the
source for any such document or for the author himself/herself to post directly.
Jose':
"I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."
How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?
Best, Paul M.
The problems with that explanation are as follows:
1) Shawyer's original patents for asymmetric resonant cavities of that vintage [not superconducting] were only UK patents (this refers to his patents before his association with Gilo, when finally Shawyer+Gilo applied for new patents with new designs with applicability outside the UK). Not a Chinese patent, or a Worldwide patent of that vintage design. No infringement issue in China, (or in the USA concerning the designs followed by Monomorphic and other Do-It-Yourself) for UK patents.
In any case, I doubt that the Chinese Space Agency had at any time the intention to sell their EM Drives in the UK. Even if that would have been the case: Shawyer's patents of this vintage design have expired:
2) It appears that Shawyer's patents of that vintage (for example GB (11) 2 229 865(13)A 1990 ) have expired even in the UK, there is one patent (2 334 761 (13) A 1999) close to expiration. Presently valid patents with significant life remaining (starting with his -13 year old already, and having just 7 more years of life assuming 20 year life- 2004 patent covering [Claim1: An engine comprising a gimbal mounted matrix of a number of superconducting microwave thrusters which are supplied with pulses of microwave energy via an array of switches and enclosed in a dewar which is maintained at low temperature by liquefied gas.]) appear to cover other things like designs for superconductivity, etc. Such superconductive designs are not discussed by the Chinese patents that we are addressing.
Patent infringement law: you get a specific patent for the UK: then infringement applies in the UK. If you like to discuss infringement you have to:
1) discuss presently valid patent claims. Once the patent expires then there are no infringement issues. This is basic patent law, as a monopoly is given to the inventor for a finite amount of time in exchange for the monopoly. When the patent expires everybody is free to pursue the patent's design for commercial purposes. The patent infringement issue applies to specific claims.
2) patents valid in the geographical locality where a patent was awarded.
Chinese are very much aware of patent law. It seems to me that Yue must have had some other reason in mind to pursue this unusual design. Also the presence and nature of the "internal diaphragm" mentioned by oyzw does not appear to have been obvious to either Monomorphic or X_Ray, as (please correct me if I am wrong) their simulations do not appear to include such an internal diaphragm providing asymmetry.
QUESTION: Is the geometrical and material design of the "internal diaphragm in Yue's design" clear to anybody reading this? If so please post !
Best,
JR
JR,
May be off and it's just a guess but the first impression is it could be a multi-mode frequency cavity. You first establish a max Q (at least 63% max Q) stable resonating cavity and then flip and force to another mode with another frequency, thereby building off the cavity energies and side wall energies established in the E/B fields. This is one direction that I have looked at in some of my testing. This could lead to a pulsed or impulsed Mach type effect flipping from a TE to a TM mode.
My Very Best,
Shell
PS: If you think about it and how you can build a high energy E-Field in a TE mode circulating parallel to the end-plates. (note: TE modes are not used in particle accelerators... only TM).
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Seriously? How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws? A few examples:
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction. Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.
- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense. How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?
- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment? What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?
etc etc.
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.
What does "Roger" have to say about Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group instead of the tapered design promoted by "Roger" shows a cylindrical EM Drive both in these pictures, the China TV video, and most important in some of his patents?
It is interesting that "Roger" who has so much to say on "a list" https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903 has been silent on the fact that Yue shows a cylindrical cavity, not even following his first commandment of having ends with unequal diameter.
How does "Roger" "theory" explain thrust by such a cylindrical cavity? How does "Roger" explain that Dr. Yue is apparently not following "Roger's rules"?
If an EM Drive does not even need to have unequal end diameters, what makes an EM Drive an EM Drive in the first place? Just being a closed electromagnetically resonant cavity?
您可能忘记了我曾上传过陈粤教授的专利，在圆柱腔体中设置了金属膜片，改变了电磁场形态，构成不对称电磁场形态，依然遵循共同的原理。
Thank you. I do not remember Chen Yue's patent with such details.
Are you referring to this document (posted by Flux_Capacitor)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/691fd8a52a01660d076b/CN105947224A.pdf
English translation https://www.google.com/patents/CN105947224A?cl=en ?
