-
#880
by
Bob012345
on 17 Aug, 2017 18:31
-
Roger is happy with version 8 of the calculator, so now it is fairly simple to input a few parameters and obtain expected Vt, distance and burn time from a few m/s dV for docking to full on interstellar missions that can either whiz by the target star at a significant % of c or do a mid way flip & burn to orbit planets in a near by star system.
I fully expect the Shawyer EmDrive Thruster Efficiency Equations to become as famous as the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation, in which there are no references to initial or final velocity but just the desired dV from the burn.
Additional information on the static force input energy can be obtained from Roger's peer reviewed paper as attached plus screenshot with equation 11.
Phil
Instead of quibbling over definitions, let me simply ask how does Mr. Shawyer deal with the fact that the total input Rf energy is far less than the final kinetic energy by a factor of some 20 million for the interstellar flyby mission? Surely he recognizes that math. How does he rationalize it?
-
#881
by
Mulletron
on 17 Aug, 2017 19:08
-
The problem with this (besides the others mentioned in previous threads) is that riding on the rig is a bunch of equipment with exhaust fans on it.
-
#882
by
Bob012345
on 17 Aug, 2017 19:09
-
I have an idea I want to explore related to Lorentz forces on these devices. Can anyone recommend a free simulator that one can play with that allows dynamic EM simulations? Thanks.
-
#883
by
Monomorphic
on 17 Aug, 2017 22:04
-
I've been working on blocking out a USC/ARC style thrust balance that can handle something as massive as an emdrive plus electronics and battery. This design can accommodate my current 2.4GHz TE013 frustum, which is fairly large as emdrives go. No need to worry about galistan contacts as the on-board 12V Lipo battery is good for ~40 minutes of testing. As I have a lot of aluminum lying around already, the only custom pieces I need are the telescoping tubes for the center of the balance arms.
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic. So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?
-
#884
by
PotomacNeuron
on 17 Aug, 2017 22:53
-
I've been working on blocking out a USC/ARC style thrust balance that can handle something as massive as an emdrive plus electronics and battery. This design can accommodate my current 2.4GHz TE013 frustum, which is fairly large as emdrives go. No need to worry about galistan contacts as the on-board 12V Lipo battery is good for ~40 minutes of testing. As I have a lot of aluminum lying around already, the only custom pieces I need are the telescoping tubes for the center of the balance arms.
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic. So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?
Better replace the magnetic damper with something non-magnetic. DC loops in the circuit will interfere with the magnetic field.
-
#885
by
Req
on 18 Aug, 2017 00:36
-
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic. So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?
If it's the same cell-cast acrylic used in high-end aquariums and museum displays, I would not use it even at 1" thick. I haven't done anything like what you're planning on doing with it, but I have done a fair amount of custom work on my own rather large tanks and sumps, and while it's fine for that, I certainly wouldn't trust it to hold it's absolute shape short or long term for any task that has micron or even mm tolerances, especially when it's not well-braced almost everywhere as in a tank configuration.
Edit - And I don't know how much the alternatives cost, but high-quality cell-cast acrylic isn't cheap either. Figure about $1500-2000 each for 1" 8'x4' sheets.
-
#886
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Aug, 2017 09:14
-
Please consider:
Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?
As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?
So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.
Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.
-
#887
by
RonM
on 18 Aug, 2017 10:14
-
Enough abuse of science and broken promises. Show data from recent experiments.
-
#888
by
VAXHeadroom
on 18 Aug, 2017 11:57
-
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic. So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?
If it's the same cell-cast acrylic used in high-end aquariums and museum displays, I would not use it even at 1" thick. I haven't done anything like what you're planning on doing with it, but I have done a fair amount of custom work on my own rather large tanks and sumps, and while it's fine for that, I certainly wouldn't trust it to hold it's absolute shape short or long term for any task that has micron or even mm tolerances, especially when it's not well-braced almost everywhere as in a tank configuration.
Edit - And I don't know how much the alternatives cost, but high-quality cell-cast acrylic isn't cheap either. Figure about $1500-2000 each for 1" 8'x4' sheets.
I'd think you'd be better off with furniture grade plywood. Dimensionaly stable (given controlled humidity) non-conductive (wood is static dissipative) and WAY cheaper.
-
#889
by
PotomacNeuron
on 18 Aug, 2017 13:28
-
Please consider:
Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?
As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?
So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.
Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.
TT, this is because chemical rockets have exhausts, and momentum and energy are conserved in every inertial frame for them. EmDrive needs to conserve momentum and energy in every inertial frame in order for it to comprise to CoE and CoM.
-
#890
by
Bob012345
on 18 Aug, 2017 16:56
-
Please consider:
Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?
As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?
So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.
Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.
TT, this is because chemical rockets have exhausts, and momentum and energy are conserved in every inertial frame for them. EmDrive needs to conserve momentum and energy in every inertial frame in order for it to comprise to CoE and CoM.
The initial velocity and KE are not a factor in the next burn. But that's not because it's a chemical rocket. Note that the chemical energy released for each burn can be the same and give the same thrust regardless of the initial velocity. That would work the same for any propulsive means including an EM drive or MEGA drive if either works in space but figuring COM and COE would be less obvious.
-
#891
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Aug, 2017 16:57
-
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
-
#892
by
RotoSequence
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:02
-
Pluto orbit mission with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit
millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?
-
#893
by
Bob012345
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:06
-
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.
-
#894
by
Bob012345
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:11
-
Pluto orbit mission with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.
-
#895
by
RotoSequence
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:14
-
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.
Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.
-
#896
by
Bob012345
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:18
-
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.
Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.
That's a matter if judgement so we should be able to discuss the implications of this phenomenon at these levels. Besides, all these issues remain at the lowest thrust levels if you just run it longer.
-
#897
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:23
-
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.
Bob,
Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration, with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.
Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.
BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.
-
#898
by
Bob012345
on 18 Aug, 2017 17:36
-
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.
Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.
Bob,
Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration, with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.
Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.
BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.
I understand that and I agree you conserve energy wrt to the instantaneous rest frame during each cycle. As I said yesterday, that was prof. Woodward's previous position and it makes sense but you are still not addressing the question at hand which remains, you put in far less total Rf, no matter how you do it, than you get KE out wrt the starting frame, which is what I call the naive view of energy conservation. How do you answer that? It's ok to say its a red herring or that it doesn't matter but please, say something about it. Thanks.
-
#899
by
PotomacNeuron
on 18 Aug, 2017 18:00
-
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.
Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.
Eagleworks 2014 has exactly the problem shown in the picture of this post:,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1713766#msg1713766which is the interaction of magnetic field (look a the magnetic damp) and DC current in the circuits.
Dresden had a similar problem. Read their report and you will find that theydid not know that there was DC in the magnetron circuit, let alone its interaction with the Earth magnetic field.
