Claims of the Invention of an EmDrive (Propellant-less propulsion) - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-vdn-vSxADJc/TW_oX8pN94I/AAAAAAAAKjk/9GkxczRLX2Y/s1600/emdrive.jpg[/IMG] a high temperature superconductor emdrive thruster, which operates at 3.8 GHz, and was designed using an update of the software used for the previous S band designs. Super-conducting surfaces are formed from YBCO thin films on sapphire substrates. Small signal testing at 77 deg K confirmed the design, with a Q of 6.8x106 being measured. The heart of the controversial Emdrive is a resonant, tapered cavity filled with microwaves. According to Shawyer, a relativistic effect generates a net thrust, an effect confirmed by various Emdrives he has built as demonstrations. Critics say that any thrust from the drive must come from another source. Shawyer is adamant that the measured thrust is not caused by other factors. In 2008, professor Yang Juan of the College of Astronautics at Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) in Xi’an was happy to confirm that they were building an Emdrive which would be tested by the end of 2009. EMdrive claims - In August 2010, a technology transfer contract with a major US aerospace company was successfully completed. This 10 month contract was carried out under a UK Export Licence and a TAA issued by the US State Department. Details are subject to ITAR regulations. The claim of technology transfer is the main new thing since we last updated the highly controversial Emdrive back in 2009 Note: I have highlighted in the title of the article and in the introduction how controversial this is. Basically critics thinks this is all crap and/or fraud. I am updating this to indicate that they are still plugging away. The interesting thing is what happened with the Chinese work, but there is no word on that. In June 2010, a paper was presented at the 2nd Conference on Disruptive Technology in Space Activities. The paper reviewed their experimental work. The EMdrive enables superconducting cavities to very efficiently create static thrust. Thrust is measured in "pounds of thrust" in the U.S. and in Newtons under the metric system (4.45 Newtons of thrust equals 1 pound of thrust). 300 pounds of thrust is 1335 Newtons of thrust. 6 kilowatts of input means that 222.5 N/kW. Apparently the 6.8 million Q device should have 143 kg of thrust from 6 kW input. Effect of increased Q for the Emdrive Q=50,000 (1st gen.) Static thrust=315 mN/kW Specific thrust at 3km/s=200mN/kW Q=6,800,000 (supercond) Static thrust=222 N/kW Specific thrust at ??km/s=??N/kW Q=5 X 10^9 (supercond) Static thrust=31.5 kN/kW Specific thrust at 0.1km/s=8.8N/kW Q=10^11 (supercond) Static thrust=630 kN/kW Specific thrust at 0.1km/s=??N/kW [IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7OiyOMX2unA/TW_o3oTG2iI/AAAAAAAAKjo/JBCGLEiVo1g/s1600/emdrivespaceplane.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE] It is commonplace for a 1.3 GHz niobium SRF resonant cavity at 1.8 Kelvin to obtain Q=5×10**10 [50 billion]. Such a very high Q resonator and its narrow bandwidth can then be exploited for a variety of applications. At present, none of the "high Tc" superconducting materials are suited for RF applications. Shortcomings of these materials arise due to their underlying physics as well as their bulk mechanical properties not being amenable to fabricating accelerator cavities. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/controversial-emdrive-claims-to-have.html[/url] Colour me skeptic. EDIT: Read the comments, and this Goatguy person really is tearing them apart.

That is a tin of beans.

If only.

[quote="Goatguy"]Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω [I]above the 1 watt input[/I], which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy. We should therefore make it the centerpiece of all future energy production, as if these posted values are confirmed, it would represent the greatest discovery since the invention of the wheel. Perhaps since the taming of fire.[/quote] I laughed. :v:

So when can I utilize this technology to open my doors for me.

wow to bad the LIBREAL MIDIA will never let this see the light of day....

[quote]77 deg K[/quote] Why did they say "deg K[elvin]"?

But can it remove tough grass stains?

