Difference between revisions of "Experimental Results"

From EM Drive
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
|Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser Ambient - piezoelectric MET thruster<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377061#msg1377061 Forum post by @Rodal] - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.</ref>|| || || || || || 39300 ||  170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526
 
|Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser Ambient - piezoelectric MET thruster<ref>[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377061#msg1377061 Forum post by @Rodal] - Included here because Prof. Woodward's device is also a propellant-less concept, and because Paul March (NASA) maintains that Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect theory might also be, in his opinion, an explanation for thrust for the EM Drive.</ref>|| || || || || || 39300 ||  170|| 22000 || 0.002|| 0.01176 || 3.526
 
|-
 
|-
|Iulian Berca Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/ air effects subtracted)<ref>The tests by Iulian Berca were not logged in a scientifically rigorous manner.  However, 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 tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN.  See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377713#msg1377713 here].</ref>  || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 || || None || 2.45Ghz (magnetron) ||  800 || n/a || 2.84 || 3.55 || 1063.82
+
|Iulian Berca Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/ air effects subtracted)<ref>The tests by Iulian Berca were not logged in a scientifically rigorous manner http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/.  However, 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 tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN.  See [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1377713#msg1377713 here].</ref>  || 0.2286 || 0.2794 || 0.1588 || || None || 2.45Ghz (magnetron) ||  800 || n/a || 2.84 || 3.55 || 1063.82
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 07:55, 1 June 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) Shawyer Design Factor Dielectric Frequency (Hertz) Power (W) Q Force (mN) Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket
Cannae Superconducting Ambient 0.03 0.220 0.200 None 1.047*10^9 10.5 1.1*10^7 8-10 761.9 - 952.4 228400 - 285500
Shawyer Experimental Ambient 0.156 0.16 0.1025 0.497 Yes 2.45*10^9 850 5900 16 18.82 5640
Shawyer Demo Ambient 0.317 to 0.187 0.28 0.17027 0.484[1] None 2.45*10^9 421-1200 45000 102.30 80-243 23980 - 72830
Brady a (TM212) Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.9326*10^9 16.9 7320 0.0912 5.396 1617.2
Brady b (TM212) Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.9367*10^9 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.000 899.12
Brady c (TE012) Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.8804*10^9 2.6 22000 0.05541 21.310 6386.7
March (TM212) Vacuum 5*10^(-6) Torr 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 HDPE 1.9371*10^9 50 6726 0.055 1.100 329.64
Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser Ambient - piezoelectric MET thruster[2] 39300 170 22000 0.002 0.01176 3.526
Iulian Berca Tests 3 & 3.1 (averaged w/ air effects subtracted)[3] 0.2286 0.2794 0.1588 None 2.45Ghz (magnetron) 800 n/a 2.84 3.55 1063.82
Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) = 0.003337

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 0.317 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 emdrive_2.jpg .
  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.
  3. The tests by Iulian Berca were not logged in a scientifically rigorous manner http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/. However, 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 tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. See here.

Brady tests a & b : 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 b took place practically at the same frequency as March TM212 test in vacuum

March TM 212 test in vacuum: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327177#msg1327177