The EM drive gets another mention

EmDrive: Finnish physicist says controversial space
propulsion device does have an exhaust:

"A new peer-reviewed paper on the EmDrive from Finland states that the
controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology does work due to
microwaves fed into the device converting into photons that leak out of the
closed cavity, producing an exhaust."

See:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-fin...xhaust-1565673

blurted out:
EmDrive: Finnish physicist says controversial space
propulsion device does have an exhaust:

"A new peer-reviewed paper on the EmDrive from Finland states that the
controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology does work due to
microwaves fed into the device converting into photons that leak out of the
closed cavity, producing an exhaust."

See:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-fin...xhaust-1565673

Microwaves aren't photons? (I think that's a journalist not quite
getting right what the speaker said.)

I'm not sure I get what Annila is saying about the photons not
reflecting because their electromagnetic properties have cancelled out.

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:57:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
EmDrive: Finnish physicist says controversial space
propulsion device does have an exhaust:

"A new peer-reviewed paper on the EmDrive from Finland states that the
controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology does work due to
microwaves fed into the device converting into photons that leak out of the
closed cavity, producing an exhaust."

See:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-fin...xhaust-1565673


Asymmetry of heated objects will have a rate of heating. And an equilibrium temperature emission. In fact changing the rate of the rate of change must exist. So the EM-drive was tested at equilibrium.

NASA's EmDrive thruster just took an important leap forward:

"The dream of the EmDrive, a futuristic space propulsion engine capable of
getting us to Mars in a matter of weeks, may sound like science-fiction — but
it’s just taken one big leap toward being science-fact.

That’s because a paper describing how it can achieve thrust has reportedly
passed the peer review process and is all set to be published by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.

Written by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories, the paper’s
successful passing of rigorous academic scrutiny was confirmed by independent
scientist Dr. José Rodal on NASA’s Spaceflight forum — only for the comment to
be quickly deleted."

See:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...is-on-its-way/

In article ,
says...

NASA's EmDrive thruster just took an important leap forward:

"The dream of the EmDrive, a futuristic space propulsion engine capable of
getting us to Mars in a matter of weeks, may sound like science-fiction ? but
it?s just taken one big leap toward being science-fact.

That?s because a paper describing how it can achieve thrust has reportedly
passed the peer review process and is all set to be published by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics? AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.

Written by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories, the paper?s
successful passing of rigorous academic scrutiny was confirmed by independent
scientist Dr. José Rodal on NASA?s Spaceflight forum ? only for the comment to
be quickly deleted."

See:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...is-on-its-way/

This is one of those I'll believe it when it actually flies in "deep
space" technologies. It's right up there with "cold fusion" in my mind.
It's going to have to prove that it doesn't take insane amounts of
energy to produce useful thrust.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:16:23 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is one of those I'll believe it when it actually flies in "deep
space" technologies. It's right up there with "cold fusion" in my mind.
It's going to have to prove that it doesn't take insane amounts of
energy to produce useful thrust.

Jeff
--

When I was more closely following the discussion over in NSF, one of the current hurdles was whether or not it was reacting to surrounding magnetic fields. Many of the experimental setups used a Faraday cage, but I know of none at that time (6/16) that had isolated themselves from the Earth's magnetic field vis-a-vis Helmholtz coils. It could turn out that this is not much more than a very expensive compass. But I'll admit I'm quite behind the forum and literature. This "field" (ahem) moves quickly. But the scorecard so far has been heavily in favor of experimental error.

Having met Jose on line and having discussed a couple of issues with him, directly on NSF, I find that observation in DigitalTrends seems out of character. It's possible he misspoke or accidentally took something out of context. He has been the leading voice of skepticism over on NSF and for good reason. There can be a strong argument made that if this works as advertised it borders on a free-energy, perpetual motion device.

The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space:

"The EmDrive, a hypothetical miracle propulsion system for outer space, has been
sparking heated arguments for years. Now, Guido Fetta plans to settle the
argument about reactionless space drives for once and for all by sending one into
space to prove that it really generates thrust without exhaust."

See:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-reactionless/

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 2:46:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
sparking heated arguments for years. Now, Guido Fetta plans to settle the
argument about reactionless space drives for once and for all by sending one into
space to prove that it really generates thrust without exhaust."

