EM drive

formatting link

How does it work?

Mathew Orman

Reply to
admformeto
Loading thread data ...

If you read the paper and have taken a lower division physics track introductory physics course, you know it doesn't provide thrust.

You CAN provide thrust using photons, as photons have momentum. That's not the principle of this thing as the "thruster" emits no photons. On the emitting side of the engine, there's a big METAL PLATE covering it.

Think Faraday cage. :-D

Here's from one of the papers: "The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein?s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference." End Quote

Everything after "... merely produce strain within the wave guide walls" if you haven't noticed, meaningless crap.

The way it "works" is that you get all excited and send these guys a butt load of money. Then they spend it.

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

Look at the 'Theory' link

formatting link
Seems improbable though to get thrust without any kind of propellant. Even the plasma engine uses a very small amount of propellant though accelerates it greatly. Alas my brain is stuck in Newtonian mechanics.

Reply to
Oppie

Video of it working:

formatting link

Generating 0.1N of thrust and slowly spinning the entire apparatus.

Gulp! The pillars of 'known' science is falling apart at the seams!!

If thats working, its probable this also will work:

formatting link

Reply to
7

OMG!! They have a Video on YOUTUBE!! It MUST be new!!

LOL!

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

Seriously the guy had a government funding in UK, the final installment of which was only paid after demonstrations and has now signed deals with US aerospace company.

Its not possible to fake a large 0.1N thrust.

Reply to
7

LOL! Well, if it is the UK, which gave us the funding of the climate gate frauds... by all means.

Seriously, I've debunked similar crap science that was published and funded by the government for my graduate thesis. That a idea gets funded is proof of it's veracity is not only a stupid argument, but it is the very basis of FRAUD.

T.T. Brown did. He showed all his professors and they were completely unimpressed. Turns out that his propulsion device was a combination of interaction with the earth's magnetic field, and an ionic drive effect.

Same story with the Naudin lifter... all well known conventional physics.

A good scientist learns not to full himself.

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

It doesn't say that anywhere here:

formatting link
It was a small effect.

Naudin lifter claims 1000 times higher effect than ionic effect. I can almost not believe it when the equipment is put in a vacuum and shows this effect because the remaining ions in 10-6 torr vacuum would accelerate and gain a lot more energy.

I'm not a scientist - just engineer with big interest in science.

Reply to
7

Well, there is an effect called radiation pressure and it claims that the momentum is twice of when total reflection compared to total absorption.

I would simply make a cylinder shape resonator and make one of the flat sides significantly less absorptive. Thus there should be a net force present as the two flat sides are parallel. Such device have one disadvantage and that is acceleration makes a Doppler effect which in turn reduces the thrust. Overall looks like the is no contradiction to the established physics. Yet the best is to build a demo sample and observe the real performance to evaluate the correctness of physical theory behind it.

Mathew Orman

formatting link

Reply to
admformeto

The effect is same as shining a light on an object and expecting it to move. Its small unfortunately.

1kw source can't generate the 0.1N being claimed for this video.
formatting link
unless it is a completely different mechanism.

Reply to
7

It is a resonant cavity which means that intensity of radiation inside is amplified by factor which is determine by Q. Since Q for superconducting resonator is several orders of magnitude larger he claims that large thrust can be obtained if SC materials are used.

Mathew Orman

formatting link

Reply to
admformeto

Yes. That is what he claims. There was an independent study that said, in effect, he was full of shit. The paper was by Bahder and Fazi. Naudin even had a link on his page to the paper before he realized that the paper didn't support his conclusion.

By all means, take your life savings and invest in these "projects'. LOL!

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

You've never heard of Newton's laws, huh?

Just saying.

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

What is wrong?

Mathew Orman

formatting link

Reply to
admformeto

What is wrong is that this thing producing thrust is a violation of Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws of motion.

Draw a closed surface around the device. Now, where does the force act on it. There isn't any force acting on it that passes through the surface. The claim is that the force is entirely within the device itself. Violation of the 2nd law.

Where's the equal and opposite reaction? That's a violation of the 3rd law.

If you can't see that, then it isn't worth discussing it with you. ;-D And you couldn't even pass a Physics 2A test.

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

No, there is none of such. It is the action of EM field on the flat wall of the resonator.

Mathew Orman

formatting link

Reply to
admformeto

You're too ignorant to understand this. Why the hell are you posting in a physics news group if you don't even know Newton's laws of motion?!

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

I mean, damn. The flat wall of the resonator is BOLTED to the same housing as the Microwave emitter. There is no force that acts OUTSIDE the housing.

Your claim is like claiming that the air pressure inside of balloon causes it to move, and it does NOT.

Learn a little physics.

Reply to
Marvin the Martian

Marvin the Martian wrote:

The Bahder and Fazi paper

formatting link
At no place does it claim what you say and their results are 1000 times effect of ions!!!!!!! (It does go on to say the effect is reduced in vacuum but Naudin has video with it present in 10-6 torr vacuum.)

formatting link
page 27:

  1. Summary and Suggested Future Work

We have presented a brief history of the Biefeld-Brown effect: a net force is observed on an asymmetric capacitor when a high voltage bias is applied. The physical mechanism responsible for this effect is unknown. In section 4, we have presented estimates of the force on the capacitor due to the effect of an ionic wind and due to charge drift between capacitor electrodes. The force due to ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small. The force due to charge drift is plausible, however, the estimates are only scaling estimates, not a microscopic model. In section 5, we have presented a detailed thermodynamic theory of the net force on a capacitor that is immersed in a nonlinear dielectric fluid, such as air in a high electric field. The main result for the net force on the capacitor is given in equation (33). The thermodynamic theory requires knowledge of the dielectric properties of the fluid surrounding the capacitor plates. It is not possible to estimate the various contributions to the force until we have detailed knowledge about the high-field dielectric properties of the fluid. More experimental and theoretical work is needed to gain an understanding of the Biefeld- Brown effect. As discussed, the most pressing question is whether the Biefeld-Brown effect occurs in vacuum. It seems that Brown may have tested the effect in vacuum, but not reported it (Appendix B). More recently, there is some preliminary work that tested the effect in vacuum, and claimed that there is some small effect?smaller than the force observed in air; see the second report cited in reference [2]. Further work must be done to understand the effect in detail. A set of experiments must be performed in vacuum, and at various gas pressures, to determine the force versus voltage and current. A careful study must be made of the force as a function of gas species and gas pressure. In order to test the thermodynamic theory presented here, the dielectric properties of the gas must be carefully measured. Obtaining such data will be a big step toward developing a theoretical explanation of the effect. On the theoretical side, a microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be constructed, taking into

21 account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the presence of high electric fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its potential for applications be evaluated.

Talk is cheaper.

Reply to
7

You need to examine the post more carefully. I said that two flat walls of cylinder shaped resonator are parallel and if radiation pressure is not equal on both of them then there is a net force which act on one flat wall which is the absorptive one. The Microwave emitter is just a payload and it only adds to the inertia or mass of the system or craft.

Mathew Orman

formatting link

Reply to
admformeto

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.