emDrive &NASA / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

emDrive &NASA

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Conundrum

Tue Aug 05 2014, 05:34PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

It would make more sense to build a solid state version (ie using microwave HEMTs as an RF source) and then power it through a balanced cable.

Using a magnetron means much more cooling is required, thus introducing errors from the cooling systems.

I see that they have done the experiment with a superconducting chamber, the slight problem being the need for LN2.

Could there be some connection to electrostatic induced airflow, the effect looks remarkably like that you might see from a classic iononcraft aka "Lifter" with the orientation being a factor.

Daedronus

Fri Aug 08 2014, 10:10AM

Registered Member #2329 Joined: Tue Sept 01 2009, 08:25AM
Location:
Posts: 370

Full NASA Cannae Drive and EMdrive Test paper shows that there is anomolous thrust and the null test article criticism is wrong

Full NASA paper

Conundrum

Sat May 02 2015, 08:35AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

Also my proposed modification might have attracted some interest from academics, ie a "caterpillar wave" multple source system with odd harmonics in the 22-24 GHz band (ie Gunnplexers)

Ebay have some diodes which could replace the burned out (by old age!) Gunn diodes in my modules.

Also relevant,

Looks like the degradation could be accelerated by radiation.

It was interesting to note that the paper I found dating from 1967 suggests that in some cases Gunn diode failure could actually be a tin/indium whisker growing inside the junction.

It would be worth doing some tests on the failed diodes to see if this is indeed the case, and then try to "blow out" the short in the reverse current mode and see if that fixes the problem as sometimes works with failed laser burner diodes.

Inducktion

Sat May 02 2015, 09:01PM

Registered Member #3637 Joined: Fri Jan 21 2011, 11:07PM
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1068

BigBad

Sun May 03 2015, 01:01AM

Registered Member #2529 Joined: Thu Dec 10 2009, 02:43AM
Location:
Posts: 600

I still don't believe this shit. The smart money is still on experimental error. The Chinese experiment and Shawyer's stuff weren't done in a vacuum, and can be neglected for serious work, and the NASA experiments are only a tiny bit above the accuracy of the test rig they're working on; which is suspicious.

Wake me when the experiment flies into the sky and yanks its own power cord out of the wall; then I'll be impressed.

Ash Small

Sun May 03 2015, 04:53PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

The question is "Is it worthy of further investigation?"

Dr. Slack

Mon May 04 2015, 07:28AM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

Ash Small wrote ...

The question is "Is it worthy of further investigation?"

While it's not *worthy* IMHO of further investigation, I think it's necessary so people can stop wasting time on it. There's so much at fault with the present experiments, and it appears that so little extra needs to be done to get them unequivocal. A self contained box, in a vacuum, self-powered, on a balance. We have the battery technology for a reasonable run time at a reasonable power. Trying to allow for the torque the power and cooling umbilicals generate is great for producing tantalising results to attract further funds, but it really isn't good science. Just do the damned experiment right, and then we can move on.

Ash Small

Mon May 04 2015, 10:29AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

So what exactly is the dispute here?

Is it accepted that it is a 'waveguide' that absorbs 'some' radiation, and then re-emits EM radiation?

Or is it disputed that it tends to emit more in one particular direction?

Avi

Tue May 05 2015, 03:26PM

Registered Member #580 Joined: Mon Mar 12 2007, 03:17PM
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 410

seen this? No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

Ash Small

Tue May 05 2015, 04:59PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Avi wrote ...

seen this? No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

The first problem with that article is that it says it uses 'free energy', and that the inventors can't explain how it works.

This is not the case, it uses the background EM radiation in space to power it. It just isn't very efficient, but it will just keep accelerating forever without consuming fuel, assuming the measurements are correct.

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob