The most profitable option for a new propulsion system? (DEKAIR)

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by DangerZone, Aug 17, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 22, 2019 #61

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Btw, and this IS RELEVANT TO HOMEBUILDING!
    If you get to the bottom of that Project Rho page, you get to the EM drive and how NASA screwed the pooch on the most important discovery in science history.

    Allegedly. I'm putting all the weasel words right here. Allegedly!!!

    Dr. Pournelle should get full credit for pointing out the fundamental flaw in NASA's testing. They used a torsion scale. Understandably , they used the biggest hammer they had. The most sensitive force measuring tool in the lab. One capable of measuring the gravitational pull of a bowling ball! Freaking impressive! NASA had this big hammer so they think everything is a nail.

    Unfortunately It's the wrong tool. What you need to test if there is thrust from a reactionless drive, is a vacuum chamber, and a pendulum suspension.

    A vacuum chamber, so that a cooling fan of ionic air flow, or... Don't push on your test. This also will reveal a concealed compressed gas "leak" providing thrust etc.

    A pendulum suspension. Two points, so the gizmo won't spin etc. And thrust axis is more or less perpendicular to local gravity. Use non magnetic materials in your suspension system. Say, kitchen twine. Or hemp rope. Use a non contact position measuring device, like a simple interferometer.

    Suspend your gizmo in the chamber. Let it settle. Turn it on. If it swings back & forth, you have a negative result. If it moves to one side AND STAYS THERE, displaced from center, and swings back to eventual rest when power is cut, you have a positive.
    You are not done! You now have to eliminate every suggested cheat, but you will have experimentally verified for the first time in history, the possibility of a real Drive.

    NASA didn't do that. To my knowledge, no one has. Every other experiment in the West had been to disprove NASA's test.

    I don't know what the Chinese government did, but they announced they were going to go into production. Odds are near 100% that is a lie and propaganda to mess with the rest of the planet. I don't need to violate site policy on political opinions about the People's Republic, because I might do the same.& if anyone in charge there has a similar sense of humor it explains their announcement & subsequent silence on the subject. There's a science manager over there who might burst into spontaneous giggles thinking about frantic, expensive efforts in Moscow & Area 52 trying to beat him to an imaginary breakthrough.

    So how does this apply to US?

    When your expensive tool you love doesn't give the results you need, back off a moment and consider, "Am I seeing everything as a nail because I have this great hammer?"

    That $500 rivet gun can't do the job? How about your neighbor holding a foot long rod and you using a 16 oz. Ball peen hammer? ( irony!)

    That rented vibration tester can't get past a vibrating fairing to measure your prop? Silly putty and duct tape.

    Your engine coughs on climb out and every fuel pressure gauge reads perfectly? Get some friends to help you stick your tail in a ditch & tie off to a couple of trucks to do a full power fuel flow test.

    Etc.

    Once again full credit to Jerry Pournelle. RIP.
     
  2. Aug 22, 2019 #62

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Well... possible to chuck stuff into space. Jury's still out on orbit. :)

    Anything thrown away from the Earth's surface will return to it...unless you throw it at escape velocity, which is about 36,700 feet per second (I'm an old-school space guy). If you give it enough oomph to overcome the resistance of whatever air it has to fly through, it's not even picky about the direction you kick it off in. Two-pi-sterradian launch vector.

    Kick off something at LESS than 36,700 mph, it's going to fall back to Earth. If you fire your launcher at 35,000 fps, it's going to go REAL high (like about 3600 miles) but gravity is just going to pull it back again (and you probably don't want to be anywhere close). It'll crash near you if you point it straight up, but even if you try to fire flat, it'll still go way high, then splat back to Earth.

    You need a circularizing impulse to establish an orbit, some amount of time after your initial boost. Designing a guidance/propulsion system that can do this after, say, a 200-G impulse at launch, is an interesting exercise.

    Not saying it's impossible...after all, they build tiny radar sets for the proximity fuses for anti-aircraft shells and fire them out of cannons. It's an interesting design problem, though, for a launch vehicle that can only fly dense payloads like water, formed metal, and politician's butts.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  3. Aug 22, 2019 #63

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    That makes me wonder if you could throw a lifting body out of the atmosphere with some kind of throwing machine ( which I'll take as a given ) at well over orbital, but well below escape velocity, and use aerodynamic manoeuvre on reentry to atmosphere to obtain an orbit? ( without using a rocket engine to change vectors )

    Purely an intellectual curiosity question.