[0039] The electromagnetic propulsion module includes a resonant cavity inside an asymmetric structure, the use of electromagnetic propulsion module inside the resonator cavity asymmetric structure, produce uneven microwave radiation pressure, and then in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force to external output thrust. Asymmetric structure is preferable to adopt a resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity, electromagnetic propulsion system around the resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion structures, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity shown in FIG. 1, respectively. As can be seen, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity is divided into four faces: plane Sa, surface Sb, plane Sc, plane Sd, as shown in FIG. Sa mounted on a plane microwave power input device on a plane Sc plane fitted with microwave power extraction apparatus. Input to the feedback power control module from the microwave power extraction means to extract microwave power as a feedback power. Electromagnetic propulsion thrust output of the resonant cavity Preferred conditions: input microwave power frequency electromagnetic propulsion within 3dB bandwidth of the center frequency of the resonant cavity. Under the operating conditions of the effect of microwave power, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity can be unbalanced microwave radiation pressure, and thus in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force, thrust externally output, as shown in FIG. Select the lowest electromagnetic propulsion mode resonator center frequency f〇 electromagnetic propulsion system frequency. Semicylindrical cavity of the radius R (meters), length L (in meters) and preferably the relationship between the center frequency F0 (Unit GHz) between the semi-cylindrical cavity of:
[0040]
[0041] Preferably R = 86 mm, L = 117.7 mm, using the formula (1) f0 were solver to 2.45 GHz.
Simulation by X_Ray:
Comment by X_Ray:
This cavity is related to the other patent (please compare the numbers ). An asymmetry should be present for the surface currents, the way along the curved face is much longer than at the flat surface while the total resistance of each path is given by an integral over the skin penetration depth times the resistance of the copper and the path length as well as the temperature of the local resistor. Because of the temperature grows faster at the middle bottom section (higher current density) the resistance grows faster in this region.(Not sure if this construction is usable fore constant thrust generation in space 
)
Does it make sense? 
What you describe sounds like a sort of bandpass filter. The periodic structure may better compared to the slotted cannae device.
Simulation by Monomorphic:
Comment by Monomorphic:
Confirmed at 2.48Ghz. Though I used a half loop antenna mounted in the center.
While the cavity geometry is asymmetric, the e-fields are pretty uniform throughout the cavity. I'm not surprised they are having trouble getting thrust. What would TE013 look like in this geometry?
Comment by TheTraveller (in case he answers as to what "Roger" has to say):
Looks like TE011 mode in a 1/2 cylindrical "Pill Box" resonator. Doubt there is any "Shawyer Effect" thrust being generated.
(Bold added to quotation for emphasis)
We would very much appreciate it if you could upload Chen Yue's patent again and explain how he sets up a metal diaphragm in the cylindrical cavity, to change the shape of the electromagnetic field into an asymmetric electromagnetic field, and hence still follow the common principle? I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that Shawyer promotes it.
(It is very difficult, next to impossible, to search for old posts in this website)
The figure 4 your showed comes from another patent, this one:
CN application 105781921A, Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology
I think this figure 4 is the cylindrical cavity shown in the Chinese video. Not the first
semicylinder from the other patent. Please note the "diaphragm" within this one. To my knowledge nobody understood this "diaphragm cavity" and made any simulation from it. X_RaY maybe?
Chinese version with figures attached.
...
The figure 4 your showed comes from another patent, this one:
CN application 105781921A, Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology
I think this figure 4 is the cylindrical cavity shown in the Chinese video. Not the first semicylinder from the other patent. Please note the "diaphragm" within this one. To my knowledge nobody understood this "diaphragm cavity" and made any simulation from it. X_RaY maybe?
Chinese version with figures attached.
Excellent post! Thank you for clarifying this. Monomorphic and X_Ray:
could you please comment on whether your simulations included such an internal diaphragm and whether you were aware of it?
I found my original post mentioning it, back to EM Drive Thread 9, page 49, December 26, 2016:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623149#msg1623149I reproduce the important text part (Chen Yue's main comments, translated) below:
[0016] The resonant cavity is rectangular, plate-shaped structural unit structure having a rectangular notch; interval each structural unit is less than the width of the structural units; bilaterally symmetrical structural unit and side walls of the contact cavity opened a gap.
[0017] The cylindrical cavity, a cyclic structure as a structural unit, each interval is less than the height of the ring structure of the cyclic structure.
[0018] The advantages of the present invention over the prior art in that:
[0019] I) of the present patent by introducing a periodic structure design, can effectively localized electromagnetic field in the vicinity of the periodic structure, in theory, can improve the degree greater degree of uneven distribution of the electromagnetic field, so the thrust generated by the power unit higher than the existing cavities the design of;
[0020] 2) the shape of the cavity is more flexible, the cavity may be rectangular or circular, ease of use and installation works, but only for the existing design or pyramidal frustum;
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
[0021] FIG. 1 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched front view of the periodic structure;
[0022] FIG. 2 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched periodic structure side view;
[0023] FIG. 3 is based on a rectangular cavity notched plate-like electric field distribution diagram of the periodic structure;
[0024] FIG. 4 is based on a cylindrical cavity ring periodic structures elevational view;
[0025] FIG. 5 is a cylindrical cavity based on cyclic periodic structures a top view;
[0026] FIG. 6 is a cylindrical cavity based on the electric field distribution diagram cyclic periodic structures.
