NSF Thread 5
From EM Drive
-
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:25 PM -
This is a thread - Thread 5 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.
Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome. Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people. As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged. Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.
Commercial advertisement is discouraged.
In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)
This link
http://math.typeit.org/
enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.
--
Links to previous threads:
Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0
Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0
Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0
Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0
--
Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0
Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:
http://emdrive.wiki
Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 3 million thread reads and 800,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.
Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
(
)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM -
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:33 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1432703#msg1432703">Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 10/04/2015 08:27 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1432641#msg1432641">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 04:10 PM</a>
Disappointed to notice wallofwolfstreet has left the building here and on reddit apparently. Anyone have the details on this? I enjoyed his posts, even tho he was not a firm believer...
I appreciate that you feel my posts have been constructive.
I haven't left actually, just have some other things taking up more time. I deleted my reddit account because whenever I commented on /r/emdrive, I found myself wasting time just looking through random posts on /r/all. Someone with better impulse control could have saved the account and just posted less, but I went for the burnt bridge option.
Great wolfy. glad you remained here. Ya know, we need all angles to help sort this thing out. Stay "you" and it will help 8) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:51 PM - While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 PM -
Curious?
While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:
At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?
Better references to what I am getting at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44
Don -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:15 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432710#msg1432710">Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 PM</a>
Curious?
Wish I knew the answer to that. On reddit, someone made a comparison to the big bang...matter from nothing. I remain on the fence. I feel there is an emdrive effect, but it very well might be a repulsive or attractive force at the quantum particle or wave level. I think we'll soon have the answer late this year or next.
While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:
At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?
Better references to what I am getting at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44
Don -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 09:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432712#msg1432712">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:15 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432710#msg1432710">Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 PM</a>
Curious?
Wish I knew the answer to that. On reddit, someone made a comparison to the big bang...matter from nothing. I remain on the fence. I feel there is an emdrive effect, but it very well might be a repulsive or attractive force at the quantum particle or wave level. I think we'll soon have the answer late this year or next.
While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:
At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?
Better references to what I am getting at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44
Don
Thanks.
I also should have included this reference as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass
Looking forward to your 2016 tests as well.
Don -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM</a>
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
Dave,
I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.
I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept. I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies - I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate. However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain. I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.
Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"?
Herm
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:48 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432718#msg1432718">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 PM</a>
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM</a>NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
Dave,
I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.
I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept. I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies - I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate. However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain. I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.
Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"?
Herm
<edit> clarification of shape factor example -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2015 10:49 PM - This topic seems to be on one of its periodic slow periods. I suppose there is quite a bit of waiting around for various results from the professional groups as well as more home experimenters to get things fired up.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/04/2015 11:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432710#msg1432710">Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 PM</a>
Curious?
While the effect may prove out to be real. Like many things that have been discovered in the past with no clear theories to lead the building it will remain in dispute for some time.
While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:
At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?
Better references to what I am getting at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44
Don
Even though flight has been around for over a hundred years there has been dispute.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.html
So that leaves it to the builders of the Drive to build and evaluate almost by trial and error as to what works and what doesn't. Build by build, data bit by data bit (No Bad Data). I know it's a slap in the face to the many theorists who are trying so hard to come up with answers, but I believe the theories will abound for a long time.
I have given thoughts as to what is causing this thrust, I have my pet ones and even one that some say can't work, but I firmly believe you need to take into consideration CoM and CoE and there must be a "hole" of some force made by the Drive interacting with the outside frame reference to produce thrust.
Over the months of my build (I even started in that direction with my octagonal walled drive) it became clear that's it's not enough for me to get some tiny thrust or even to be first, but the real work and real need became to be able to test out the different theories to provide clear and concise data. Maybe I'll get lucky and hit a home run with one of the designs backing a theory. That's when the real fun will begin.
But this weekend I've taken off to split wood and get ready for the winter that is coming and the old bones are screaming "I hate you" :)
Shell
PS: I also want to say this group is some of the finest people I've ever had the joy of working with, my deepest respect goes to you all.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/04/2015 11:48 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432734#msg1432734">Quote from: Star One on 10/04/2015 10:49 PM</a>
This topic seems to be on one of its periodic slow periods. I suppose there is quite a bit of waiting around for various results from the professional groups as well as more home experimenters to get things fired up.
http://www.trekcore.com/audio/toscomputer/voice/tos_working.mp3
Working hard to get'er done Star One. This next week is going to be very busy as I'm just getting the last few items in for the build and I hope to have something very soon!
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 11:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432741#msg1432741">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/04/2015 11:36 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432710#msg1432710">Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 PM</a>
Curious?
While the effect may prove out to be real. Like many things that have been discovered in the past with no clear theories to lead the building it will remain in dispute for some time.
While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:
At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?
Better references to what I am getting at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44
Don
Even though flight has been around for over a hundred years there has been dispute.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.html
So that leaves it to the builders of the Drive to build and evaluate almost by trial and error as to what works and what doesn't. Build by build, data bit by data bit (No Bad Data). I know it's a slap in the face to the many theorists who are trying so hard to come up with answers, but I believe the theories will abound for a long time.
I have given thoughts as to what is causing this thrust, I have my pet ones and even one that some say can't work, but I firmly believe you need to take into consideration CoM and CoE and there must be a "hole" of some force made by the Drive interacting with the outside frame reference to produce thrust.
Over the months of my build (I even started in that direction with my octagonal walled drive) it became clear that's it's not enough for me to get some tiny thrust or even to be first, but the real work and real need became to be able to test out the different theories to provide clear and concise data. Maybe I'll get lucky and hit a home run with one of the designs backing a theory. That's when the real fun will begin.
But this weekend I've taken off to split wood and get ready for the winter that is coming and the old bones are screaming "I hate you" :)
Shell
PS: I also want to say this group is some of the finest people I've ever had the joy of working with, my deepest respect goes to you all.
Thanks Shell.
Looking forward to your tests as well.
Don -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:19 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432708#msg1432708">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:51 PM</a>
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
RFMWGUY!
I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:34 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432771#msg1432771">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:19 AM</a>
[quote ::) author=rfmwguy link=topic=38577.msg1432708#msg1432708 date=1443991863]
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...QuoteRFMWGUY!
I will beam him back soon, shell...just before your first thermal test...no pressure ::)
I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 AM -
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe.
Quantum physics says that energy exists in discrete packets. These packets are defined by the plank constant. A plank constant is the energy in one oscillation (1hz) of rf frequency. You can't have a a fractional frequency. There is no 107.4 hz. The universe won't let you do it. You either have to broadcast on 107hz or 108hz.
Einstein says that all mass is made up of two things. A rest mass and energy. Energy has a mass of m=e/c^2. Your desk actually has a lot of energy in it, making up the bulk of its mass. You just aren't going to get that energy out without splitting or fusing atoms. Moreover relativity wants very precise answer. This much energy must always, and without fail have the same mass.
Here's the thing. Almost everything we do with light is governed by the number of photons. Your wireless router is putting out X photons which each have a frequency of around 2.5ghz right now. When you turn the power up, more photons (a higher amplitude wave) comes out. When it comes to energy, all that really matters to us (most of the time) is amplitude. More photons = more energy.
It doesn't work that way for the photons. A photons frequency equals the amount of energy it contains. You might be able to have a single photon that contained 1 watt of energy all by itself, but it'd be a high powered gamma ray that you wouldn't want to be anywhere near. When a photon is emitted it gives the atom that is emitting it momentum equal to what that atom would have gained had it shot out a particle with the same mass at the speed of light. This energy has to come from somewhere. It comes from redshifting the photon. The photon looses a couple hz of frequency as it transfers energy to the atom.
Relativity says that it doesn't matter if you have 10 photons at 100hz or 100 photons at 10hz, both groups of photons must have the exact same mass. On the other hand, quantum physics says that a photon has to be redshifted in 1hz intervals. 10 Photons at 99hz do not have the same energy as 100 photons at 9hz. You have a rounding error, a bug in the programming of the universe.
If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical. The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity. Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound. I did up a spreadsheet earlier that showed the error (though only on one column, I had the output rounded in the others so that drive builders could see if they were in danger of redshifting their photons outside of their frustums bandwidth). That would imply that one side is being moved by a heavier mass than what is hitting the other side (and also that an ELF transmitter would produce a photon rocket effect many times stronger than it is "suppose" to).
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 03:53 AM -
Maybe Dr. Rodal is working with Dr. White on the next version of this recent paper?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf
Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster
Or maybe doing work for Dr. White on the next EMDrive vac results paper? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 04:12 AM -
Dr. Mike McCulloch has a new paper on why he believes the EMDrive works.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282357284_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_the_emdrive
Testing quantised inertia on the EMDrive -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/05/2015 05:04 AM -
Very interesting report; another anomaly. Newton's laws still intact though. There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust. If this seems off-topic I apologize and will not mind if this post is expunged. However it is an interesting claim since the thrust measured is in the milliNewtons. This professor has also been able to patent his device. Below is a simple drawing of this device, from his patent.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-light-years-ahead-of-the-dawn-spacecraft-ion-propulsion-system/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8952773.PN.&OS=PN/8952773&RS=PN/8952773 -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/05/2015 05:08 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432785#msg1432785">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 03:53 AM</a>
Maybe Dr. Rodal is working with Dr. White on the next version of this recent paper?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf
Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster
Or maybe doing work for Dr. White on the next EMDrive vac results paper?
How much is this paper recent? Did I missed something? :o
By the way, I was thinking the same about Dr. Rodal. This silence is similar to that of the NASA folks.
NASA you have to release your people from cages :D We miss them dearly here. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/05/2015 05:31 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432776#msg1432776">Quote from: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 AM</a>
Quantum physics says that energy exists in discrete packets. These packets are defined by the plank constant. A plank constant is the energy in one oscillation (1hz) of rf frequency. You can't have a a fractional frequency. There is no 107.4 hz. The universe won't let you do it. You either have to broadcast on 107hz or 108hz.
While your post is a fun thought experiment, physics doesn't work the way you presented it. 1 Hz is a human number and has no special meaning to the universe. If any unit system has special significance it would be Planck units. We don't actually know what happens at the Planck scale because it is very small lengths and times. the Planck frequency would be the inverse of the Planck time, which would be a very, very high frequency.
IF the universe does have discrete times, the difference this makes is well beyond our current ability to measure. This would still allow for arbitrarily low frequencies, but they would all be quantized to be equal to the inverse of a discrete number of Planck times. You could have arbitrarily low frequencies (oscillation takes arbitrarily large number of Planck times), so there would be no expectation for rounding errors.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432776#msg1432776">Quote from: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 AM</a>When a photon is emitted it gives the atom that is emitting it momentum equal to what that atom would have gained had it shot out a particle with the same mass at the speed of light.
By this do you mean if it had shot out a particle with 0 mass with infinite proper velocity*? (to solve a problem like that you would need more context so you could set up a proper limit to get rid of the 0 * inf) You unfortunately can't just treat photons like they have mass equal to their energy, and no object with mass can travel at the speed of light.
*Proper velocity is distance measured by observer, divided by time measured by the moving object. I like thinking in terms of it, but it isn't really useful for most calculations, since it uses data split between reference frames. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 05:44 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432800#msg1432800">Quote from: zen-in on 10/05/2015 05:04 AM</a>
Very interesting report; another anomaly. Newton's laws still intact though. There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust. If this seems off-topic I apologize and will not mind if this post is expunged. However it is an interesting claim since the thrust measured is in the milliNewtons. This professor has also been able to patent his device. Below is a simple drawing of this device, from his patent.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-light-years-ahead-of-the-dawn-spacecraft-ion-propulsion-system/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8952773.PN.&OS=PN/8952773&RS=PN/8952773
And the Energy to support the claimed Force/Thrust doing Work over a Distance comes from where?
As I see it there is a Force to the right on the cone and an equal but opposite Force to the left on the magnet. Thus no net Force is generated so no need to be concerned as to the source of the Energy. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/05/2015 05:59 AM -
Dave:
I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?
Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic 8)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/05/2015 06:37 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432806#msg1432806">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 05:44 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432800#msg1432800">Quote from: zen-in on 10/05/2015 05:04 AM</a>
Very interesting report; another anomaly. Newton's laws still intact though. There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust.
...
And the Energy to support the claimed Force/Thrust doing Work over a Distance comes from where?
As I see it there is a Force to the right on the cone and an equal but opposite Force to the left on the magnet. Thus no net Force is generated so no need to be concerned as to the source of the Energy.
Yes it is a free energy machine he is claiming. I'm surprised a US patent was issued. The last sentence of the abstract has the following phrase: "as well as in the production of energy". But it does show that small amounts of anomalous force can be observed with many different devices. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/05/2015 07:43 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432720#msg1432720">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:48 PM</a>
Shape factor was exactly where I was going in my late night noodling and then your post caught my eye. I was trying to come up with a way to relate the concept for those who aren't familiar with filters and their behavior. I have always found shape factor to be a challenge to explain to someone who hasn't built or used or quantified filters.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432718#msg1432718">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 PM</a>
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM</a>NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
Dave,
I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.
I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept. I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies - I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate. However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain. I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.
Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"?
Herm
<edit> clarification of shape factor example
However, I really think there is a similarity here (by that I mean two phenomena which present at least a surface or 1st order similarity without a definite or at least defined conceptual link). Consider the relationship of shape factor to the magnitude of overshoot. And just some way after midnight unconstrained thoughts - isn't overshoot a bit reminiscent of evanescent waves. I know I know that's just crazy talk.
Herm -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:01 AM -
DIY’s maybe could do with some help here –or see if you can run with it.
Back on subject of “Reducing Thermal Lift”.
Do we think looking in, another direction might help?
What if we take a look at the sheer simplicity of the thermal management system as used on the Lunar Rover Battery and then apply it to the elevated Magnetron heat output?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
quote:
” Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).[15] These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. LRV batteries and electronics were passively cooled, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces. While driving, radiators were covered with mylar blankets to minimize dust accumulation. When stopped, the astronauts would open the blankets, and manually remove excess dust from the cooling surfaces with hand brushes.”
