EM Drive System No Longer Further Confirmed

Richardson

CAN YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING?
Location
Yes
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/update-on-emdrive-work-at-nasa.html

Experimental Thrust is at 50 micronewtons but need at least 100 micronewtons to go to Glenn Research Center (GRC) for a replication effort in the next few months

The NASA Eagleworks Lab is still working on the copper frustum thruster that was reported on last summer at the AIAA/JPC. They have now confirmed that there is a thrust signature in a hard vacuum (~5.0x10^-6 Torr) in both the forward direction, (approx. +50 micro-Newton (uN) with 50W at 1,937.115 MHz), and the reversed direction, (up to -16uN with a failing RF amp), when the thruster is rotated 180 degrees on the torque pendulum. However they continue to fight through RF amplifier failures brought on by having to operate them in a hard vacuum with few $$$ resources to fix them when they break, so the desired data is coming along very slowly. They are still working on obtaining enough data though that will allow us to go to Glenn Research Center (GRC) for a replication effort in the next few months. However that will only happen if they can make the thrust signature large enough since the GRC thrust stand can only measure down to ~50uN, so we have to get the thrust signature up to at least 100uN before they can go to GRC.



As to the theoretical side of Q-Thrusters, Dr. White has just developed the first cut at a quantum vacuum (QV) based plasma code written in C+ under Windows/Unix and VMD visualization software that utilizes the COMSOL E&M derived field data for a given thruster geometry that allows one to track the movement and velocity of a subset of the QV's electron/positron neutral plasma pairs in the thruster over time as they respond to the applied time varying RF E&M fields in the copper frustum resonant cavity and to each other. This package also allows one to calculate the expected thrust for a given input power and quality factor of the frustum resonant cavity based of standard plasma rocket physics. So far the estimated thrust verses experimental observations are within 2% for the first experimental data run I compared it to, but we still have a long, long road ahead of us of experimental validation before we have any real confidence in this very new Q-Thruster design tool.

Six months ago there was the big splash from the EMdrive and Cannae drive results.

The 21 page Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum paper is online at Libertarian News.

Abstract - Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

This paper describes the test campaigns designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (QVPT), but instead will describe the recent test campaign. In addition, it contains a brief description of the supporting radio frequency (RF) field analysis, ssons learned, and potential applications of the technology to space exploration missions. During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts. Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level. Test campaign results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.

From the Full paper

Talk Polywell had an interesting comment on the full paper

Eagleworks tested one tapered (frustum) cavity, aka Shawyer's EmDrive; and two Cannae drives which are also asymmetric but different resonant cavities. The Cannae drive is said to work on a purported different principle than the EmDrive, according to its inventor Guido Fetta (a net Lorentz force imbalance of electrons upon top vs bottom wall of the cavity). According to this purported working principle, one Cannae drive had radial slots on its rim as required by Fetta in order to produce net thrust, and the second Cannae drive didn't have those slits and was intended to be a "null test device". But the Cannae null test article… also produced net thrust (20 to 40 µN of net thrust depending of the forward or backward direction).

The null device having thrust means that the Cannae drive theory that the slits mattered was not true. However, this is irrelevant as to whether the Cannae drive produces thrust. Another theoretical explanation is needed but the anomalous thrust remains

We're talking of net thrust because of course the setup was also tested with a null 50 ohm load connected, in order to cancel the effect from the drives and detect any detect any spurious force due to EM coupling with the whole apparatus (which exists, at 9.6 µN) and this "null" spurious force was evidently subtracted from any thrust signal due to the drives then tested on the pendulum.

All tests articles (the EmDrive version, the Cannae drive version, and even the Cannae "null test" version) had a dielectric embedded within. This is a hint for a different theoretical explanation involving EM fields, proper acceleration, mass fluctuation and dielectrics. Maybe Mach effects (due to Mach's principle), as supposed by Woodward and Fearn within the GR theory, or within a scalar-tensor theory of gravity according to Minotti.

Basically, they just got done testing it in full vacuum and confirmed that it continues to produce thrust at the same rate as before. Due to the conditions, they're extremely limited in the amount of power they can put in (50 watts) and the amount of time they can power it up for, but the test systems continue to produce thrust, and interestingly show directionality of thrust (Reversing the current actually reverses the thrust). Their current power limit means they can only get it up to 50 micronewtons, but they're trying to come up with a power supply that can withstand hard vacuum so they can ramp it up significantly.

As a further note, they've also eliminated most classical electromagnetic field interactions from the possibilities through several tests, leading them to conclude that it is indeed a new phenomenon, and they're busy trying to figure out what it is and how to exploit it for Mad Science.

