Cannae/EmDrive

[PB666]

7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Here is an interesting interview with the original Developer of the EM-Drive

 

This video is an utter embarrassment. The power output into strict electromagnetic propulsion is 300MW/N

To power a commerical jet aircraft requires typically 30,000 to 200,000 lbs of thrust. That is roughly 150,000 to 1,000,000 newtons at 300 MW/N you have terawatts of power needed. Liquid hydrogen cooling wont help you.

He is obviously ignoring the fact the calculated propulsion is 10 more efficient that photon drive and requires a reaction mass, he is proposion liquid hydrogen plus atmospheric oxygen as a fuel cell on earth. So what fuel cell can produce 30 terawatts of power?

The utter lack of eye contact while he's talking flipped on my fraud detector.

[NuclearNut]

5 hours ago, PB666 said:

This video is an utter embarrassment. The power output into strict electromagnetic propulsion is 300MW/N

To power a commerical jet aircraft requires typically 30,000 to 200,000 lbs of thrust. That is roughly 150,000 to 1,000,000 newtons at 300 MW/N you have terawatts of power needed. Liquid hydrogen cooling wont help you.

He is obviously ignoring the fact the calculated propulsion is 10 more efficient that photon drive and requires a reaction mass, he is proposion liquid hydrogen plus atmospheric oxygen as a fuel cell on earth. So what fuel cell can produce 30 terawatts of power?

The utter lack of eye contact while he's talking flipped on my fraud detector.

What, the astounding lack of evidence for the actual functionality of this device beyond the margin of error did not do that first?

[magnemoe]

On 14.3.2016 at 0:50 PM, K^2 said:

Because it gains momentum at a rate that doesn't match the loss of energy. So it either generates off-the-shell exhaust, which is impossible, or it doesn't conserve momentum, which is even more impossible.

If it interacts with some medium to produce this thrust, then it merely becomes very improbable.

Another problem is breaking conservation of energy. As kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity but its acceleration is constant with constant power supply. 
Put it on an arm put an generator at hub, first spinn this up fast enough then tap more energy from hub than the drive uses  No the speed is not very high as in far lower than orbital speed. 
 

[K^2]

25 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Another problem is breaking conservation of energy. As kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity but its acceleration is constant with constant power supply. 
Put it on an arm put an generator at hub, first spinn this up fast enough then tap more energy from hub than the drive uses  No the speed is not very high as in far lower than orbital speed. 

It's the same thing, honestly, just from a different coordinate system. But it's a good illustration of why it's such a big problem. If you bring massive propellant, the extra energy comes from kinetic energy of stored propellant. If you don't have propellant, well, then you're violating conservation of energy. Unless E = pc, and it's a photon drive. But that's where it goes back to 300MW/N.

Topological constraints are fun.

[Majorjim!]

So has anyone proved this is BS beyond any shadow of doubt? NASA still testing this?

[PB666]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Another problem is breaking conservation of energy. As kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity but its acceleration is constant with constant power supply. 
Put it on an arm put an generator at hub, first spinn this up fast enough then tap more energy from hub than the drive uses  No the speed is not very high as in far lower than orbital speed. 
 

No his video is not promoting a perpetual motion machine, his video is just put some liquid hydrogen in the device and fly to the edge of space, and with a little oxygen be in space, not using air to push off of, but simply EM radiation, enough to fry any city in its wake.

E = pc, its not a reactionless drive . . . . . OK so no reaction mass its E = pc. and 30MW/N. But of course he needs liquid hydrogen with it and it will float a car off the ground.

1 tonne * 9.8 M/s = 9800 N  9800 * 30000000 = 0.3 TW that little flying prius is going to have a mighty big battery.

Honestly either he is flat out lying or he doesn't know what his device is actually doing. Of course he used to work for a spy agency, so he claims so . . . . . .

[Majorjim!]

Just now, PB666 said:

No his video is not promoting a perpetual motion machine, his video is just put some liquid hydrogen in the device and fly to the edge of space, and with a little oxygen be in space, not using air to push off of, but simply EM radiation, enough to fry any city in its wake.

E = pc, its not a reactionless drive . . . . . OK so no reaction mass its E = pc. and 30MW/N. But of course he needs liquid hydrogen with it and it will float a car off the ground.

1 tonne * 9.8 M/s = 9800 N  9800 * 30000000 = 0.3 TW that little flying prius is going to have a mighty big battery.

Honestly either he is flat out lying or he doesn't know what his device is actually doing. Of course he used to work for a spy agency, so he claims so . . . . . .

The 'discoverers' ignorance aside has anyone proved this is useless? Why are NASA even testing it?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Majorjim said:

The 'discoverers' ignorance aside has anyone proved this is useless? Why are NASA even testing it?