In other words, perhaps it’s better to go down the path of building in improved ‘thermal capacitance’ rather than high ‘thermal dispersion’ rates in EMdrive test bed setups. In the case of the lunar rover it was a case of using 2.5 pounds or 1.14kgs of wax to absorb the heat and then to releasing it back slowly to space as radiant energy.
The way I see it the EM rig's would then have extended warm up and cool down periods and would better able to handle the thermal cyclically nature when in Operational mode. I would expect to see less in thermal heat changes happing in a smaller thermal band. Between the ON and OFF modes. To draw an analogy it could liken it, to putting a bigger capacitor in an electrical circuit to better smooth things out.
The hope being of course, that this evens out or smooths out those ‘nasty thermal lift’ eddies and in turn making it easier to separate out further the true EM effect.
To start with we need to find:
1.Someone willing to do a thermal flow analysis on a spreadsheet with the aim of find an anticipated ‘thermal band’ like 150°C-170°C when in operational use with say a nominal 50% ON /50% OFF magnetron [we would need some efficiency numbers and it might for example show it could only run 10 minutes before temperatures gets to out of hand and the need to turn off for a while to cool back down] and the wax weight required. Then if worth pursing further…
2.Find a suitable wax to use: for example first thoughts are paraffin wax that melts from about 65°C to flashpoint of 200°C density of around 900 kg/m3. [noted magnetron max is 170°C]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin_wax
Paraffin wax is an excellent material for storing heat, with a specific heat capacity of 2.14–2.9 J g−1 K−1 (joules per gram kelvin) and a heat of fusion of 200–220 J g−1.[11] This property is exploited in modified drywall for home building material: a certain type of wax (with the right melting point) is infused in the drywall during manufacture so that it melts during the day, absorbing heat, and solidifies again at night, releasing the heat.
3. Consider if any negative effects as the specific density changes slightly when in liquid state [ i.e. point of balance changing] suspect negligible.
4.Consider the extra beam weight and its possible loading effects [by the way, rfmwguy do up you have an all up weight for the copper frustum and the magnetron together, and its pieces as a matter of interest? Kind of cool to know what that possible 177 micro newtons of force is pushing! ]
5.Construct a wax tight box around the magnetron and fill it with a suitable volume of heat control wax.
6.Test and evaluate for increased stability or lack thereof.
And best part of all. A more definitive, EMforce reading.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:04 AM -
Forgot to mention a caution
Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:16 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432809#msg1432809">Quote from: zellerium on 10/05/2015 05:59 AM</a>
Dave:
I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?
Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic 8)
Cool!
Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.
This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.
My head hurts just thinking about it. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 01:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432718#msg1432718">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM</a>
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
Dave,
I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.
I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept. I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies - I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate. However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain. I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.
Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"?
Herm
I've tried to stay out of it although I would have to agree with rfmwguy's assessment in how to take and measure Q. Ham's have been doing it that way for decades and I have a lot of respect for what they do what they know and have added to the general field of electronics, let alone the good work they have done.
Meep has calculated a absurdly huge number for Q for the dual waveguide and I know it is just an idealized computer dream calculation, although it has merit in comparison to the real world.
That's when I decided to get my copper laser cut, to build as close of a model to the calculated meep one, just to see what I can get out of it and also to see if even with the cavity stabilizing route I've taken how high a Q I can hope to achieve. In my todo list I have designs to add a small motor to the end of the micrometer situated on the bottom plate to fine tune during operation with a feed back system during a hot run. First I want to get the data on how stable locking the plates together with the quartz rod can be by allowing the frustum to expand past it.
Calculating Q is quite important when considering it will be a number referenced throughout the runs and it's very important that I keep the same standard throughout the testing. That's the important one, others can recalculate how ever they want from the data.
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432823#msg1432823">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/05/2015 07:43 AM</a>
I hear ya Herm. I tried to visualize how we could characterize return loss rather than amplitude response and Poof! Shape factor forcing experimenters to declare both 3dB Q measurement points and compare them to one another.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432720#msg1432720">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:48 PM</a>
Shape factor was exactly where I was going in my late night noodling and then your post caught my eye. I was trying to come up with a way to relate the concept for those who aren't familiar with filters and their behavior. I have always found shape factor to be a challenge to explain to someone who hasn't built or used or quantified filters.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432718#msg1432718">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 PM</a>
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432702#msg1432702">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 PM</a>NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.
All the best,
Dave
Dave,
I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.
I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept. I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies - I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate. However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain. I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.
Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"?
Herm
<edit> clarification of shape factor example
However, I really think there is a similarity here (by that I mean two phenomena which present at least a surface or 1st order similarity without a definite or at least defined conceptual link). Consider the relationship of shape factor to the magnitude of overshoot. And just some way after midnight unconstrained thoughts - isn't overshoot a bit reminiscent of evanescent waves. I know I know that's just crazy talk.
Herm
Sooooo, we have invented Qr, or Q ratio, measuring the steepness of the return loss trace on a single port device. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 01:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432864#msg1432864">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432809#msg1432809">Quote from: zellerium on 10/05/2015 05:59 AM</a>
Dave:
I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?
Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic 8)
Cool!
Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.
This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.
My head hurts just thinking about it.
The cavity and end plates are going to try and deform. Even with the low power EW used you can see the difference in heating caused by the modes. When you apply >10x that power the effects are going to increase as well. I'm not sure how well a PLL will be able to offset the thermal deformations you'll see in the copper sheeting. Have you thought about trying to compensate for those hot spots by re-enforcing the end plates with sinks or a heftier plate? Or do you think it's not a issue. Sometimes I think I worry too much and bonded mine onto a ceramic plate.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JonathanD on 10/05/2015 02:08 PM -
Brief layman question. Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit? Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.
Been reading since Thread 3. Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432871#msg1432871">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 01:34 PM</a>
I think one of the unintended consequences of using the PCB is that the fiberglass layers between the deposition acks as a bit of an isulator. IOW, I think deformation, like your thoughts on the ceramic, may be minimal.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432864#msg1432864">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432809#msg1432809">Quote from: zellerium on 10/05/2015 05:59 AM</a>Dave:
I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?
Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic 8)
Cool!
Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.
This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.
My head hurts just thinking about it.
The cavity and end plates are going to try and deform. Even with the low power EW used you can see the difference in heating caused by the modes. When you apply >10x that power the effects are going to increase as well. I'm not sure how well a PLL will be able to offset the thermal deformations you'll see in the copper sheeting. Have you thought about trying to compensate for those hot spots by re-enforcing the end plates with sinks or a heftier plate? Or do you think it's not a issue. Sometimes I think I worry too much and bonded mine onto a ceramic plate.
Shell
I'm hoping so, as I really want to avoid mechanical tuning during mag ON. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:19 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432841#msg1432841">Quote from: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:04 AM</a>
Forgot to mention a caution
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?
Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:41 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432882#msg1432882">Quote from: JonathanD on 10/05/2015 02:08 PM</a>
Brief layman question. Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit? Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.
Been reading since Thread 3. Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.
Kind of. Good thought!
I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.
I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 03:49 PM -
Emdrive papers accepted at UK workshop
http://emdrive.io/community/threads/4th-uk-space-propulsion-workshop-29-october-2015-emdrive-presentation-accepted.200/
Kudos to http://www.emdrive.io for linking this article. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/05/2015 04:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432771#msg1432771">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:19 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432708#msg1432708">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:51 PM</a>
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
RFMWGUY!
I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...
Shell
Shell
I followed a link from you a few days back and saw something that may be of interest to this discussion. Your "beaming in and out of another dimension" comment sparked me to post this ;)
Signals from empty space
Physicists succeed in direct detection of vacuum fluctuations
Date:
October 2, 2015
Source:
University of Konstanz
Summary:
What are the properties of the vacuum, the absolute nothingness? So far, physicists have assumed that it is impossible to directly access the characteristics of the ground state of empty space. Now, a team of physicists has succeeded in doing just that. They demonstrated a first direct observation of the so-called vacuum fluctuations by using short light pulses while employing highly precise optical measurement techniques.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151002082311.htm
RFMWGUY: EXCELLENT WORK! Another small step to a better understanding of this proposed effect.
Continued success to all.
Dr. Bob
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432888#msg1432888">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:41 PM</a>
Shell, not trying to pollute your punchbowl, but even if the mags were 2 feet away via a mesh or solid waveguide they, themselves, will still try to lift...meaning they will transfer this angular force to the waveguides, then the frustum...unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible, especially when I do yard work :o<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432882#msg1432882">Quote from: JonathanD on 10/05/2015 02:08 PM</a>Brief layman question. Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit? Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.
Been reading since Thread 3. Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.
Kind of. Good thought!
I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.
I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:38 PM -
Mark your calendars. Perhaps the next big event where our favorite topic might appear:
http://www.aiaa-scitech.org/ -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 04:55 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432920#msg1432920">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:26 PM</a>
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432888#msg1432888">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:41 PM</a>
Shell, not trying to pollute your punchbowl, but even if the mags were 2 feet away via a mesh or solid waveguide they, themselves, will still try to lift...meaning they will transfer this angular force to the waveguides, then the frustum...unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible, especially when I do yard work :o<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432882#msg1432882">Quote from: JonathanD on 10/05/2015 02:08 PM</a>Brief layman question. Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit? Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.
Been reading since Thread 3. Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.
Kind of. Good thought!
I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.
I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.
Shell
I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.
If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 05:17 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432922#msg1432922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:38 PM</a>
Mark your calendars. Perhaps the next big event where our favorite topic might appear:
http://www.aiaa-scitech.org/QuoteSan Diego is beautiful in January
Haa - January is right in the middle of the rainy season in San Diego. Bring your umbrellas. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 10/05/2015 05:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432776#msg1432776">Quote from: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 AM</a>
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe.
If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical. The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity. Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound.
I love the notion that it might work by accumulating rounding errors. We know there are step functions in the energy levels of electron shells in atoms - and this could/would tie into them as well, wouldn't it?
Collecting rounding errors is one of my favorite bank robbery techniques, and it would be nice to see it make an appearance in the physical/quantum world. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 06:18 PM -
This is kind of off the wall but I find it interesting enough to share.
Most of us here know that Maxwell's equations are linear. I have recently been chasing resonance for cavities operating at higher frequency (23.87 GHz) with meep, and discovered a very interesting result from that linearity. That is:
Starting with a cavity that resonates very well at 2.48 GHz and scaling the frequency up by a factor of (23.87/2.48) while simultaneously scaling the cavity dimensions down by that same factor, I find that the resulting small cavity resonates just as well at the large cavity. That is, the meep calculated Q factors are the same within meep's limitations.
Reading McCulloch's paper posted on the previous page, and in particular starting with Equation (14), I have:
Eqn (14) from McCulloch's paper
F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))}
And from linearity of Maxwell's equations, letting the scale factor =a,
Q (f, L, ws, wb) = Q (a*f, L/a, ws/a, wb/a)
Using f ~= c/L and substituting into eqn (14) gives
F = -(6*P*Q/a*f) * {(1/(L+4ws)/a) – (1/(L+4wb)/a)}
Clearing the scale factor a, and replacing ~f with c/L gives.
F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))}
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.
I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.
1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2015 06:51 PM -
"Appendix 1
Proof that scaling dimensions inversely proportional to frequency keeps the thrust invariant:
Suppose that the thrust at frequency f1, and dimensions L1, Ds1, and Db1 is
NT1=2PQL1(2πf1)3(cX)2(1Ds21−1Db21)
then, at frequency f2 a multiple of frequency f1
f2=nf1
where the frequency ratio
n=f2f1
can be any irrational number (not equal to zero). Scaling dimensions to be inversely proportional to the frequency ration n:
L2=L1n
Ds2=Ds1n
Db2=Db1n
and substituting, we get the thrust for frequency f2 and dimensions L2, Ds2, and Db2 to be:
NT2=2PQL1(2πf1n)3(cX)2(1(Ds1n)2−1(Db1n)2)
and since the factor of n3 occurs both in the numerator and the denominator, it cancels out, leaving
NT2=NT1
If the mode shape is kept invariant, for constant quality factor and input power, the thrust force is invariant, independent of frequency when the diameter and the length of the cavity are both scaled to change inversely proportional to the frequency ratio n."
As Rodal noted for the notsosureofit Hypotheses
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/05/2015 08:35 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432948#msg1432948">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 06:18 PM</a>
...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.
I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.
1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?
Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.
Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?
I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/05/2015 08:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432990#msg1432990">Quote from: tchernik on 10/05/2015 08:35 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432948#msg1432948">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 06:18 PM</a>
...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.
I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.
1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?
Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.
Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?
I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers).
It's well within the range of MEMS technology. Just for jollies, taking an arbitrary EM specification and scaling it for a commercial laser bar made by OSRAM at 802 nm, with each frustrum at about 1 x 2 micro meters, the bar sized at 10mm x .125 mm, 25 emitters at a total of 60w per bar... you could build a 1 meter x 1 meter array that would (assuming any of this is real and scales) generate about 978 newtons. The minor gotcha, besides cost, is you'd be pumping about 3 megawatts into that one square meter. You'd have to dissapate 2.5 million kilocalories per hour from that 1 square meter.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 08:48 PM -
Ok - Now that we have confirmation that McCulloch's equation satisfies that constraint, what is the Figure of Merit, FM?
F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))} McCulloch - eqn (14)
F is proportional to FM = L/(L+4ws) - L/(L+4wb)
For lack of better math skills, I threw this into my spreadsheet program with the constraints that wb =<2, ws =< 1 and L=1. The results are plotted in the attached image.
There was a discussion on thread 3 about the thrust of the cavity increasing as the frustum became more pointy. I think this data just illustrates the same thing. Difference is that in this case, L is constrained to a constant, =1, not allowed to go to infinity, and wb is constrained to be less than or equal to 2 L. Of course ws is constrained to be less than wb.
This gives me hope for the Yang-Shell 6 degree model.
Edit - I suppose I should mention that the horizontal axis is wb, and the colored lines are ws, with the figure of merit on the vertical axis. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 09:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432990#msg1432990">Quote from: tchernik on 10/05/2015 08:35 PM</a>
Interesting...from a practicality standpoint, huge amounts of RF energy are more easily generated and understood up to UHF bands, or about 450 MHz. From there, the stuff gets more "exotic" and cumbersome to work with (the magic of microwaves). I know there are 100kW mags out there, but from a realistic standpoint, I believe arrays should be as low a frequency as practical in your sims.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432948#msg1432948">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 06:18 PM</a>...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.
I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.
1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?
Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.
Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?
I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers).
If there is a way to scale down the frustum dimensions, using a lower frequency, I think this would not need as many "discoveries" as microwave freqs and above.
Another way to visualize this is with a single RF source, with multiple frequency multipliers along the array, so the source power could be low freq and delivered to each individual element (frustum) multiplied up; its sort of like a sprinkler system, where the nozzles feed higher freqs off the main feed.
Weird? Yep, I think so... :o -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 10:05 PM -
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
Normalized
Length Big dia Small dia. L wb ws ~FM
Shawyer Demo 0.187 0.28 0.14921 1 1.5 0.8 -0.095
Shawyer flt. 0.1386 0.2314 0.1257 1 1.67 0.92 -0.088
rfmwguy 9.91 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.11 0.63 -0.1
Yang-Shell 0.24 0.201 0.1492 1 0.8375 0.62 -0.052
SeeShell CE2 0.1634 0.2950 0.1600 1 1.8 0.98 -0.08
Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.
The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.
There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 10:17 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433012#msg1433012">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 10:05 PM</a>
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
Normalized
Length Big dia Small dia. L wb ws ~FM
Shawyer Demo 0.187 0.28 0.14921 1 1.5 0.8 -0.095
Shawyer flt. 0.1386 0.2314 0.1257 1 1.67 0.92 -0.088
rfmwguy 9.91 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.11 0.63 -0.1
Yang-Shell 0.24 0.201 0.1492 1 0.8375 0.62 -0.052
SeeShell CE2 0.1634 0.2950 0.1600 1 1.8 0.98 -0.08
Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.
The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.
There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.
Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/05/2015 11:38 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432932#msg1432932">Quote from: Eer on 10/05/2015 05:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432776#msg1432776">Quote from: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 AM</a>
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe.
If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical. The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity. Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound.
I love the notion that it might work by accumulating rounding errors. We know there are step functions in the energy levels of electron shells in atoms - and this could/would tie into them as well, wouldn't it?
Collecting rounding errors is one of my favorite bank robbery techniques, and it would be nice to see it make an appearance in the physical/quantum world.
Not to diminish the Eer idea or SteveD response at all (seriously - I think that might be interesting to examine) but I can also see some excellent science fiction plotlines developing out of this concept. "Cap'n - We canna go to warp - we have a rounding error in the dilithium crystals and the emdrive thrusters won't ignite".
Sorry - long day dealing with in-laws - so my thinking cap is about 20 degrees off reality.
Herman
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/06/2015 12:57 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433015#msg1433015">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 10:17 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433012#msg1433012">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 10:05 PM</a>
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
Normalized
Length Big dia Small dia. L wb ws ~FM
Shawyer Demo 0.187 0.28 0.14921 1 1.5 0.8 -0.095
Shawyer flt. 0.1386 0.2314 0.1257 1 1.67 0.92 -0.088
rfmwguy 9.91 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.11 0.63 -0.1
Yang-Shell 0.24 0.201 0.1492 1 0.8375 0.62 -0.052
SeeShell CE2 0.1634 0.2950 0.1600 1 1.8 0.98 -0.08
Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.
The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.
There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.
Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91
Ok - I remember that now. Just an older data list not totally updated.
NSF-1701 10.2 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.08 0.613 -0.1-
That did increase the magnitude of FM a little bit but I need a better method of interpreting the data in order to read it more closely. Maybe 10 times as many rows and columns ... Or a more efficient presentation.
The point I get from the data table is that the FM is quite sensitive to bw, not so much to sw. FM is just very small when sw/L gets into the range we have been working with. It seems to show that the frustums need to be more pointy. Didn't we already conclude that? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 01:43 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433058#msg1433058">Quote from: aero on 10/06/2015 12:57 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433015#msg1433015">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 10:17 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433012#msg1433012">Quote from: aero on 10/05/2015 10:05 PM</a>
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
Normalized
Length Big dia Small dia. L wb ws ~FM
Shawyer Demo 0.187 0.28 0.14921 1 1.5 0.8 -0.095
Shawyer flt. 0.1386 0.2314 0.1257 1 1.67 0.92 -0.088
rfmwguy 9.91 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.11 0.63 -0.1
Yang-Shell 0.24 0.201 0.1492 1 0.8375 0.62 -0.052
SeeShell CE2 0.1634 0.2950 0.1600 1 1.8 0.98 -0.08
Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.
The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.
There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.
Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91
Ok - I remember that now. Just an older data list not totally updated.
NSF-1701 10.2 in. 11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID 1 1.08 0.613 -0.1-
That did increase the magnitude of FM a little bit but I need a better method of interpreting the data in order to read it more closely. Maybe 10 times as many rows and columns ... Or a more efficient presentation.
The point I get from the data table is that the FM is quite sensitive to bw, not so much to sw. FM is just very small when sw/L gets into the range we have been working with. It seems to show that the frustums need to be more pointy. Didn't we already conclude that?
Not sure if it was a conclusion rather that it may be an interesting thing to look at, I remember some of it but not all my search function is about as bad as this sites. It was one reason that lead me to make the Yang-Shell so that I could test the theory with different inserts down the cavity.
Was in-town today working with the water jet cutters getting the final pieces cut and to make sure that they got the curf cut correctly this time for the DXF file.
Other than that I'm working to get some PC-Lab200 Software installed and working on my XP system so I can have a Oscope to monitor the frequency for the power on the inverter driving the magnetron.
I just may get a cookie and a cup of decaf instead. ;)
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JonathanD on 10/06/2015 02:06 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432925#msg1432925">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 04:55 PM</a>
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.
I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.
If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.
You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible. Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself? I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic. I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?
Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433078#msg1433078">Quote from: JonathanD on 10/06/2015 02:06 AM</a>
???<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432925#msg1432925">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 04:55 PM</a>Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.
I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.
If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.
You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible. Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself? I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic. I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?
Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions.
You are far from a layman. Anyone here disagree? No? See. ;)
One time I entertained of putting the magnetron onto the top of the frustum with dual waveguide injectors although the weight, costs and the logistics of doing so killed that idea. Now I'm doing a magnetron into a waveguide to antenna in the center section of the test stand and then run coax out to antennas on the top small plate. Or I can do antennas to waveguide into the frustum. Mainly I'm looking to remove as much heat from the frustum and allow two methods to test. Controlled TE xx mode through the top small plate with antennas or highly symmetrical waveguides injecting into the side walls. I'm building for both options.
I believe I can ramp up the inverter to run the magnetron up to 2 KW although that will be further down the line. If it doesn't all sync and give me a great SWR it will kill the test with heat. That process will be a slower one but could allow for a respectable input of power into the frustum after it's "tuned up".
I so wanted to have this fired up this week for a birthday present to me but I don't think I'll make it. dang!
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/06/2015 03:18 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433087#msg1433087">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433078#msg1433078">Quote from: JonathanD on 10/06/2015 02:06 AM</a>
???<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432925#msg1432925">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 04:55 PM</a>Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.
I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.
If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.
You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible. Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself? I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic. I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?
Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions.
You are far from a layman. Anyone here disagree? No? See. ;)
One time I entertained of putting the magnetron onto the top of the frustum with dual waveguide injectors although the weight, costs and the logistics of doing so killed that idea. Now I'm doing a magnetron into a waveguide to antenna in the center section of the test stand and then run coax out to antennas on the top small plate. Or I can do antennas to waveguide into the frustum. Mainly I'm looking to remove as much heat from the frustum and allow two methods to test. Controlled TE xx mode through the top small plate with antennas or highly symmetrical waveguides injecting into the side walls. I'm building for both options.
I believe I can ramp up the inverter to run the magnetron up to 2 KW although that will be further down the line. If it doesn't all sync and give me a great SWR it will kill the test with heat. That process will be a slower one but could allow for a respectable input of power into the frustum after it's "tuned up".
I so wanted to have this fired up this week for a birthday present to me but I don't think I'll make it. dang!
Shell
Good luck with your schedule Shell, just don't over do. Next week will be soon enough and belated birthday gifts are as common as mud. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 05:29 AM - http://phys.org/news/2015-10-diamond-maser-room-temperature.html
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/06/2015 11:37 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432885#msg1432885">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:19 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432841#msg1432841">Quote from: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:04 AM</a>
Forgot to mention a caution
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?
Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
You know what funny enough I am,
need to do a size up first on time and effort, verses other commitments of course.
I think I can find a microwave at the junk yard or sacrifice the old one in the kitchen in the 'name of science and the common good for mankind' and argue its almost due for replacing although it works just fine.
It's going to be the digital logging gear parts -that’s the killer $’s isn't it?
Going to be thinking the next few days about it, and see if there is a simpler and better work around?
rfmwguy most or us would probably like to know how much time and effort have you spent on project so far?
100, 500, maybe a 1000 hours?
First time builds I imagine lots of setup time and fiddling, and if you had to do a repeat and a second time now the build 1/2 that time?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 12:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433154#msg1433154">Quote from: Silversheep2011 on 10/06/2015 11:37 AM</a>
Build/test/study hours would be closer to 500 rather than 1000 is my estimation. Test time about 10%, build time about 30%, the rest is research and parts chasing (rough guess).<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432885#msg1432885">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:19 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432841#msg1432841">Quote from: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:04 AM</a>Forgot to mention a caution
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?
Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
You know what funny enough I am,
need to do a size up first on time and effort, verses other commitments of course.
I think I can find a microwave at the junk yard or sacrifice the old one in the kitchen in the 'name of science and the common good for mankind' and argue its almost due for replacing although it works just fine.
It's going to be the digital logging gear parts -that’s the killer $’s isn't it?
Going to be thinking the next few days about it, and see if there is a simpler and better work around?
rfmwguy most or us would probably like to know how much time and effort have you spent on project so far?
100, 500, maybe a 1000 hours?
First time builds I imagine lots of setup time and fiddling, and if you had to do a repeat and a second time now the build 1/2 that time?
Phase II will be about the same ratio I think. A (perhaps too) lofty goal of 100X force improvement to get it out of the noise wile require some real inventions...not outside my expertise, but right at the edge.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 01:40 PM -
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."
http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm
So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.
Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.
A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end. This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?
Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/06/2015 02:23 PM -
Could it be that emission of a photon is required, otherwise the energy becomes some kind of potential energy. I am reminded of the slits in the Cannae drive that Shawyer seems to have adopted recently (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?). If you bounced light around, and it got more redshifted than it should be, then bounced it out, an observer would see a bunch of light that is redshifted more than it should be along with a photon rocket that is going faster than it should. The observer could well decide that you had developed some way to enhance the efficiency of a photon rocket.
I wonder how much RF leakage an EMDrive has and if there is more leakage moving away from the big base than in other directions. Just because it's suppose to be a closed system doesn't mean that it actually is. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433173#msg1433173">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 01:40 PM</a>
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.
http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm
So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.
Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.
A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end. This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?
Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.
It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/06/2015 02:48 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433185#msg1433185">Quote from: SteveD on 10/06/2015 02:23 PM</a>
.......... (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?)......
IIRC, the video shows pretty much how the slits are oriented..
http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/bc/rtmp_uds/1418450360/2014/08/01/1418450360_3708361650001_CANNAE.mp4
skip to timestamp 0:42...
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433191#msg1433191">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 PM</a>
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433173#msg1433173">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 01:40 PM</a>"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.
http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm
So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.
Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.
A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end. This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?
Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.
It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....
Shell
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me. A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.
This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/06/2015 03:07 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>
....
A century ago? nah.... make that 2400 years... try Aristotle... :)
This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 03:41 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>
Zombie Like... "Neeed Cooofffeee" back in from the shop.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433191#msg1433191">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 PM</a>
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433173#msg1433173">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 01:40 PM</a>"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.
http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm
So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.
Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.
A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end. This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?
Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.
It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....
Shell
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me. A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.
This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
My video simply isn't up to it, kind of bad out of the camera but I'm taking snapshots. working on getting a better video camera, it's on the bucket list before first light.
As to photons, I find this a quick refresher.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137293/what-happens-to-photons-after-they-hit-objects
Know Quantum actions smell funny anyway rfmwguy and might not pass sniff tests. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/06/2015 06:56 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.
If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.
Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).
As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 07:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:
It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.
The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.
However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:02 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433259#msg1433259">Quote from: rfcavity on 10/06/2015 06:56 PM</a>
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.
If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.
Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).
As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:24 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433272#msg1433272">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 07:47 PM</a>
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:
It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.
The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.
However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?
So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 08:48 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433283#msg1433283">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:24 PM</a>
(...)
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.
The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?
So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.
If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?
Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:10 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433283#msg1433283">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:24 PM</a>
When I started this build one thing I stated was I had no idea why it does what it does but I was going to pick this apart bit by bit. That hasn't changed, it's even more so.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433272#msg1433272">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 07:47 PM</a>
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:
It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.
The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.
However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?
So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
I started with the octagonal extended cavity that would look at several theories and I'm working on this current project that will give insight into two basic ideas of mode generation and big end versus small end and how the modes decay into them and if thrusts follow the decays of the modes. or are just related to any kind of resonance mode in the cavity. Also being able to tune past or into resonance using the small end cap to see what effects on thrust may happen will also look at other theories.
Theories abound but, sadly data is very scarce and the time is for data, we'll get it and plug it in to see what fits.
YEA! tomorrow I'm picking up the rest of the water jet cut frustum just confirmed it, visiting a dear friend who's birthday is the same as mine, going out to dinner and not working in the shop until the next day. Funny, but picking up the copper cut sheets seems like a darn good present to me. ;)
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433287#msg1433287">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 08:48 PM</a>
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433283#msg1433283">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:24 PM</a>(...)
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.
The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?
So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.
If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?
Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers.
shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 09:32 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433298#msg1433298">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 PM</a>
(...)
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.
shell
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 10:29 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433303#msg1433303">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 09:32 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433298#msg1433298">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 PM</a>
(...)
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.
shell
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.
For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.
I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.
Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 11:02 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433324#msg1433324">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 10:29 PM</a>
Wonder if edison waited to test the next filament until after he rewrote his theory paper ;)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433303#msg1433303">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 09:32 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433298#msg1433298">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 PM</a>(...)
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.
shell
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.
For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.
I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.
Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Cinder on 10/07/2015 12:29 AM - Why limit yourself to one or the other? Some people are/were clearly gifted for one more than the other. Collaboration takes care of any gaps; the more the merrier.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: kml on 10/07/2015 03:00 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433272#msg1433272">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 07:47 PM</a>
I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:
It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.
The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.
However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
Standard Model particles gain rest mass through the Higgs mechanism, by bouncing off of spontaneously appearing Higgs Bosons. The greater the interaction with the Higgs field (more bounces per second) the higher the rest mass. Could the photons in a resonant cavity be gaining rest mass by bouncing off of the waveguide (side) walls? Maybe not directly but indirectly through interaction with the electrons in the walls which themselves interact with the Higgs field. In this model a lower group velocity corresponds with more frequent interactions with the (narrowing) waveguide walls. Photons with a non-zero rest mass would necessarily travel slower than c which is congruent with the observed slower group velocity. The momentum transferred at the end walls would no longer be 2hv/c but 2x the relativistic momentum for a massive particle, using the newly calculated rest mass and the group velocity. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Devilstower on 10/07/2015 03:48 AM -
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.
In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.
In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal." The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/07/2015 04:24 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433388#msg1433388">Quote from: Devilstower on 10/07/2015 03:48 AM</a>
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.
In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.
In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal." The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.
What meep give us is the ability to see in detail the actions using Maxwell's equations, to model them and define them and when things happen outside of the box that meep can't see I think we can be better prepared to define it. I would hate guessing what mode TE012 or TE01 actions would look like in the frustum. I've seen simulations on the net but they were for cylinders or rectangular waveguides and we know the cavity actions are nothing like they are. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/07/2015 07:48 AM -
Concerning the methodology to follow, being theory before building or building before theory, i can say there are ample examples of both approaches.
Englert and Higgs had formulated their theories decades before a device could be build to prove their ideas.
And as already suggested, Edison did build things first, without any theoretical frame to back him up...
These approaches are not contradictory or conflicting and allow perfect coexistence. They're both valid ways to study nature...
As for rfmwguy being "biased"...let me say that being unbiased does simply not exist. We are all biased. The moment an image or thought enters our brain it gets a certain preference (or bias) attached to it. It is an essential element in the process to make sense of our world.
You can only be unbiased if you can not place it among previous acquired information and/or in total absence of emotions, which is... never....
We always have a preferred interpretation of what we see or think. We're evolutionary trained to see and search for patterns and attribute sentiments to what we experience...
ah well, so far for the illusion of objectivity... :)
So, back to the science level, what makes good science is the ability to question (and possible revise) your "natural" bias, either with a new theoretical framework, or a puzzling experiment. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: PaulF on 10/07/2015 10:36 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433324#msg1433324">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 10:29 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433303#msg1433303">Quote from: CW on 10/06/2015 09:32 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433298#msg1433298">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 PM</a>
(...)
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.
shell
For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.
I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.
Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.
Shell
It's quite funny how the search for the first filament that would keep going for a while, resembles how in the 1990's the search was on for the last link in the chain for LEDs - A blue LED with high luminoscity. They were literally throwing together semi-metals in the hopes they'd find the right mix. And eventually they did. And the cheap RGB LED was a fact. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/07/2015 03:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433278#msg1433278">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:02 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433259#msg1433259">Quote from: rfcavity on 10/06/2015 06:56 PM</a>
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.
If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.
Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).
As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433388#msg1433388">Quote from: Devilstower on 10/07/2015 03:48 AM</a>Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.
In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.
In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal." The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.
A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM - A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/07/2015 07:58 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433495#msg1433495">Quote from: rfcavity on 10/07/2015 03:18 PM</a>
1) Please point to your reference to the study of tapered cavity with spherical ends, specifically measuring KE or kinetic force.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433278#msg1433278">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:02 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433259#msg1433259">Quote from: rfcavity on 10/06/2015 06:56 PM</a>
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433236#msg1433236">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433220#msg1433220">Quote from: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 PM</a>
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433196#msg1433196">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 PM</a>Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.
In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.
If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.
Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).
As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433388#msg1433388">Quote from: Devilstower on 10/07/2015 03:48 AM</a>Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.
In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.
In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal." The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.
A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients.
2) Other than Shawyer, no EmDrive design uses spherical ends to my knowledge.
3) No emotion here, but a proper request for my time and information should not begin with an accusation, as this makes me believe you are not serious about my answer. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/07/2015 09:26 PM -
FYI:
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1077242
Force Calibration: Common Errors Laboratories Make
Live Presentation: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 • 2:00 pm ET
This Webinar will cover metrological traceability in relation to force measurement. The Webinar will show the attendee common force measurement errors and the importance of calibrating the instrument in the manner it is being used. By the end of the Webinar the attendee should be able to understand metrological traceability hierarchy and identify potential force measurement errors. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/07/2015 11:07 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433594#msg1433594">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".
Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.
It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.
sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...
If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...
so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!" and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)
Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many..... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/07/2015 11:32 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433634#msg1433634">Quote from: Flyby on 10/07/2015 11:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433594#msg1433594">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".
Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.
It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.
sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...
If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...
so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!" and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)
Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
If I was leading a team researching this and I had the budget, I'd be pleased to have someone like him doing some modeling and data analysis for me.
After all, he and aero came with the best model so far of what really happens in the resonant cavity using Maxwell's equations, and all in front of our very eyes.
And yes, this is something people usually gets paid to do (professional scientists and technical consultants, I mean). We tend to forget it because we had the privilege of following this outburst of creativity in this forum at the right moment and time.
Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/07/2015 11:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433634#msg1433634">Quote from: Flyby on 10/07/2015 11:07 PM</a>
Shell and I were joking about nsf-1701 accidentally beaming him into an alternate dimension, but I believe work is the likely cause. Since he's been reported to be ok, doesn't matter why...doc will be back when he can.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433594#msg1433594">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".
Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.
It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.
sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...
If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...
so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!" and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)
Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Until then, let's bug shell for some more assembly pics ;D -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/07/2015 11:42 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433644#msg1433644">Quote from: tchernik on 10/07/2015 11:32 PM</a>
Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.
A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?
Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM -
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jmossman on 10/08/2015 02:17 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modied mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
Re-running the existing NSF-1701 rig using a modified mag without 60Hz pulsing would be a very useful data point. (albeit creating a bigger thermal management problem)
Adding the ability to sweep the mag frequency would also be very interesting test. :D
[EDIT: typo] -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433697#msg1433697">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...
But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 04:32 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433712#msg1433712">Quote from: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433697#msg1433697">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...
But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.
The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.
As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.
BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/08/2015 06:32 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433648#msg1433648">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/07/2015 11:42 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433644#msg1433644">Quote from: tchernik on 10/07/2015 11:32 PM</a>
Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.
A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?
Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.
But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 07:04 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433736#msg1433736">Quote from: Star One on 10/08/2015 06:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433648#msg1433648">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/07/2015 11:42 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433644#msg1433644">Quote from: tchernik on 10/07/2015 11:32 PM</a>
Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.
A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?
Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.
But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with.
Agreed. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: xexorian on 10/08/2015 12:39 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433717#msg1433717">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 04:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433712#msg1433712">Quote from: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433697#msg1433697">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...
But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.
The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.
As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.
BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.
What's the differences between "Solid-State RF" and "Magnetron" ? Can the SSRF scale upto the KW/MW range? Does one have a finer frequency tuning than the other? What is the cost difference? How would this change the design? Does SSRF require different wave guides into a cavity?
Assuming you could make "Approximately" = EmDrive cavities in thrust, this is the design I had in mind for vector control, if pulsing the 'engines' on and off very fast did not reduce or increase vector thrust in a specific direction, I also opted for this design since I lack a clearer understanding of the engineering required to create a 360 degree enclosed spherical chamber to house an EmDrive component and point it in any given direction.
edit:
Here was my concept of it's usage back in 2004 I came up with (assuming it can actually produce lots of thrust, eventually):
(
)
theoretically speaking, would this be possible, or work? I make a few assumptions, like the fact that the emdrives would remain ON at all times (I know this sounds dumb), or at least, enough of them to maintain the craft's real 3 dimensional position in whatever environment it is situated in. Turning it off would require landing and I am assuming warming up/resonating the drives/other technical hurdles.
Assuming a setup like this would or could work to control thrust (by effectively nullifying it's own thrust vectors physically adjusting each drive's angle and direction) one could probably build some really bad@$$ space-based robots to mine rocks with something like this and take it back to the ISS or a mining space station for processing located near or in LEO, then use lift designs to take it to Earth. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 01:38 PM - Attached is the patent that cleans up the magnetron "spray". It simply adds 4 magnets to the radome (top) side circular magnet. It disrupts the field and presents a narrow band signal. This is the first step in my Phase II build, cleaning up that maggie. Next step after that...electronically variable center freq (wish me luck on that one).
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 01:44 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433594#msg1433594">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.
I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing. I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!
If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!
We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433646#msg1433646">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/07/2015 11:36 PM</a>
Heehee I get some pics, sorry I know I'm bad at it. ;D<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433634#msg1433634">Quote from: Flyby on 10/07/2015 11:07 PM</a>
Shell and I were joking about nsf-1701 accidentally beaming him into an alternate dimension, but I believe work is the likely cause. Since he's been reported to be ok, doesn't matter why...doc will be back when he can.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433594#msg1433594">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433506#msg1433506">Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 PM</a>A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110
The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246
I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".
Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.
It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.
sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...
If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...
so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!" and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)
Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Until then, let's bug shell for some more assembly pics ;D
Had a great day yesterday, birthday, seeing a dear old friend (her birthday is the same as mine) and getting the final sheets of copper from the water jet company. Nice dinner with some adult beverages... came home and crashed. :o
Today and for the next several weeks or more I'm going to be quite busy, I'll post some pics but don't expect a lot of chatter. I have a good friend who worked with me in the past in my business. He's a fine engineering tech, visiting for a bit and will be helping. I'll feed him burnt steaks and and a cold brew and he will be quite happy. :P
I've a lot of loose ends to tie up on the build and I want to get-er done and get it fired up!!!
There has been heat as to me taking my time. Even though I'm double checking, triple checking this build and in one case ripping it all down to rebuild it all again. Realize this just isn't a simple test to determine if I get thrust, it is a serious plan to pick apart this drive bit by bit piece by piece to gain as much useful information as I can in a DYI build as can be done. If I get thrust then it gets fine tuned to see what it takes to get more, if I get none that I want to know why.
I refuse to let it stop at just getting a little force generation (or not) and stand back and admire it, that's not good enough, not even close. There is a schedule of testing events that need to happen for data to profile this device. I've been working towards this for months. Now will come the real work and the real fun. . . for all of us.
With everyone's help here I'm starting out with a solid engineered drive that has a unbelievable Q of over 11 Billion (crazy isn't it?). The ability to test in several different orientations. Test accelerations and static pressures. To limit thermal issues as much as can be with out a vacuum chamber and be configurable to several different methods of cavity injection.
So wish me luck, I'm going to be starting and hopefully reinventing fire...
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:39 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433712#msg1433712">Quote from: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 AM</a>
The magnetron works because it does have a very wide bandwidth and as the cavity deforms from heat it simply uses another one of the harmonics to lock in the bandwidth.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433697#msg1433697">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...
But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433892#msg1433892">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 01:38 PM</a>
Attached is the patent that cleans up the magnetron "spray". It simply adds 4 magnets to the radome (top) side circular magnet. It disrupts the field and presents a narrow band signal. This is the first step in my Phase II build, cleaning up that maggie. Next step after that...electronically variable center freq (wish me luck on that one).
Yep, that's it! As I'm going down the posts your's was next, was going to post this but your way fast rfmwguy. This is the same one I've been looking at and what seems to work. I'm going to SA mine to death as it's driven by a inverter and the output will be quite different than a chopped percentage of on off, post the results when I get them. Great find.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: bprager on 10/08/2015 02:58 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433904#msg1433904">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:34 PM</a>
Had a great day yesterday, birthday, seeing a dear old friend (her birthday is the same as mine) and getting the final sheets of copper from the water jet company. Nice dinner with some adult beverages... came home and crashed. :o
Happy Birthday SeeShell and Good Luck! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/08/2015 03:45 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433717#msg1433717">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 04:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433712#msg1433712">Quote from: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433697#msg1433697">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433655#msg1433655">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 AM</a>
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.
As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.
Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed...
On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...
But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.
The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.
As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.
BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.
That seems like the ideal setup, especially when considering actually putting this system on a spacecraft. Satellites already use ss amps for comms so its only a matter of diverting the power that's already there.
So Mr. Traveller, in your opinion, was EW finding (that a dielectric is required for an amplifier) a fluke? Were they using too little power, or was it a matter of the frustum shape? (flat ends vs spherical ends)
Also, didn't Boeing purchase the flight thruster? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 03:47 PM - Happy Birthday Shell!
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 03:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433936#msg1433936">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 03:47 PM</a>
Happy Birthday Shell!
AHHHH! Whoot Whoot Whoot!!!!
Thanks!
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 05:23 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433933#msg1433933">Quote from: zellerium on 10/08/2015 03:45 PM</a>
That seems like the ideal setup, especially when considering actually putting this system on a spacecraft. Satellites already use ss amps for comms so its only a matter of diverting the power that's already there.
So Mr. Traveller, in your opinion, was EW finding (that a dielectric is required for an amplifier) a fluke? Were they using too little power, or was it a matter of the frustum shape? (flat ends vs spherical ends)
Also, didn't Boeing purchase the flight thruster?
Shawyer used dielectrics for years. His 1st 2 patents used dielectrics. He abandoned using them around 2003, a decade before Eagleworks started using them.
I have been told, by a source I fully believe, that Boeing do indeed have a SPR Flight Thruster.
As for the 100uN of Force achieved by EW at around 80Ws, there may be many reasons for such a low result.
Do hope EWs get the chance to try to gen Force without the dielectric. With their existing copper frustum, they should get TE013 resonance around 2.66ghz and for TE012 around 2.33ghz. But they will need to use a TE mode excitation antenna as their existing antenna is designed to excite TM mode. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 05:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433940#msg1433940">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 03:57 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433936#msg1433936">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 03:47 PM</a>
Happy Birthday Shell!
AHHHH! Whoot Whoot Whoot!!!!
Thanks!
Shell
Yes indeed, Happy Birthday Shell. May you enjoy many more. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/08/2015 07:48 PM -
FYI:
TESTS OF DISCRETE SPACE-TIME SYMMETRIES
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/rpp2015-conservation-laws.pdf
Happy Birthday Shell !! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 08:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434012#msg1434012">Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/08/2015 07:48 PM</a>
FYI:
Nice! Thanks! Building and having some fun in the shop! I love this work!
TESTS OF DISCRETE SPACE-TIME SYMMETRIES
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/rpp2015-conservation-laws.pdf
Happy Birthday Shell !!
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 08:15 PM -
Tangent Time - While there's a bit of a lull in data & news, thought I'd muse for a while on some of the other interesting things I've done in the past.
I did the book writing thing a few years ago with a fiction and non-fiction book, which was a lot of fun...a lot of work, but fun. I learned that the publishing industry loves celebrity authors, even though those authors usually farm aout their books to ghost or staff writers.
So, you can imagine my thoughts about writing a suspenseful (science) fiction book about the Emdrive...Don't worry, I have nowhere near the time. ;)
http://www.amazon.com/A.D.-Distler/e/B004SRQDXO/ -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/08/2015 08:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433893#msg1433893">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 01:44 PM</a>
(...)
Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.
I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing. I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!
If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!
We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.
Shell
Dear Shell,
just one absolutely well-meaning remark (because you consistently get it wrong).. the good doctor's name is Rodal, not Rodel. Maybe the doc is earning tons of money, so there can be better and more EM-Drive research?
Happy birthday & BR ;) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 10:49 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434036#msg1434036">Quote from: CW on 10/08/2015 08:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1433893#msg1433893">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 01:44 PM</a>
(...)
Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.
I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing. I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!
If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!
We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.
Shell
Dear Shell,
just one absolutely well-meaning remark (because you consistently get it wrong).. the good doctor's name is Rodal, not Rodel. Maybe the doc is earning tons of money, so there can be better and more EM-Drive research?
Happy birthday & BR ;)
I do, and I know I've messed up the fine Doctor's name before, no mean intent at all, just me being air head me.
Thank you for the happy birthday.
Shell
Added, Geez that makes me feel very bad. Sorry Dr. Rodal. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 10:54 PM -
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.
Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.
Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.
If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 11:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434078#msg1434078">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 10:54 PM</a>
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.
Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.
Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.
If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.
Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.
Back at it... still working at it.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/08/2015 11:15 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434081#msg1434081">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 11:05 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434078#msg1434078">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 10:54 PM</a>
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.
Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.
Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.
If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.
Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.
Back at it... still working at it.
Shell
Everybody is so tight lipped, that it's somewhat disquieting, like the calm before the storm.
Hopefully these happenings include EagleWorks proving their point to the NASA's internal review boards, and getting more appropriate funding, which could result in a news-worthy paper by end of the year.
Or maybe Dr. Tajmar and his diligent Ph.D. students have continued doing experiments, with much better results by now.
Well, that's maybe just me and my child-like desires to see this work, but this calm is indeed odd. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 11:56 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434084#msg1434084">Quote from: tchernik on 10/08/2015 11:15 PM</a>
It is funny, isn't it? Have to think that a "breakthrough" in determining this whole thing were measurement or system error would have hit the boards long ago, but they have not. And this is from labs that have a reputation for doing so.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434081#msg1434081">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 11:05 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434078#msg1434078">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 10:54 PM</a>500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.
Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.
Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.
If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.
Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.
Back at it... still working at it.
Shell
Everybody is so tight lipped, that it's somewhat disquieting, like the calm before the storm.
Hopefully these happenings include EagleWorks proving their point to the NASA's internal review boards, and getting more appropriate funding, which could result in a news-worthy paper by end of the year.
Or maybe Dr. Tajmar and his diligent Ph.D. students have continued doing experiments, with much better results by now.
Well, that's maybe just me and my child-like desires to see this work, but this calm is indeed odd.
Consider the quiet experimental labs that are likely hoping to disprove this thing and become the first to lay it to rest. Silence. And I don't think its becaused no one tried.
Calm before the storm, indeed Shell :o
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 12:37 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434100#msg1434100">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 11:56 PM</a>
It is funny, isn't it? Have to think that a "breakthrough" in determining this whole thing were measurement or system error would have hit the boards long ago, but they have not. And this is from labs that have a reputation for doing so.
Consider the quiet experimental labs that are likely hoping to disprove this thing and become the first to lay it to rest. Silence. And I don't think its becaused no one tried.
Calm before the storm, indeed Shell :o
Probably a good time to review the report Roger Shawyer put together way back in 2002 on his 1st Experimental EMDrive where the measured Force was 16mN @ 850W.
Lots of good info there for our current magnetron based DIYers. Even back then he used a circulator and a load for the reflected power so as to stop it heating up his magnetron. Because of the use of a waveguide assy, he had a way to impedance match the frustum to the magnetron using both a screw and a choke, which I assume is an aperture.
Also included Roger's latest summary of reported experimental data, with Specific Force (N/kW) sorted by measured loaded Q.
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)
My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 12:48 AM -
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.
Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1 -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 02:25 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434112#msg1434112">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 12:48 AM</a>
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.
Attagirl...thanks Shell...looking mighty fine.
Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1 -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/09/2015 02:35 AM - So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit. But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing. I would never troll this thread. Ever. I completely hate reddit.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/09/2015 02:40 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434135#msg1434135">Quote from: Blaine on 10/09/2015 02:35 AM</a>
So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit. But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing. I would never troll this thread. Ever. I completely hate reddit.
Several active users of NSF, including RFMWguy and SeaShells, are active and positive contributors to the EM Drive Subreddit, which is a real and significant part of the community of interested researchers and bystanders. You do us all a disservice by trolling the other, interested parties out of spite for their host. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 02:44 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434137#msg1434137">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/09/2015 02:40 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434135#msg1434135">Quote from: Blaine on 10/09/2015 02:35 AM</a>
So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit. But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing. I would never troll this thread. Ever. I completely hate reddit.
Several active users of NSF, including RFMWguy and SeaShells, are active and positive contributors to the EM Drive Subreddit, which is a real and significant part of the community of interested researchers and bystanders. You do us all a disservice by trolling the other, interested parties out of spite for their host.
Reddit is simply raw humanity. They are good people there who really want to know and understand what's happening. I'll post for them.
Shell
mods... spellings -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/09/2015 03:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434111#msg1434111">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 12:37 AM</a>
...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)
My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.
100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN). I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf. If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible. With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up. To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.
To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 PM -
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.
The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...
Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 03:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434309#msg1434309">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/09/2015 03:26 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434111#msg1434111">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 12:37 AM</a>
...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)
My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.
100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN). I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf. If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible. With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up. To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.
To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating.
You do know of the EMDrive powered IXS Clarke? Scroll down for transit times versus 0.4N/kW or 4N/kW. My research suggests 4N/kW and more is doable without going to superconductivity. Transit times are from Eagleworks.
http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_ship
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 04:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434322#msg1434322">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 PM</a>
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.
It is a tube abet a interesting tube but follows most characteristics of a tube. I looked at the ability to shift frequencies in the magnetron and you are quite right it's not that easy. To begin it was easier to stabilize the frustum than mod the magnetron and latter if it was still needed to shift frequency and lock it with a feedback system it will not be quite as hard.
The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...
Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
At one time I was looking at a transducer or voice coil on a end plate to vary the cavity dimensions, it may be something you might also want to look at. The thermal growth cycles are well within the range. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 04:26 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434322#msg1434322">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 PM</a>
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.
The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...
Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
Suggest feeding the maggie full wave rectified and filtered 4,000vdc will go a long way toward reducing the freq splatter.
Also try to use the oven's existing waveguide and maggie to waveguide assy as it is designed to over good VSWR to the mounted maggie. It may have a inward dimple, which is for impedance matching. Could flatten it and put in a threaded bolt or 3 to do good impedance matching or go with the existing dimple.
Will do my full wave filtered maggie schematic for you over the weekend. The daily rad makes doing any serious work very difficult. But Horray for 2 days away from the rad treatments. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/09/2015 04:27 PM -
Thermoelectric cooling
Why not to try to use a thermoelectric cooling module attached to the magnetron to remove part of its dissipated power. Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 04:59 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434309#msg1434309">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/09/2015 03:26 PM</a>
http://www.space.com/30074-trillion-dollar-asteroid-2011-uw158-earth-flyby.html<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434111#msg1434111">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 12:37 AM</a>...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)
My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.
100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN). I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf. If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible. With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up. To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.
To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating.
You're a little off in your estimate. :o
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/09/2015 05:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434322#msg1434322">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 PM</a>
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.
The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...
Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:
It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.
Now to the main reason for this post. After reading through the last few pages of this latest version of the NSF.com/EM-Drive forum, some of you might find interesting the following microwave RF source data. I've run across several papers over the last few months on how to make the magnetron from a kitchen microwave oven into a frequency tunable, narrow-band, and stable RF source with very low phase noise, just right for the kind of work that Dave, Shell and The Traveler are performing, or will be performing on these EM-Drive thrusters.
These cross-field magnetron design modifications are authored by an RF engineer by the name of Bill Brown who died in 1999, (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Brown ), and their simplicity and elegance are still striking, at least to me. In the hope that these papers have not already been posted elsewhere in these EM-Drive threads, or as a reminder to all if they have, find them attached.
BTW, Mr. Brown's phase-controlled, frequency-tunable magnetron design, using feedback from a sense antenna in the frustum, only has a frequency tuning range of ~15MHz as currently designed, so Dave D. will have to use a hybrid mechanical/electrical tuning system for his frustum to obtain his desired +/-40MHz tuning range. Or Dave could increase the magnetic-field output in the magnetron's B-field Buck-Boost coil used in Brown's design by increasing its driven current range, which might get the increased frequency range Dave needs.
Best of luck to all your efforts and keep up the good work!
Paul March, Friendswood, TX -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/09/2015 05:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434348#msg1434348">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/09/2015 04:27 PM</a>
Thermoelectric cooling
Why not to try to use a thermoelectric cooling module attached to the magnetron to remove part of its dissipated power. Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling)
Certainly more efficient than a thermoelectric cooling would be to integrate in the arms of the thrust balance a high efficiency heat pipe similar to those used in communication spacecrafts to transport the heat generated by high power Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers (TWTAs) to radiative panels looking at the cold space. The heat generated by the magnetron located at one arm end would be transported to the other end for a somewhat similar/symmetric dissipation process.
The effective thermal conductivity of a heat pipe is rather impressive, far in excess of the conductivity of a similar size pure copper (or even silver !) heat conductor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 05:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434368#msg1434368">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/09/2015 05:14 PM</a>
Paul,<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434322#msg1434322">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 PM</a>NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.
The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...
Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:
It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.
Now to the main reason for this post. After reading through the last few pages of this latest version of the NSF.com/EM-Drive forum, some of you might find interesting the following microwave RF source data. I've run across several papers over the last few months on how to make the magnetron from a kitchen microwave oven into a frequency tunable, narrow-band, and stable RF source with very low phase noise, just right for the kind of work that Dave, Shell and The Traveler are performing, or will be performing on these EM-Drive thrusters.
These cross-field magnetron design modifications are authored by an RF engineer by the name of Bill Brown who died in 1999, (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Brown ), and their simplicity and elegance are still striking, at least to me. In the hope that these papers have not already been posted elsewhere in these EM-Drive threads, or as a reminder to all if they have, find them attached.
BTW, Mr. Brown's phase-controlled, frequency-tunable magnetron design, using feedback from a sense antenna in the frustum, only has a frequency tuning range of ~15MHz as currently designed, so Dave D. will have to use a hybrid mechanical/electrical tuning system for his frustum to obtain his desired +/-40MHz tuning range. Or Dave could increase the magnetic-field output in the magnetron's B-field Buck-Boost coil used in Brown's design by increasing its driven current range, which might get the increased frequency range Dave needs.
Best of luck to all your efforts and keep up the good work!
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Good to see you again, you are missed. I've read your inputs from almost day one and they were a great help to all.
I believe these designs were posted a couple of months ago when ElisbethGreen was still posting, but it is good to revisit them again. It is a beautiful design and one I considered way back then.
Currently I have plans in slightly modifying a Inverter from Panasonic to deliver a cleaner power signal and variable power than the standard power supplies. I'll need to see how stable my thermally compensating frustum design is as to how much I might or might not need to phase lock the RF to the frustum. I suspect with the high Q frequency tunning is going to be needed. :)
One other point, we all are here rooting for you and the EagleWorks team.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 PM -
Hey everyone,
Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)
You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.
-Kurt -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 05:51 PM -
Wow!
Thanks Paul and welcome back!
Kurt! Very cool, thanks for the links! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 06:35 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434382#msg1434382">Quote from: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 PM</a>
Hey everyone,
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity
Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)
You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.
-Kurt
6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.
Should be:
6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/09/2015 07:00 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434403#msg1434403">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 06:35 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434382#msg1434382">Quote from: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 PM</a>
Hey everyone,
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity
Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)
You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.
-Kurt
6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.
Should be:
6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH.
Ah, apologies, thank you for the correction! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 07:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434414#msg1434414">Quote from: zellerium on 10/09/2015 07:00 PM</a>
No problem Kurt! I did update emdrive.wiki with my data, only awaiting VNA testing for resonance & Q numbers. Think I'll be using the Qr or Q ratio measuring the 3dB BW ratios from insertion and best return loss resonance.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434403#msg1434403">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 06:35 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434382#msg1434382">Quote from: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 PM</a>Hey everyone,
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity
Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)
You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.
-Kurt
6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.
Should be:
6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH.
Ah, apologies, thank you for the correction!
If you need any pics for your paper, let me know, otherwise, feel free to reference the Phase I TR data or commentary as needed.
Dave
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/09/2015 08:00 PM -
In case anyone wonders just how linear are Maxwell's equations, the attached shows what meep calculates.
I started with SeeShells CE3 cavity and multiplied the frequency by scale = 23.87 GHz / 2.48 GHz = 9.625
Then I divided each of the dimensions by "scale" ie. 9.625. I used the drive frequency of 23.87 GHz and ran meep/Harminv. This calculated a resonant frequency of about 23.91 GHz, with high Q .
You will observe that the error in the original resonant frequency, 2.48 GHz, was also scaled by this approach. I'm pretty sure that is why the resonant frequency was initially off by 0.04 GHz.
Leaving the drive frequency at 23.87 GHz, I multiplied the dimension scale by a factor, given on the image. As you can see, the resonant frequency was driven to 23.87 GHz in a very nice, linear fashion. All of the calculated Q's were nice and high, showing good resonance.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cosmo on 10/09/2015 08:05 PM -
I see that there are interesting solid-state alternatives to magnetrons coming available from NXP semiconductor. Also, they have some evaluation tools that might fit in well with EMDrive validation efforts. Here are some links to the relevant information -
http://www.nxp.com/applications/rf-energy/ (http://www.nxp.com/applications/rf-energy/)
http://www.nxp.com/documents/leaflet/75017630.pdf (http://www.nxp.com/documents/leaflet/75017630.pdf)
http://www.nxp.com/documents/white_paper/75017647.pdf (http://www.nxp.com/documents/white_paper/75017647.pdf)
Just curious what the EE/Microwave engineers could make of these products. The frequency tunability and stability would fit well into EMDrive use. Although the components are relatively inexpensive, the ready to use evaluation products aren't (pretty typical in the semi industry).
After some digging, the evaluation Blaze 250 (300W) / Blaze 500 (600W) 2.45GHz amplifiers are $2495 and $3995, respectively. Probably out of the budget of individual builders, but certainly not some universities or NASA.
[Edit]
Re-ordered links above. Note that the System 250-2.45-1 or System 500-2.45-1 (see 2nd link above) look like a complete, easily programmable solution for a Frustum microwave source without the problems associated with a Magnetron drive.
Kurt -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 08:07 PM -
Drive builders head's up. Cheap magnetrons...bought a couple just to disassemble and use radome:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151832903779 -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/09/2015 09:55 PM -
This is my last spreadsheet in comparison to the NASA_Comsol calculations using a single formula based on cylindrical coordinates for all the different modes in the plot. I think this is the border using that kind of equations, for more accuracy the method explained by dr.rodal (or FEM/FDM) ::) , using sperical coordinates (or field simulations)is necessary,not the simple sin/cos properties of the cylindrical system.
But I think it's not really bad ;)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/10/2015 12:15 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434112#msg1434112">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 12:48 AM</a>
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.
Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1
Thanks for the pic's. You get bonus points for neatness of your shop. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 12:29 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434444#msg1434444">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 08:07 PM</a>
Drive builders head's up. Cheap magnetrons...bought a couple just to disassemble and use radome:
Guess what? This seller raised his price to 89 each after I bought 2 for 2.95 each.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151832903779
Bet they won't ship...we'll see >:( -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/10/2015 12:35 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434382#msg1434382">Quote from: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 PM</a>
Hey everyone,
Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)
You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.
-Kurt
Nice work. Keep at it and get ready for a long and fruitful life in research. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 03:02 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434479#msg1434479">Quote from: X_RaY on 10/09/2015 09:55 PM</a>
This is my last spreadsheet in comparison to the NASA_Comsol calculations using a single formula based on cylindrical coordinates for all the different modes in the plot. I think this is the border using that kind of equations, for more accuracy the method explained by dr.rodal (or FEM/FDM) ::) , using sperical coordinates (or field simulations)is necessary,not the simple sin/cos properties of the cylindrical system.
But I think it's not really bad ;)
Nice work.
Can you please share your spreadsheet? Would like to compare our resonance versus mode data. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 03:12 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434368#msg1434368">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/09/2015 05:14 PM</a>
Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:
It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Hey Paul. Welcome back.
Must be something we can do to make your management take your work seriously and properly fund it. I mean what would be the effect of a working 50mN (0.5N/kW) EMDrive, accelerating for 10 minutes, with full data, have on their opinion?
Phil Wilson -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM -
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?" -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 04:09 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434532#msg1434532">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM</a>
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
My understanding is:
At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.
All reverse at the small end.
This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.
The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.
End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required enviroment for the effect to happen.
Phil -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 AM -
Hello,
Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently. I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology. It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement). If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology. Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now. That is more than a little disruptive.
For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause. If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature? A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective. If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations. I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.
Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 05:42 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434539#msg1434539">Quote from: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 AM</a>
Hello,
Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently. I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology. It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement). If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology. Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now. That is more than a little disruptive.
For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause. If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature? A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective. If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations. I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.
Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
Hi and welcome. Consider this, published in "Forbes" and first quoted back on thread 3.QuoteThe reason I’m writing this? If this force engine were to work, every industry you invest in will be turned upside down. Admittedly, this is a very early call. Inventing a time machine would be more dramatic than EmDrive but not a lot more. A force engine would be like inventing fire.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: geza on 10/10/2015 06:09 AM -
Quote
My understanding is:
At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.
All reverse at the small end.
This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.
The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.
End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required environment for the effect to happen.
Phil
Thanks for your explanation! Still, I do not understand fully. If the EM wave bounces back at the end plate, then the momentum generated according to your explanation does not leave the cavity. You cannot ignore the bounce force (momentum transfer from the EM field to the cavity) just by saying that it is not directly involved in the effect. Can you clarify? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 06:29 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434548#msg1434548">Quote from: geza on 10/10/2015 06:09 AM</a>Quote
My understanding is:
At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.
All reverse at the small end.
This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.
The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.
End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required environment for the effect to happen.
Phil
Thanks for your explanation! Still, I do not understand fully. If the EM wave bounces back at the end plate, then the momentum generated according to your explanation does not leave the cavity. You cannot ignore the bounce force (momentum transfer from the EM field to the cavity) just by saying that it is not directly involved in the effect. Can you clarify?
The end plate bounces are not what generates the external Force. Their action/reaction Forces balance each other out.
What causes the external Force is the change in the EM wave's momentum, guide wavelength and group velocity during the passage of the EM wave BETWEEN the end plates.
For the EM wave to GAIN momentum as it travels from the small end to the big end, requires the frustum to move in the opposite way, toward the small end. Rocket like action.
Likewise for the EM wave to LOSE momentum as it travels from the big end to small end, requires the frustum to move in the same way, toward the small end. Sail like action.
So it is the changing EM wave momentum as it "travels" between the end plates that breaks symmetry and not the end plate bounce.
As per the attached SPR graphic, Shawyer shows the end plate action/ reaction bounce Forces balance each other out and are NOT the source of the externally generated "Shawyer Effect" Force.
Phil -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: geza on 10/10/2015 07:05 AM - That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 07:24 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434554#msg1434554">Quote from: geza on 10/10/2015 07:05 AM</a>
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?
QV is a theory of NASA Eagleworks Dr. White. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 08:19 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434532#msg1434532">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM</a>
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
How about modeling it in meep? We have the frustum dimensions for the Q-thruster. I believe you can do a loop well enough.
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Shell
Added a pic of the loop -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2015 10:13 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434539#msg1434539">Quote from: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 AM</a>
Hello,
Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently. I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology. It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement). If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology. Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now. That is more than a little disruptive.
For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause. If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature? A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective. If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations. I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.
Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
You have just given reasons why planning 30 years a head is very risky. On the other hand I suspect in 40 years time we may have EMDrive cars, driving above roads first built by the Romans 2000 years ago.
Beyond a few probes to the Moon, Mars and GEO there will be little output from these experiments in 10 years time. There may however be major research programs to develop EMDrives able to push manned transfer vehicles to Mars - say halving the launch mass. Above road vehicles and aircraft could have similar development programs producing results in about 20 years time. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/10/2015 10:43 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434570#msg1434570">Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2015 10:13 AM</a>
humoring you...<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434539#msg1434539">Quote from: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 AM</a>
Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
You have just given reasons why planning 30 years a head is very risky. On the other hand I suspect in 40 years time we may have EMDrive cars, driving above roads first built by the Romans 2000 years ago.
Commentary from way back in 1989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjsUxbNmIs
note the x4 emDrive thruster's within the wheels!
very disruptive...
It could all be happening here in thread5.... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 02:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434532#msg1434532">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM</a>
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Added:
It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.
Busy day today.
Shell
Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 03:35 PM -
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.
Will take screen shots.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming 8)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 03:44 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434628#msg1434628">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 03:35 PM</a>
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.
Will take screen shots.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming 8)
Attaboy big guy! Now you can do some big boy/girl testing.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 05:50 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434632#msg1434632">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 03:44 PM</a>
Coming from the Test Equipment industry, I decided to use PC based modules rather than stand alone stuff like I used to sell.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434628#msg1434628">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 03:35 PM</a>VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.
Will take screen shots.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming 8)
Attaboy big guy! Now you can do some big boy/girl testing.
Shell
Come to think of it, perhaps thats why it was an ex-career ;) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM - After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting 8) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/10/2015 06:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434663#msg1434663">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting 8)
I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:54 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434665#msg1434665">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/10/2015 06:47 PM</a>
Yes, it was by me and the data analsyst as well as those who bothered to download the paper.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434663#msg1434663">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting 8)
I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o
This poster is uninformed... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 06:55 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?
I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.
How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 07:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434669#msg1434669">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 06:55 PM</a>
Whatever you say, you amateur... ::) lol<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?
I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.
How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 07:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434673#msg1434673">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 07:13 PM</a>
Ham it up... lol<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434669#msg1434669">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 06:55 PM</a>
Whatever you say, you amateur... ::) lol<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?
I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.
How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/10/2015 07:29 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434667#msg1434667">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:54 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434665#msg1434665">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/10/2015 06:47 PM</a>
Yes, it was by me and the data analsyst as well as those who bothered to download the paper.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434663#msg1434663">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting 8)
I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o
This poster is uninformed...
... and impatient.
Research takes a long time and a great deal of work. How many years has Shawyer been working on this? Our "amateur" scientists and engineers should be applauded for all their hard work and contributions to this forum.
Keep up the good work! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 07:58 PM -
Well today I'm not going to be working on the Tests. Have 2 friends who's birthdays fall in the month of October like mine. It's party time with about 30-40 ppl showing and no building the drive today. ;D
Tomorrow is another day and back at it.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Ayreos on 10/10/2015 08:11 PM -
I wish i had something better to contribute to the magnificent pursuit of knowledge this thread represents, but alas, my field of study is biotech, so i'll just contribute two elementary thoughts:
1) Feeding trolls is a waste of infinitely precious experiment time.
2) Science gains more by ruling out the impossible than by pursuing the plausible! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 09:22 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434598#msg1434598">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 02:09 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434532#msg1434532">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM</a>
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Added:
It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.
Busy day today.
Shell
Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.
Shell - We have ran enough simulations and members of this forum have evaluated enough EM wave propagation theory to understand that a very tiny antenna source down in the corner of the big end can not cause a symmetrically propagating resonant wave to appear within the limited start-up time available for meep computation/simulation.
I haven't made that run but I will do so now that you bring it up. I expect to see a very skewed wave pattern, what do you expect?
Oh, and a simulation problem. Paul reported that he rotated the loop antenna to maximize the S11 return loss. Is that to be simulated by rotating the antenna to maximize Q? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 11:19 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
I suggest you review my NASA Eagleworks EMDrive test data archive:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iS3hvZzV5Rzl6Rlk&usp=sharing
The EMDrive Force generation profiles are very clear. Especially like these 5:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iQkZwS0RaX0RiN00/view
Apply Rf power, Force is generated. Remove Rf power, Force generation stops. Nice, clean & very clear.
The Eaglework professionals do a good job.
Anyone still thinking this is measurement error is crawing out on a very thin branch, that may one day fail them very badly.
It is time to ask why traditional analysis and theory when applied to the EMDrive fails to predict the real world Force as measured in 5 labs, in 4 countries, on 8 devices.
That is where the measurement error exists and not in the work of the 5 labs. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 AM -
I suppose I should be more specific. The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.
And as I have said before, I am a chemist. I'm trying to inject some "non-enthusiast" perspective into the thread. I'm amazed that I'm considered a troll when posts predicting flying cars in 10 years are welcomed. I understand that you are all excited about the Eagleworks data (which, as I understand, do not include a rigorous error analysis), but if you want people outside the thread to care about what you do you should do it right or not at all. Compared to the amount of money spent on your test rigs a vacuum pump/turbomolecular pump and associated piping can be had for about 7,000. A chamber is also pretty easy to build, disposable copper gaskets and a big piece of welded steel should be relatively obtainable. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2015 02:58 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434789#msg1434789">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 AM</a>
I suppose I should be more specific. The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.
And as I have said before, I am a chemist. I'm trying to inject some "non-enthusiast" perspective into the thread. I understand that you are all excited about the Eagleworks data, but if you want people outside the thread to care about what you do you should do it right or not at all.
You have read how the Eagleworks tests were done?
The frustum length axis was horizontal as was the generated and measured Force vector. Thermal effects produce a vertically upward lift, which should not generated a horizontal Force.
Next look at the rise and fall time of the Force signals as the Rf is turned on and off. As an engineer, no way is that a thermal signal, which would take time to build up and time to decay.
While there may be some thermally generated centre of mass movement from slow thermal expansion of the frustum visible as slow base line shifts, again no way is this capable of generating the rapid rise and fall of the Force as the Rf is turned On and Off.
I really struggle to understand how you can see the horizontal Force profile's rapid rise and fall times being thermally generated. Please share how you see this being possible. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:05 AM -
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.
I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?
I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2015 03:29 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434793#msg1434793">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:05 AM</a>
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.
I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?
I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments.
So you have no explaination of how slow thermal effects could generate rapid horizontal rise and fall time Force signals?
And yes we need more experimental data and more experimental data in vac, which I believe Paul said Eagleworks are working on.
My work is to show the relationship between power supply delivered energy and the increasing kinetic energy of my rotary test setup during sustained periods of continuous EMDrive acceleration. Here I mean for periods of around 10 minutes, acceletating my test rig from stop to around 120 rpm and being totally cordless and on board battery powered. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:40 AM -
Not just more, but better data is needed. And that means data collected only in very high vacuum, under highly controlled conditions, equal or better to the NASA setup. Unless the effect (IMO not currently supported by the evidence) is very large, no data collected in the air is worth any serious consideration due to intractable thermal effects (there are too many to list here). Any test done in the air will need to be done in vacuum later anyway, so experimenters should just bite the bullet and do everything in vacuum from the beginning.
Thermal emission of gases from polymers and other materials can likely produce asymettric forces in any direction, since the hot spots generated by the microwaves won't be symmetrically distributed in a dielectric material. The reason I bring this up is that in the best eagleworks run, a dielectric material was used and this effect was likely not accounted for. Ultra-high vacuum systems use a minimum of "soft" parts and those that are used are not normally put under high thermal loads. There are many pitfalls when making these kinds of measurements and to my knowledge the available data from NASA doesn't exactly come with a detailed "supporting information" section including complete descriptions of how the runs were performed and how all gas effects were eliminated (were the test rigs baked under vacuum prior to experimental runs? How were the parts handled, with gloves or without? etc.).
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Unentitled on 10/11/2015 07:42 AM -
Ideals surely have their place when considering experimental verification and your input is also sure to shape future considerations. Acknowledging the patience aspect it would be prudent to acknowledge that such experiments will follow?
Within a limited testing environment is an environment still worth testing and all that jazz.
I thank you for sharing your thoughts and do not find them unwelcoming.
These tests are meant to eliminate doubts whether data shows true/false/null. I am interested in any specific criticisms of the current data you would care to elaborate on, including an expansion on the levels of asymmetrical horizontal forces may be expected for thermal involvement (materials, machines, environment: air, other elements?)
Thanks for sharing all. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/11/2015 09:16 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Hopefully you did not live at the time of Newton ! ;) He would never have been allowed to share the conclusions of his experiments. You imagine : a totally uncontrolled apple falling from a tree, without any knowledge from the weather conditions, with the speed and direction of the wind totally unknown, and with a total ignorance of the possible actions of flying insects or birds ... :)
You are certainly more a quality control integrist than somebody animated by a true scientific spirit. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434793#msg1434793">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:05 AM</a>
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.
It simply cannot be done at the level your asking for with the budgets the DYI Builders have to work with and even if we could do a build with the proper facilities the data would still come under fire. Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?
I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments.
I need to point out the testing you are suggesting in high vacuum will bring its own set of issues, amplifying some thermal effects 3-4 times versus testing in ambient air conditions. It's not a slam dunk solution. It is a wiser route for DYIers to go by testing in ambient air and account for the thermal issues as best we can and hopefully when data sets come from EagleWorks or another lab or university be dovetailed together to produce a clearer picture of what is happening.
I appreciate your candor and your willingness to help point out what is lacking in the DYI tests, we are very aware of it. My company built and designed equipment that went into Clean Room Fabs for producing not only semiconductors and optics but medical equipment, some of our machines are used in shaping the titanium wires that go into making heart stents. The rigorous requirements for our equipment we provided could be considered on a par with the testing facilities you are describing.
Funding is sorely needed to do this right and it's not a great deal to invest in testing this abnormality. First steps are needed to gain data that is useful, data the can be pulled from the noise of the testing environment regardless if it's in a vacuum or in ambient air. Then maybe funding can happen for some real world class testing. This is my hope.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:52 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434711#msg1434711">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 09:22 PM</a>
I think you're quite correct, in we will see a rotating Betty Crocker blender of wave actions, very similar to the simulation of the Poynting vectors in the Yang-Shell that Dr. Rodal provided. I suspect even after rotating the loop antenna the rotational effect will still be there. Even now it makes little sense to me how thrust was gained from this configuration.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434598#msg1434598">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 02:09 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434532#msg1434532">Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 AM</a>A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?
In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.
This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Added:
It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.
Busy day today.
Shell
Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.
Shell - We have ran enough simulations and members of this forum have evaluated enough EM wave propagation theory to understand that a very tiny antenna source down in the corner of the big end can not cause a symmetrically propagating resonant wave to appear within the limited start-up time available for meep computation/simulation.
I haven't made that run but I will do so now that you bring it up. I expect to see a very skewed wave pattern, what do you expect?
Oh, and a simulation problem. Paul reported that he rotated the loop antenna to maximize the S11 return loss. Is that to be simulated by rotating the antenna to maximize Q?
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/11/2015 12:21 PM -
Tetrakis does raise an interesting question about vacuum systems albeit his "cheap" solution is about $7k.
SeaShells notes the high cost of running in a vacuum. In a previous life I was a member of AVS and also lived the life of making vacuum systems. In fact, my first college part time job was in the chemistry department repairing mechanical pumps. Quite oily as I recall.
To the Point:
This community shares a lot of technical and engineering ideas. Perhaps a subtopic could be how to create an appropriate sized vacuum chamber very inexpensively.
For example, jb industries makes a nice line of inexpensive pumps starting in the $250 range. The one I have, bottom of the line, easily pulls a .1 torr vacuum.
A 3 gal degassing chamber on ebay starts around $100.
What issues would we have to resolve to provide VAS (Vacuum As a Service) to this community?
possible issues to resolve:
How big a chamber is required for the DIY community? How many and what type of electrical feeds are required into the chamber? The costs in my mind's eye are in the chamber requirements.
Even if the costs were too high for a single DIY project, could this community build a chamber that would support multiple projects that could be shipped as needed to support testing?
Would having a VAS available change DIY project designs?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 04:04 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434839#msg1434839">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 AM</a>
...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell
No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM -
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434839#msg1434839">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 AM</a>
I need to point out the testing you are suggesting in high vacuum will bring its own set of issues, amplifying some thermal effects 3-4 times versus testing in ambient air conditions. It's not a slam dunk solution. It is a wiser route for DYIers to go by testing in ambient air and account for the thermal issues as best we can and hopefully when data sets come from EagleWorks or another lab or university be dovetailed together to produce a clearer picture of what is happening.
I strongly disagree. The key to a good experimental design is that it should always provide a firm yes/no answer to a hypothesis. A good experiment should be thought of as a well phrased question posed to Nature. So far no experiments have really met this criteria because in every case, spurious effects like outgassing, convection, ambient air currents, EM interference with measuring devices, electrical arcing/discharge interfere with the yes/no answer and render it a maybe/maybe answer. This kind of design is good for maintaining hope that the effect might be real but bad for actually getting an answer to the question.
When you do experiments, the null hypothesis has to be given a fighting chance. I just haven't seen it yet in any of these threads, which is why in my first post on this thread I pointed out that there are no "significant results" yet. Do science like you mean for it to pass the standard of peer-review. Anything less just gives more maybe/maybe answers that only serve to spread confusion. Anything less than "my EMDrive is jumping off the table" should be considered support of the null hypothesis if the experiment is conducted in air.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434833#msg1434833">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/11/2015 09:16 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434662#msg1434662">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 PM</a>After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Hopefully you did not live at the time of Newton ! ;) He would never have been allowed to share the conclusions of his experiments. You imagine : a totally uncontrolled apple falling from a tree, without any knowledge from the weather conditions, with the speed and direction of the wind totally unknown, and with a total ignorance of the possible actions of flying insects or birds ... :)
You are certainly more a quality control integrist than somebody animated by a true scientific spirit.
Not to speak badly of quality control integrists, but I am a scientist "animated by a true scientific spirit". High-quality science is the only good science. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 04:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434889#msg1434889">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 04:04 PM</a>
In this report they talk about a vacuum chamber.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434839#msg1434839">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 AM</a>...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell
No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 PM -
In that document, the following statement is made: Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 05:10 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434899#msg1434899">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 04:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434889#msg1434889">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 04:04 PM</a>
In this report they talk about a vacuum chamber.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434839#msg1434839">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 AM</a>...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell
No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it.
Yes, this is the July 2014 paper, published on AIAA conference in Ohio. They talked about vacuum chamber but the experiment was done with air, not in vacuum. Read it carefully and you will find out. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/11/2015 05:27 PM - So, something just occurred to me. Now, keep in mind, I don't have a degree, yet. So, I was just thinking about some mechanisms that may be involved. I wasn't thinking what happens when gamma radiation interacts with matter like copper, with photons like microwaves, and with air molecules. I'd like to think about each kind of interaction separately. Then, maybe something will allow for a combination of interactions of these types to produce thrust; by acting together in some way. I don't know, I'm just thinking some kind of electro-static ionization due to bombardment might be why we get thrust. I could just be imagining things because I just watched a sci-fi show. Who knows.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/11/2015 05:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434843#msg1434843">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 12:21 PM</a>
Tetrakis does raise an interesting question about vacuum systems albeit his "cheap" solution is about $7k.
James Woodward who investigates both theoretically and experimentally a mass variation based exotic propulsion system, has its own little vaccum chamber apparently made of transparent plexiglass : http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html (http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html).
SeaShells notes the high cost of running in a vacuum. In a previous life I was a member of AVS and also lived the life of making vacuum systems. In fact, my first college part time job was in the chemistry department repairing mechanical pumps. Quite oily as I recall.
To the Point:
This community shares a lot of technical and engineering ideas. Perhaps a subtopic could be how to create an appropriate sized vacuum chamber very inexpensively.
For example, jb industries makes a nice line of inexpensive pumps starting in the $250 range. The one I have, bottom of the line, easily pulls a .1 torr vacuum.
A 3 gal degassing chamber on ebay starts around $100.
What issues would we have to resolve to provide VAS (Vacuum As a Service) to this community?
possible issues to resolve:
How big a chamber is required for the DIY community? How many and what type of electrical feeds are required into the chamber? The costs in my mind's eye are in the chamber requirements.
Even if the costs were too high for a single DIY project, could this community build a chamber that would support multiple projects that could be shipped as needed to support testing?
Would having a VAS available change DIY project designs?
Why not to ask him manufacturing/operation details of his small chamber ? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434905#msg1434905">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 PM</a>
In that document, the following statement is made:
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.QuoteThere appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.
I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 06:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434905#msg1434905">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 PM</a>
In that document, the following statement is made:
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.QuoteThere appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.
I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.
I'm not trying to advocate for the perfect at the expense of the good. Tests in the air are pointless and serve only to perpetuate hope in experimental artifacts. And as I keep saying, I'm not impatient, I just have high standards.
I also did a BOTE calculation and the measured force is equivalent to about 0.7 microtorr of surface pressure in the NASA tests, which is lower than the 1 microtorr they say they achieve in their vacuum chamber. They gently warm their entire vacuum chamber from the outside, which provides no guarantee that a big piece of plastic in their UHV chamber even approaches its operating temperature during tests. Furthermore the dielectric heating will not be perfectly even but will be asymmetrically localized on the surface. My point is that only a truly tiny amount of outgassing is needed for the very best NASA data to be worthless. That the presence of a gas-sponge in the middle of the device is required for any measured force is very suspicious.
I'm describing, of course, the gold standard of EMDrive data.
For what its worth, I don't think anyone should build their own high vacuum chamber/setup. These things are expensive when done properly and would likely not be used enough to justify the cost. Look into renting time on an institutional chamber. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a>
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one.
It's not about the "perfect experiment". It's that there are so many confounding factors that are in the same micro-newton range as the expected positive results.
If you were building a device that could lift itself and 5kg to the ceiling of your workshop, you'd only need a spring scale from your local bait'n'tackle to measure the force being produced at the accuracy required at this level. You wouldn't need a "perfect experiment" that measures every breath of air down to the micro-newton. The only confounding factors (unless there's a tornado in your lab) is whether you are cheating and using magicians' tricks - and that is easily solved by independent replication.
But when the heating of the air around the device can produce uplift larger than the desired effect, when visually undetectable thermal warping of the mechanism (or of the balance) may be sufficient to swamp the readings, when even current running through the power cables produces forces on the same order as those you're measuring, you are playing a vastly different game.
Unless you are capable of going beyond the level of isolation of the Eagleworks tests, you can't really add anything to the field. I mean, it sounds like ridiculous fun and I wish all of you success, but you aren't doing "research".<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a>No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't. But with an effect as tiny and easily confused as the EMDrive, even an experimenter who is honest and genuine can subconsciously bias the results (even if just by dismissing the importance of a confounding factor; as you have with outgassing. Maybe you're right or maybe it's just wishful thinking because you know it's too hard to correct for it if it is an issue, and you already have so many things you need to keep track of.)
Put it another way: What will you do if you didn't get a positive result? Will you believe that you've successfully refuted the original claims? Or will you assume that you've made a mistake (because the effect must be real) and start fiddling with the set-up until you do get a positive response? Note that I'm not calling you a liar, or incompetent, or ungenuine, or too amateurish to be trusted. What I'm saying applies to any professional as much as it does to you, Michelle and others. Commitment-blinkers are really dangerous when playing with effects at the lowest edge of detectability. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 06:48 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434927#msg1434927">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 06:05 PM</a>
I disagree that ambient tests are worthless. Tracking thermal lift, tho variable, is rather linear from cold start to about 100°C in my setup. Extracting variance from linear was done. There was no dielectric and sidewalls were mesh. It was a closed system at mw freqs but open otherwise.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434905#msg1434905">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 PM</a>In that document, the following statement is made:
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.QuoteThere appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.
I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.
I'm not trying to advocate for the perfect at the expense of the good. Tests in the air are pointless and serve only to perpetuate hope in experimental artifacts. And as I keep saying, I'm not impatient, I just have high standards.
I also did a BOTE calculation and the measured force is equivalent to about 0.7 microtorr of surface pressure in the NASA tests, which is lower than the 1 microtorr they say they achieve in their vacuum chamber. They gently warm their entire vacuum chamber from the outside, which provides no guarantee that a big piece of plastic in their UHV chamber even approaches its operating temperature during tests. Furthermore the dielectric heating will not be perfectly even but will be asymmetrically localized on the surface. My point is that only a truly tiny amount of outgassing is needed for the very best NASA data to be worthless. That the presence of a gas-sponge in the middle of the device is required for any measured force is very suspicious.
