-
#860 by dustinthewind on 13 Feb, 2019 15:01
-
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for PapersQuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
They are looking for experimental confirmation. If the experimentalists can correctly predict a theoretical behavior of vacuum propulsion and make a repeatable experiment that demonstrates this then we will be in business. I think the factor is making an experiment that maximizes vacuum coupling and in such a way as to give net thrust.
That is if we're looking for warp drive type propellant less. Even then I don't think it would be necessarily propellant less. Momentum and energy should still be conserved. Just like black holes losing momentum to the vacuum when they merge. Photon rockets also conserve momentum and energy. It's just being able to observe the propellant that makes the difference is my guess. A propellant that escapes the cavity being key. -
#861 by RERT on 13 Feb, 2019 16:48
-
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for PapersQuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
The prognosis for 'advanced propulsion' does seem bleak right now. However, as a matter of logic, NASA participating in 'physics based' interstellar efforts no more excludes Emdrive etc than their participation in Ion-drive technology or rocketry. It's a big organisation, and it would be a surprise (to me) if NASA wasn't involved in any such discussion with a reasonable prospect of a useful mission coming out of it. -
#862 by TheTraveller on 15 Feb, 2019 13:02
-
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10
year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
Presentation is now uploaded to www.emdrive.com
February 2019
"An edited copy of this year’s presentation at Shrivenham Defence Academy is given here. Note that this is the first time nominal experimental data showing the Thrust/Load response of an EmDrive Thruster has been released. Shrivenham Presentation 2019"
-
#863 by TheTraveller on 15 Feb, 2019 18:19
-
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
Is bring put up on www.emdrive.com
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10 year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
From Mike McCulloch
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1096435887544635399
-
#864 by Mark7777777 on 15 Feb, 2019 21:10
-
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10
year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
Presentation is now uploaded to www.emdrive.com
February 2019
"An edited copy of this year’s presentation at Shrivenham Defence Academy is given here. Note that this is the first time nominal experimental data showing the Thrust/Load response of an EmDrive Thruster has been released. Shrivenham Presentation 2019"
I wonder, if upon seeing the picture of the experiment setup in the presentation, Monomorphic sees anything that alerts him to possible interference (e.g. Lorentz - non-twisted cables etc) or other setup elements that he thinks would negate a true result?
-
#865 by Monomorphic on 15 Feb, 2019 22:32
-
I wonder, if upon seeing the picture of the experiment setup in the presentation, Monomorphic sees anything that alerts him to possible interference (e.g. Lorentz - non-twisted cables etc) or other setup elements that he thinks would negate a true result?
Here is the image in question along with a graph of the results.
First thing that jumps out is that this is a teeter-totter balance and not a torsional pendulum. The beam movement direction is what one would expect from thermal "balloon" lifting.
The waveguide connection to the balance could be another area for problems. Also notice that there is no insulation on any of the metal parts that might heat up during a test?
Is the black RF cable taped to the balance beam??? And then taped to two other locations off the beam? It sure looks like it from the picture. If that is the case, then simple flexing of the cable from heating could be the source of the false-positive.
-
#866 by meberbs on 15 Feb, 2019 22:58
-
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
In addition to what Monomorphic said and the fact that the data itself seems to jump all over the place, there are a couple blatant problems with the report as a whole:
Yet again, Shawyer is making claims stating that an object will accelerate in the opposite direction of the direction force is applied to it. This is simply wrong by definition.
Also it includes a repeat of a table of data that is simply contradictory as has been previously discussed starting around this post. Any experiment that supposedly replicates such data clearly has some deep flaws in it. -
#867 by TheTraveller on 16 Feb, 2019 01:50
-
Cable identify attached plus another test rig image. Both test setups used a TWA, the Black and Blue unit.
Note the table of results in slide 11 is reflected:
Slide 13 - result 1
Slide 14 - result 2
Slide 15 - result 3
This is a balance beam, ie at balance there is no progressive increasing back torque as in a torsion pendulum setup. In test 2, with a 1g upward force and a 0.5g downward weight, there is a constant 0.5g downward force as the EmDrive very slightly moves up, reduces the weight registered on the scale. Very different to a torsion balance with an increasing back torque.
-
#868 by TheTraveller on 16 Feb, 2019 12:23
-
Interesting data Roger just released for the 1st time:
100% preload: 0 thrust (test 1)
33% preload: 100% thrust (test 2 used 50%)
0-0.5% preload: 0 thrust (test 3)
All negative tests I know of used 0% preload.
BTW the Demonstrator rotary test used an 8.2g preload and achieved a useful thrust of 10g.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
"The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W."
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
Was told that without the preload, there was no rotation.
-
#869 by Monomorphic on 16 Feb, 2019 13:12
-
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
It is hard to believe that placing a ~0.5g mass on top of the Emdrive somehow makes it work. Shouldn't the existing mass of the Emdrive and all the components create a load already? I just don't see what placing another mass on top accomplishes.
And furthermore, how does one expect to place a "load" on the emdrive when free-floating in space?
-
#870 by meberbs on 16 Feb, 2019 18:05
-
Interesting data Roger just released for the 1st time:
False. The data simply does not show what you claim.