It works, the problem is that they do not know why it works. We keep beating around the bush, the only way to really know if its pushing local or distal is to put it in space with some far off attached solar panels and start looking. If it continues to accelerate at the same rate in space, then K2 is prolly right, its ablating copper oxide/sulfide/sulfates/carbonates off the surface of the end plate. If acceleration falls of by say 90% then Im right its pushing off via virtual interactions over short distances. Most importantly as if goes from thick to the thinnest atmospheres it should fall off to zero. If it does not fall off to zero but only goes down somewhat, then we have some physics to rewrite. There are out of about a micron enough things to push off the drive-end plate, beyond a cm you should see a definite fall off of thrust. So if the density of space is one or two hydrogen per meter of space, there should not be enough particles in proximity to accelerate.

It works, it works reproducibly, and they have dealt with several critiques, but the major failing is that it is done within the confines of a vacuum chamber, and in a vacuum chamber there are always a large potential for interactions.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by PB666

[Majorjim!]

50 minutes ago, PB666 said:

It works, the problem is that they do not know why it works. We keep beating around the bush, the only way to really know if its pushing local or distal is to put it in space with some far off attached solar panels and start looking. If it continues to accelerate at the same rate in space, then K2 is prolly right, its ablating copper oxide/sulfide/sulfates/carbonates off the surface of the end plate. If acceleration falls of by say 90% then Im right its pushing off via virtual interactions over short distances. Most importantly as if goes from thick to the thinnest atmospheres it should fall off to zero. If it does not fall off to zero but only goes down somewhat, then we have some physics to rewrite. There are out of about a micron enough things to push off the drive-end plate, beyond a cm you should see a definite fall off of thrust. So if the density of space is one or two hydrogen per meter of space, there should not be enough particles in proximity to accelerate.

It works, it works reproducibly, and they have dealt with several critiques, but the major failing is that it is done within the confines of a vacuum chamber, and in a vacuum chamber there are always a large potential for interactions.

 

 

Are there any plans to test it in orbit or the ISS?

[PB666]

2 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Are there any plans to test it in orbit or the ISS?

Not that I know of.

What you really want is a power supply, preferably set in front of the device as far as possible, an rf generator again in front of the device, the power feeds to the device, the device (which includes an rf antenna a set of small electron resonator chambers followed by bell shaped chamber with a solid copper end-plate). This device needs at its center of gravity a GPS unit, there needs to be a control device placed in the same orbit but without an on switch for the resonator. The first device should be place outside of gravimetric range of second and behind the second device in its orbit. Then you look to see if the first device over time can raise its orbit relative to the second. Since the rate of acceleration is so small (uN) one does not expect it to gain velocity on the second or close the gap between the two, instead one expects the first to climb and its omega to decrease. If that occurs then it works, and the next question is why.

If it is ablating copper then it should be possible to remotely rarify the copper molecules and make them glow. If it is ablating then one expects that that emission spectrum of the gas to change, initially starting with oxygen, sulfur, carbon emission spectrum and overtime increasing the level of copper. This can be accomplished on the dark side of the earth using different frequency of lasers or from carefully placed electrodes on the device itself.

[Scotius]

No way it can be explained by ablation of copper. To excite atoms enough to break free from the plate and produce so much thrust, you would have to essentially boil it.

[Frozen_Heart]

Tbh I don't think this will ever get solved. The measurement anomalies will always be there, and no one will get the money to properly test it. I still believe that they are just errors or something but its just frustrating that the thing will never be put to rest. :/

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

No way it can be explained by ablation of copper. To excite atoms enough to break free from the plate and produce so much thrust, you would have to essentially boil it.

We have a device that works off of rf, it resonates electrons inside of the prechamber. It is entirely possible that it creates a standing wave at the end-plate causing the excitation of outer shell electrons of copper giving the plate a local positive charge and cause copper to basically come off.

[Stargate525]

Just now, PB666 said:

We have a device that works off of rf, it resonates electrons inside of the prechamber. It is entirely possible that it creates a standing wave at the end-plate causing the excitation of outer shell electrons of copper giving the plate a local positive charge and cause copper to basically come off.

So weigh the plate.

Run the device for a couple of hours, and get a sensitive scale. If it's ablation the plate should be measurably lighter, no?

[PB666]

6 hours ago, Majorjim said:

So has anyone proved this is BS beyond any shadow of doubt? NASA still testing this?

The video is BS, no one has disproven that there is super photon thrust coming off the drive.

[K^2]

3 hours ago, Stargate525 said:

So weigh the plate.

Run the device for a couple of hours, and get a sensitive scale. If it's ablation the plate should be measurably lighter, no?

With the quality of vacuum and parts being used, not really doable. This would be a good test if this was done with the right hardware. But I'm not aware of anyone spending enough money on these tests to do this.

Honestly, I think we're waiting for someone to come up with a good theoretical explanation that both explains the thrust and provides potentially practical benefit to the device. Then we'll see proper tests being done.

Edited March 19, 2016 by K^2

[wizzlebippi]

Do we really need to be able to explain the thrust it produces for it to have benefits?  Proving the Cannae drive works in orbit is worth billions. Satelites could maintain orbit near indefinitely because fuel is no longer a concern, and safely deorbit or rendezvous with a craft for repairs/upgrades.

