What would it take to make my own EM Drive?

[cubinator]

51 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

The problem is that it's very expensive to launch stuff into orbit. (Note that this thing wouldn't be small enough to be a cubesat) There is a very real possibility that it won't work at all. Until we're reasonably certain that it will, there's no sense in launching one up. You'd have to launch it into a pretty high orbit too, as the thrust could be small enough that it's overshadowed by atmospheric drag.

I'm just stating why we haven't done it yet, not saying we shouldn't do it.

Actually, the size depends on the wavelength you're using. If you use a shorter wavelength, you can make a smaller drive, just like a smaller bell makes a higher pitch sound. This one sure looks like it could fit on a cubesat.

Also, the thrust from a drive would apparently be enough to counteract the atmospheric drag on the ISS. I think that would be enough thrust to go someplace with a small satellite.

[KerbonautInTraining]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

Actually, the size depends on the wavelength you're using. If you use a shorter wavelength, you can make a smaller drive, just like a smaller bell makes a higher pitch sound. This one sure looks like it could fit on a cubesat.

Also, the thrust from a drive would apparently be enough to counteract the atmospheric drag on the ISS. I think that would be enough thrust to go someplace with a small satellite.

But what about all of the supporting equipment? (Solar panels! I'll bet it's not cheap to run these things)

Until we have accurate measurements I think it would be best to prepare for the worst and assume it produces next to no thrust. Imagine if you put it in a 150km orbit only to find that its orbit is decaying, but not as quickly as predicted. That means either there's less drag than anticipated or it's producing thrust, but you can't be sure and thus the mission provides no useful data.

There are official plans to put a VASMIR Ion engine on the ISS because we know that can pump out a few hundred Newtons. I think that might be what you're referring to.

[cubinator]

Found the article. Under "Applications" it states that an EmDrive satellite launched into LEO could spiral up to geostationary orbit in 36 days. If it kept on "burning," it could go on to the moon.

[ZetaX]

On 17/12/2015 at 9:50 PM, SomeGuy123 said:

Also, even if the Kraken is pushing on em, they probably still obey conservation of energy.  Technically, "hovering" in midair must consume a vast amount of energy because you're actually producing as much work as the mass of the vehicle falling over 1 second times mgh.

At least, I think so...

And one could reasonably expect that even if it works, the force per joule should be a whole lot less than a rotor turning in the atmosphere.  TLDR, it's not going to be possible to fly at all without a ridiculous power source.

No, it requires exactly zero energy to let something hover. We already know many things that hover one way or another (permanent magnets and diamagnetism/superconductors, balloons, ships, ...), none of them putting any energy into it. One can surely build something that wastes lots of energy on it (think helicopters or rockets), which is due to other reasons such as maneuverability or speed, but not a requirement.

[The what if guy]

I am just spit balling here,

Could Carbon Nano Tubes bonded to a Graphiene base covering a resonance cavity constructed of copper/niobium or other material could be used to dissipate heat build up?

My idea is to coat the exterior of the super conducting resonance cavity with a bonded blanket heat sink then construct a cooling vessel around that layer that a pressurized cryogenic liquid would then be used to wick away heat buildup.

This article discusses the use of carbon nano tubes as a heat sink.

http://www.advancedsciencenews.com/nanotubes-on-graphene-make-the-ultimate-heat-sink/

The below article discusses grapheme coatings, while a flawless finish would give maximum surface area for the nano tube forest to be grown on I don't think it would be a deal breaker as we don't require a frictionless surface.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-flawless-graphene-coatings.html