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;28415865]Why did they say "deg K[elvin]"?[/QUOTE] because it's very, very cold

can we get this from a source that doesn't have a banner like this? [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TBvblBMSlkI/AAAAAAAAH-w/U4vQhrWH5n4/nbf6.jpg[/img] I mean, it just screams "LEGIT" [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] granted on a second look it's not too bad but multiple sources is always good

So, if this is possible, I should be able to produce finite amounts of thrust by attaching a magnetron to the side of an open reflector cone and powering up? Yeah, this isn't going to happen, first of all, it violates conservation of momentum, they butchered Maxwell's equations, and try to explain this "thrust" with special relativity, which would already be explained with Maxwell's Equations. This explains it better: [I]From: The Astrophysics Spectator Commentary, October Tenth, 2008[/I]. [quote] From time to time peculiar claims about machines that defy basic physics pop into view. One that caught my attention recently is a radiation-based rocket engine. Called the [URL="http://www.emdrive.com/"][I]Emdrive[/I][/URL], this privately-developed device has been [URL="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html"]adopted by the Chinese government[/URL] as an experimental alternative to the low-thrust ion drives now in use on many satellites and interplanetary probes. The [URL="http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.400"]Emdrive uses microwaves[/URL] as the source of its thrust. The advantage of using microwaves over ions is that the spacecraft does not need to carry a propellant; the device can run indefinitely on the power collected from the Sun. The idea that radiation can accelerate a rocket is certainly not new; light carries both energy and momentum. Because momentum is conserved when a rocket fires its engine, the amount of momentum a rocket acquires when it emits light is the precise opposite of the total momentum carried by the light. This is the basis of a simple test problem in special relativity that I once had to solve. The problem asked how long an astronaut would need to shine a flashlight of a certain wattage in one direction to accelerate to half the speed of light. For a 100 kilogram astronaut with a 10 watt flashlight, it would take about 16 billion years, which is the maximum age of the universe. This answer shows why light is not generally a good propellant for a rocket engine. Light as a propellant requires too much energy to generate a useable amount of acceleration. This brings us to the Emdrive. When I first heard about it, I assumed that it created a force by driving an intense beam of microwaves out of the engine. In fact, while the design makes use of radiation pressure, it does so in a very peculiar way. The Emdrive emits microwaves into a closed box, where they are trapped. Roger Shawyer, the designer of the engine, claims that the shape of the box causes the microwaves to exert more pressure at one end of the box than at the other, so that a net force is exerted in one direction by the microwaves. The designer claims that because the microwaves oscillate back and forth many times before being absorbed by the walls of the box, the device produces a strong force that can accelerate a spacecraft. The problem with this analysis is that it violates the conservation of momentum, because this device gives a rocket momentum without emitting microwaves of opposite momentum. The very equations that are used by the designer to calculate a force exerted by the Emdrive—Maxwell's equations, which describe the interaction of electromagnetic fields with matter—explicitly conserve both energy and momentum; most physicists would use conservation of momentum as a test for whether they had correctly solved the problem of the interaction of microwaves within a box. When a [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf"]paper describing the Emdrive[/URL] was published by [I]New Scientist[/I] a couple of years ago, the unphysical nature of the device provoked a storm of complaints from the physics community. What is interesting about the articles describing the Emdrive is that the writers explain the workings of the engine with jargon-laden descriptions of esoteric and new physics. In [URL="http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.400"]the article on the Emdrive in [I]New Scientist[/I][/URL], for instance, the writer, apparently paraphrasing an explanation from Shawyer, tries to explain the force without thrust in the following way: How can photons confined inside a cavity make the cavity move? This is where relativity and the strange nature of light