-
#140 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 02:52
-
Interesting that in slide 29, 1st line, Roger is claiming the USAF/NSA Flight Qualified the SPR designed Flight Thruster.
How would the USAF/NSA Flight Qualify the SPR designed Flight Thruster?
Maybe in the USAF/DARPA/Boeing X37B spaceplane? -
#141 by tchernik on 17 Jul, 2018 03:55
-
A video, a video. My kingdom for a single video of these replications working.
-
#142 by Bob Woods on 17 Jul, 2018 05:12
-
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW Acceleration = 0.1 m/s
Proof, not claims. No physical evidence provided. We need more Phil.
The rest was mostly things we've seen before in various forms. -
#143 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 05:48
-
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW Acceleration = 0.1 m/s
Proof, not claims. No physical evidence provided. We need more Phil.
The rest was mostly things we've seen before in various forms.
Bob,
Roger's data, not mine.
Do you find it interesting that Martin Tajmar apparently invited Roger to Dresden so to teach his team and himself how to design and build EmDrives and how to measure the acceleration result?
As for proof, it seems we have at least a 2 horse race between Martin's team and myself to do the 1st public rotary test rig demo and video. Must say I'm a bit jealous Roger spent time with Martin and his team. He never did that with me. For sure Roger gave them a few breadcrumbs not in the power point that will accelerate their efforts.
Don't believe Roger will be doing any public demos, as his UK MoD partners are not that way inclined. So it seems he is reaching out to others and basically teaching them how to design and build gen 1 devices, plus how to measure the accelerative force they generate, using either his static spring and scale method or the rotary method. This alone should help DIY replicators to build fairly simple spring and scale test rigs. That is a major step forward.
As for the PPT, there are several critical shares in that document that have not been shared before. Probably only noticeable to DIYers who have some idea as to what is happening and why.
Also notice the thrust bandwidth is much less than the Q bandwidth. Freq control is shown to be very critical and is why I developed the tech to use reflected power to sync the freq to a changing cavity resonant freq. However if the DIY build uses a circulator that dumps reflected power into an open port, well then the build neeeds to use an internal to the cavity E field probe as Roger uses.
So for a informed DIYers, there is a lot of new and very useful info in the PPT.
BTW the Kmn in Roger's equations is, for TE01x mode, 0.819894. It changes for each mode. This is the basis for Roger's TE01x mode, rule of thumb, cutoff dia = external wavelength / 0.82. There is an equation that generates it based on freq and excited mode Bessel value.
-
#144 by Bob Woods on 17 Jul, 2018 07:48
-
Bob,
All talk and no data is a big problem.
Roger's data, not mine.
Do you find it interesting that Martin Tajmar apparently invited Roger to Dresden so to teach his team and himself how to design and build EmDrives and how to measure the acceleration result?
As for proof, it seems we have at least a 2 horse race between Martin's team and myself to do the 1st public rotary test rig demo and video. Must say I'm a bit jealous Roger spent time with Martin and his team. He never did that with me. For sure Roger gave them a few breadcrumbs not in the power point that will accelerate their efforts.
Don't believe Roger will be doing any public demos, as his UK MoD partners are not that way inclined. So it seems he is reaching out to others and basically teaching them how to design and build gen 1 devices, plus how to measure the accelerative force they generate, using either his static spring and scale method or the rotary method. This alone should help DIY replicators to build fairly simple spring and scale test rigs. That is a major step forward.
As for the PPT, there are several critical shares in that document that have not been shared before. Probably only noticeable to DIYers who have some idea as to what is happening and why.
Also notice the thrust bandwidth is much less than the Q bandwidth. Freq control is shown to be very critical and is why I developed the tech to use reflected power to sync the freq to a changing cavity resonant freq. However if the DIY build uses a circulator that dumps reflected power into an open port, well then the build neeeds to use an internal to the cavity E field probe as Roger uses.
So for a informed DIYers, there is a lot of new and very useful info in the PPT.
BTW the Kmn in Roger's equations is, for TE01x mode, 0.819894. It changes for each mode. This is the basis for Roger's TE01x mode, rule of thumb, cutoff dia = external wavelength / 0.82. There is an equation that generates it based on freq and excited mode Bessel value.
Phil, I'd like nothing better than to see a rig performing well out of the noise. But we never see anything except for those folks who have actively posted their results for all to see.
Dave Distler made a good first effort but it was not conclusive. Since he turned rig over to a private company to evaluate, nothing.
