http://emdrive.echothis.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=RfmwguyEM Drive - User contributions [en]2026-09-10T07:03:05ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.1http://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Experimental_Results&diff=1398Experimental Results2016-06-02T19:46:31Z<p>Rfmwguy: removal of my test results</p>
<hr />
<div>== Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions ==<br />
<br />
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public research institutions ([[NASA Eagleworks]]), universities (California State Univ., Physics Dept., Fullerton, USA; TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany, Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China), very small private companies ([[SPR Ltd.]], Cannae LLC.), and independent engineers/researchers, 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., for Shawyer's Exp. and Demo, from the big diameter and the Design Factor, scaling from photographs, from Yang's frequency vs. dimension figures, etc.). See [[Building]] for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.<br />
<br />
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1376840#msg1376840 compiling these]. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align:left;"| Description|| Mode Shape<ref name="mode shape definition">Mode shapes for the EM Drive truncated cone geometry are given according to the closest mode shape for a cylindrical geometry, instead of given by the eigenparameters of the truncated cone eigensolution (for example, using the wavenumber). The reason for this is two fold: 1) There is no standard convention on how to number mode shapes for a truncated cone, and 2) the truncated cone geometry used by the EM Drive researchers has been close to a cylinder: the cone angles have been relatively small. Therefore the mode shapes resemble those of a cylinder. TM means "transverse magnetic": a mode shape where the magnetic field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the electric field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. TE stands for "transverse electric": a mode shape where the electric field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the magnetic field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. The subscripts m,n,p in TMmnp and TEmnp, stand for the mode shape quantum numbers in the azimuthal (m), transverse (n) and longitudinal (p) directions respectively.</ref> ||Pressure (Torr)<ref name="ambient pressure">This field denotes whether the test was performed in ambient conditions (hence the field labeled as "Ambient") or in a partial vacuum. When the researcher has provided the pressure in the partial vacuum condition, this is given in the units of Torrs.</ref> || Cavity Length (m) || big diameter (m) || small diameter (m) || sphrcl. r1 (m)<ref name="Spherical geometry">The cavity dimensions in a spherical coordinate system as shown here:<br />
<br/><br />
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif<br />
<br/><br />
The bases of the truncated cone used in the experiments are flat, so in the spherical geometry the flat base is described by the secant to the circular arcs joining the intersections between the circular arcs and the lateral walls of the cone. </ref> || sphrcl. r2 (m) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref>||cone 1/2 angle (deg) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref> ||Shawyer Design Factor<ref name="design factor">Shawyer's Design Factor, when not provided independently (for example by Shawyer in his pubblications) was calculated for cavities without dielectric inserts with TM010 as the cutoff frequency for TM01p modes, with TE010 for TE01p modes and TM210 for TM21p modes. For cavities with a dielectric insert it is not calculated.</ref> || Dielectric || Frequency (GHz) || Input Power (W) || Q <ref name="Q">Quality factor of resonance: a dimensionless measure inverse to damping: the higher the Q, the lower the damping. Infinite Q corresponds to zero damping. Critical damping occurs for a value of Q = 1/2.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor]</ref> || Force (mN) || Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) ||Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket<br />
|-<br />
|Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting<ref name="Cannae">Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org:[http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results]. A better description is available in this US Patent Application [http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf]</ref>|| ||Ambient|| 0.03 || 0.220 || 0.200 ||0.316 ||0.348 ||18.43 ||n/a || None || 1.047 || 10.5 || 1.1*10^7 || 8-10 || 761.9 - 952.4 || 228400 - 285500<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental||TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Based on Shawyer's patent applications and papers at the time or prior to the time of this Experimental test, and the fact that it used a dielectric that could benefit from an axial electric field, it looks like the mode shape for this test may have been TM01p where the value of p is unknown. This is also supported by the Design Factor reported by Shawyer as only 0.497 which appears to be based on TM010 cut-off, as a TE010 cutoff would result in a higher Design Factor based on the published photographs and therefore the relative dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive. Depending on the size and location of the dielectric, but most likely p was either 2 or 3 based on the dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive</ref> ||Ambient|| 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025|| 0.2828||0.4414 ||10.44 || 0.497 ||<ref name="Shawyer Dielectric">UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998</ref> relative permittivity =38 || 2.45 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 ||5640<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Demonstration||TE012 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Nearest possible mode shape according to NASA's COMSOL analysis[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467]. Also, @TheTraveller reported that Shawyer recommended a TE01p mode for the Flight Thruster. (Where p=3 for the Flight Thruster because it is excited at a higher frequency). Also Prof. Yang reports using TE01p modes, and @TheTraveller reports that Shawyer was an initial advisor. </ref> ||Ambient||0.317 to 0.187 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Length">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<br />
<br/> <br />
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg </ref> || 0.28 || 0.14921 ||0.2260 ||0.4241 ||19.28 || 0.844 || None || 2.45 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 23980 - 72830<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Flight Thruster (Boeing project)||TE013<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions">See these posts by TheTraveller on dimensions of the Flight Thruster[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1381241#msg1381241] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388018#msg1388018] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388238#msg1388238]. </ref>||Ambient||0.1386 <ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"></ref>||0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> ||0.1764 ||0.3247 ||20.87 || 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || None || 3.85 ||426 (for Max. Force) ||50,000 to 60,000<ref name="Shawyer Flight Q">Second-hand information: TheTraveller reports that Roger Shawyer communicated this value of Q to him in personal exchanges[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390437#msg1390437]</ref> || Max=174 ||235-408, Mean=326 ||Mean=97700 <br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, a <ref name="Brady et.al">"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 28-30, 2014,[[http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf]</ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady">Mode shape is noted as TM211 in Brady et.al.'s report. However, calculations show that TM211 should take place at a significant lower frequency and that this mode must have been TM212. Notice that Brady et.al. b took place practically at the same frequency as [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177 March TM212 test in vacuum]</ref>||Ambient || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9326 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.40 || 1620<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, b <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady"/>||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9367 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.00 || 899<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, c <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.8804 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.0554|| 21.3 || 6390<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, p.18, Section IV.F<ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> <ref name="Brady et.al 2"> The Brady et.al. report reads: <<We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>. The test was performed at the very earliest in Brady et.al.'s testing program. The test was performed without a magnetron, only using the 25W Mini-Circuit Amp, since at the time of this particular test, NASA Eagleworks did not have the PLL circuit running for this data run. Brady et.al. do not provide the Q quality factor of resonance for this test. @TheTraveller made an argument that the test may have been conducted at the wrong (too low) frequency for resonance [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382477#msg1382477] [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1389608#msg1389608].</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || ||None|| 2.168 || 30|| || 0|| 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. ||TM212 <ref name="Mode Shape verification">This test is the only reported test that has verified the mode shape with experimental measurements. A thermal camera was used that showed the same temperature profile as predicted from induction heating resulting from mode shape TM212</ref> ||5*10^(-6)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9371 || 50|| 6726 || 0.055|| 1.10 || 330<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. reversed 180 degrees [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327012#msg1327012]||TM212 ||5*10^(-4)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9372 || 35|| || 0.0099|| 0.283 || 84<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24 ||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 150||1531<ref name="Q Yang">Q calculated from Fig.5 "frustum microwave cavity actual resonance curve"of "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters", 2011, where Frequency Bandwidth=0.0016GHz, Frequency=2.45 GHz, hence Q=2.45/0.0016=1531. This is the value of Q calculated according to the convention in the West. See definition of quality factor Q [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Definition_of_the_quality_factor]. Notice that Prof. Yang reports different values in her tables because of her different convention.</ref>|| 160|| 1070 || 320000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 300||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>|| 270|| 900|| 270000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.2016[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1113532]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 220||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>||0 +/-0.7||0 +/-3.18||0 +/-954<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (torsional balance)<ref name="Tajmar">"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects" M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler<br />
51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. See this for explanation of corrected dimensions: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410193#msg1410193]</ref>|| TM010||4*10^(-6)||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||20||0.02||0.0286 || 8.56<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (beam balance)<ref name="Tajmar"></ref>|| TM010|| Ambient||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||48.8||0.1145||0.1636 || 49.01<br />
|-<br />
