Difference between revisions of "Experimental Results"

From EM Drive
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Add revised cavity length for Shayer demo as per @Rodal's note)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|Shawyer Experimental || 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025 || 0.497 || None || 2.45*10^9 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 || 0.003337 || 5640
 
|Shawyer Experimental || 0.156 || 0.16 || 0.1025 || 0.497 || None || 2.45*10^9 || 850 || 5900 || 16 || 18.82 || 0.003337 || 5640
 
|-
 
|-
|Shawyer Demo|| 0.345 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal] - Design Factor was originally 0.844 in Shawyer's reference; however this number gives a small diameter in conflict with the picture of the Demonstrator provided, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo.  The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor.</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 ||  421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830
+
|Shawyer Demo|| 0.187 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift] and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal] - Design Factor was originally 0.844 in Shawyer's reference; however this number gives a small diameter in conflict with the picture of the Demonstrator provided, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo.  The smallDiameter and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377697#msg1377697 Cavity Length] shown here were both recalculated from the revised Design Factor.</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 ||  421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Brady a TM Mode|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9326*10^9 ||  16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.396 || 0.003337 || 1617.2
 
|Brady a TM Mode|| 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.15875 || || HDPE || 1.9326*10^9 ||  16.9||7320 || 0.0912|| 5.396 || 0.003337 || 1617.2

Revision as of 15:28, 21 May 2015

Forces, Power, Frequency and Dimensions

The current best estimates for the parameters of various test articles run by public and private research labs (NASA Eagleworks, SPR Ltd., and NWPU) is here, along with the reported forces. Note that complete dimensions are not known in most cases, and some had to be determined via indirect methods (e.g., estimation from photographs). See Building for details on drives built by do-it-yourselfers.

Credit to Dr. Rodal and others for the great effort in compiling these. Please note some caveats for this data, at that link.

Description Cavity Length (m) bigDiameter (m) smallDiameter (m) Design Factor (Shawyer Only) Dielectric rfFrequency (1/s) Power (W) Q Force (mN) Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) Force Multiple of Photon Rocket
Cannae Superconducting 0.03 0.220 0.200 None 1.047*10^9 10.5 1.1*10^7 8-10 761.9 - 952.4 0.003336 228400 - 285500
Shawyer Experimental 0.156 0.16 0.1025 0.497 None 2.45*10^9 850 5900 16 18.82 0.003337 5640
Shawyer Demo 0.187 0.28 0.17027 0.484[1] None 2.45*10^9 421-1200 45000 102.30 80-243 0.003337 23980 - 72830
Brady a TM Mode 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.9326*10^9 16.9 7320 0.0912 5.396 0.003337 1617.2
Brady b TM Mode 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.9367*10^9 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.000 0.003337 899.12
Brady c TE Mode 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.8804*10^9 2.6 22000 0.05541 21.31 0.003337 6386.7
Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser - piezoelectric MET thruster[2] 39300 170 22000 0.002 0.01176 0.003337 3.526

References

  1. Forum posts by @phaseshift and @Rodal - Design Factor was originally 0.844 in Shawyer's reference; however this number gives a small diameter in conflict with the picture of the Demonstrator provided, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo. The smallDiameter and Cavity Length shown here were both recalculated from the revised Design Factor.
  2. 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.