Jamie has been doing real science. Testing and improving. I know, I saw his rig up close and personal and was extremely impressed. But as of yet he hasn't published his test results.
One thing that did get my attention was the notation on one of Shawyers slides, #18, showing he introduced "piezoelectric elements" near the small end of the Ver. 3 frustum. What the hell is that? An introduction of Mach Effects from Woodward's research? Aimed at the likely static electric field in a TEXXX mode? If so, that fits into things I have been thinking about, induced quantum spin in an electric quanta to create transient mass.
But that's not what Shawer proposes.
As far as Tajmar inviting Shawyer, he's been in discussions with Shawyer as long as I have been following this. Appearing to teach/discuss with a bunch of sharp students doesn't surprise me at all. -
#145 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 08:05
-
One thing that did get my attention was the notation on one of Shawyers slides, #18, showing he introduced "piezoelectric elements" near the small end of the Ver. 3 frustum. What the hell is that? An introduction of Mach Effects from Woodward's research? Aimed at the likely static electric field in a TEXXX mode? If so, that fits into things I have been thing about induced quantum spin in an electric quanta to create transient mass.
But that's not what Shawer proposes.
As far as Tajmar inviting Shawyer, he's been in discussions with Shawyer as long as I have been following this. Appearing to teach/discuss with a bunch of sharp students doesn't surprise me at all.
Bob,
The piezoelectric elements are used to lengthen the cavity.
When an EmDrive does work, the photon wavelengths increase to represent the enery loss to that gained by the accelerated mass.
To keep the cavity resonant with longer and longer wavelength photons, the cavity length needs to continually increase. That length increase is done via the piezo elements pushing the small end plate further from the big end plate as the cavity stored photons lose energy to support the increasing KE of the accelerating mass.
Only required for very high Q cavities.
To do this requires the EmDrive to be fed with pulsed RF. See attached.
-
#146 by Peter Lauwer on 17 Jul, 2018 10:09
-
Roger Shawyer conducted a seminar at Dresden Technical University last week and has released some new info:
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
I am curious too, Phil, to know how they responded.
"EmDrive is not a reactionless thruster, it is simply a new class of electrical machine"
Did they nod politely and said 'we will think about it' or...
-
#147 by flux_capacitor on 17 Jul, 2018 10:30
-
Had such picture of the Chinese NWPU EmDrive (Pr Yang's 1st thruster with a magnetron) ever surfaced before? Seen in slide #5.
The correct dimensions and aspect ratio of that thruster stirred a lot of debate in NSF EM Drive Thread 3.
-
#148 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 10:53
-
Roger Shawyer conducted a seminar at Dresden Technical University last week and has released some new info:
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
I am curious too, Phil, to know how they responded.
"EmDrive is not a reactionless thruster, it is simply a new class of electrical machine"
Did they nod politely and said 'we will think about it' or...
Hi Peter,
Have emailed Tajmar with a few questions about the seminar. When he responds, and he normally does reply to my emails, will post his reply here, that is if he agrees.
For sure Roger gave out lots of helpful info during the seminar as he did when he visited Prof Yang to assist her replication.
How I read it is in the past Roger gave Tajmar very little info, as he did to me, wanting him to work out the answers from the supplied breadcrumbs. That approach has now changed with Roger going to Dresden and basically laying it all out. How to design the cavity, get optimal coupler impedance and coupling factor plus how to build a simple spring and scale static test rig that can measure either the big end directed Thrust force or the small end directed Reaction force.
This is a major How To Do It reveal by Roger. Which I trust will see Tajmar and his team building a proper EmDrive and test rig that will generate at least 0.1N/kWrf and maybe up to 0.4N/kWrf. -
#149 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 10:57
-
Had such picture of the Chinese NWPU EmDrive (Pr Yang's 1st thruster with a magnetron) ever surfaced before? Seen in slide #5.
The correct dimensions and aspect ratio of that thruster stirred a lot of debate in NSF EM Drive Thread 3.
Hi FC,
I earlier shared the image of one of Prof Yang's EmDrive builds.
To me it looked like the Rf amp driven unit and not the magnetron driven unit. However the Rf input looks more like a waveguide connection than an Rf connector.
-
#150 by Monomorphic on 17 Jul, 2018 12:18
-
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted! He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null.
From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
-
#151 by Jim Davis on 17 Jul, 2018 13:18
-
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW ...
So at a mere 0.26 m/s the EM drive begins to do more work than it consumes power.