    I recall that Apollo Comand modules needed to hit just the right window on reentry from Lunar to Earth transfer to avoid burning up or bouncing off into interplanetary space. No slowing down to Earth orbit was done, not enough fuel, it would have made a single Saturn V launch mission impossible.

    A thing thrower sufficiently powerful enough could chuck payloads for hard landing ( or rocket braked soft landing ) over the curb to the Moon. You'd want to name it the Columbiad.
     
  4. Aug 22, 2019 #64

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Europe

    You could...but not a manned ship.
     
  5. Aug 22, 2019 #65

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    That part, the unsuitable to human survival of a big cannon shell, is a given.

    The question is whether or not manoeuvre in the atmosphere can establish an orbit. I suspect that perigee would be in atmosphere, so it could not. But there are lots smarter folk here whose experience with rocketry is far greater than mine. So there might be a loophole to orbital dynamics I've missed.
     
  6. Aug 22, 2019 #66

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Wanttaja

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    "Aeromaneuvering" has been studied as a method to change orbital inclination or orbit plane, and it's feasible. Changing the inclination is tremendously costly in propellant use, and you can save propellant by dipping into the atmosphere and hauling the thing around aerodynamically. There is a cost design- and propellant- wise, of course.

    You can protect the vehicle from the heat by using a ballute, a combination parachute and balloon. I once worked in the same group as Dr. Dana Andrews, who was one of the researchers on this. You can find several of his reports online...for example, AIAA-83-2108, "Benefits to High Aerodynamic Efficiency to Orbital Transfer Vehicles."

    I was IN the same group as Dr. Andrews, but wasn't assigned to his programs and didn't personally participate in his studies. But of course, they were talked about a lot. One of his concepts included a rocket motor at the apex of the ballute pointed FORWARD. It was there to not only provide orbit control but for thermal control of the ballute. The rocket exhaust was cooler than the reentry plasma!

    Dr. Andrews has two claims to fame in the film industry. The first, of course, is that he has the same name as a famous actor. The second, though, is that he was credited in the move "2010"... they consulted him about the ballute the Soviet spacecraft uses to slow down when reaching Jupiter orbit. He didn't like the movie's implementation, though...they used a multi-segment ballute, which he was skeptical would work.

    However, I'm not sure the concept would work for circularization. Hitting the atmosphere will produce a lot of drag, and unless you have propulsion onboard, it will probably reduce the speed to below orbital velocity.

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  7. Aug 22, 2019 #67

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Europe

    Might be impossible...initial velocity has to be so high that everything burn up in the atmosphere.
     
  8. Aug 22, 2019 #68

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Speedboat100

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Europe
    I think a scram jet could be lauched on a rail...into M3 speed....what they need...at high altitude...at 5 km etc. Needs a long rail for having an astronaut inside steering.
     
  9. Aug 22, 2019 #69

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Texas
    Wasn't he from Dallas Texas? :)
     
  10. Aug 23, 2019 #70

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,514
    Likes Received:
    2,925
    Location:
    CT, USA
    If a person succeeded in build a true reactionless drive, he'd be remembered as somebody who made Einstein look like an amateur. I'd like to believe it's possible, after all, it's been a staple of science fiction for over a century. But I'm not holding my breath, and we're straying pretty far from the subject of homebuilt airplanes...
     
    DangerZone likes this.
  11. Aug 25, 2019 #71

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    I've checked the Dean Drive you mentioned and found that a certain Roy Thorson tested such a machine by installing it in a canoe to show how much propulsion it could create. This is the video:



    In the text about the Dean Drive there is a claim:
    "This is an impressive thrust; if you could apply continuously that much thrust (1/18 g!) in free fall you would be able to colonize the solar system. The Dean Drive would be the key to space travel even if it never produced enough thrust to actually lift itself."

    Why do you think would an 1/18th G be that spectacular for space travel? It could not even lift its own weight, and in the Roy Thorson video it pushes the canoe at a relatively very low speed.

    I really sometimes suck at math, but the author said this drive is 20 times more efficient than a jet engine. How did he come to this 20:1 ratio calculation?

    In 2001 Roger Shawyer demonstrated the EM Drive after patenting his idea and in 2007 it was sold to Boeing by the British Department of Trade and Industry. He had to go to the Pentagon next year and demonstrate it again, and then the Birtish Ministry of Defense agreed to a TOT. Is there any way to bypass the Government officials from taking control and profit of such an invention? I saw that the Chinese started developing their own EM Drives after that which might indicate that Government employees are not immune to leaks and providing the Chinese with information (like in the F-35 and J-31 case).

    You are right. My bad. Thousand, not millions. I often chill with a glass of Merlot or Teran while writing on HBA, then I see it in a couple of days when rereading the text, thanks for pointing this out.

    If it does show remarkable results, in most parts of the world government agencies tend to expropriate the inventor for national security reasons and the inventor has to settle for peanuts. I am looking at other options which would allow the inventor full control and profit of such a system.
     
  12. Aug 25, 2019 #72

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Good point. To stay on topic, HBA could not use a Dean Drive because the thrust seems quite low, and could not use a DEKAIR because it would be too powerful.

    Einstein was a great guy, but in one of his early books he wrote that aircraft will never fly faster than the speed of sound because vibrations would tear the materials apart. After another scientist told him that there are ballistic bodies which fly faster without bursting mid air, he corrected this claim and wrote that no object can travel faster than light speed. He was young at the time pf writing such an idea, and Chuck Yaeger showed later that man is able to fly faster than the speed of sound.

    Homebuilt aircraft using a DEKAIR would never pass regulations, just like most other supersonic aircraft could not get a permit to fly by civilians. I heard there was an American pilot who privately owned a MiG-21 for fun, but he would usually fly below Mach 1. Getting an old supersonic airframe like the MiG-21 which can be bought cheaply, ditching the jet engine and installing a DEKAIR is also not a good idea, it would give more reasons to auhtorities to ground such an aircraft and 'inspect' it to reveal its technology.

    On a side note, everyone remebers Einstein even though most of his theories were shown to be wrong at some point when quantum physics evolved in the late 20th century. Yet the guy called Nikola Tesla who invented the AC, induction motors, wireless networks, remote control and a bunch of other usefull stuff - is mostly forgotten by the general population. The same would happen in case of giving DEKAIR away for free to humanity, nobody would ever remember the person who invented the thing.

    A homebuilt aircraft using a DEKAIR would definitely not be something spectacular, it might even be made to resemble the Ranger spaceship from Interstellar.

    [​IMG]

    I'll just add here a video of Roger Shawer for clarity, with a link about EM drives.


    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/emdrive-paper-and-what-original.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  13. Aug 25, 2019 #73

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    To get back on topic of space travel and SSTO using DEKAIR, who would be interested in further commercial development of the idea besides Musk and Bryson?
     
  14. Aug 25, 2019 #74

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    "Why do you think would an 1/18th G be that spectacular for space travel? It could not even lift its own weight, and in the Roy Thorson video it pushes the canoe at a relatively very low speed."

    ANY continuous thrust engine that did not use reaction mass is beyond spectacular for space flight. Yes, if your drive and craft can't pull more than 1 G you have to get to orbit first, but after that, you are unlimited! It would give mankind the stars. Enable us to divert civilization killing asteroids. Let us mine the solar system. Vacation on Mars and Honeymoon with a close up view of Saturn's rings.

    reaction drives need reaction mass to throw away. That reaction mass is the heaviest part, by far, of any rocket type known and dominates all your equations for moving around in space. All long range rockets are mostly reaction mass. The thinnest possible shell around a lot of reaction mass.

    if using chemical rockets, fuel & oxidizer is your reaction mass. In thermal nuclear or ion, the "fuel" is in the power source or reactor and generally not thrown away, and the big tank has some fluid you heat up or electrically accelerate that is the reaction mass. Could be liquid hydrogen, water, iron dust, or a bag of rocks. No matter if you use antimatter or sit there in a space suit And throw rocks with your arm, the principal And math is the same.

    And when the tank is empty. You are ballistic. Just another rock falling forever. ( until you hit something )

    Thus any reaction drive is limited by now much reaction mass you carry.

    A reactionless drive, OTOH is only limited by your power source. A small push for days and weeks on end just keeps accelerating you. Even a 1/1000 G acceleration that DOES NOT STOP will soon out race a 20G rocket that burns through it's fuel in minutes or....

    Unfortunately the nice machine in the canoe is not, alas, a reactionless drive. I didn't see the pendulum test in it's entirety, but it looked like it just wobbled back & forth. More importantly, it's claims to climb hills, and push a canoe, are because of stick-slip effects. It's a clever vibrator, not a drive. It's not the first, and won't be the last.

    My motorcycle will dance backwards in a big circle if I leave it running at idle in a flat parking lot. No magic, just a vibrating engine and an angled kick stand that sticks, then slips. I love to freak people out by starting it, in a smooth, flatish parking lot, pick where it will dance to, stand facing away while donning my coat & helmet & gloves, pretending to ignore it, then casually turning & throwing a leg over, engaging first gear, and riding off while retracting the stand in one smooth motion. My personal best for this stunt is about 125 feet from the original parking spot.

    Hey, it amuses, me.

    But it's not a reactionless drive or psychic powers.
     
  15. Aug 25, 2019 #75

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    The EM drive is as yet not known, to me, to work. I follow events with great interest.

    as to the imaginary DEKAIR? You literally can conquer the world. Without a working model, funding is an issue, but with one? Stick it in a minivan or other truck with a used Prius Battery to demonstrate it, and sell it to Musk or Luckup and run with the money, is my advice.

    or you could try to be Tony Stark, but without the initial fortune to protect & supply you, I'm sticking with my initial reaction, the "everyone will try to kidnap or kill you to have the power that a reactionless drive of such thrust & efficiency." So, of course, they can rule/ protect the world.

    seriously, DEKAIR is very high level paradigm smashing technology.

    you are in the same position as a man who invented a machine to make gold, or gasoline, from tap water. You will be killed. It's too disruptive to too many people and governments.
     
  16. Aug 27, 2019 #76

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    369
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Just like Shawyer said it, the EM drive is not a reactionless drive. It has a reaction and it simply changes electric energy to kinetic enrgy. The DEKAIR is simply two steps forward, it is a reactor which changes electric energy to kinetic energy by a couple orders of magnitude. Both comply to the laws of physics, both can provide thrust, the DEKAIR simply does that with more efficience and thrust power. The two are propellantless systems, as in not having a propellant (other than electrons) needed to dump for a reaction.

    I am more worried about the current recession in Italy, Brexit in October and the recession in Germany in 2020 than evil men in black who would try to intimidate an inventor. International corporations with lawyers who create payment issues trying to fuqk each other over for a freaking percentage are more to worry about than government agencies or mobsters. Hence the problem still is the one I already mentioned - one has to asure payment for an invention.

    That is why I created this post, to see what clever people on HBA say about how to get paid for a game changing invention.

    In other words, how would you asure to be paid for a working model, aware that the Transfer of Technology (TOT) is worth billions?
     
  17. Aug 27, 2019 #77

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Texas
    If you don't know this story, you might check it out, a billion-dollar idea for sure and a very hard life to basically receive far too little in compensation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle
     
    DangerZone likes this.
  18. Aug 27, 2019 #78

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Does it throw out mass to get an equal and opposite reaction? That's a reaction/rocket drive. The EM drive commenting fellow you posted claims to have it's "reaction" in a closed "box". Am I correct?

    changing electrical energy to kinetic WITHOUT throwing mass away is the definition of a reactionless drive.

    DEKAIR is an imaginary extrapolation of such a drive, scaled up to really useful & desirable specs. Correct?

    I personally don't KNOW the EM drive works, or how. I would like it to work.
     
  19. Aug 27, 2019 #79

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,352
    Likes Received:
    6,129
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
  20. Aug 27, 2019 #80

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,594
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Moderator Note: Even more importantly, even if it works, it'll never power an airplane or other atmospheric craft. As spacecraft and such are off-topic for HBA, thread closed.
     
    Toobuilder likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

arrow_white