|[[Iulian_Berca|Iulian Berca]] Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/up/down directional effects subtracted) <ref>See http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both test. See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384709#msg1384709].</ref> ||TM212<ref name="Iulian Mode Shape">Iulian Berca used the same dimensions as NASA's truncated cone, but without a dielectric. Mode shape is predicted to be TM 212 according to NASA's COMSOL FEA analysis 2/6/2014 by Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5 (2.458 GHz) and to Rodal's exact solution calculation (2.423 GHz). Actual mode participation depends on the spectrum of frequencies excited by the magnetron, the geometrical placement of the RF source in the EM Drive, and the number of eigenfrequencies in and near the magnetron's spectrum </ref> ||Ambient ||0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 ||0.3113 ||0.5477 ||14.78 || 0.515 || None || 2.45 || 800 || || 2.3 || 2.8 || 850<br />
|-<br />
|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] ||TE013 ||Ambient||0.02437||0.0296 ||0.01612 ||0.03024 ||0.05552 ||15.46 || 0.7311 ||None|| 24.1 ||0.04 || ||~ 0 ||~ 0 || ~ 0<br />
|-<br />
|California State Univ., Fullerton, Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heidi_Fearn/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster/links/549b72bf0cf2fedbc30e3d66.pdf][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>||n/a ||Partial Vacuum ? ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| ||3.93*10^(-5) || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526<br />
|-<br />
|California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, Zeller, Kraft, Echols <ref>[http://www.slideshare.net/KurtZeller/investigation-of-anomalous-thrust-from-a-partially-loaded-resonant-cavity10515zellerkraft-53748221]Investigation of Anomalous Thrust from a Partially Loaded Resonant Cavity</ref>||TM 012? ||Ambient ||0.180 ||0.1077||0.1077||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| HDPE ||2.45 || 900|| 300 || 0 || 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|Eugene Samsonov<ref name=NullResultPaper>Samsonov, Eugene (2016), [http://viXra.org/abs/1603.0153 "Null Result for Prediction of Asymmetrical Anomalous Force from Frustum-shaped RF Resonant Cavity"]</ref><ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1472667#msg1472667]Frustum dimensions violated Shawyer cut-off criteria at the small end.</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient ||0.204 ||0.264||0.158||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| 0.77|| None ||2.3124 || 30|| 3100 || 0 || 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|Eugene Samsonov<ref name=NullResultPaper /><ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1479546#msg1479546]No known violations of Shawyer theory in this test.</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient ||0.196 ||0.264||0.162||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| 0.69|| None ||2.331 || 28|| 2300 || 0 || 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|Ad Astra VASIMR VX-200 with argon propellant <ref>Ad Astra VASIMR is not a propellant less rocket, it is a magnetoplasma engine that uses argon propellant, but it is included here for comparison purposes, See:[http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/research-and-development]</ref> ||n/a||Partial Vacuum ?||n/a||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||n/a|| n/a ||200,000 ||n/a ||5700 ||28.5 || 8500<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
n/a = Not applicable<br />
<br />
Environmental pressure unit: 1 Torr = <math>\cfrac{1}{760} </math> of a standard atmosphere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr]<br />
<br />
Atmospheric pressure in low Earth orbit ("LEO") = 5x10^(-8) to 10^(-10) Torr [http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315626/3315626]<br />
<br />
Pressure in outer space between stars in the Milky Way = 10^(-17) Torr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29]<br />
<br />
=== Comparison to a Photon Rocket ===<br />
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, for example a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket (see: [http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propulsn.htm#REF5-29], [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473498.pdf] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket]), the force per power input is as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput = 1/c = 0.003336 mN/kW'''<br />
<br />
where c is the speed of light.<br />
<br />
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=838352]. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation (see: [http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation])<br />
<br />
== Notes and references==<br />
<references/></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Building&diff=1397Building2016-06-02T19:44:09Z<p>Rfmwguy: old info removed.</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will collect any photos, plans, and instructions for do-it-yourselfers. Efforts with enough documentation will be provided their own pages.<br />
<br />
# [[Mulletron's Build]]<br />
# Kurt Zeller (@zellerium) and Brian Kraft from Cal Poly are starting a build as well, using a constant cross-section cavity containing a polymer dielectric.<ref>[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368153#msg1368153 Forum post by @zellerium]</ref><br />
# @DIYFan - TBD<br />
# [[@Notsosureofit is planning testing with a Gunn diode]].<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1336344#msg1336344 Forum post by @Notsosureofit]</ref><br />
# [[TheTraveller]]<br />
# [[Iulian Berca|@Iulian Berca]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371164#msg1371164 Forum post by @Iulian Berca]</ref> - Fabricated a drive in May 2015 and was posting videos at [http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/ his website]. In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ Test 3] he reported a force measurement toward "the small end" and later a smaller measurement in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAMttfMC8PI reverse orientation in test 3.1]. As of 5/21/15 the magnitude and significance of these measurements were discussed on the [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377695#msg1377695 NSF forum]. A few weeks after that he posted that he had to suspend work as he took a new job in another country.<ref>[http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/ Post on Iulian's blog]</ref><br />
# [[Warp-Shell|@SeeShells]] Is building a Frustum with ceramic plates covered in O2 free copper. Plates are a fine control non-active tuning, resonance locking with captured end plates, addressing thermal expansion issues and cavity warping.<ref>[http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=6&page=1]</ref><br />
# @R. W. Keyes / Andromeda Research - high power, 1-20KW magnetron, superconductor Magnesium diboride on silicon carbide, to start summer 2015<br />
# [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1372073#msg1372073 Forum post by Hackaday.io]</ref> - Building the original 2.45 GHz thruster according to the Chinese paper and their own 24 GHz design simultaneously, with estimated completion date of July 2015. See [https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive Hackaday project] for more details, as well as [http://n-o-d-e.net/post/119343131451/building-a-diy-emdrive an interview with Paul].<br />
# Dave (@rfmwguy) now plans to use a 900W magnetron as an RF source; copper mesh for the frustum body, and no dielectric in the frustum.<br />
# @DrBagelBites posted on reddit that he was planning on starting a build <ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/38q7m9/going_to_build_an_emdrive_update/ Post by @DrBagelBites on reddit]</ref> and provided a PDF <ref>[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzttGV8gaI61MGIwZUF6clh5TjA/view?pli=1 PDF by Ian Lasky on Google Drive]</ref><br />
# @kml Testing a non-tapered rectangular waveguide with various dielectrics inserted at one end.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380174#msg1380174 post by @kml]</ref><br />
# @PaulTheSwag posted on reddit that he is starting a build <ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3cwgpg/building_an_emdrive_update/ Post on reddit by @PaulTheSwag]</ref> and provided some images. <ref>[http://imgur.com/gallery/KRhlp/new Posted on imgur by @PaulTheSwag]</ref><br />
# @SullyEmDrive also posted on reddit that they are beginning a build <ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3gihk9/emdrive_builder/ Post on reddit by @SullyEmDrive</ref> and provided more details on a website. <ref>[https://sullyemdrive.wordpress.com @SullyEmDrive's wordpress website]</ref><br />
# @Conundrum mentioned that he is also working on a 24 GHz system using parts salvaged from commercial 24GHz intruder alarms<br />
# @Monomorphic is building an emdrive based on the wedge geometry. <ref>[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpv9PrLLkxHxhQ-KtBmRXTQ Youtube Channel</ref><br />
<br />
If anyone is missing, please add them here.<br />
<br />
There's also a forum focused on builders, getting started [http://emdrive.io/community/ here]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418111#msg1418111 post by @rfmwguy</ref><br />
<br />
== Modelling ==<br />
@phaseshift has built a SketchUp model<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380107#msg1380107 post by @phaseshift]</ref> ([[File:EM_Thruster.skp]]) of a frustum based on the estimated Shawyer Flight Thruster dimensions.<br />
<br />
@TheTraveller constructed an EMDrive Calculator spreadsheet to model thrust given various design parameters<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382349#msg1382349 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref>, which was built with some input from Roger Shawyer directly. See [[Useful EMDrive Design and Test Tools]] for more details.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=1376Theory2016-04-29T15:59:09Z<p>Rfmwguy: reverted to edit before defacing</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will outline some candidate theories of operation (or non-operation).<br />
<br />
== Proponent Theories ==<br />
* Roger Shawyer's EMDrive basic theory <ref>[[File:EmDrive Basic Theory.ppt]]</ref><br />
* Roger Shawyer's EMDrive full theory paper <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf Roger Shawyer EMDrive Theory]</ref><br />
* Prof. Juan Yang's theory <ref>[http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf Prof Juan Yang EMDrive Theory and Results]</ref><br />
* Dr. Harold Sonny White's Quantum vacuum plasma thruster model (QVP thruster)<br />
* [[Evanescent waves]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330521#msg1330521 2/2/15 post by @aero modeled evanescent waves] using [http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep MEEP]. Conclusion was that, due to rapid dropoff at the frustum surface, these were of insufficient magnitude to explain the thrust.</ref><br />
* [[@notsosureofit Hypothesis]]<br />
* [[Mike McCulloch's MiHsC Theory]]<br />
* [[Todd Desiato (@WarpTech)'s Evanescent Wave Theory]]<br />
* Curving Rf beams<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1379281#msg1379281 Post by @aero]</ref> - The magnitude of the bending needed, was not shown by the thermal camera images taken at Eagleworks.<br />
* Declan Traill's suggested Classical Physics explanation <ref>[http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0043 Classical Physics explanation]</ref><br />
<br />
== Debunking Theories ==<br />
''These theories should be explained, then debunked with the simplest explanation, with a link to a dedicated page to show the work or work in progress that backs up that explanation.''<br />
<br />
=== Energy and Momentum Conservation ===<br />
If the EM Drive produces constant-acceleration it will violate [[Energy Conservation]].<br />
<br />
It may also violate [[Momentum Conservation]].<br />
<br />
EM Drive may not violate the Conservation Laws in the instance of producing a pair of neutrinos<br />
(neutrinos born in EM deexitation EW process through E0 transition inside the resonator). <br />
It is known that the correlation angle of the two neutrinos in the lab system <br />
would be 60 deg. [Montoya-93], so an unbalanced force would appear, since neutrinos escape without interaction.<br />
Unfortunately, this statement is not easy to prove in an experiment.<br />
<br />
=== Exact Standing Wave Solution of Maxwell's Equations ===<br />
<br />
On 8/5/14, Greg Egan [http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html posted an exact solution] for the resonant modes (for modes having constant electromagnetic field variation in the azimuthal direction, such that m=0) of a cavity in the shape of a truncated cone with spherical ends. Egan also calculated the forces and showed a proof that the net force is zero and therefore that there is no thrust force in a resonant electromagnetic cavity of any arbitrary shape, for any arbitrary mode shape, when the cavity is analyzed according to the standing wave solution of Maxwell's equations (assuming no sources or sinks in the cavity).<br />
<br />
=== Experimental Artifacts ===<br />
<br />