Besides, it won't be the first time something is used when science has an incomplete understanding of how it works.

 

[Mazon Del]

There are currently no official plans for an orbital test, however there is an effort in this direction. Hackaday has a project page devoted to the efforts of a group to make a miniaturized EMDrive that can fit into a 1U cubesat which could be launched and monitored as it went about its business.

This is a bit of a tricky proposition because the size of the frustum (the cone) is crazy important relative to your frequency. Not all frustums work with all frequencies, in fact, most don't. It is a matter of tuning things. The issue (best I can remember with only ~3 hours of sleep) is that the smaller the frustum, the higher frequency you must operate at. The higher the frequency, the more that tiny imperfections in the surface of your frustum (like small micro-scratches, etc) show up, ruining the effect.

The reason, of course, they are trying to fit it in a 1U is that the important dimension "must" (nobody has tried otherwise to be honest) be symmetrical, so making it a 2U would help with the rest of your electronics storage, but wouldn't let you increase the size of the frustum. Doing the project larger than a cubesat is economically unfeasible at this time.

[kunok]

4 minutes ago, wizzlebippi said:

Do we really need to be able to explain the thrust it produces for it to have benefits?  Proving the Cannae drive works in orbit is worth billions. Satelites could maintain orbit near indefinitely because fuel is no longer a concern, and safely deorbit or rendezvous with a craft for repairs/upgrades.

Besides, it won't be the first time something is used when science has an incomplete understanding of how it works.

You don't put an experimental device that nobody has idea how it works, if works, and when it can stop working, in a hundred of millions valued equipment.

Making the test without some theoretical base won't really made a reliable device, because still nobody will have idea why it breaks when it breaks or other unexpected behaviour.

[wizzlebippi]

Magnetrons have been around for decades and are pretty well understood.  Some hardening will be necessary to ensure it survives the harsh conditions in space, but that shouldn't be too difficult.  Since the Cannae drive is such a simple system, there aren't many ways for it to fail.

If there was to be unexpected behavior from the drive, something should have presented its self by now on the test stand.  I'm only advocating a prototype, not equipping a commercial satellite with Cannae drive station keeping thrusters.

[PB666]

5 hours ago, kunok said:

You don't put an experimental device that nobody has idea how it works, if works, and when it can stop working, in a hundred of millions valued equipment.

Making the test without some theoretical base won't really made a reliable device, because still nobody will have idea why it breaks when it breaks or other unexpected behaviour.

Is that what the cubesat platform designed for, testing things at a relatively low cost, not going to use the word nay-sayer here, but need to keep a little bit more of an openmind about things, at least until we have an inkling of what the fluke in the design is.

 

[kunok]

2 hours ago, wizzlebippi said:

Magnetrons have been around for decades and are pretty well understood.  Some hardening will be necessary to ensure it survives the harsh conditions in space, but that shouldn't be too difficult.  Since the Cannae drive is such a simple system, there aren't many ways for it to fail.

I think at this point supposing it works, we are not even sure if the magnetron is a necessary part because it works the microwaves, or it's simply a part that's is interfering somewhat.

Yeah I understand the idea of a prototype, but even if we put the device in space and it works, if we put latter after some test in a commercial satellite and stop working, we don't have any idea of why, and we can't really study why stop working because is in space.

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

Is that what the cubesat platform designed for, testing things at a relatively low cost

I would be a lot more expensive than testing in a proper laboratory equipment in earth and would give less data. I want it to be tested, but seriously I don't think getting it to space is the best option.

Edited March 20, 2016 by kunok
changin a can to a can't, now it makes sense

[PB666]

2 hours ago, kunok said:

I think at this point supposing it works, we are not even sure if the magnetron is a necessary part because it works the microwaves, or it's simply a part that's is interfering somewhat.

Yeah I understand the idea of a prototype, but even if we put the device in space and it works, if we put latter after some test in a commercial satellite and stop working, we don't have any idea of why, and we can really study why stop working because is in space.

I would be a lot more expensive than testing in a proper laboratory equipment in earth and would give less data. I want it to be tested, but seriously I don't think getting it to space is the best option.

You should note I also opened a thread for a specific type of test that can be performed here on earth.

In science a negative result is ambiguous. So if the ablation test proves not to show signficant ablation of labeled copper, then the only test that has any meaning is to demonstrate acceleration in space. If the ablation test shows significant loss of copper from the surface AND shows that the amount and momentum of copper released explains at least 50% of the thrust, then the inspace test need not be performed. But if not, then the inspace test needs to be performed.

 

[kunok]

10 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You should note I also opened a thread for a specific type of test that can be performed here on earth.

I totally missed that thread I may comment there (tomorrow, is too late), but I have not many things to add, only the manufacturing process doesn't feel right.

[Stargate525]

7 hours ago, kunok said:

Yeah I understand the idea of a prototype, but even if we put the device in space and it works, if we put latter after some test in a commercial satellite and stop working, we don't have any idea of why, and we can't really study why stop working because is in space.

We lose satellites every year from failures.