How far into space? Outside of Earth's geomagnetic field? That'd be great of course, I'm all for it if it can provide a meaningful experiment. But Helmholtz Coils aren't that hard to come by....

EmDrive: Controversial space propulsion will be discussed
by scientists at an actual conference:

"An independent scientist, known for his criticism of the highly controversial
space propulsion technology EmDrive, has confirmed that he will be presenting
information relating to the technology at a conference in Colorado, US in
September. Several other noted scientists and researchers will also be present."


"When pressed for more details, Rodal revealed that he will be joined by Nasa
Eagleworks engineer Paul March, who will report on experiments carried out on
the EmDrive "in a vacuum chamber, to prevent the anomalous effect of thermal
convection". However, March will soon be leaving Eagleworks, according to
another post in the same thread by another user close to the Nasa researchers."


See:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-con...erence-1582115

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 6:46:26 AM UTC+12, wrote:
The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space:

"The EmDrive, a hypothetical miracle propulsion system for outer space, has been
sparking heated arguments for years. Now, Guido Fetta plans to settle the
argument about reactionless space drives for once and for all by sending one into
space to prove that it really generates thrust without exhaust."

See:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-reactionless/

This is of intrest;

https://www.fusenet.eu/node/575#main-content

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/abuzaid2/

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/...on-a-chip.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG1TUhYLAeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89qvy8whxY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG1kVIIy2Ok

So, proton beam that produces a 675 keV proton beam and impact it on boron-11 nuclei to produce 8.7 MeV of energy across three alpha particles.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/...8/24028563.pdf

With 8.7 MeV spread across three alpha particles, we have 2.9 MeV per alpha.. Extracting the 0.676 MeV from these alpha's to power the highly efficient accelerator on a chip leaves 2.675 MeV per alpha. That's 11,358 km/sec (7,057 miles per second!) exhaust speed!

So, a kg of protium along with 11 kg of boron-11 produces 12 kg of helium-4 with a jet energy of 774.02 trillion joules of energy. Now, to impart 9.2 km/sec delta vee with such a jet this 12 kg of material can lift 14,820 kg of rocket! If the structure is 4% (592.8 kg) then the payload is 14,216 kg.

What about a rocket that boosted off Earth at 2 gees and continued at 1 gee above background - across the 384,400 km separating Earth and Moon - and landed on the moon at 1+1/6 gee? You would ipart 136.3 km/sec to the rocket.. Returning to the Earth the same way requires a delta vee of 272.8 km/sec.. This requires 2.374% propellant fraction. So, a 2,000 kg vehicle (the size of a large sedan) requries 47.5 kg of propellant( 4.0 kg of protiun, 43..5 kg of boron-11) It takes 3.5 hours to fly to the moon this way, and 3.5 hours to fly back. No more than two gees is felt at lift of and landing on Earth and one gee is felt throughout most of the trip.

At $1 per kg for the material it costs $25 in fuel each way. At $200,000 for the spacecraft, with 85% utilisation, and 8.5% discount over 10 years, it costs $15 each way for the capital equipment. It costs another $5 each way for maintenance and parts.

A two gee boost to the antipodes (accelerating at 2 gees at a constant radius for 6,396 km - and then cruising at 22.4 km/sec at a constant radius for 7,208 km - and then slowing at 2 gees at a constant radius for 6,396 km - arrives at the antipodes in 43.5 minutes! Doing this all with rockets outside the atmosphere requires 44.6 km/sec delta vee and 0.4% propellant fraction! So, a 2,000 kg vehicle consumes 8 kg of propellant - and costs $8 per trip and another $3 per trip for vehicle cost and maintenance. WIth six passengers this is as little as $2 per person per trip. Shorter distances require less money - scaled at 1/sqrt(distance). 1/100th of 20,000 km - is 200 km - and that takes 1/10th the time and money all things being equal. Less than $1 per trip.

1.511*10^11 meters is the current distance from Earth to Mars )21 September 2016)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/...bc0d14bda71f7e

It takes 69 hours to get to Mars. It takes 427.4 kg of material. That's $430 for fuel and $394 per the equipment and maintenance - each way. Nearly three days each way.