Difference between revisions of "Experimental Results"
From EM Drive
(→Forces, Power, Frequency and Dimensions: Added TM Modes to Brady tests, EW vacuum test) |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
The cavity length is estimated as 0.317 to 0.187. The larger number takes into account the full length of the cylindrical part of the EM Drive Demo and the smaller number corresponds only to the length of the truncated cone section. Please notice that the Demo has a variable length actuated by a gear mechanism, in order to tune the cavity to achieve resonance http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg .</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830 | The cavity length is estimated as 0.317 to 0.187. The larger number takes into account the full length of the cylindrical part of the EM Drive Demo and the smaller number corresponds only to the length of the truncated cone section. Please notice that the Demo has a variable length actuated by a gear mechanism, in order to tune the cavity to achieve resonance http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg .</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | |Brady a TM Mode ( | + | |Brady a TM Mode (TM212)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9326*10^9 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.396 || 0.003337 || 1617.2 |
|- | |- | ||
− | |Brady b TM Mode ( | + | |Brady b TM Mode (TM212)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9367*10^9 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.000 || 0.003337 ||899.12 |
|- | |- | ||
|Brady c TE Mode (TE012)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.8804*10^9 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.05541|| 21.31 || 0.003337 || 6386.7 | |Brady c TE Mode (TE012)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.8804*10^9 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.05541|| 21.31 || 0.003337 || 6386.7 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | |EW Vacuum TM Mode (TM212)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || | + | |EW Vacuum TM Mode (TM212)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9371*10^9 || 50|| 6726 || 0.066|| 1 || 0.003337 || 299.67 |
|- | |- | ||
|Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377061#msg1377061 Forum post by @Rodal] - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.</ref>|| || || || || || 39300 || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 0.003337 || 3.526 | |Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377061#msg1377061 Forum post by @Rodal] - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.</ref>|| || || || || || 39300 || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 0.003337 || 3.526 |
Revision as of 17:36, 28 May 2015
Forces, Power, Frequency and Dimensions
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public and private research labs (NASA Eagleworks, SPR Ltd., and NWPU) is here, along with the reported forces. Note that complete dimensions are not known in most cases, and some had to be determined via indirect methods (e.g., estimation from photographs). See Building for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in compiling these. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.
Description | Cavity Length (m) | bigDiameter (m) | smallDiameter (m) | Design Factor (Shawyer Only) | Dielectric | rfFrequency (1/s) | Power (W) | Q | Force (mN) | Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) | Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) | Force Multiple of Photon Rocket |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cannae Superconducting | 0.03 | 0.220 | 0.200 | None | 1.047*10^9 | 10.5 | 1.1*10^7 | 8-10 | 761.9 - 952.4 | 0.003337 | 228400 - 285500 | |
Shawyer Experimental | 0.156 | 0.16 | 0.1025 | 0.497 | None | 2.45*10^9 | 850 | 5900 | 16 | 18.82 | 0.003337 | 5640 |
Shawyer Demo | 0.317 to 0.187 | 0.28 | 0.17027 | 0.484[1] | None | 2.45*10^9 | 421-1200 | 45000 | 102.30 | 80-243 | 0.003337 | 23980 - 72830 |
Brady a TM Mode (TM212) | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.9326*10^9 | 16.9 | 7320 | 0.0912 | 5.396 | 0.003337 | 1617.2 | |
Brady b TM Mode (TM212) | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.9367*10^9 | 16.7 | 18100 | 0.0501 | 3.000 | 0.003337 | 899.12 | |
Brady c TE Mode (TE012) | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.8804*10^9 | 2.6 | 22000 | 0.05541 | 21.31 | 0.003337 | 6386.7 | |
EW Vacuum TM Mode (TM212) | 0.2286 | 0.2794 | 0.15875 | HDPE | 1.9371*10^9 | 50 | 6726 | 0.066 | 1 | 0.003337 | 299.67 | |
Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster[2] | 39300 | 170 | 22000 | 0.002 | 0.01176 | 0.003337 | 3.526 |
References
- ↑ Forum posts by @phaseshift, @Rodal, and @Rodal - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however using a Design Factor = 0.844 gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image). The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484). The cavity length is estimated as 0.317 to 0.187. The larger number takes into account the full length of the cylindrical part of the EM Drive Demo and the smaller number corresponds only to the length of the truncated cone section. Please notice that the Demo has a variable length actuated by a gear mechanism, in order to tune the cavity to achieve resonance .
- ↑ Forum post by @Rodal - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.