-
#1360
by
Mulletron
on 08 Sep, 2017 23:54
-
There's no way to profit from this working (if it does) because if it does, much bigger interests are going to make that impossible. Everybody is going to be making them, and better.
-
#1361
by
otlski
on 09 Sep, 2017 01:10
-
There's no way to profit from this working (if it does) because if it does, much bigger interests are going to make that impossible. Everybody is going to be making them, and better.
Agreed on all counts.
-
#1362
by
flux_capacitor
on 09 Sep, 2017 01:40
-
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.
I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share
-
#1363
by
jay343
on 09 Sep, 2017 03:31
-
RIP Jerry E. Pournelle. He seemed to be genuinely excited that you folks may well be opening a future like the ones he loved to write about.
-
#1364
by
tchernik
on 09 Sep, 2017 03:51
-
RIP Jerry E. Pournelle. He seemed to be genuinely excited that you folks may well be opening a future like the ones he loved to write about.
Yes, I thought of this as soon as I learned of his passing, all while we are having more news from China and elsewhere. He dedicated some thoughts to this in his blog last year:
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/china-claims-orbital-test-of-em-drive/He was apparently aware and following what was going on. RIP.
-
#1365
by
cosmo
on 09 Sep, 2017 05:42
-
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.
Hi TT,
In your message above, you state that "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.". If I read this correctly, then with this stack of parts (sitting on a scale?) you were able to measure 8mN/kW? This does not seem to jive with the requirement that the unit be free to accelerate. Can you please elaborate on this? As this was disclosed prior to NDA's can we get additional details on the methodology of measuring the 8mN/kW? Was this reported data based on a change in the scale reading with the device operating?
Thank you,
Kurt
-
#1366
by
Mark7777777
on 09 Sep, 2017 06:40
-
-
#1367
by
flux_capacitor
on 09 Sep, 2017 09:00
-
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.
I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share
Here's a suggested machine translation method if someone has the time to do it:
https://techwiser.com/transcribe-youtube-video/
Then https://translate.google.com/ after.
Automatic translation from Chinese to English always gives gibberish.
Although it can be quite funny sometimes. An example of automatic translation from English to Chinese:
Original:
Translated:
-
#1368
by
X_RaY
on 09 Sep, 2017 11:47
-
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
[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.
-
#1369
by
Rodal
on 09 Sep, 2017 12:40
-
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
...
This is quite different (concerning the behavior of the electromagnetic field) from the concept of Roger Shawyer, the experiments at NASA Eagleworks and the Do-It-Yourself experiments. It is closer to Cannae's design, but still different from either of them.
-
#1370
by
Notsosureofit
on 09 Sep, 2017 15:17
-
I'm wondering if this type of cylindrical geometry might lend itself to an analytical solution ?
-
#1371
by
TheTraveller
on 09 Sep, 2017 16:22
-
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.
Hi TT,
In your message above, you state that "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.". If I read this correctly, then with this stack of parts (sitting on a scale?) you were able to measure 8mN/kW? This does not seem to jive with the requirement that the unit be free to accelerate. Can you please elaborate on this? As this was disclosed prior to NDA's can we get additional details on the methodology of measuring the 8mN/kW? Was this reported data based on a change in the scale reading with the device operating?
Thank you,
Kurt
Hi Kurt,
The 8mN/kW thruater used adjustable duty cycle and reputation rate pulsed Rf, which can show what looks like a static force when working against a spring constant load, such as a scale. These scales do allow some movement or acceleration to occur.
Roger's Experimental and Demonstrator technical papers explain this pulsed Rf effect and show that force generation can be measured using scales:
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdfhttp://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdfWhat happens is a continuous string of short pulses of Rf produces a continuous string of short pulses of acceleration, which are observed by the scale as continuous static thrust when in fact it is not.
For the 8mN/kW thruster tests, a 3kg max scale with a resolution of +-0.01g was used.
As per the 1st link, Roger did report on the duty cycle and rep rate of his Rf pulses, attached, which I duplicated. His pulsed Rf was caused by the 1/2 wave rectified power supply that powered his 2.45GHz magnetron. I used a single freq rf gen and 100W rf amp that had a facility to pulse the Rf output.