come in. Since the microwave photons in the waveguide are travelling close to the speed of light, any attempt to resolve the forces they generate must take account of Einstein's special theory of relativity. This says that the microwaves move in their own frame of reference. In other words they move independently of the cavity—as if they are outside it. As a result, the microwaves themselves exert a push on the cavity. This little explanation makes no sense. One does not need to explicitly include special relativity to calculate the force, because special relativity is implicitly contained in Maxwell's equations; by using Maxwell's equation to solve a problem, one automatically taking special relativity into account. The bit about “microwaves move in their own frame of reference” is meaningless; under special relativity, the reference frame is simple the coordinate system used to solve the problem, and the claim that all reference frames are the same is simply the statement that I can choose any non-accelerating coordinate system that is convenient without worrying that the answer differs from that found using any other coordinate system. For instance, if I solve Maxwell's equations in the laboratory where the device is fixed, and I solve the equations in a reference frame where the device is moving at half the speed of light, I will get the same answer. One answer I will get in either reference frame is that momentum is conserved. The resort to special relativity and a claim of “the strange nature of light” serve more to awe than to enlighten the reader. But the explanation provided in the [I]New Scientist[/I] article is mundane compared to the explanation given in an article from [I]Eureka[/I] magazine cited on the [URL="http://www.emdrive.com/"]Emdrive web site.[/URL] In the article, the author writes this: The crucial part, as he explained, is that it is a relativistic effect that arises because the waves being reflected at the two ends of the conical cavity into which the microwaves are injected have different effective velocities, and thus different frames of reference, and that a closed microwave wave guide is an ‘open system’ in terms of relativity. According to Einstein, all moving frames of reference are equivalent. Why this should be so, whether one is standing still or going at half the speed of light, nobody knows, and in effect Shawyer's engine could be chucking Dark Energy out of the back of it and functioning as a conventional rocket. On the other hand, here may be no such thing as Dark Energy, and Shawyer may have stumbled on what is really driving the galaxies apart. I can guarantee that the Emdrive is not chucking Dark Energy or anything else out its back, because these things have nothing to do with special relativity, which is simply a property of space and time that is contained within Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism. A prototype of the device has been built, and Shawyer claims that the test results confirm his calculations. Whatever force he are measuring, it cannot be arising through the mechanism he invokes; on a spacecraft in space, the device should exert no force. I'm just glad the Chinese government is paying for the Emdrive rather than the U.S. government. My tax dollars support too many shady projects and bailouts of bad public policy as it is.[/quote][URL]http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/commentary/2008/Commentary20081001.html[/URL] [editline]000[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;28416461]I was just going to write something similar. How good you ninja'd me with a quote from another website so I don't need to write it anymore.[/QUOTE] My pleasure.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;28416070]because it's very, very cold[/QUOTE] It's either degree Celsius or degree Farenheit or Kelvin. Kelvin stands alone. Every pupil knows this from the physics and chemistry class. [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28416175]So, if this is possible, I should be able to produce finite amounts of thrust by attaching a magnetron to the side of an open reflector cone and powering up? Yeah, this isn't going to happen, first of all, it violates conservation of momentum, they butchered Maxwell's equations, and try to explain this "thrust" with special relativity, which would already be explained with Maxwell's Equations. This explains it better: [I]From: The Astrophysics Spectator Commentary, October Tenth, 2008[/I]. [URL]http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/commentary/2008/Commentary20081001.html[/URL][/QUOTE] I was just going to write something similar. How good you ninja'd me with a quote from another website so I don't need to write it anymore.

Thought it was too good to be true

I thought they were finally using quantum oszillation or gravity waves :( I was disappointed, This is just a scientist doing calculations the way they fit the desired outcome

[QUOTE=Killuah;28416730]I thought they were finally using quantum oszillation or gravity waves :( I was disappointed, This is just a scientist doing calculations the way they fit the desired outcome[/QUOTE] Actually wrong calculations. He was misusing Maxwells Equations.

So this is false? Also for a mobile craft to continuously produce kilowatts of energy I think it would either require large amounts of batteries or have to make the energy via burning fossil fuels etc etc. Either way I don't think this would work too well but hey I could be (and very ofter am) wrong. . .

[QUOTE=Aw_Hell;28423544]So this is false? Also for a mobile craft to continuously produce kilowatts of energy I think it would either require large amounts of batteries or have to make the energy via burning fossil fuels etc etc. Either way I don't think this would work too well but hey I could be (and very ofter am) wrong. . .[/QUOTE] Well there's always the nuclear option, not to mention we're getting pretty damn close to perfecting nuclear fusion. Not saying anything above would work, but there's more out there than fossil fuels.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;28424162]Well there's always the nuclear option, not to mention we're getting pretty damn close to perfecting nuclear fusion. Not saying anything above would work, but there's more out there than fossil fuels.[/QUOTE] True but the nuclear reaction only produces heat, we then need a way to harness that heat and turn it into energy, we would have to incorporate a complex system resembling a small turbine generator, we could go with the solid state option but we are still very bad at that (I think the efficiency id around 12-20% but don't quote me on that). So what do I think? It is doable but it's require some work to get it right. [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] You COULD do this: Have the air be pulled into a compressor, then it's heated by the nuclear reaction, then it flows through the turbine (the turbine and compressor are connected to the same axle therefore Wt=Wc). That's how a turbine engine works now, If a SECOND turbine was placed in the system which was connected to a second axle you would destroy the efficiency of the turbine engine but that second turbine could be used to generate the power for the EmDrive engine(s), in addition due to the incredible amount of heat given off by the nuclear reaction (ungodly hot) the low efficiency of the turbine wouldn't matter. That'd be one way to do it.

[QUOTE=Aw_Hell;28424222]True but the nuclear reaction only produces heat, we then need a way to harness that heat and turn it into energy, we would have to incorporate a complex system resembling a small turbine generator, we could go with the solid state option but we are still very bad at that (I think the efficiency id around 12-20% but don't quote me on that). So what do I think? It is doable but it's require some work to get it right.[/QUOTE] Guess what a turbine is build for. Or a nuclear battery. a kW of energy isn't that hard to achieve.

This would be rather interesting if it worked.

[QUOTE=aVoN;28424745]Guess what a turbine is build for. Or a nuclear battery. a kW of energy isn't that hard to achieve.[/QUOTE] Turbines are a little hard to get onto things like planes unless you use an air power system like I [b]previously stated[/b], they work when creating thrust but making a generator on a plane or craft would be very heavy. Also it's built. A nuclear battery does have potential but we'd still have to make it efficient. You're correct that 1 KW isn't hard to achieve but when you have to make it light, small and durable it gets very hard to achieve. Turbines and other moving parts would be incredibly hard to do in space craft, the incredible g forces and vibration experienced during takeoff would tear most turbines (the bearings at least) to shreds.

[QUOTE=Aw_Hell;28424222]True but the nuclear reaction only produces heat, we then need a way to harness that heat and turn it into energy, we would have to incorporate a complex system resembling a small turbine generator, we could go with the solid state option but we are still very bad at that (I think the efficiency id around 12-20% but don't quote me on that). So what do I think? It is doable but it's require some work to get it right. [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] You COULD do this: Have the air be pulled into a compressor, then it's heated by the nuclear reaction, then it flows through the turbine (the turbine and compressor are connected to the same axle therefore Wt=Wc). That's how a turbine engine works now, If a SECOND turbine was placed in the system which was connected to a second axle you would destroy the efficiency of the turbine engine but that second turbine could be used to generate the power for the EmDrive engine(s), in addition due to the incredible amount of heat given off by the nuclear reaction (ungodly hot) the low efficiency of the turbine wouldn't matter. That'd be one way to do it.[/QUOTE] Actually there are already ways to harvest raw energy directly produced from the reactor, I don't remember what the issue was but I guess it was about how much they could gather and how much would go to waste.

[quote]Goatguy posted: Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω above the 1 watt input, which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy. [/quote] can someone translate this to a language I can understand