The utility companies should be breaking down Shawyer's door. -
#152 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 13:57
-
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW ...
So at a mere 0.26 m/s the EM drive begins to do more work than it consumes power.
The utility companies should be breaking down Shawyer's door.
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
As accelerated mass KE gain increases, generated force drops due to reduced cavity energy from the drain by KE.
The EmDrive, while accelerating, does NOT generate a constant force. Its generated accelerative force reduces as accelerating mass KE increases.
EmDrive is not an energy creator, but instead it is an energy conversion device. Like an electrical motor converts input electrical energy into output torque force, the EmDrive converts input Rf energy into accelerative force.
-
#153 by PotomacNeuron on 17 Jul, 2018 14:08
-
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
-
#154 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 14:37
-
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
Hi PM,
When an EmDrive accelerates mass, the work done from start of acceleration is always the same. ie initial mass velocity is zero. The work done accelerating the mass can be frame invarient if the work done is related to the Dv of the mass in any frame.
Work Joules = (N^2 x t^2) / ( 2 x m) where N = Newtons of force, t = time of acceleration in seconds & m = mass in kgs.
However as accelerated mass KE grows, the Netwons of force that are generated by the EmDrive drop due to reducing cavity energy. This loss of cavity energy is seen as increased wavelength or lower freq photons. Which is why very high Q EmDrive need piezo elements to lengthen the cavity so it stays in resonance as the trapped photons, continually losing energy to the increasing KE, grow longer and longer wavelengths.
Same thing happens with accelerator cavities as the stored cavity energy is used to accelerate particles. As those accelerated particles gain KE from the stored cavity energy, the stored cavity energy drops. This drops the accelerative E field strength and the accelerative force drops.
No Free Lunches here.
BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.
-
#155 by meberbs on 17 Jul, 2018 15:27
-
These equation is simply gibberish, it simply gives the wrong answer in almost any situation, since you derived it ignoring the velocity term in d = v*t+0.5*a*t^2.Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
Hi PM,
When an EmDrive accelerates mass, the work done from start of acceleration is always the same. ie initial mass velocity is zero. The work done accelerating the mass can be frame invarient if the work done is related to the Dv of the mass in any frame.
Work Joules = (N^2 x t^2) / ( 2 x m) where N = Newtons of force, t = time of acceleration in seconds & m = mass in kgs.
Go back and read the end of the last thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1829855#msg1829855
or early posts in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1830452#msg1830452
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that your equation is simply wrong. This is entry level physics, so please stop repeating the nonsense.However as accelerated mass KE grows, the Netwons of force that are generated by the EmDrive drop due to reducing cavity energy. This loss of cavity energy is seen as increased wavelength or lower freq photons.
The source is constantly providing photons at the same frequency, and is moving with the cavity (because the antenna is obviously attached.) These photons are not shifted from the cavity's perspective, so it doesn't matter if the cavity is moving, certainly not once the energy fills the cavity and reaches steady state.BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.
You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
-
#156 by RonM on 17 Jul, 2018 17:25
-
BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.
You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors. -
#157 by meberbs on 17 Jul, 2018 20:31
-
You are correct, I debated which word to use. For the case of field propulsion, forces get transferred back to the source of the field. I figured TT might not understand that difference, since the specific caveat to my statement is "something external that is pushed against," but TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.
You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors. -
#158 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 23:45
-
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors.
Hi Ron,
EmDrive is not an reactionless drive. It generates assymetric radiation pressure due to the tapered cavity.
There is action reaction via the photon impacts and emission. As the photons transfer momentum and energy to the accelerating mass, their wavelengths increase or the freq decreases. So instead of throwing away mass, photons react to loss energy and momentum by increasing their wavelength. Which is how a solar sail works.
There is an action / reaction event and Newton 3 is fine. Just the reaction is not one you may be experienced with.
If the photon were a billiard ball, then the rebounded velocity would be smaller but as photons only travel at c, their velocity doesn't change. What happens is their rebounded or emitted wavelength is increased.
Same leg action, just a different dog.
-
#159 by TheTraveller on 17 Jul, 2018 23:51
-
You are correct, I debated which word to use. For the case of field propulsion, forces get transferred back to the source of the field. I figured TT might not understand that difference, since the specific caveat to my statement is "something external that is pushed against," but TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.
Hi Meberbs,
You are entitled to you opinion. However it is incorrect and the EmDrive works just fine.
Might be time for you and others here to look outside the square for why it does so. Maybe study what Roger shares, instead of just ignoring it?