This assertion is that all positive experimental results are results of artifacts, such as:<br />
<br />
* Measuring error<br />
* Thermal effects<br />
* Mechanical vibration<br />
* Magnetic effects with environment<br />
<br />
These are discussed in more detail at [[Possible Error Sources]].<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Experimental_Results&diff=1304Experimental Results2015-11-11T20:09:34Z<p>Rfmwguy: /* Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions */ r1&r2 values added</p>
<hr />
<div>== Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions ==<br />
<br />
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public research institutions ([[NASA Eagleworks]]), universities (California State Univ., Physics Dept., Fullerton, USA; TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany, Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China), very small private companies ([[SPR Ltd.]], Cannae LLC.), and independent engineers/researchers, 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., for Shawyer's Exp. and Demo, from the big diameter and the Design Factor, scaling from photographs, from Yang's frequency vs. dimension figures, etc.). See [[Building]] for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.<br />
<br />
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1376840#msg1376840 compiling these]. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align:left;"| Description|| Mode Shape<ref name="mode shape definition">Mode shapes for the EM Drive truncated cone geometry are given according to the closest mode shape for a cylindrical geometry, instead of given by the eigenparameters of the truncated cone eigensolution (for example, using the wavenumber). The reason for this is two fold: 1) There is no standard convention on how to number mode shapes for a truncated cone, and 2) the truncated cone geometry used by the EM Drive researchers has been close to a cylinder: the cone angles have been relatively small. Therefore the mode shapes resemble those of a cylinder. TM means "transverse magnetic": a mode shape where the magnetic field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the electric field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. TE stands for "transverse electric": a mode shape where the electric field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the magnetic field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. The subscripts m,n,p in TMmnp and TEmnp, stand for the mode shape quantum numbers in the azimuthal (m), transverse (n) and longitudinal (p) directions respectively.</ref> ||Pressure (Torr)<ref name="ambient pressure">This field denotes whether the test was performed in ambient conditions (hence the field labeled as "Ambient") or in a partial vacuum. When the researcher has provided the pressure in the partial vacuum condition, this is given in the units of Torrs.</ref> || Cavity Length (m) || big diameter (m) || small diameter (m) || sphrcl. r1 (m)<ref name="Spherical geometry">The cavity dimensions in a spherical coordinate system as shown here:<br />
<br/><br />
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif<br />
<br/><br />
The bases of the truncated cone used in the experiments are flat, so in the spherical geometry the flat base is described by the secant to the circular arcs joining the intersections between the circular arcs and the lateral walls of the cone. </ref> || sphrcl. r2 (m) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref>||cone 1/2 angle (deg) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref> ||Shawyer Design Factor<ref name="design factor">Shawyer's Design Factor, when not provided independently (for example by Shawyer in his pubblications) was calculated for cavities without dielectric inserts with TM010 as the cutoff frequency for TM01p modes, with TE010 for TE01p modes and TM210 for TM21p modes. For cavities with a dielectric insert it is not calculated.</ref> || Dielectric || Frequency (GHz) || Input Power (W) || Q <ref name="Q">Quality factor of resonance: a dimensionless measure inverse to damping: the higher the Q, the lower the damping. Infinite Q corresponds to zero damping. Critical damping occurs for a value of Q = 1/2.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor]</ref> || Force (mN) || Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) ||Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket<br />
|-<br />
|Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting<ref name="Cannae">Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org:[http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results]. A better description is available in this US Patent Application [http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf]</ref>|| ||Ambient|| 0.03 || 0.220 || 0.200 ||0.316 ||0.348 ||18.43 ||n/a || None || 1.047 || 10.5 || 1.1*10^7 || 8-10 || 761.9 - 952.4 || 228400 - 285500<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental||TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Based on Shawyer's patent applications and papers at the time or prior to the time of this Experimental test, and the fact that it used a dielectric that could benefit from an axial electric field, it looks like the mode shape for this test may have been TM01p where the value of p is unknown. This is also supported by the Design Factor reported by Shawyer as only 0.497 which appears to be based on TM010 cut-off, as a TE010 cutoff would result in a higher Design Factor based on the published photographs and therefore the relative dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive. Depending on the size and location of the dielectric, but most likely p was either 2 or 3 based on the dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive</ref> ||Ambient|| 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025|| 0.2828||0.4414 ||10.44 || 0.497 ||<ref name="Shawyer Dielectric">UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998</ref> relative permittivity =38 || 2.45 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 ||5640<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Demonstration||TE012 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Nearest possible mode shape according to NASA's COMSOL analysis[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467]. Also, @TheTraveller reported that Shawyer recommended a TE01p mode for the Flight Thruster. (Where p=3 for the Flight Thruster because it is excited at a higher frequency). Also Prof. Yang reports using TE01p modes, and @TheTraveller reports that Shawyer was an initial advisor. </ref> ||Ambient||0.317 to 0.187 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Length">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<br />
<br/> <br />
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg </ref> || 0.28 || 0.14921 ||0.2260 ||0.4241 ||19.28 || 0.844 || None || 2.45 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 23980 - 72830<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Flight Thruster (Boeing project)||TE013<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions">See these posts by TheTraveller on dimensions of the Flight Thruster[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1381241#msg1381241] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388018#msg1388018] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388238#msg1388238]. </ref>||Ambient||0.1386 <ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"></ref>||0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> ||0.1764 ||0.3247 ||20.87 || 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || None || 3.85 ||426 (for Max. Force) ||50,000 to 60,000<ref name="Shawyer Flight Q">Second-hand information: TheTraveller reports that Roger Shawyer communicated this value of Q to him in personal exchanges[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390437#msg1390437]</ref> || Max=174 ||235-408, Mean=326 ||Mean=97700 <br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, a <ref name="Brady et.al">"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 28-30, 2014,[[http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf]</ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady">Mode shape is noted as TM211 in Brady et.al.'s report. However, calculations show that TM211 should take place at a significant lower frequency and that this mode must have been TM212. Notice that Brady et.al. b took place practically at the same frequency as [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177 March TM212 test in vacuum]</ref>||Ambient || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9326 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.40 || 1620<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, b <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady"/>||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9367 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.00 || 899<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, c <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.8804 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.0554|| 21.3 || 6390<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, p.18, Section IV.F<ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> <ref name="Brady et.al 2"> The Brady et.al. report reads: <<We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>. The test was performed at the very earliest in Brady et.al.'s testing program. The test was performed without a magnetron, only using the 25W Mini-Circuit Amp, since at the time of this particular test, NASA Eagleworks did not have the PLL circuit running for this data run. Brady et.al. do not provide the Q quality factor of resonance for this test. @TheTraveller made an argument that the test may have been conducted at the wrong (too low) frequency for resonance [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382477#msg1382477] [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1389608#msg1389608].</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || ||None|| 2.168 || 30|| || 0|| 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. ||TM212 <ref name="Mode Shape verification">This test is the only reported test that has verified the mode shape with experimental measurements. A thermal camera was used that showed the same temperature profile as predicted from induction heating resulting from mode shape TM212</ref> ||5*10^(-6)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9371 || 50|| 6726 || 0.055|| 1.10 || 330<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. reversed 180 degrees [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327012#msg1327012]||TM212 ||5*10^(-4)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9372 || 35|| || 0.0099|| 0.283 || 84<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24 ||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 150||1531<ref name="Q Yang">Q calculated from Fig.5 "frustum microwave cavity actual resonance curve"of "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters", 2011, where Frequency Bandwidth=0.0016GHz, Frequency=2.45 GHz, hence Q=2.45/0.0016=1531. This is the value of Q calculated according to the convention in the West. See definition of quality factor Q [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Definition_of_the_quality_factor]. Notice that Prof. Yang reports different values in her tables because of her different convention.</ref>|| 160|| 1070 || 320000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 300||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>|| 270|| 900|| 270000<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (torsional balance)<ref name="Tajmar">"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects" M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler<br />
51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. See this for explanation of corrected dimensions: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410193#msg1410193]</ref>|| TM010||4*10^(-6)||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||20||0.02||0.0286 || 8.56<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (beam balance)<ref name="Tajmar"></ref>|| TM010|| Ambient||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||48.8||0.1145||0.1636 || 49.01<br />
|-<br />
|[[Iulian_Berca|Iulian Berca]] Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/up/down directional effects subtracted) <ref>See http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both test. See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384709#msg1384709].</ref> ||TM212<ref name="Iulian Mode Shape">Iulian Berca used the same dimensions as NASA's truncated cone, but without a dielectric. Mode shape is predicted to be TM 212 according to NASA's COMSOL FEA analysis 2/6/2014 by Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5 (2.458 GHz) and to Rodal's exact solution calculation (2.423 GHz). Actual mode participation depends on the spectrum of frequencies excited by the magnetron, the geometrical placement of the RF source in the EM Drive, and the number of eigenfrequencies in and near the magnetron's spectrum </ref> ||Ambient ||0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 ||0.3113 ||0.5477 ||14.78 || 0.515 || None || 2.45 || 800 || || 2.3 || 2.8 || 850<br />