Addendum: From their test results, these first designs will produce .4 newtons per kilowatt, which--uh--basically completely and totally outclasses the current ion and hall thrusters used in orbit, provided they can come up with a power supply that can handle hard vacuum.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't considered that virtual particles meant we could push off of vacuum, but now that it comes up it makes sense.
 
Is Roger Shawyer a celebrity yet?

He has basically helped fulfill nearly every sci fi author's dream.

Even if the drive doesn't become practical for interstellar travel they have a boatload of new material to speculate on now.
 
Last edited:
This is going to break every single existing physical theory out there, because it's apparently more efficient than a photon drive.

Colour me sceptical.
 
This is going to break every single existing physical theory out there, because it's apparently more efficient than a photon drive.

Colour me sceptical.

Well, you could be skeptical, or, you know, it's kind of a bit late for that as the results have been repeated multiple times without fail in vacuum and atmosphere and a multitude of conditions, producing useful (for a microsat) amounts of thrust for less light than the average household bulb. It remains to be seen if it will continue to scale up, but all signs point to 'most likely YES', given that the chinese got a lot of thrust out of their kilowatt input test.
 
Well, you could be skeptical, or, you know, it's kind of a bit late for that as the results have been repeated multiple times without fail in vacuum and atmosphere and a multitude of conditions, producing useful (for a microsat) amounts of thrust for less light than the average household bulb. It remains to be seen if it will continue to scale up, but all signs point to 'most likely YES', given that the chinese got a lot of thrust out of their kilowatt input test.
Yeah, we'll see when some actual peer review will reproduce the experiment.

Because I am VERY skeptical that they managed to break conservation of momentum...
 
Yeah, we'll see when some actual peer review will reproduce the experiment.

Because I am VERY skeptical that they managed to break conservation of momentum...

They have the full paper in a link at the link. Reproduced, in a vacuum, and with a thrust ratio that is within a few percentage points of the chinese data. So, what do you want, signed tablets from god?
 
They have the full paper in a link at the link. Reproduced, in a vacuum, and with a thrust ratio that is within a few percentage points of the chinese data. So, what do you want, signed tablets from god?

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I'm going to have to see several other groups, with much higher levels of credibility reproduce it first before believing it.
 
It's... 300 times more efficient than a photon drive? Am I calculating that right? (IIRC, a photon drive is 300 MW/N, and this is 1 MW/N)
 
This got rather decisively debunked the last time it came up. While I am as always optimistic, nothing in this article indicates any real change from the prior series of events and claims. Would @Vorpal like to make a comment on this?
 
This got rather decisively debunked the last time it came up. While I am as always optimistic, nothing in this article indicates any real change from the prior series of events and claims. Would @Vorpal like to make a comment on this?
Last time this came up, I never saw any solid debunking beyond people confusing the 'null' test (which was testing an effect of vessel configuration) with the control test. Oh, and the "not testing in a vacuum", which they did test this time. But is was a while ago, so I may have forgotten something after the thread was derailed.

EDIT: Did a quick re-read of the old thread. Detraction at the end basically came down to "Didn't test it in hard vacuum".
 
Last edited:
So to summarize, the news is that "we've working to address some criticisms and eventually hope to produce something that's worthwhile for other people to look at." Good for them, I guess, but firefossil is right: there's basically no change. There's still no paper with enough data for anyone else to even try to substantively analyze.

Honestly, I have more confidence in CIA's Stargate Project on psychic powers than NASA's EmDrive project. (And why shouldn't I? They said they had statistically significant results too, which is what we're getting from Eagleworks Labs.) Eh, big organizations sometimes fund nutty research. On one hand, it's not a bad thing to explore far-out possibilities, but on another, some sense in recognizing just how far-out it is, and how strong the evidence would have to be, is a must.

They have the full paper in a link at the link. ... So, what do you want, signed tablets from god?
Something that isn't just copypasta from last July would be nice. One with an attempt at an actual analysis would be even better. Maybe some peer review. Dare one hope for independent confirmation?
 
Just a note: 50 micronewtons is an incredibly small amount of force. All manner of effects could produce that miniscule amount of force.

The best test would be to just chuck the thing in a cubesat and have it be a secondary payload on some beyond-LEO launch. That is exactly the sort of low-cost proof of concept testing that most cubesats do.
 
Yeah, we'll see when some actual peer review will reproduce the experiment.

Because I am VERY skeptical that they managed to break conservation of momentum...
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I'm going to have to see several other groups, with much higher levels of credibility reproduce it first before believing it.
This got rather decisively debunked the last time it came up. While I am as always optimistic, nothing in this article indicates any real change from the prior series of events and claims. Would @Vorpal like to make a comment on this?
I'll believe it when it leaves the lab.

"What do you mean "Science Orthodoxy!? Science is always accepting of new ideas."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top