Roger also showed how the load cell on his scale responded to the pulses of acceleration as per the last 2 attachments. I did plan to mod my scale and record the output of the load cells but other events stopped that from happening.
-
#1372
by
RERT
on 09 Sep, 2017 16:49
-
Much excitement since TT published the list of ?9 tips for EMdrive construction, but i don't think the following has been mentioned here.
On thing struck me comparing this to recent output from Shawyer's recent Shrivenham presentation. There he spoke of ''second generation" (I think that was the term) thrusters being high thrust, low acceleration in the context of supertanker propulsion.
To all intents and purposes, supertanker propulsion is a zero acceleration environment. I can't square this with the requirement that the frustrum be free to accelerate on a test stand to measure force.
-
#1373
by
TheTraveller
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:01
-
Much excitement since TT published the list of ?9 tips for EMdrive construction, but i don't think the following has been mentioned here.
On thing struck me comparing this to recent output from Shawyer's recent Shrivenham presentation. There he spoke of ''second generation" (I think that was the term) thrusters being high thrust, low acceleration in the context of supertanker propulsion.
To all intents and purposes, supertanker propulsion is a zero acceleration environment. I can't square this with the requirement that the frustrum be free to accelerate on a test stand to measure force.
Hi Rert,
Roger uses pulsed Rf as I do. Please review my last post just before yours.
To levitate a mass or push a supertanker requires the use of pulsed Rf, which is really a continuous string of very short bursts of acceleration with a short rest period between.
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
-
#1374
by
Bob012345
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:02
-
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)
P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
TT saying he is under an NDA agreement makes perfect sense especially if he has been paid by some company.
-
#1375
by
wicoe
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:19
-
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration.
Am I the only one who is confused by these kinds of statements? Reference frames are not created, they are abstract concepts. You can "create" a reference frame by simply thinking about it (i.e. take a ref. frame in which an object is initially at rest, but when it starts accelerating, the frame is still there, but it is not necessarily "attached" to the object). A special type of ref frames are inertial ref frames, in which all objects which have a zero net force applied to them are not accelerating. Inertial frames are useful for CoM/CoE calculations. If you associate a ref frame with an accelerating object, it becomes a non-inertial frame, and you can no longer treat it as inertial when doing your calculations.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
What is a simple classical reference frame? Are there other reference frames besides "simple classical"? Inertial reference frames are perfectly suitable for both Newtonian mechanics and Special Relativity.
-
#1376
by
TheTraveller
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:21
-
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)
P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
Hi Bob,
What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.
Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.
So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
-
#1377
by
wicoe
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:27
-
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
How can an object accelerate "relative to the trapped photons"? Acceleration only makes sense relative to a certain reference frame. You cannot associate a reference frame with a photon because it always propagates with the same speed in ANY reference frame.
-
#1378
by
TheTraveller
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:28
-
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration.
Am I the only one who is confused by these kinds of statements? Reference frames are not created, they are abstract concepts. You can "create" a reference frame by simply thinking about it (i.e. take a ref. frame in which an object is initially at rest, but when it starts accelerating, the frame is still there, but it is not necessarily "attached" to the object). A special type of ref frames are inertial ref frames, in which all objects which have a zero net force applied to them are not accelerating. Inertial frames are useful for CoM/CoE calculations. If you associate a ref frame with an accelerating object, it becomes a non-inertial frame, and you can no longer treat it as inertial when doing your calculations.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
What is a simple classical reference frame? Are there other reference frames besides "simple classical"? Inertial reference frames are perfectly suitable for both Newtonian mechanics and Special Relativity.
Hi Wicoe,
When an object's mass stops accelerating, the velocity of the mass is then constant and thus a new inertial reference frames is created, which is different to the inertial reference frame of the mass pre acceleration.
If that explanation doesn't work for you, please explain the above sequence in your words.
-
#1379
by
Bob012345
on 09 Sep, 2017 17:29
-
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?
This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)
P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
Hi Bob,
What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.
Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.
So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.