|-<br />
|Dave Distler NSF-1701, Beam balance<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1072184][http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702 Forum post by @rfmwguy] - Phase I Test Report released to NSF on 10/4/2015.</ref> ||?||Ambient||0.2591||0.2797||0.1588||0.3495 ||0.6155 ||? || ? ||None||2.45||900||437 (Nasa) 821 (Yang) ||0.177||0.1967 || 58.94<br />
|-<br />
|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] ||TE013 ||Ambient||0.02437||0.0296 ||0.01612 ||0.03024 ||0.05552 ||15.46 || 0.7311 ||None|| 24.1 ||0.04 || ||~ 0 ||~ 0 || ~ 0<br />
|-<br />
|California State Univ., Fullerton, Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heidi_Fearn/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster/links/549b72bf0cf2fedbc30e3d66.pdf][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>||n/a ||Partial Vacuum ? ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| ||3.93*10^(-5) || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526<br />
|-<br />
|Ad Astra VASIMR VX-200 with argon propellant <ref>Ad Astra VASIMR is not a propellant less rocket, it is a magnetoplasma engine that uses argon propellant, but it is included here for comparison purposes, See:[http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/research-and-development]</ref> ||n/a||Partial Vacuum ?||n/a||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||n/a|| n/a ||200,000 ||n/a ||5700 ||28.5 || 8500<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
n/a = Not applicable<br />
<br />
Environmental pressure unit: 1 Torr = <math>\cfrac{1}{760} </math> of a standard atmosphere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr]<br />
<br />
Atmospheric pressure in low Earth orbit ("LEO") = 5x10^(-8) to 10^(-10) Torr [http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315626/3315626]<br />
<br />
Pressure in outer space between stars in the Milky Way = 10^(-17) Torr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29]<br />
<br />
=== Comparison to a Photon Rocket ===<br />
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, without the benefits of a resonant optical cavity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster], for example a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket (see: [http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propulsn.htm#REF5-29], [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473498.pdf] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket]), the force per power input is as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) = 0.003337'''<br />
<br />
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=838352]. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation (see: [http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation])<br />
<br />
== Notes and references==<br />
<references/></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Experimental_Results&diff=1298Experimental Results2015-10-26T17:21:35Z<p>Rfmwguy: /* Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions ==<br />
<br />
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public research institutions ([[NASA Eagleworks]]), universities (California State Univ., Physics Dept., Fullerton, USA; TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany, Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China), very small private companies ([[SPR Ltd.]], Cannae LLC.), and independent engineers/researchers, 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., for Shawyer's Exp. and Demo, from the big diameter and the Design Factor, scaling from photographs, from Yang's frequency vs. dimension figures, etc.). See [[Building]] for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.<br />
<br />
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1376840#msg1376840 compiling these]. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align:left;"| Description|| Mode Shape<ref name="mode shape definition">Mode shapes for the EM Drive truncated cone geometry are given according to the closest mode shape for a cylindrical geometry, instead of given by the eigenparameters of the truncated cone eigensolution (for example, using the wavenumber). The reason for this is two fold: 1) There is no standard convention on how to number mode shapes for a truncated cone, and 2) the truncated cone geometry used by the EM Drive researchers has been close to a cylinder: the cone angles have been relatively small. Therefore the mode shapes resemble those of a cylinder. TM means "transverse magnetic": a mode shape where the magnetic field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the electric field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. TE stands for "transverse electric": a mode shape where the electric field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the magnetic field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. The subscripts m,n,p in TMmnp and TEmnp, stand for the mode shape quantum numbers in the azimuthal (m), transverse (n) and longitudinal (p) directions respectively.</ref> ||Pressure (Torr)<ref name="ambient pressure">This field denotes whether the test was performed in ambient conditions (hence the field labeled as "Ambient") or in a partial vacuum. When the researcher has provided the pressure in the partial vacuum condition, this is given in the units of Torrs.</ref> || Cavity Length (m) || big diameter (m) || small diameter (m) || sphrcl. r1 (m)<ref name="Spherical geometry">The cavity dimensions in a spherical coordinate system as shown here:<br />
<br/><br />
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif<br />
<br/><br />
The bases of the truncated cone used in the experiments are flat, so in the spherical geometry the flat base is described by the secant to the circular arcs joining the intersections between the circular arcs and the lateral walls of the cone. </ref> || sphrcl. r2 (m) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref>||cone 1/2 angle (deg) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref> ||Shawyer Design Factor<ref name="design factor">Shawyer's Design Factor, when not provided independently (for example by Shawyer in his pubblications) was calculated for cavities without dielectric inserts with TM010 as the cutoff frequency for TM01p modes, with TE010 for TE01p modes and TM210 for TM21p modes. For cavities with a dielectric insert it is not calculated.</ref> || Dielectric || Frequency (GHz) || Input Power (W) || Q <ref name="Q">Quality factor of resonance: a dimensionless measure inverse to damping: the higher the Q, the lower the damping. Infinite Q corresponds to zero damping. Critical damping occurs for a value of Q = 1/2.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor]</ref> || Force (mN) || Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) ||Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket<br />
|-<br />
|Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting<ref name="Cannae">Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org:[http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results]. A better description is available in this US Patent Application [http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf]</ref>|| ||Ambient|| 0.03 || 0.220 || 0.200 ||0.316 ||0.348 ||18.43 ||n/a || None || 1.047 || 10.5 || 1.1*10^7 || 8-10 || 761.9 - 952.4 || 228400 - 285500<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental||TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Based on Shawyer's patent applications and papers at the time or prior to the time of this Experimental test, and the fact that it used a dielectric that could benefit from an axial electric field, it looks like the mode shape for this test may have been TM01p where the value of p is unknown. This is also supported by the Design Factor reported by Shawyer as only 0.497 which appears to be based on TM010 cut-off, as a TE010 cutoff would result in a higher Design Factor based on the published photographs and therefore the relative dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive. Depending on the size and location of the dielectric, but most likely p was either 2 or 3 based on the dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive</ref> ||Ambient|| 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025|| 0.2828||0.4414 ||10.44 || 0.497 ||<ref name="Shawyer Dielectric">UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998</ref> relative permittivity =38 || 2.45 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 ||5640<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Demonstration||TE012 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Nearest possible mode shape according to NASA's COMSOL analysis[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467]. Also, @TheTraveller reported that Shawyer recommended a TE01p mode for the Flight Thruster. (Where p=3 for the Flight Thruster because it is excited at a higher frequency). Also Prof. Yang reports using TE01p modes, and @TheTraveller reports that Shawyer was an initial advisor. </ref> ||Ambient||0.317 to 0.187 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Length">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<br />
<br/> <br />
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg </ref> || 0.28 || 0.14921 ||0.2260 ||0.4241 ||19.28 || 0.844 || None || 2.45 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 23980 - 72830<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Flight Thruster (Boeing project)||TE013<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions">See these posts by TheTraveller on dimensions of the Flight Thruster[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1381241#msg1381241] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388018#msg1388018] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388238#msg1388238]. </ref>||Ambient||0.1386 <ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"></ref>||0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> ||0.1764 ||0.3247 ||20.87 || 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || None || 3.85 ||426 (for Max. Force) ||50,000 to 60,000<ref name="Shawyer Flight Q">Second-hand information: TheTraveller reports that Roger Shawyer communicated this value of Q to him in personal exchanges[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390437#msg1390437]</ref> || Max=174 ||235-408, Mean=326 ||Mean=97700 <br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, a <ref name="Brady et.al">"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 28-30, 2014,[[http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf]</ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady">Mode shape is noted as TM211 in Brady et.al.'s report. However, calculations show that TM211 should take place at a significant lower frequency and that this mode must have been TM212. Notice that Brady et.al. b took place practically at the same frequency as [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177 March TM212 test in vacuum]</ref>||Ambient || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9326 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.40 || 1620<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, b <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady"/>||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9367 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.00 || 899<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, c <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.8804 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.0554|| 21.3 || 6390<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, p.18, Section IV.F<ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> <ref name="Brady et.al 2"> The Brady et.al. report reads: <<We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>. The test was performed at the very earliest in Brady et.al.'s testing program. The test was performed without a magnetron, only using the 25W Mini-Circuit Amp, since at the time of this particular test, NASA Eagleworks did not have the PLL circuit running for this data run. Brady et.al. do not provide the Q quality factor of resonance for this test. @TheTraveller made an argument that the test may have been conducted at the wrong (too low) frequency for resonance [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382477#msg1382477] [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1389608#msg1389608].</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || ||None|| 2.168 || 30|| || 0|| 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. ||TM212 <ref name="Mode Shape verification">This test is the only reported test that has verified the mode shape with experimental measurements. A thermal camera was used that showed the same temperature profile as predicted from induction heating resulting from mode shape TM212</ref> ||5*10^(-6)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9371 || 50|| 6726 || 0.055|| 1.10 || 330<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. reversed 180 degrees [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327012#msg1327012]||TM212 ||5*10^(-4)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9372 || 35|| || 0.0099|| 0.283 || 84<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24 ||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 150||1531<ref name="Q Yang">Q calculated from Fig.5 "frustum microwave cavity actual resonance curve"of "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters", 2011, where Frequency Bandwidth=0.0016GHz, Frequency=2.45 GHz, hence Q=2.45/0.0016=1531. This is the value of Q calculated according to the convention in the West. See definition of quality factor Q [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Definition_of_the_quality_factor]. Notice that Prof. Yang reports different values in her tables because of her different convention.</ref>|| 160|| 1070 || 320000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 300||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>|| 270|| 900|| 270000<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (torsional balance)<ref name="Tajmar">"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects" M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler<br />
51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. See this for explanation of corrected dimensions: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410193#msg1410193]</ref>|| TM010||4*10^(-6)||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||20||0.02||0.0286 || 8.56<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (beam balance)<ref name="Tajmar"></ref>|| TM010|| Ambient||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||48.8||0.1145||0.1636 || 49.01<br />
|-<br />
|[[Iulian_Berca|Iulian Berca]] Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/up/down directional effects subtracted) <ref>See http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both test. See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384709#msg1384709].</ref> ||TM212<ref name="Iulian Mode Shape">Iulian Berca used the same dimensions as NASA's truncated cone, but without a dielectric. Mode shape is predicted to be TM 212 according to NASA's COMSOL FEA analysis 2/6/2014 by Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5 (2.458 GHz) and to Rodal's exact solution calculation (2.423 GHz). Actual mode participation depends on the spectrum of frequencies excited by the magnetron, the geometrical placement of the RF source in the EM Drive, and the number of eigenfrequencies in and near the magnetron's spectrum </ref> ||Ambient ||0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 ||0.3113 ||0.5477 ||14.78 || 0.515 || None || 2.45 || 800 || || 2.3 || 2.8 || 850<br />
|-<br />
|Dave Distler NSF-1701, Beam balance<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1072184][http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702 Forum post by @rfmwguy] - Phase I Test Report released to NSF on 10/4/2015.</ref> ||?||Ambient||0.2591||0.2797||0.1588||? ||? ||? || ? ||None||2.45||900||437 (Nasa) 821 (Yang) ||0.177||0.1967 || 58.94<br />
|-<br />
|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] ||TE013 ||Ambient||0.02437||0.0296 ||0.01612 ||0.03024 ||0.05552 ||15.46 || 0.7311 ||None|| 24.1 ||0.04 || ||~ 0 ||~ 0 || ~ 0<br />
|-<br />
|California State Univ., Fullerton, Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heidi_Fearn/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster/links/549b72bf0cf2fedbc30e3d66.pdf][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>||n/a ||Partial Vacuum ? ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| ||3.93*10^(-5) || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526<br />
|-<br />
|Ad Astra VASIMR VX-200 with argon propellant <ref>Ad Astra VASIMR is not a propellant less rocket, it is a magnetoplasma engine that uses argon propellant, but it is included here for comparison purposes, See:[http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/research-and-development]</ref> ||n/a||Partial Vacuum ?||n/a||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||n/a|| n/a ||200,000 ||n/a ||5700 ||28.5 || 8500<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
n/a = Not applicable<br />
<br />
Environmental pressure unit: 1 Torr = <math>\cfrac{1}{760} </math> of a standard atmosphere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr]<br />
<br />
Atmospheric pressure in low Earth orbit ("LEO") = 5x10^(-8) to 10^(-10) Torr [http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315626/3315626]<br />
<br />
Pressure in outer space between stars in the Milky Way = 10^(-17) Torr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29]<br />
<br />
=== Comparison to a Photon Rocket ===<br />
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, without the benefits of a resonant optical cavity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster], for example a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket (see: [http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propulsn.htm#REF5-29], [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473498.pdf] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket]), the force per power input is as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) = 0.003337'''<br />
<br />
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=838352]. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation (see: [http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation])<br />
<br />
== Notes and references==<br />
<references/></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Experimental_Results&diff=1290Experimental Results2015-10-07T19:52:47Z<p>Rfmwguy: /* Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions */ rounded off</p>
<hr />
<div>== Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions ==<br />
<br />
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public research institutions ([[NASA Eagleworks]]), universities (California State Univ., Physics Dept., Fullerton, USA; TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany, Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China), very small private companies ([[SPR Ltd.]], Cannae LLC.), and independent engineers/researchers, 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., for Shawyer's Exp. and Demo, from the big diameter and the Design Factor, scaling from photographs, from Yang's frequency vs. dimension figures, etc.). See [[Building]] for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.<br />
<br />
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1376840#msg1376840 compiling these]. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align:left;"| Description|| Mode Shape<ref name="mode shape definition">Mode shapes for the EM Drive truncated cone geometry are given according to the closest mode shape for a cylindrical geometry, instead of given by the eigenparameters of the truncated cone eigensolution (for example, using the wavenumber). The reason for this is two fold: 1) There is no standard convention on how to number mode shapes for a truncated cone, and 2) the truncated cone geometry used by the EM Drive researchers has been close to a cylinder: the cone angles have been relatively small. Therefore the mode shapes resemble those of a cylinder. TM means "transverse magnetic": a mode shape where the magnetic field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the electric field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. TE stands for "transverse electric": a mode shape where the electric field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the magnetic field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. The subscripts m,n,p in TMmnp and TEmnp, stand for the mode shape quantum numbers in the azimuthal (m), transverse (n) and longitudinal (p) directions respectively.</ref> ||Pressure (Torr)<ref name="ambient pressure">This field denotes whether the test was performed in ambient conditions (hence the field labeled as "Ambient") or in a partial vacuum. When the researcher has provided the pressure in the partial vacuum condition, this is given in the units of Torrs.</ref> || Cavity Length (m) || big diameter (m) || small diameter (m) || sphrcl. r1 (m)<ref name="Spherical geometry">The cavity dimensions in a spherical coordinate system as shown here:<br />
<br/><br />
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif<br />
<br/><br />
The bases of the truncated cone used in the experiments are flat, so in the spherical geometry the flat base is described by the secant to the circular arcs joining the intersections between the circular arcs and the lateral walls of the cone. </ref> || sphrcl. r2 (m) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref>||cone 1/2 angle (deg) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref> ||Shawyer Design Factor<ref name="design factor">Shawyer's Design Factor, when not provided independently (for example by Shawyer in his pubblications) was calculated for cavities without dielectric inserts with TM010 as the cutoff frequency for TM01p modes, with TE010 for TE01p modes and TM210 for TM21p modes. For cavities with a dielectric insert it is not calculated.</ref> || Dielectric || Frequency (GHz) || Input Power (W) || Q <ref name="Q">Quality factor of resonance: a dimensionless measure inverse to damping: the higher the Q, the lower the damping. Infinite Q corresponds to zero damping. Critical damping occurs for a value of Q = 1/2.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor]</ref> || Force (mN) || Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) ||Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket<br />
|-<br />
|Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting<ref name="Cannae">Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org:[http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results]. A better description is available in this US Patent Application [http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf]</ref>|| ||Ambient|| 0.03 || 0.220 || 0.200 ||0.316 ||0.348 ||18.43 ||n/a || None || 1.047 || 10.5 || 1.1*10^7 || 8-10 || 761.9 - 952.4 || 228400 - 285500<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental||TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Based on Shawyer's patent applications and papers at the time or prior to the time of this Experimental test, and the fact that it used a dielectric that could benefit from an axial electric field, it looks like the mode shape for this test may have been TM01p where the value of p is unknown. This is also supported by the Design Factor reported by Shawyer as only 0.497 which appears to be based on TM010 cut-off, as a TE010 cutoff would result in a higher Design Factor based on the published photographs and therefore the relative dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive. Depending on the size and location of the dielectric, but most likely p was either 2 or 3 based on the dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive</ref> ||Ambient|| 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025|| 0.2828||0.4414 ||10.44 || 0.497 ||<ref name="Shawyer Dielectric">UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998</ref> relative permittivity =38 || 2.45 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 ||5640<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Demonstration||TE012 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Nearest possible mode shape according to NASA's COMSOL analysis[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467]. Also, @TheTraveller reported that Shawyer recommended a TE01p mode for the Flight Thruster. (Where p=3 for the Flight Thruster because it is excited at a higher frequency). Also Prof. Yang reports using TE01p modes, and @TheTraveller reports that Shawyer was an initial advisor. </ref> ||Ambient||0.317 to 0.187 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Length">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<br />
<br/> <br />
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg </ref> || 0.28 || 0.14921 ||0.2260 ||0.4241 ||19.28 || 0.844 || None || 2.45 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 23980 - 72830<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Flight Thruster (Boeing project)||TE013<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions">See these posts by TheTraveller on dimensions of the Flight Thruster[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1381241#msg1381241] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388018#msg1388018] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388238#msg1388238]. </ref>||Ambient||0.1386 <ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"></ref>||0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> ||0.1764 ||0.3247 ||20.87 || 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || None || 3.85 ||426 (for Max. Force) ||50,000 to 60,000<ref name="Shawyer Flight Q">Second-hand information: TheTraveller reports that Roger Shawyer communicated this value of Q to him in personal exchanges[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390437#msg1390437]</ref> || Max=174 ||235-408, Mean=326 ||Mean=97700 <br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, a <ref name="Brady et.al">"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 28-30, 2014,[[http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf]</ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady">Mode shape is noted as TM211 in Brady et.al.'s report. However, calculations show that TM211 should take place at a significant lower frequency and that this mode must have been TM212. Notice that Brady et.al. b took place practically at the same frequency as [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177 March TM212 test in vacuum]</ref>||Ambient || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9326 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.40 || 1620<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, b <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady"/>||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9367 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.00 || 899<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, c <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.8804 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.0554|| 21.3 || 6390<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, p.18, Section IV.F<ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> <ref name="Brady et.al 2"> The Brady et.al. report reads: <<We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>. The test was performed at the very earliest in Brady et.al.'s testing program. The test was performed without a magnetron, only using the 25W Mini-Circuit Amp, since at the time of this particular test, NASA Eagleworks did not have the PLL circuit running for this data run. Brady et.al. do not provide the Q quality factor of resonance for this test. @TheTraveller made an argument that the test may have been conducted at the wrong (too low) frequency for resonance [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382477#msg1382477] [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1389608#msg1389608].</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || ||None|| 2.168 || 30|| || 0|| 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. ||TM212 <ref name="Mode Shape verification">This test is the only reported test that has verified the mode shape with experimental measurements. A thermal camera was used that showed the same temperature profile as predicted from induction heating resulting from mode shape TM212</ref> ||5*10^(-6)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9371 || 50|| 6726 || 0.055|| 1.10 || 330<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. reversed 180 degrees [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327012#msg1327012]||TM212 ||5*10^(-4)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9372 || 35|| || 0.0099|| 0.283 || 84<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24 ||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 150||1531<ref name="Q Yang">Q calculated from Fig.5 "frustum microwave cavity actual resonance curve"of "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters", 2011, where Frequency Bandwidth=0.0016GHz, Frequency=2.45 GHz, hence Q=2.45/0.0016=1531. This is the value of Q calculated according to the convention in the West. See definition of quality factor Q [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Definition_of_the_quality_factor]. Notice that Prof. Yang reports different values in her tables because of her different convention.</ref>|| 160|| 1070 || 320000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 300||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>|| 270|| 900|| 270000<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (torsional balance)<ref name="Tajmar">"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects" M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler<br />
51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. See this for explanation of corrected dimensions: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410193#msg1410193]</ref>|| TM010||4*10^(-6)||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||20||0.02||0.0286 || 8.56<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (beam balance)<ref name="Tajmar"></ref>|| TM010|| Ambient||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||48.8||0.1145||0.1636 || 49.01<br />
|-<br />
|[[Iulian_Berca|Iulian Berca]] Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/up/down directional effects subtracted) <ref>See http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both test. See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384709#msg1384709].</ref> ||TM212<ref name="Iulian Mode Shape">Iulian Berca used the same dimensions as NASA's truncated cone, but without a dielectric. Mode shape is predicted to be TM 212 according to NASA's COMSOL FEA analysis 2/6/2014 by Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5 (2.458 GHz) and to Rodal's exact solution calculation (2.423 GHz). Actual mode participation depends on the spectrum of frequencies excited by the magnetron, the geometrical placement of the RF source in the EM Drive, and the number of eigenfrequencies in and near the magnetron's spectrum </ref> ||Ambient ||0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 ||0.3113 ||0.5477 ||14.78 || 0.515 || None || 2.45 || 800 || || 2.3 || 2.8 || 850<br />
|-<br />
|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] ||TE013 ||Ambient||0.02437||0.0296 ||0.01612 ||0.03024 ||0.05552 ||15.46 || 0.7311 ||None|| 24.1 ||0.04 || ||~ 0 ||~ 0 || ~ 0<br />
|-<br />
|California State Univ., Fullerton, Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heidi_Fearn/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster/links/549b72bf0cf2fedbc30e3d66.pdf][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>||n/a ||Partial Vacuum ? ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| ||3.93*10^(-5) || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526<br />
|-<br />
|Ad Astra VASIMR VX-200 with argon propellant <ref>Ad Astra VASIMR is not a propellant less rocket, it is a magnetoplasma engine that uses argon propellant, but it is included here for comparison purposes, See:[http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/research-and-development]</ref> ||n/a||Partial Vacuum ?||n/a||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||n/a|| n/a ||200,000 ||n/a ||5700 ||28.5 || 8500<br />
|-<br />
|Dave Distler NSF-1701, Beam balance<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1072184][http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702 Forum post by @rfmwguy] - Phase I Test Report released to NSF on 10/4/2015.</ref> ||n/a||Ambient||0.25908||0.279654||0.15875||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||None||2.45||900||n/a ||0.177||0.19647 || 58.88<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
n/a = Not applicable<br />
<br />
Environmental pressure unit: 1 Torr = <math>\cfrac{1}{760} </math> of a standard atmosphere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr]<br />
<br />
Atmospheric pressure in low Earth orbit ("LEO") = 5x10^(-8) to 10^(-10) Torr [http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315626/3315626]<br />
<br />
Pressure in outer space between stars in the Milky Way = 10^(-17) Torr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29]<br />
<br />
=== Comparison to a Photon Rocket ===<br />
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, without the benefits of a resonant optical cavity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster], for example a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket (see: [http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propulsn.htm#REF5-29], [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473498.pdf] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket]), the force per power input is as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) = 0.003337'''<br />
<br />
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=838352]. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation (see: [http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation])<br />
<br />
== Notes and references==<br />
<references/></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Experimental_Results&diff=1289Experimental Results2015-10-07T19:50:52Z<p>Rfmwguy: Addition of Test Report by rfmwguy</p>
<hr />
<div>== Forces, Power, Frequency, Mode shapes, Testing Conditions (ambient or partial vacuum) and Dimensions ==<br />
<br />
The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public research institutions ([[NASA Eagleworks]]), universities (California State Univ., Physics Dept., Fullerton, USA; TU Dresden, Aerospace Department, Germany, Northwestern Polytechnical University, College of Aeronautics, Xi'an, China), very small private companies ([[SPR Ltd.]], Cannae LLC.), and independent engineers/researchers, 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., for Shawyer's Exp. and Demo, from the big diameter and the Design Factor, scaling from photographs, from Yang's frequency vs. dimension figures, etc.). See [[Building]] for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.<br />
<br />
Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1376840#msg1376840 compiling these]. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align:left;"| Description|| Mode Shape<ref name="mode shape definition">Mode shapes for the EM Drive truncated cone geometry are given according to the closest mode shape for a cylindrical geometry, instead of given by the eigenparameters of the truncated cone eigensolution (for example, using the wavenumber). The reason for this is two fold: 1) There is no standard convention on how to number mode shapes for a truncated cone, and 2) the truncated cone geometry used by the EM Drive researchers has been close to a cylinder: the cone angles have been relatively small. Therefore the mode shapes resemble those of a cylinder. TM means "transverse magnetic": a mode shape where the magnetic field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the electric field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. TE stands for "transverse electric": a mode shape where the electric field is in the azimuthal, solenoidal direction and the magnetic field is in the transverse and longitudinal direction. The subscripts m,n,p in TMmnp and TEmnp, stand for the mode shape quantum numbers in the azimuthal (m), transverse (n) and longitudinal (p) directions respectively.</ref> ||Pressure (Torr)<ref name="ambient pressure">This field denotes whether the test was performed in ambient conditions (hence the field labeled as "Ambient") or in a partial vacuum. When the researcher has provided the pressure in the partial vacuum condition, this is given in the units of Torrs.</ref> || Cavity Length (m) || big diameter (m) || small diameter (m) || sphrcl. r1 (m)<ref name="Spherical geometry">The cavity dimensions in a spherical coordinate system as shown here:<br />
<br/><br />
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif<br />
<br/><br />
The bases of the truncated cone used in the experiments are flat, so in the spherical geometry the flat base is described by the secant to the circular arcs joining the intersections between the circular arcs and the lateral walls of the cone. </ref> || sphrcl. r2 (m) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref>||cone 1/2 angle (deg) <ref name="Spherical geometry"></ref> ||Shawyer Design Factor<ref name="design factor">Shawyer's Design Factor, when not provided independently (for example by Shawyer in his pubblications) was calculated for cavities without dielectric inserts with TM010 as the cutoff frequency for TM01p modes, with TE010 for TE01p modes and TM210 for TM21p modes. For cavities with a dielectric insert it is not calculated.</ref> || Dielectric || Frequency (GHz) || Input Power (W) || Q <ref name="Q">Quality factor of resonance: a dimensionless measure inverse to damping: the higher the Q, the lower the damping. Infinite Q corresponds to zero damping. Critical damping occurs for a value of Q = 1/2.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor]</ref> || Force (mN) || Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) ||Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket<br />
|-<br />
|Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting<ref name="Cannae">Test conducted in January 2011 by G. Fetta, with a completely different shape from the other EM Drives: this is not a truncated cone, but instead it is shaped like a pillbox with a circular cross-section. Results were posted in the Cannae webpages. Page is no longer available, but an archived version as of 2 November 2012 is available at archive.org:[http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results]. A better description is available in this US Patent Application [http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140013724.pdf]</ref>|| ||Ambient|| 0.03 || 0.220 || 0.200 ||0.316 ||0.348 ||18.43 ||n/a || None || 1.047 || 10.5 || 1.1*10^7 || 8-10 || 761.9 - 952.4 || 228400 - 285500<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental||TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Based on Shawyer's patent applications and papers at the time or prior to the time of this Experimental test, and the fact that it used a dielectric that could benefit from an axial electric field, it looks like the mode shape for this test may have been TM01p where the value of p is unknown. This is also supported by the Design Factor reported by Shawyer as only 0.497 which appears to be based on TM010 cut-off, as a TE010 cutoff would result in a higher Design Factor based on the published photographs and therefore the relative dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive. Depending on the size and location of the dielectric, but most likely p was either 2 or 3 based on the dimensions of the Experimental EM Drive</ref> ||Ambient|| 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025|| 0.2828||0.4414 ||10.44 || 0.497 ||<ref name="Shawyer Dielectric">UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998</ref> relative permittivity =38 || 2.45 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 ||5640<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Demonstration||TE012 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator">Nearest possible mode shape according to NASA's COMSOL analysis[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327467#msg1327467]. Also, @TheTraveller reported that Shawyer recommended a TE01p mode for the Flight Thruster. (Where p=3 for the Flight Thruster because it is excited at a higher frequency). Also Prof. Yang reports using TE01p modes, and @TheTraveller reports that Shawyer was an initial advisor. </ref> ||Ambient||0.317 to 0.187 <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Length">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<br />
<br/> <br />
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2008/09/24/emdrive_2.jpg </ref> || 0.28 || 0.14921 ||0.2260 ||0.4241 ||19.28 || 0.844 || None || 2.45 || 421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 23980 - 72830<br />
|-<br />
|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Flight Thruster (Boeing project)||TE013<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions">See these posts by TheTraveller on dimensions of the Flight Thruster[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1381241#msg1381241] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388018#msg1388018] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1388238#msg1388238]. </ref>||Ambient||0.1386 <ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"></ref>||0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> ||0.1764 ||0.3247 ||20.87 || 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions"> </ref> || None || 3.85 ||426 (for Max. Force) ||50,000 to 60,000<ref name="Shawyer Flight Q">Second-hand information: TheTraveller reports that Roger Shawyer communicated this value of Q to him in personal exchanges[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390437#msg1390437]</ref> || Max=174 ||235-408, Mean=326 ||Mean=97700 <br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, a <ref name="Brady et.al">"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 28-30, 2014,[[http://libertariannews.org//wp-content//uploads//2014//07//AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf]</ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady">Mode shape is noted as TM211 in Brady et.al.'s report. However, calculations show that TM211 should take place at a significant lower frequency and that this mode must have been TM212. Notice that Brady et.al. b took place practically at the same frequency as [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177 March TM212 test in vacuum]</ref>||Ambient || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9326 || 16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.40 || 1620<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, b <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> ||TM212 <ref name="brady"/>||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9367 || 16.7|| 18100 || 0.0501|| 3.00 || 899<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, c <ref name="Brady et.al"></ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.8804 || 2.6|| 22000 || 0.0554|| 21.3 || 6390<br />
|-<br />
|NASA Brady, White, March, Lawrence, and Davies, p.18, Section IV.F<ref name="Brady et.al"></ref> <ref name="Brady et.al 2"> The Brady et.al. report reads: <<We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.>>. The test was performed at the very earliest in Brady et.al.'s testing program. The test was performed without a magnetron, only using the 25W Mini-Circuit Amp, since at the time of this particular test, NASA Eagleworks did not have the PLL circuit running for this data run. Brady et.al. do not provide the Q quality factor of resonance for this test. @TheTraveller made an argument that the test may have been conducted at the wrong (too low) frequency for resonance [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382477#msg1382477] [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1389608#msg1389608].</ref>||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || ||None|| 2.168 || 30|| || 0|| 0 || 0<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. ||TM212 <ref name="Mode Shape verification">This test is the only reported test that has verified the mode shape with experimental measurements. A thermal camera was used that showed the same temperature profile as predicted from induction heating resulting from mode shape TM212</ref> ||5*10^(-6)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9371 || 50|| 6726 || 0.055|| 1.10 || 330<br />
|-<br />
|NASA March et.al. reversed 180 degrees [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327012#msg1327012]||TM212 ||5*10^(-4)|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 ||0.3111 || 0.5475||14.78 || || extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz|| 1.9372 || 35|| || 0.0099|| 0.283 || 84<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24 ||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 150||1531<ref name="Q Yang">Q calculated from Fig.5 "frustum microwave cavity actual resonance curve"of "Net thrust measurement of propellantless microwave thrusters", 2011, where Frequency Bandwidth=0.0016GHz, Frequency=2.45 GHz, hence Q=2.45/0.0016=1531. This is the value of Q calculated according to the convention in the West. See definition of quality factor Q [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#Definition_of_the_quality_factor]. Notice that Prof. Yang reports different values in her tables because of her different convention.</ref>|| 160|| 1070 || 320000<br />
|-<br />
|NWPU Prof. Juan Yang et.al.[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339]||TE012 ||Ambient|| 0.24||0.247 ||0.114425 || 0.21102 ||0.45552 ||15.44 || ||None|| 2.45 || 300||1531<ref name="Q Yang"></ref>|| 270|| 900|| 270000<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (torsional balance)<ref name="Tajmar">"Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects" M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler<br />
51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. See this for explanation of corrected dimensions: [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1410193#msg1410193]</ref>|| TM010||4*10^(-6)||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||20||0.02||0.0286 || 8.56<br />
|-<br />
|TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler (2015) (beam balance)<ref name="Tajmar"></ref>|| TM010|| Ambient||0.072||0.1082||0.077||0.1777 ||0.2497 || 12.51 || ||None||2.44||700||48.8||0.1145||0.1636 || 49.01<br />
|-<br />
|[[Iulian_Berca|Iulian Berca]] Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/up/down directional effects subtracted) <ref>See http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both test. See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384709#msg1384709].</ref> ||TM212<ref name="Iulian Mode Shape">Iulian Berca used the same dimensions as NASA's truncated cone, but without a dielectric. Mode shape is predicted to be TM 212 according to NASA's COMSOL FEA analysis 2/6/2014 by Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5 (2.458 GHz) and to Rodal's exact solution calculation (2.423 GHz). Actual mode participation depends on the spectrum of frequencies excited by the magnetron, the geometrical placement of the RF source in the EM Drive, and the number of eigenfrequencies in and near the magnetron's spectrum </ref> ||Ambient ||0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 ||0.3113 ||0.5477 ||14.78 || 0.515 || None || 2.45 || 800 || || 2.3 || 2.8 || 850<br />
|-<br />
|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] ||TE013 ||Ambient||0.02437||0.0296 ||0.01612 ||0.03024 ||0.05552 ||15.46 || 0.7311 ||None|| 24.1 ||0.04 || ||~ 0 ||~ 0 || ~ 0<br />
|-<br />
|California State Univ., Fullerton, Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heidi_Fearn/publication/269207998_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster/links/549b72bf0cf2fedbc30e3d66.pdf][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>||n/a ||Partial Vacuum ? ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a|| n/a|| ||3.93*10^(-5) || 170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526<br />
|-<br />
|Ad Astra VASIMR VX-200 with argon propellant <ref>Ad Astra VASIMR is not a propellant less rocket, it is a magnetoplasma engine that uses argon propellant, but it is included here for comparison purposes, See:[http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/research-and-development]</ref> ||n/a||Partial Vacuum ?||n/a||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||n/a|| n/a ||200,000 ||n/a ||5700 ||28.5 || 8500<br />
|-<br />
|Dave Distler NSF-1701, Beam balance<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1072184][http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702 Forum post by @rfmwguy] - Phase I Test Report released to NSF on 10/4/2015.</ref> ||n/a||Ambient||0.25908||0.279654||0.15875||n/a ||n/a ||n/a || n/a ||None||2.45||900||n/a ||0.177||0.19647 || 58.876<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
n/a = Not applicable<br />
<br />
Environmental pressure unit: 1 Torr = <math>\cfrac{1}{760} </math> of a standard atmosphere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr]<br />
<br />
Atmospheric pressure in low Earth orbit ("LEO") = 5x10^(-8) to 10^(-10) Torr [http://standards.nasa.gov/documents/viewdoc/3315626/3315626]<br />
<br />
Pressure in outer space between stars in the Milky Way = 10^(-17) Torr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28pressure%29]<br />
<br />
=== Comparison to a Photon Rocket ===<br />
For a perfectly-collimated beam photon rocket, without the benefits of a resonant optical cavity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster], for example a military searchlight acting as a photon rocket (see: [http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propulsn.htm#REF5-29], [http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473498.pdf] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_photonic_rocket]), the force per power input is as follows:<br />
<br />
'''Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) = 0.003337'''<br />
<br />
This represents the force/PowerInput exerted by the radiation pressure of light in free space, which is not the same as the forces and momentum imparted to a massive object [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=838352]. If the results above are validated, the EM Drive would greatly exceed that ratio. However, this does not imply that an EM Drive could achieve steady constant acceleration for constant power input, as this is prevented by energy conservation (see: [http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation])<br />
<br />
== Notes and references==<br />
<references/></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Building&diff=1133Building2015-07-24T15:44:31Z<p>Rfmwguy: revised rfmwguy's description</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will collect any photos, plans, and instructions for do-it-yourselfers. Efforts with enough documentation will be provided their own pages.<br />
<br />
# [[Mulletron's Build]]<br />
# Kurt Zeller (@zellerium) and Brian Kraft from Cal Poly are starting a build as well, using a constant cross-section cavity containing a polymer dielectric.<ref>[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368153#msg1368153 Forum post by @zellerium]</ref><br />
# @DIYFan - TBD<br />
# [[@Notsosureofit is planning testing with a Gunn diode]].<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1336344#msg1336344 Forum post by @Notsosureofit]</ref><br />
# [[TheTraveller]]<br />
# [[Iulian Berca|@Iulian Berca]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371164#msg1371164 Forum post by @Iulian Berca]</ref> - Fabricated a drive in May 2015 and was posting videos at [http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/ his website]. In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ Test 3] he reported a force measurement toward "the small end" and later a smaller measurement in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAMttfMC8PI reverse orientation in test 3.1]. As of 5/21/15 the magnitude and significance of these measurements were discussed on the [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377695#msg1377695 NSF forum].<br />
# [[Warp-Shell|@SeeShells]] plans to build a hexagonal frustum out of copper mesh. The small end plate will be adjustable via a stepper motor.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385165#msg1385165 Forum post by @SeeShells]</ref><br />
# @R. W. Keyes / Andromeda Research - high power, 1-20KW magnetron, superconductor Magnesium diboride on silicon carbide, to start summer 2015<br />
# [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1372073#msg1372073 Forum post by Hackaday.io]</ref> - Building the original 2.45 GHz thruster according to the Chinese paper and their own 24 GHz design simultaneously, with estimated completion date of July 2015. See [https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive Hackaday project] for more details, as well as [http://n-o-d-e.net/post/119343131451/building-a-diy-emdrive an interview with Paul].<br />
# Dave (@rmfwguy) now plans to use a 900W magnetron as an RF source; copper mesh for the frustum body, and no dielectric in the frustum.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=978733 @rfmwguy's updated test paper on NasaSpaceFlight forum, now includes bill of materials] </ref>. Starting in July 2015, this will be live-streamed on [http://www.ustream.tv/channel/em-drive-experiment Ustream].<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1390220#msg1390220 Post by @rfmwguy]</ref><br />
# @DrBagelBites posted on reddit that he was planning on starting a build <ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/38q7m9/going_to_build_an_emdrive_update/ Post by @DrBagelBites on reddit]</ref> and provided a PDF <ref>[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzttGV8gaI61MGIwZUF6clh5TjA/view?pli=1 PDF by Ian Lasky on Google Drive]</ref><br />
# @kml Testing a non-tapered rectangular waveguide with various dielectrics inserted at one end.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380174#msg1380174 post by @kml]</ref><br />
# @PaulTheSwag posted on reddit that he is starting a build <ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3cwgpg/building_an_emdrive_update/ Post on reddit by @PaulTheSwag]</ref> and provided some images. <ref>[http://imgur.com/gallery/KRhlp/new Posted on imgur by @PaulTheSwag]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
If anyone is missing, please add them here.<br />
<br />
== Modelling ==<br />
@phaseshift has built a SketchUp model<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380107#msg1380107 post by @phaseshift]</ref> ([[File:EM_Thruster.skp]]) of a frustum based on the estimated Shawyer Flight Thruster dimensions.<br />
<br />
@TheTraveller constructed a [http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=91209150771293536709 EMDrive Calculator spreadsheet] to model thrust given various design parameters.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382349#msg1382349 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref> This model was built with some input from Roger Shawyer directly.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Building&diff=757Building2015-06-15T19:14:08Z<p>Rfmwguy: Added ref link to current test paper.</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will collect any photos, plans, and instructions for do-it-yourselfers. Efforts with enough documentation will be provided their own pages.<br />
<br />
# [[Mulletron's Build]]<br />
# Kurt Zeller (@zellerium) and Brian Kraft from Cal Poly are starting a build as well, using a constant cross-section cavity containing a polymer dielectric.<ref>[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368153#msg1368153 Forum post by @zellerium]</ref><br />
# @DIYFan - TBD<br />
# [[@Notsosureofit is planning testing with a Gunn diode]].<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370647#msg1370647 Later forum post by @Rodal, can't find original post]</ref><br />
# @TheTraveller<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370597#msg1370597 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref><br />
# [[Iulian Berca|@Iulian Berca]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371164#msg1371164 Forum post by @Iulian Berca]</ref> - Fabricated a drive in May 2015 and was posting videos at [http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/ his website]. In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ Test 3] he reported a force measurement toward "the small end" and later a smaller measurement in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAMttfMC8PI reverse orientation in test 3.1]. As of 5/21/15 the magnitude and significance of these measurements were being debated on the [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377695#msg1377695 NSF forum].<br />
# @SeeShells plans to build a hexagonal frustum out of copper mesh. The small end plate will be adjustable via a stepper motor.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385165#msg1385165 Forum post by @SeeShells]</ref><br />
# @R. W. Keyes / Andromeda Research - high power, 1-20KW magnetron, superconductor Magnesium diboride on silicon carbide, to start summer 2015<br />
# [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1372073#msg1372073 Forum post by Hackaday.io]</ref> - Building the original 2.45 GHz thruster according to the Chinese paper and their own 24 GHz design simultaneously, with estimated completion date of July 2015. See [https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive Hackaday project] for more details, as well as [http://n-o-d-e.net/post/119343131451/building-a-diy-emdrive an interview with Paul].<br />
# Dave (@rmfwguy) plans to use a wifi band exciter board as Rf source, wifi booster amp, copper mesh for the frustum body, and no dielectric in the frustum.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=978733 @rfmwguy's updated test paper on NasaSpaceFlight forum, now includes bill of materials] </ref><br />
# @DrBagelBites posted on reddit that he was planning on starting a build.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/38q7m9/going_to_build_an_emdrive_update/ Post by @DrBagelBites on reddit]</ref><br />
# @kml Testing a non-tapered rectangular waveguide with various dielectrics inserted at one end.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380174#msg1380174 post by @kml]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
If anyone is missing, please add them here.<br />
<br />
== Modelling ==<br />
@phaseshift has built a SketchUp model<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380107#msg1380107 post by @phaseshift]</ref> ([[File:EM_Thruster.skp]]) of a frustum based on the estimated Shawyer Flight Thruster dimensions.<br />
<br />
@TheTraveller constructed a [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MyR1I2TzlOBXV7xnsxw32UGm7-JxbDIkNViC5F09rGU/edit#gid=1647834149 spreadsheet] to model thrust given various design parameters.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382349#msg1382349 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref> This model was built with some input from Roger Shawyer directly.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Rfmwguyhttp://emdrive.echothis.com/index.php?title=Building&diff=727Building2015-06-11T15:42:26Z<p>Rfmwguy: removed last name, added clarity on wifi building blocks</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will collect any photos, plans, and instructions for do-it-yourselfers. Efforts with enough documentation will be provided their own pages.<br />
<br />
# [[Mulletron's Build]]<br />
# Kurt Zeller (@zellerium) and Brian Kraft from Cal Poly are starting a build as well, using a constant cross-section cavity containing a polymer dielectric.<ref>[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1368153#msg1368153 Forum post by @zellerium]</ref><br />
# @DIYFan - TBD<br />
# [[@Notsosureofit is planning testing with a Gunn diode]].<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370647#msg1370647 Later forum post by @Rodal, can't find original post]</ref><br />
# @TheTraveller<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370597#msg1370597 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref><br />
# [[Iulian Berca|@Iulian Berca]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371164#msg1371164 Forum post by @Iulian Berca]</ref> - Fabricated a drive in May 2015 and was posting videos at [http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/ his website]. In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ Test 3] he reported a force measurement toward "the small end" and later a smaller measurement in the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAMttfMC8PI reverse orientation in test 3.1]. As of 5/21/15 the magnitude and significance of these measurements were being debated on the [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377695#msg1377695 NSF forum].<br />
# @SeeShells plans to build a hexagonal frustum out of copper mesh. The small end plate will be adjustable via a stepper motor.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385165#msg1385165 Forum post by @SeeShells]</ref><br />
# @R. W. Keyes / Andromeda Research - high power, 1-20KW magnetron, superconductor Magnesium diboride on silicon carbide, to start summer 2015<br />
# [[hackaday.io project|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]]<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1372073#msg1372073 Forum post by Hackaday.io]</ref> - Building the original 2.45 GHz thruster according to the Chinese paper and their own 24 GHz design simultaneously, with estimated completion date of July 2015. See [https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive Hackaday project] for more details, as well as [http://n-o-d-e.net/post/119343131451/building-a-diy-emdrive an interview with Paul].<br />
# Dave (@rmfwguy) plans to use a wifi band exciter board as Rf source, wifi booster amp, copper mesh for the frustum body, and no dielectric in the frustum.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1383098#msg1383098 Initial forum post by rmfwguy], with a later update on 6/3/13 and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384292#msg1384292 link to a PDF overview].</ref><br />
# @DrBagelBites posted on reddit that he was planning on starting a build.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/38q7m9/going_to_build_an_emdrive_update/ Post by @DrBagelBites on reddit]</ref><br />
# @kml Testing a non-tapered rectangular waveguide with various dielectrics inserted at one end.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380174#msg1380174 post by @kml]</ref><br />
# Others?<br />
<br />
== Modelling ==<br />
@phaseshift has built a SketchUp model<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380107#msg1380107 post by @phaseshift]</ref> ([[File:EM_Thruster.skp]]) of a frustum based on the estimated Shawyer Flight Thruster dimensions.<br />
<br />
@TheTraveller constructed a [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MyR1I2TzlOBXV7xnsxw32UGm7-JxbDIkNViC5F09rGU/edit#gid=1647834149 spreadsheet] to model thrust given various design parameters.<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382349#msg1382349 Forum post by @TheTraveller]</ref> This model was built with some input from Roger Shawyer directly.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /></div>Rfmwguy