100% preload: 0 thrust (test 1)
33% preload: 100% thrust (test 2 used 50%)
0-0.5% preload: 0 thrust (test 3)
In both test 2 and test 3 the scale reading goes negative, which would not be a valid reading if the test setup matched the claim. The data for test 3 shows supposed "lift-off" before the frequency lock is even achieved. Shawyer doesn't even claim that test 1 shows "no force" He claims it shows an "underdamped balance response" which it doesn't in reality he appears to just be reading things in to the noise that he uses to dismiss the result of test 3, where he acknowledges that it is noise. (but ignores that it appears to have a negative average.)
Overall the results make no sense, with test 2 showing that the drive is floating off of the balance after power is already turned off, and negative readings that demonstrate that Shawyer is not accurately describing the experimental setup. This is unsurprising, since I don't expect someone who doesn't know which direction something moves when you push on it no know how to use a scale.BTW the Demonstrator rotary test used an 8.2g preload and achieved a useful thrust of 10g.
False on multiple counts. Friction does not exist when there is no force for it to resist, so it can't be a "preload." There is no data showing that the drive did not move when the friction was removed. It also doesn't make sense to just "remove" the friction. Even if there was some unnecessary component generating the friction that Shawyer neglected to explain, air resistance would still exist, and like friction is also 0 when there is no force or motion for it to resist.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
"The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W."
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
Was told that without the preload, there was no rotation.
Since there certainly was no explanation of your claim that it supposedly did not move without the (nonexistent) preload, you can't claimthis was in the open since 2006. It is just the latest in self-contradictory statements made to defend the emDrive after repeated tests have falsified Shawyer's claims.
Also I can't take your word that Shawyer told you he had data. Shawyer's word itself is unreliable based on the fact that at best he does not understand the definition of the word force. Your word is also extremely unreliable, as the simple existence of your post shows, after a promise you made a few months ago:I'll not be posting on this forum until my rotary test rig build is completed and I have data, either way, to share.
If any post I have made has upset anybody, I apologise. -
#871 by Ricvil on 19 Feb, 2019 11:33
-
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
It seemed to me that using a computer you can create a very complex motion of traveling waves in the resonator. And you can build a special system to control the movement of electrons in the walls.
It even seems to me that I hear the vibrating hammer knocking. But this hammer knocks only in a small bottom. And the hammer has no retroactive impact force.
I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Hi Alex O.
Are you working with homographic transformations, relating acceleration to conformal transformations? -
#872 by RERT on 19 Feb, 2019 13:59
-
A while ago I asked how efficient propellant-less propulsion would have to be compared to a photon rocket to have some useful application. I thought I might try and answer the question myself.
I've looked at an interstellar rocket mission powered by a fusion plant, expelling nuclear ash as exhaust. If the exhaust carries away a sensible fraction of the power output, it will be travelling at about c/25. It makes sense in that context to divert power from the exhaust plume to a propellantless thruster if the efficiency is more than 25 times a photon rocket.
Looking again at how one might optimize the exhaust velocity, I still get a number of under 100 as a threshold of usefulness.
If I recall correctly, in earlier posts there was discussion of station-keeping applications only needing milli-newtons. An efficiency of about 300 would get that from a few m^2 of solar panel.
So my answer is 30-300, or 100 give or take, in internet-speak.
In any event, I've just reminded myself quite how royally scr**ed we are by the rocket equation. An engine that runs at 20 kW/kg might park itself 4 light-years away, provided it could run for about 400 years unattended. (My calculations could of course be off.)
New Physics for Space Propulsion would be really good!
-
#873 by Mark7777777 on 20 Feb, 2019 09:15
-
I’m not sure if the following has been noted here already:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html -
#874 by meberbs on 21 Feb, 2019 00:28
-
I’m not sure if the following has been noted here already:
Yes it has:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1889273#msg1889273
It looks like it has been updated now with an important correction (An incorrect citation of Tajmar in the original, which is mentioned in the post just after the one I linked.) I haven't looked through the new version to see if there are any other related changes. I expect not, but I had other issues I had listed about the paper. McCulloch kindly responded to these in a message that was copied onto this site. I disagree with some of the responses he provided, though his correction of the citation, and ownership of what appears to have been an honest mistake is a very good thing. Anyone interested can read the details in the history on this thread. -
#875 by Mulletron on 23 Feb, 2019 16:01
-
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp -
#876 by cuddihy on 23 Feb, 2019 19:19
-
Right, was just thinking it’s the kind of thing one stumbles upon trying to replicate or improve upon Woodward’s PZT tests...it literally looks like a cutaway of a section of the ME test device. 🧐
If it turns out to be legit, it would explain a bit still unexplained post vibration analysis questions. -
#877 by RotoSequence on 23 Feb, 2019 19:25
-
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
I'm not going to get my hopes on this one without independent corroborating data. -
#878 by Freddled Gruntbuggly on 24 Feb, 2019 00:09
-
Unsure if this is on topic but the inventor of the above Room temp superconductor patent has a couple of others which appear to use microwave emitters and resonant cavities.
Gravity Wave Generator : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Craft using Inertial Mass Reduction Device : https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais -
#879 by Monomorphic on 24 Feb, 2019 01:01
-
I'm not going to get my hopes on this one without independent corroborating data.
"No data was included in the patent documents."
That will be hard to do without any published data.
Here is the patent: https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf