Roger Shawyer Posts Third Generation EmDrive Outline for Thrusters, Personal Air Vehicles.

Roger Shawyer, inventor of the EmDrive has posted a new document on the Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd. website titled “Third Generation EmDrive”, in which he describes features of the latest version of the EmDrive that he is apparently developing. He describes it as:

“High thrust. High acceleration, superconducting technology. Theoretical work reported in US, China and UK. Aerospace applications including Launch Vehicles and Personal Air Vehicles.Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd”

The full document along with designs of some of EmDrive vehicles and devices can be found here: http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf

3GEmDrive
  • Billy Jackson

    I would be extremely excited to see some of the tests of these devices with actual lift capacity.. even if all it does is hover for a few minutes..

  • Pixel Cube

    PAVs? That would require quite a bit of lift, but they also list launch vehicles as plausible, so… How long until I get my jet pack (without the jet)?

  • Engineer48
    • Looking forward to EmDrive + E-Cat QX πŸ˜‰

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please make the first taxis look like those in the Fifth Element, complete with uninvited passenger, that is all I ask

    • Chapman

      Dang it!!! I can’t figure out how to pull up a “Thumbs Up” emoticon, OR a happy face with a suitably lecherous leer…

      πŸ™‚

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe it when it is demonstrated.

  • oldrolledgold

    Wow

  • HAL9000

    The Tesla Model 4 with EmDrive will have a new feature true multilevel parking; no garage needed.

    • Omega Z

      Just watch your step when you get out of your car on level 10.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That will require the optional ECat-QX power system for long term parking.

  • nietsnie

    Top speed 230 km/hr? Not a lot of wind resistance in that design and it looks like most of the resistance is on top… You’d be safely flying along through the urban canyon at max velocity, dodging other safe flyers, with your nose constantly trying to rise when, suddenly, your eight engine propulsion rig is ripped right off the roof by the wind – causing you to descend 50 stories before breaking your fall by caroming through the wall of ladies shoe design concern or hedge fund.

    Or else, you’d be flying along and need to take a right at the T intersection – but your 3/4g propulsion can’t slow you down fast enough. CRASH! through the wall on the 35th floor: high heals skittering in every direction. Second time this month. No-one wants a window anymore –
    let alone a corner office.

    Or, maybe this is where all that AI driver-less driving research starts to pay off.

  • Chapman

    All jokes aside, I think it likely that the US NAVY would be even more interested than NASA.

    Attack submarines are buoyant, but requires thrust, and propellor cavitation creates telltale audio signatures. An inertial propulsion system with real kick would allow absolute “silent running”…

    But as a non-military underwater application, consider the scientific benefit to deep submersibles able to go down and photograph the ocean floor without having the propwash stir up the bottom sediments! This would require USABLE thrust, but does not need to be the levels of force required for the atmospheric uses many are dreaming of. It would be a great application to get them into use, and stimulate further development.

    • William D. Fleming

      A more frivolous use would be for a treadless snowmobile. The thruster would be mounted on the front skis and would turn you on a dime.

    • Zephir

      Magnetohydrodynamic propulsion is silent and utilized in submarines for years – most of noise is actually generated with motion of body underwater, not its propelling. I don’t think that EMDrive would actually run underwater..

      • Chapman

        Why would the EM Drive not work underwater? Am I missing a basic feature? I thought the whole point is that there is no propellent, no exhaust, and operates as a completely sealed unit.

        I can understand you observing that the first generation device has such a low thrust that it would be useless given the high drag of underwater movement, but these third generation numbers are claiming previously unthinkable thrust. Certainly, if the thrust is high enough for the devices to be considered for high speed atmospheric utilization then they have enough thrust for underwater maneuvering.

        And even MHD thrust involves compressing the liquid medium, which causes air bubbles to be formed, and a characteristic “whoosh” that can be identified.

        What’s more, if we take the fantastic claims to be true, then would you not want a nuclear attack sub that could rise up out of the water and place itself into a secure inland dry dock for service, or bypass the Panama canal and just float across the panamanian jungle from the pacific to the atlantic, or even take to the skies for low speed aerial torpedo drops? I mean, the claims are getting pretty “out there” in terms of thrust. Who knows what his fourth generation presentation will claim. Maybe we can have a flying sub that is capable of directly achieving low earth orbit, and can bring fresh hearing to the International Space Station! That would be something.

  • Warthog

    “It’s a shame that most of these corporations handling disruptive technology never consider crowdsourcing.”

    Crowdsourcing is good for small firms and small startup projects. Like it or not, for larger scales, you need to tap larger sources of capital, and that means venture capitalists or investment banks and the like. I follow “Kickstarter” religiously. Lots of good things happening for lots of startups.

    • Crowdsourcing is a problem when disruptive technology is attacked by slandering Trolls.

      Nikola Tesla wrote: β€œIn this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered
      in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations. … All that was great
      in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”

      “Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was
      denounced as fraud and folly.” Robert Anton Wilson

      24/7 cheap green energy is being developed. See aesopinstitute.org One or two bold individuals can supply small Bridge funds and accelerate the work. Major capital is pending.

      • Warthog

        “Crowdsourcing is a problem when disruptive technology is attacked by slandering Trolls.”

        I think crowdsourcing and like approaches are great, but limited in magnitude. As you say, it can boost an idea from “crackpot” to “legitimate”, and allow access to larger sources of capital not available without adequate background of supporting data.

  • nietsnie

    Looks vaguely like a shuttle craft with a bag on top doesn’t it?

  • I hope EM drive works, but Wikipedia has some very well constructed doubts that it works at all. We have seen the fiasco of measuring errors and bold claims about LENR. EM drive has similar qualities in that measuring errors could account for the entire phenomena. We should not believe in something just because it sounds good and would be a blessing for mankind if true. We have to get our facts right or we end up living in a fantasy world.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

    • Omega Z

      Without the dreamers and their fantasies, we would likely still be living in caves. Who would have believed 200 years ago we would be able to engineer changes in the human body by manipulating DNA and growing new organs by stem cells and so much more that began as fantasy.

    • Zephir

      Wikipedia doubts the cold fusion too, not to say about E-Cat and Andrea Rossi.

  • Tony

    The Tesla Model 4 with EmDrive will have a new feature true multilevel parking; no garage needed.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting BAE video that proves bounching photons between reflecting surfaces harvests more of the photon’s momentum than a photon rocket at 3.3uN/kW. Each bounce harvests 2 * p = E/c of momentum. Called Radiation Pressure or the Compton Effect.

    https://youtu.be/QICCrlmBjvY

    Radiation Pressure:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/475aa90eb921645fa4c3b1bef8eceac73a207627b87b5578cafe6c8dc6c77169.png

    Compton Effect:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f03d29199d85b00f1b100e706a3d2e64342065ee60a11679e2cc11fa202fb0cd.png

  • christopher clark

    Please make the first taxis look like those in the Fifth Element, complete with uninvited passenger, that is all I ask

  • nietsnie

    I have a robot vacuum cleaner with a picture of Rosie taped on top.

  • nietsnie

    Putting aside, for a moment, the design blueprints, the insane George J. idea of flying to work through the urban canyon, and all the comedy they rightly inspire… I do want one, of course.

    Maybe they could arrange for backward propulsion of greater than .75g so that it could actually slow down and/or stop more dependably than a hovercraft. Stopping is super-important for a consumer-purpose vehicle meant to mingle in an urban environment. Lacking that, it could still be very practical for specially trained drivers in the urban roles of, for instance, ambulance or police. Super-fast response from hospitals. Ne’er-do-wells have to make their getaway on the pavement – but cops could fly, and without worrying about the danger do the populace from their propellers or the damage from their wind-derived propulsion.

    Maybe hang an EMP gun with a narrow focus from its undercarriage to disable electrical systems during ‘car’ chases. Wait – too sci-fi?

    https://youtu.be/oT5EJYY_6HQ

    (hmmmm… better electrically shield the police flier *really* thoroughly too)

    But, I still like the idea of a driver-less Uber-like service that provides JIT transportation to a destination. Centralized control would allow each vehicle to be aware of all other nearby vehicles and *plan* to avoid them long before they come near each other. Similarly – no bad/tired/distracted/drunk drivers. Doing it in 3D should make it easier since there would be less congestion. Something like it, as a service, only using more conventional octocopter, is already at least scheduled to be running commercially in Dubai now:

    https://www.thenational.ae/business/dubai-to-launch-driverless-flying-cars-by-this-summer-1.74746

    Taking the wind generation out of it just makes it better.

    • Omega Z

      “aware of all other nearby vehicles and *plan* to avoid them long before they come near each other”

      That has worked out so well for aircraft so far.

      Only 2 aircraft in the whole world with an altitude that can very from 0-6 miles and somehow, those 2 aircraft will run into one another. It’s like flying threw air creates some kind of magnetic attraction pulling them together…

      • Omega Z

        As to your link. It appears Dubai may soon have a lot of stumpy people walking around. Oh sure, you can place labels stating to say in the car until the rotors stop, but how often do people pay attention to such things.

        • nietsnie

          I don’t know. All I know of the project is this article. To me the whole thing reads like the flying cars that Popular Mechanics told my grandfather were right around the corner, and the flying cars that Popular Science said were right around the corner when I was a kid. I read another one within the last few years. They’re always waiting for FAA approval that apparently never comes. Except in this case it’s in Dubai and it is actually approved to begin operation this summer.

          If I ran the zoo, the doors would lock before the propellers started to turn and wouldn’t unlock until they had stopped. You’d arrange for one to be waiting for you when you arrived by providing your card number before you got there. You’d step into the vehicle and close the door – causing the screen to light up. Then you’d choose a destination – and sit back and wait to arrive. When you got there the vehicle would land and the propellers would wind down, and then the screen would turn off and the door would open. No way to leap or accidentally fall out the way people do periodically from roller coasters, Ferris Wheels, ski trams, etc.

      • nietsnie

        Not flying just anywhere – but within the ‘urban canyon’ – that is: within the airspace bounded by high-rise buildings. They propose a personal vehicle in which the driver will simply fly from place to place between buildings – the way you would drive a car – but 3D and no friction and gravity to slow down with. I’m saying that the dangers of this eventuality could be drastically diminished by automating the process.

        I didn’t say it previously, but I have in mind a set of ‘rules’ that the vehicles would abide by to simplify getting along. Maybe horizontal lanes, enforced digitally, for direction and different altitudes for different speeds and purposes. They’d need a vertical corridor to initially enter the traffic flow and others to move from level to level. The last bit would have to do with each ‘car’ knowing the location, vector, and velocity in relation to itself in order to choose appropriate moments to change levels vertically.

        The need to avoid vehicles hurtling out of the sky into a city street or through a building window cannot be overemphasized. Leaving it up to consumers is asking for trouble. Although if I personally got an exemption – that would be OK.

  • Tony

    I hope EM drive works, but Wikipedia has some very well constructed doubts that it works at all. We have seen the fiasco of measuring errors and bold claims about LENR. EM drive has similar qualities in that measuring errors could account for the entire phenomena. We should not believe in something just because it sounds good and would be a blessing for mankind if true. We have to get our facts right or we end up living in a fantasy world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

    • Zephir

      /* we should not believe in something just because it sounds good and would be a blessing for mankind if true */

      Personally I’d have no problem with supporting the things, which aren’t sure yet – no matter if it’s string theory or cold fusion or just EMDrive. Especially at the case of later cases it’s solely utilitarian stance – what we can actually lose if we would believe it? The skepticism wouldn’t help any progress.

      • Omega Z

        Tony appears to like re-posting others previous posts. Cuts and Pasts.

        This was 1st posted by Christopher Calder below.

  • Nathan

    Wow

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    EmDrive thruster efficiency presentation is added to http://www.emdrive.com

    http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveEfficiency.pdf

    This presentation clearly shows that by using velocity changes relative to the EmDrive, there is no Over Unity and that CofE is conserved.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Gee, so we have a device that takes 1 billion watts of power to lift 1 ton.

    A flying car would weigh 1 ton (2200 lbs).

    Or 500,000 watts to lift one pound, and these folks are talking about flying cars? Anyone have an
    idea of how big a device is to create a 500,000 watts of power?

    Talk of flying cars etc. at this astronomical power requirements is rather silly.
    I really don’t see anything more here then placing a light bub in the center of a convex pie plate as a reflector, and then turning the light bulb on – that also will work in the vacuum of space and produce a force.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada