Experimental Results - Revision history

Saucyjack: Fix cite labels

2017-09-29T20:25:59Z

Fix cite labels

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 29 September 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:
	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		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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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 2"></ref>\|\|0.2314<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions 3"> </ref> \|\| 0.1257<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions 4"> </ref> \|\|0.1764 \|\|0.3247 \|\|20.87 \|\| 0.635<ref name="Shawyer Flight Thruster Dimensions 2"> </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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

Saucyjack: Rename cite

2017-09-29T20:21:49Z

Rename cite

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 29 September 2017
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|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>\|\|TM010 \|\|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		\|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>\|\|TM010 \|\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|SPR Ltd, R. Shawyer, Experimental\|\|TM01p <ref name="Shawyer Demonstrator Mode Shape">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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

Monomorphic at 15:00, 18 December 2016

2016-12-18T15:00:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 18 December 2016
Line 47:		Line 47:
	\|[[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		\|[[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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|Baby EM Drive, [[hackaday.io project\|@movax (Paul Kocyla) and Jo Hinchliffe]] \|\|??? \|\|Ambient\|\|0.02437\|\|0.0296 \|\|0.01612 \|\|0.03024 \|\|0.05552 \|\|15.46 \|\| 0.7311 \|\|None\|\| 24.1 \|\|0.04 \|\| \|\|~ 0 \|\|~ 0 \|\| ~ 0
	\|-		\|-
	\|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>\|\|mechanical 1st longitudinal eigenmode \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a\|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\|n/a \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526		\|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>\|\|mechanical 1st longitudinal eigenmode \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a\|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\|n/a \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526

127.0.0.1 at 16:40, 23 November 2016

2016-11-23T16:40:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:40, 23 November 2016
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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~~ \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\|n/a \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526		\|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>\|\|mechanical 1st longitudinal eigenmode \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a\|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\|n/a \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

127.0.0.1 at 16:22, 23 November 2016

2016-11-23T16:22:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 23 November 2016
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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 \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\| \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526		\|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 \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\|n/a \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

127.0.0.1 at 16:20, 23 November 2016

2016-11-23T16:20:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 23 November 2016
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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 \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\| \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| ~~22000~~ \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526		\|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 \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\| \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 190 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

127.0.0.1 at 14:48, 22 November 2016

2016-11-22T14:48:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 22 November 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	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		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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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>\|\|TM010 \|\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

127.0.0.1 at 15:37, 24 October 2016

2016-10-24T15:37:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:37, 24 October 2016
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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 \|\|1510^(-3) \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\|n/a \|\| n/a\|\| n/a\|\| \|\|3.9310^(-5) \|\| 170\|\| 22000 \|\| 0.002\|\| 0.01176 \|\| 3.526
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

Rfmwguy: removal of my test results

2016-06-02T19:46:31Z

removal of my test results

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 2 June 2016
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[[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		\|[[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
	\|-
	\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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

Dr. Rodal at 12:47, 3 May 2016

2016-05-03T12:47:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 3 May 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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
	\|-		\|-
	\|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		\|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