Superconducting Emdrive patent application by Shawyer

  • A very detailed patent application by Shawyer is published today.
    It is ready for examination.


    note that an article in IBT will feature an interview of Roget Shawyer this weekend.


    Abstract



    A superconducting microwave radiation thruster used to accelerate a spacecraft or an airborne vehicle comprises a tapered central sectuon 2 with a minor end plate 1 at one end and a major end plate 3 at the other end. The minor end plate is specially shaped and attached to the tapered section with both parts being formed of non-superconducting material. The major end plate 3 is flat and made of superconducting material and is attached to the tapered section by screws. A single crystal sapphire substrate 4 is glued to the major end plate. Thrust is generated via a thrust plate 11 that is connected via a thermal insulator 10 and cooler 7 to the major end plate. The geometry is intended to simplify the manufacturing of the thruster. The thruster includes circularly polarised input and detector antennae which, when combined with a phase locked loop control circuit, enable the input frequency to be corrected for Doppler shifts, caused by acceleration of the thruster. These Doppler shifts would otherwise cause a decrease in cavity Q value, and thus a decrease in output thrust.

  • IBT article seems lready published



    EmDrive: Roger Shawyer is patenting a new design for next-gen superconducting thruster
    The Intellectual Property Office has published Shawyer's application featuring novel superconducting end plates.

  • Note that at normal superconducting temperatures (10-40K), the RF surface resistance of copper and a superconductor are nearly the same. Copper surface resistance decreases to 0 at 0K. Superconductors only have 0 resistance for DC. For all AC (F>0), superconductors have a finite penetration depth that causes AC resistance. Achieving a loaded Q >50k is probably a pipe dream for even a superconducting (or super-cooled copper) cavity. Mechanical vibrations due to noise will cause the frequency of the cavity to vary causing the apparent Q to be much less. The cavity inside will have to be a deep vacuum to prevent the fields from causing a low level plasma to form (which would ruin the Q). Superconductors have a maximum magnetic field strength (maximum current), beyond which, they switch out of the superconducting state. This will be difficult to deal with because the magnetic field strength and currents will increase with Q. The best bet will be to use super-cooled copper to be able to sustain high fields.

  • I see no reference to performance test, except indirectly from other patents of Shawyer and Fetta.



    This patent introduce following "tricks" :
    - a circularly polarised input antenna allowing a detector antenna to measure phase change for a PLL
    - sapphire wall to maintain the cavity shape at low temp
    - usage of piezoelectric actionner to control plate shape



    in fact it looks good engineering ideas when you accept EmDrive works as said.
    If superconduction does not work well enough for RF as bobHiggins says, this is useless. I cannot judge.
    However it seems to be an established technology used in particle accelerators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…onducting_radio_frequency

  • Note that at normal superconducting temperatures (10-40K), the RF surface resistance of copper and a superconductor are nearly the same. Copper surface resistance decreases to 0 at 0K. Superconductors only have 0 resistance for DC. For all AC (F>0),…


    From the published data, EmDrive copper cavities at room temp at 2.45GHz can have Qu that range up to 100k. Superconducting accelerator cavities, which are also filled with Rf energy, exceed a Qu of 10^9. The function of interest is the skin depth as that forms the loss per cycle that limits Qu (Q unloaded except for eddy current losses).

  • From the published data, EmDrive copper cavities at room temp at 2.45GHz can have Qu that range up to 100k. Superconducting accelerator cavities, which are also filled with Rf energy, exceed a Qu of 10^9. The function of interest is the skin depth as that forms the loss per cycle that limits Qu (Q unloaded except for eddy current losses).


    I don't believe I have seen published data showing a copper Shawyer cavity with a Qu approaching 100k (can you supply the reference?). Also, can you please cite a reference for the superconducting accelerator cavities having Qu's in the range of 10E9? Perhaps this amounts to being a small signal Qu?


    In the end, it is not the Qu that is important, it is the Ql - the loaded Q. To achieve maximum fields inside the cavity, you will have to match the source impedance into the real residue of the cavity. This has a number of implications. The first implication is that Ql will be Qu/2. The second implication is that the E field magnitude and the H field magnitude will be multiplied by Ql - in a type 1 superconducting, high Q resonant cavity, this will cause it to exceed its maximum superconducting H field with a low input power. The third implication is that all of the power that is not radiated (supposedly none radiated) will go into heating the cavity walls - this could also take a superconducting cavity locally out of the superconducting state. These issues become soft problems if super-cooled copper is used instead of a superconductor. Another issue I mentioned was that of microphonics. At extremely high Q, the minute motions of the walls of the cavity can cause a modulation that creates energy outside the bandwidth of the cavity that can cause the cavity to lose energy and reduce its effective Qu. This becomes an issue when you talk about cavities with a Qu >100k - they would need a mechanical stiffness rising commensurate with the increase in Q.

  • the challenge you details may explain some tricks discussed in the description.
    One is sapphire wall, another is piezoelectric adjustments.


    Maybe this patent is just made from the initial design before they faced the nightmare you predict (this is rational with First to file patent policy).
    Anyway a patent prove nothing else the hope of the writer.

  • There is no aether.


    If You refer to a possible higgs field, then You could be possibly near a proper explanation.


    Nevertheless, my information on this topic is, that the conic shape of the cavity can, in a certain way,
    cause an effect on the distribution of the microwaves.


    An interference pattern, where all waves cancel out completely, is therefore not always possible or better said, unlikely.