[0028] I) the particular design of the periodic structure of the sheet-like (plate-like structure comprises a notch), a cyclic structure, each of the structural elements are arranged periodically in the local space of the cavity;
[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.
These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind:
To stack them. Many of them.
As to Shawyer's patents, has anybody checked whether they are all active (before expiration, of course)? Patents must be maintained (by paying yearly fee) to stay active. Those fees are not cheap and they increase each year in many countries.
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Seriously? How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws? A few examples:
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction. Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.
- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense. How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?
- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment? What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?
etc etc.
The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.
It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.
While the physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
Moderation rules are to stop members from being abusive (etc) to each other - and that's the difference between "No, that's simply not correct" and "Wow, you're such an idiot!" <---for three points, guess which one is not allowed.
If someone posts critiques about a non member, let's say "The NASA administrator" for the sake of argument, that's not a moderation issue.....but it has to be reasonably "fair" as the person is not here to defend themselves. Tough for EM Drive given most people apparently think it's a load of nonsense, so you may get more than the average number of "critiques".
So that's the guideline on the recent posts.
...
These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
Thank you. So what is the geometric design and material of these internal diaphragms ? Is there enough information for anyone (like Monomorphic or X_Ray) to conduct a software simulation (by Finite Element or Boundary Element methods)?
If not, can you give us your best estimate from your understanding?
...
These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
Thank you. So what is the geometric design and material of these internal diaphragms ? Is there enough information for anyone (like Monomorphic or X_Ray) to conduct a software simulation (by Finite Element or Boundary Element methods)?
If not, can you give us your best estimate from your understanding?
I can now confirm, cycling though the EM Drive Thread 9, that nobody simulated this cavity.
As for me, I don't pretend to understand how such a diaphragm works, other than its double purpose:
- provide asymmetry to the EM field, despite a symmetrical (cylindrical) shape of the cavity
- let the EM waves fill a first cavity then enter, propagate and populate the second cavity directly attached to it, and so on, in a recursive way
But as I understand the patent, it is not the cavity itself which is duplicated and connected to another cavity in series. It is the diaphragm structure which is duplicated several times, recursively ("periodic structure") within one cavity. Multiple "mini cavities" inside one cavity, sort of.
Jose':
"I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."
How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
At the end of the day it is ALL about $/N/kW of the entire system, which includes all support systems.
Time will tell if the Chinese approach can produce lower $/N/kW EmDrive systems than can the SPR approach.
Our best result to date is 55N/kW using a Cu cavity cooled with LHe, which we believe is around the temp achieveable using passive heat radiation in space. We believe designing EmDrives that do not need closed loop cryo coolers has reduced cost, mass, power & complexity advantages.
Future work will involve the investigation of using MgB3, at 39K, to coat all cavity interior surfaces as it offers lower Rs at our operational freq than Nb and very significantly increased H field capacity. We expect MgB2 will replace both Nb and YBCO. Some data is attached.
We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.
...
But as I understand the patent, it is not the cavity itself which is duplicated and connected to another cavity in series. It is the diaphragm structure which is duplicated several times, recursively ("periodic structure") within one cavity. Multiple "mini cavities" inside one cavity, sort of.
This is an excellent insight, and it gives a strong
technical reason for the use of such diaphragms: the stacking of several cavities in a periodic design, in order
to maximize theoretical thrust.It is also conceivable that there could be
parametric (nonlinear) interaction between the subsections, hence maximizing their interaction instead of just additive superposition between them.
...
We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.
9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. OT&E (operational test and evaluation) reports.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?
For the record, you announced your first EmDrive build three years ago. Then sadly, bad luck with disease, but also MANY iteration processes over 36 months. People here desserve at least one picture.
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Seriously? How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws? A few examples:
- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved. If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM. Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction. Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.
- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense. How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?
- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment? What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?
etc etc.
The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.
It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.
While the physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
You simply ignored most of the original post. Also, Compton effect does not somehow save conservation of momentum in the emDrive. (I'll skip the energy explanation for now, because if you don't get the trivial momentum issue, then you won't get the marginally less obvious energy issue.)
Start with an emDrive which is not moving (0 momentum), turn it on, wait a while, turn it off, wait for all internal RF to die out. If the device is moving, it has momentum, when before it had 0, meaning conservation of momentum is broken unless it interacted with something else (which would require new physics to define that something else). You can't say this momentum came from the photons, because the photons were generated by the device, and have since been absorbed.
Yes, radiation pressure is a thing, but the said radiation is not leaving the cavity. To repeat an analogy I used previously, you saying that radiation pressure conserves momentum in answer to questions about momentum conservation is equivalent to saying 1+1+1+1 = 5, and arguing that this is correct because 1+1=2.
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?
FC,
Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.
Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.
There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.
I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
)
