Difference between revisions of "Experimental Results"

From EM Drive
Jump to: navigation, search
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 to 0.187 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift], [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal], and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377697#msg1377697 @Rodal] - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however using a Design Factor = 0.844 gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image).  The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484).</ref> || None || 2.45*10^9 ||  421-1200|| 45000 || 102.30 || 80-243 || 0.003337 || 23980 - 72830
+
|Shawyer Demo||0.345 to 0.187 || 0.28 || 0.17027 || 0.484<ref>Forum posts by [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377281#msg1377281 @phaseshift], [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377650#msg1377650 @Rodal], and [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377697#msg1377697 @Rodal] - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however using a Design Factor = 0.844 gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image).  The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484).
 +
The cavity length is estimated as 0.345 to 0.187.  The larger number corresponds to the maximum length of the cylindrical part of the EM Drive Demo and the smaller number corresponds to the height 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.</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 06:04, 26 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 0.345 to 0.187 0.28 0.17027 0.484[1] None 2.45*10^9 421-1200 45000 102.30 80-243 0.003337 23980 - 72830
Brady a TM Mode 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, @Rodal, and @Rodal - The Design Factor is reported as 0.844 in at least three of Shawyer's references; however using a Design Factor = 0.844 gives a much smaller diameter in conflict with the ratio of the small diameter to the big diameter shown in the picture of the Demonstrator in Shawyer's publications, so it is assumed that was an unintentional typo (0.844 instead of 0.484, which results in a small diameter that agrees with the published image). The smallDiameter shown here was recalculated from the revised Design Factor (0.484). The cavity length is estimated as 0.345 to 0.187. The larger number corresponds to the maximum length of the cylindrical part of the EM Drive Demo and the smaller number corresponds to the height 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.
  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.