    This can result in some waves leaving the cone at the broader end.


    a) This cavity for itself looks even too similar to a standard thruster, therefore we should be very sceptic.


    b) Intuitively the explanation might still be true, if some not erased waves are able to leave the cavity at the broader end.


    c) While those waves are pushed together at the narrow end, it is also intutitive, that the waves can merge instead of cancel out. Similar to a narrow shoreline.


    d) If those strengthened waves bounce back, there may be less waves pushed together at the broader end, which surely can cancel out some strengthened waves travelling back to the broader end, but unlikely to cancel out all of those already strengthened waves.


    e) This has been accepted for peer review, and nasa also was on it, perhaps they still are, I do not know, where to follow serious sources right now.


    f) Shawyer patented it, appearently with Boeing or another british company.


    g) No named company is ever mentioned together with Rossi or ORBO.


    h) This, if it is true, need not to violate the principles of conservation of momentum.


    i) If we use the equivalence from conservation of momentum to conervation of energy, then, what is done, isbasically this:


    - Electric energy is used to put microwaves into the cavity.
    - Those microwaves therefore carry this energy.
    - The energy, in form of waves, inside the cavity CAN or CANNOT cancel each other out.
    - Those waves, which are not cancelled out, exit the cavity ( but why always at the broader end ? ) and carry some left energy with them.
    - This might produce a push in the opposite direction. If so, this effect is similar to a photon rocket.


    j) The argument "violation of conservation of momentum/energy" is not valid anymore. But everyone, who states this argument as a basis against any
    discovery, is accepted first. It is also reasonable, but then please in complete detail.


    k) There is no need for exotic dark-matter/quantum vacuum effects in that case.


    l) The effect is so small, that it needs immediately detailed and further investigation.
    Shawyer stated, that an dielectric component inside the cavity could increase the amount of measurable thrust.
    Why is this not already been tested ?


    m) What are Your opinions ?

  • This has been accepted for peer review, and nasa also was on it, perhaps they still are, I do not know, where to follow serious sources right now.


    It doesn't seem that you are following current events. The recent uptick in discussion of this subject is because NASA has a paper that has been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal on their testing of the EMdrive.

  • Using theoretical analysis to negate EmDrive experimental results is , like for LENR, not scientific.


    We often love to discuss theory, because we love explanations of mysteries, but firs there is experiments.
    Nasa EW paper looks serious and piles with a handful of fair papers ... there is more not written in the paper as I've been told, but all, even the paper, is to be confirmed.


    about EmDrive we should remind that General Relativity and Standard Model are not working together, so as a theory of the world they are broken and wrong.
    They are just broken and wron in a very subtle way, because most of the time they works.


    The good point is that EmDrive, like galaxy rotation speed may be explained by subtle effects...
    Is is MiHsC ? is it Shawyers ? is it somethig else ? choose your donuts taste.

  • i) If we use the equivalence from conservation of momentum to conervation of energy, then, what is done, isbasically this:


    - Electric energy is used to put microwaves into the cavity.
    - Those microwaves therefore carry this energy.
    - The energy, in form of waves, inside the cavity CAN or CANNOT cancel each other out.
    - Those waves, which are not cancelled out, exit the cavity ( but why always at the broader end ? ) and carry some left energy with them.
    - This might produce a push in the opposite direction. If so, this effect is similar to a photon rocket.


    It is true that this argument seems to be drawing an analogy between the EM Drive and a photon rocket. Elsewhere Bob Higgins has argued that photon radiation recoil is inadequate by several orders of magnitude to explain the thrust observed in the case of the EM Drive in view of the input power that is used. Do you disagree?

  • Why is Emdrive being commonly discussed on lenr-forum? What is the connection with LENR?


    For me, personally, I see a possible connection between LENR and the EM Drive, namely the inducing of beta decay/electron capture (part of my take on LENR) and neutrino emission (a possible propellant for the EM Drive that does not violate conservation of momentum).


    But more generally: it is of interest, and it is vaguely relevant. For the same reason recent updates in astrophysics should be welcomed on this forum. No need to attempt to enforce any kind of discipline here. Neither is there a need to worry about unconventional claims or topics that stray into genuine pseudoscience. If a thread is not of interest, it will wither away on its own.

  • EmDrive is just sharing some properties with LENR, while IMHO not related.

    • It is accused to be bad science.
    • it is seemingly correct experiments without accepted theory.
    • critics are mostly done on theoretical impossibility, assuming some unspecified artifacts
    • It have a potential to be disruptive.
    • It interests some people there
    • I report both. :blackeye:
  • Maybe - and now I'm just saying maybe - this effect could be explained classically. During reflection of light only minute portion of internal momentum of EM wave gets transferred into substrate. This minute portion is connected with momentum of photons and it's too low for to explain the EMDrive thrust. But how the situation will change, once the EM wave gets polarized during it?


    Extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force measured using a nano-cantilever


    Presentation, produced by the authors of the paper, video of the presentation. In contrast to numerous previous studies, which involved radiation pressure forces in the direction of propagation of light or trapping forces along the intensity gradients, they have observed, orthogonal to both of these directions, the extraordinary optical momentum and force. The change in speed of photons and their momentum is usually low in vacuum, but it can be quite pronounced at the case of so-called evanescent waves and photons spreading along surface of metallic substrates. And the photons in conical EMDrive resonator may get polarized by multiple repetitive reflection under Brewster angle, once the geometry of cavity remains just right.