I'm describing, of course, the gold standard of EMDrive data.
For what its worth, I don't think anyone should build their own high vacuum chamber/setup. These things are expensive when done properly and would likely not be used enough to justify the cost. Look into renting time on an institutional chamber.
Like it or not, anomylous kinetic forces were detected that could not be attributed to outgassing, system noise or any other common error factors.
A true skeptic should prove claims of errors, otherwise it is a simple opinion. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 07:12 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434939#msg1434939">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 PM</a>
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, and therefore geared their research and development in that direction. I expect the physicists that constructed the Chicago Pile were significantly committed to proving self-sustaining nuclear fission was "real".
I would guess that experimenters are more often motivated by demonstrating something is possible, rather than it is impossible. That is human nature, and I don't see why it is so concerning to you. If the experimental apparatus and results are public and replicatable, and if publications are peer reviewed, let the dreamers to their thing. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434939#msg1434939">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a>
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one.
It's not about the "perfect experiment". It's that there are so many confounding factors that are in the same micro-newton range as the expected positive results.
If you were building a device that could lift itself and 5kg to the ceiling of your workshop, you'd only need a spring scale from your local bait'n'tackle to measure the force being produced at the accuracy required at this level. You wouldn't need a "perfect experiment" that measures every breath of air down to the micro-newton. The only confounding factors (unless there's a tornado in your lab) is whether you are cheating and using magicians' tricks - and that is easily solved by independent replication.
But when the heating of the air around the device can produce uplift larger than the desired effect, when visually undetectable thermal warping of the mechanism (or of the balance) may be sufficient to swamp the readings, when even current running through the power cables produces forces on the same order as those you're measuring, you are playing a vastly different game.
Unless you are capable of going beyond the level of isolation of the Eagleworks tests, you can't really add anything to the field. I mean, it sounds like ridiculous fun and I wish all of you success, but you aren't doing "research".<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434922#msg1434922">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 PM</a>No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't. But with an effect as tiny and easily confused as the EMDrive, even an experimenter who is honest and genuine can subconsciously bias the results (even if just by dismissing the importance of a confounding factor; as you have with outgassing. Maybe you're right or maybe it's just wishful thinking because you know it's too hard to correct for it if it is an issue, and you already have so many things you need to keep track of.)
Put it another way: What will you do if you didn't get a positive result? Will you believe that you've successfully refuted the original claims? Or will you assume that you've made a mistake (because the effect must be real) and start fiddling with the set-up until you do get a positive response? Note that I'm not calling you a liar, or incompetent, or ungenuine, or too amateurish to be trusted. What I'm saying applies to any professional as much as it does to you, Michelle and others. Commitment-blinkers are really dangerous when playing with effects at the lowest edge of detectability.
Months ago I'd defined the issues I'd be facing in trying to test this device with the equipment I could acquire with the limited funding.
The largest was thermal, by far. I haven't detailed out many of the smaller things I've done yet but maybe it's time I do some of them.
Moving the 140-160c thermal magnetron off from the frustum was the first step in removing a large chaotic thermal effect obscuring any thrust data. I then had the wires and the heat from the frustum to deal with.
Once I had the thermal heat from the magnetron the issue remains of the thermal expansion of the frustum itself. If you want I'll repeat how via end plate construction and resonance capturing by locking the end plates together for mode capturing one or more of the five modes I plan on testing, I'll do so.
The other issue it the effect of the thermal expansion of the high power passing down the fulcrum length in the cables and into the wave-guides (or antennas). All the wires and coax have been laid out to negate as much as possible spurious forces they may generate and even a dummy load has been planed to map out any forces that may effect measurement.
I'm isolating the frustum from air currents with the Faraday cage and plastic covering most of the side windows. The top is open to allow any heat to escape.
The simple quest I started months ago hasn't changed, to pick this device apart bit by bit to ascertain what the effect it is showing is. It's not a perfect test but I hope to be able to negate as many of the error causing issues down to a level that any thrust abnormalities will be easier to detect. How well these "fixes" will fix the problem depend on physics of the system and my building abilities. We have seen data from tests that haven't done any of these things and something was seen from them, not sure what, but something was there. I think I can drop the error levels lower in these first series of tests to see something. And if there is thrust directly related to the Q of the system I covered that too.
I will be going forth and the data will be presented, how that data is worked on is up to the community of believers, on the fencers and nonbelievers. I'm after data and there is no bad data.
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: BL on 10/11/2015 08:22 PM -
Re Post #93 by rfmwguy on 8 October:
“Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.
Comments welcomed……..”
The EmDrive principle as I understand it is that a frustum excited at resonance by a microwave signal will produce thrust along the axis of the frustum. The thrust is proportional to the power applied and the Q of the frustum.
If that is what the DIY’ers are trying to confirm—or reject, it seems unlikely that the hardware they have described on the forum, except for TheTraveller’s, can do either. The power, frequency, and spectral content of their sources are not known or controllable while testing. It is not known if the frustum, in its test configuration, has a mode of resonance at the nominal drive frequency. Due to the spiky spectral content of the source, it is not known how much, if any, energy is being injected at a resonant frequency. Since each frustum typically has multiple modes of resonance, each at different frequencies, which can be closely spaced, the frustum can only be tested at modes and frequencies that serendipitously coincide with source spectral lines. It is even possible that the frustum has multiple resonant frequencies within the nominal spectrum width of the source AND, if the frustum has a high Q, that NONE of the energy from the source is supplied at ANY of them.
Forget modifying the magnetron and/or its power supply. If you are going to expend your resources in an attempt to test frustum based thrusters, rent or borrow a precision signal generator, or, even better, a Vector Signal Generator (VSG) and a broadband amplifier to get its output up to useful levels. TheTraveller says that he has located a cheap one that puts out 100w, which should be adequate for proof of principle.
The sig gen can produce AM, FM, or pulse modulation and the spectral content of the VSG output can be tailored to your needs/desires using either canned modulation libraries or by creating your own custom output spectrum. The frequency step size is typically 1 Hz or smaller, which is adequate for Q’s up to 1e9. The output spectral width can vary from ultra pure CW to hundreds of MHz. And you KNOW what you are applying to the frustum. The modified magnetron approach is the experimental equivalent of hunting deer by going out into the woods, firing 100k rounds of ammo in random directions, and then looking for dead deer. If you don’t find one, do you conclude that there were no deer in the forest? Or that the deer were bulletproof? Or both?
If you don’t want to ‘spray and hope’, keeping a CW source tuned to resonance should be pretty easy by using directional couplers and a power meter to monitor the return loss several times per second and adjusting the CW frequency under software control to ensure that it remains tuned to resonance as the frustum heats. If there are multiple resonant modes with different resonant frequencies the SigGen/VSG approach will allow the frustum to be tested at each and every mode, with the assurance that you have full control of the center frequency, spectrum, and power of the stimulus signal.
The DIY’ers are expending their own time and money, so, other than really hoping that the EmDrive effect is real and wanting to see believable test data confirming it, I have no ‘standing’ to criticize their efforts. It just seems to me, based on my impressions from reading the forum, that if the objective is to confirm or deny the reality of EmDrive thrust they are wasting both.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 08:27 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434949#msg1434949">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 07:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434939#msg1434939">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 PM</a>
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, [...]
{Sigh} You completely ignored what I said immediately after that. Hell, the very next words: "With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't."
Instead you ignored what you didn't want to acknowledge in order to get the effect that you wanted. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 10/11/2015 08:32 PM -
The other thing that should be mentioned is that the objective very clearly is to see if we can get a statistically significant signal using the experimental configurations that folks could come up with. When everyone started down this journey around about thread 2 there was a lot of debate around the Eagleworks vacuum experiments. One thing that became very clear from this debate is that vacuum experiments produce low micro Newton thrust levels which are exceedingly difficult to parse out from all the potential noise sources, particularly thermal. Most crucially power levels had to be kept very low to ensure nothing melted in the vacuum! (If you want critiques wait till your apparatus is near melting!)
Also both Shawyer and Yang did not publish any experiments performed in a vacuum and claimed much higher thrust levels.
The critiques by Tetrakis and Paul451 are just too early in the journey.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 09:32 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434969#msg1434969">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 08:27 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434949#msg1434949">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 07:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434939#msg1434939">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 PM</a>
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, [...]
{Sigh} You completely ignored what I said immediately after that. Hell, the very next words: "With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't."
Instead you ignored what you didn't want to acknowledge in order to get the effect that you wanted.
Regardless of size of the effect, it is not unreasonable to expect experimenters to have an expectation (even hope) of the outcome. Regardless of the size of the effect, physics doesn't care what the experimenter expects. Regardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.
So i fall to see the distinction you are making. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/11/2015 09:54 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434984#msg1434984">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 09:32 PM</a>
Regardless of size of the effect, it is not unreasonable to expect experimenters to have an expectation (even hope) of the outcome. Regardless of the size of the effect, physics doesn't care what the experimenter expects. Regardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.
So i fall to see the distinction you are making.Quotephysics doesn't care what the experimenter expects.
There is literally a field of psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect) devoted to understanding how the above statement isn't correct. Experimenter bias and how it effects outcomes is a well studied and well understood phenomena. The double-blind experimental protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment), the gold standard for experimentation, exists solely for the purpose of improving upon the single-blind method by eliminating experimenter bias.QuoteRegardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.
This is just wrong. Peer review isn't magic. It can't see through the psychology of an author and determine which data they omitted, which data they squeezed, which data they analyzed using method X because the result was nicer than method Y, etc. Peer review fails all the time.
It's a moot point anyway, because we aren't talking about an effect that has been subjected to peer review.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/11/2015 09:56 PM - It doesn't matter what naysayers say. Btw, their is some awesome news from PaulTheSwag over on reddit. Check it out.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/11/2015 10:16 PM -
At this stage of testing and the varying results. Would it not be a bad idea to exclude by default anything?
Others may disagree with me. But the way I see things as they are now. Nobody can state other frequencies let alone other shapes would not provide results.
Any DIY should do as they wish. Of course many will choose similar frequencies, shapes and feeding methods for their frequency injections into similar cavities. With or without a vacuum.
That said. Someone could decide to use a cube with feeds on every side and different frequencies that nobody at this stage could state was a waste of time.
So, I am somewhat amazed at why anyone would want to suggest "These are the 'only' ways to do this testing right!".
At this stage. If someone said they wanted to use a small cavity shaped like a pyramid submerged 100 foot deep in water using AM Radio frequencies at 10 Watts, fed into the small end. I would look forward to their results. Maybe that's just me?
Don -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 10:22 PM -
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3odlez/science_fair_complete/
Congrats to Paul for winning gold in the south african science fair with his emdrive!
Must have impressed peers and scientists to have made it that far...well done.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434996#msg1434996">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.
I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:02 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435013#msg1435013">Quote from: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 PM</a>
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434996#msg1434996">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.
I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/11/2015 11:17 PM -
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.
Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.
Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/11/2015 11:22 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435014#msg1435014">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:02 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435013#msg1435013">Quote from: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 PM</a>
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434996#msg1434996">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.
I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho.
I don't think I'm out of date. In fact I know I'm not. While I'm in awe of your effort, the fact that Freescale, for example, is working on kilowatt level microwave sources for consumer appliances should be evident to everyone involved in this area. Often, a simple phone call will result in donations of equipment, or samples, that the average experimenter can only dream of. You have but to ask, the worst is that they say no.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435017#msg1435017">Quote from: rq3 on 10/11/2015 11:22 PM</a>
Thanks, this is a good tip. I moved from tubes to ss many years ago and am glad 1kw ss at 2 ghz is in development. Now, to get that free sample ;)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435014#msg1435014">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:02 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435013#msg1435013">Quote from: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 PM</a>
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434996#msg1434996">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.
I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho.
I don't think I'm out of date. In fact I know I'm not. While I'm in awe of your effort, the fact that Freescale, for example, is working on kilowatt level microwave sources for consumer appliances should be evident to everyone involved in this area. Often, a simple phone call will result in donations of equipment, or samples, that the average experimenter can only dream of. You have but to ask, the worst is that they say no. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 12:38 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434905#msg1434905">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 PM</a>
In that document, the following statement is made:
QuoteThere appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
To make my point again.
The very rapid rise and fall times of the Force signals are way too quick to be either thermal or out gassing generated.
With respect as an engineer to a chemist you are beating a dead horse.
Paul has shared vac data with NSF, which was not that good. Based on my resonance prediction spreadsheets which shows the vac resonance for the EW frustum increases by 600kHz, I asked Paul to do atmo versus vac S11 VNA resonance scans. He confirmed the higher resonance in vac. Surprised him. Told me the existing freq control and/or 3 stub impedance tuner system would not handle that much change. My theory is the early vac data was not done at vac resonance and is why it was crap.
So no biggie, but just another issue to be engineered out. I'm sure Paul & the other EW team members have this sorted.
We need to let EW finish their vac test series and have the results verified by another lab.
We ALL understand what strong positive vac results would mean. So give the professional EW team the time to put together solid vac verification before they publish again and the fire storm erupts. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 12:38 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435013#msg1435013">Quote from: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 PM</a>
That's not quite correct on the microwave magnetron power supply. Panasonic has a Inverter type that doesn't have a duty cycle at the incoming line frequencies. It's output around 33KHz can be stabilized with filtering and modifying the final stage to not even have the 33KHz component. The heater can be turned off after powering on for an increased clean signal.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434996#msg1434996">Quote from: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434897#msg1434897">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 PM</a>To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.
I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.
Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr. In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent. A relatively cheap embodiment.
You're suggesting a microtorr. That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.
Science isn't about getting the best equipment.
It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others. Eventually a consensus may emerge. Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.
To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.
For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions. RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence. Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.
It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum. Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for. Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.
Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real, for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.
Back to lurking. Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.
I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
One reason I want the wider output in bandwidth by using a magnetron is simply to be able to test the same cavity by keeping the wider band input of the magnetron with it's sub-harmonics and physically sweep the cavity length through tune points crossing through multiple modes, consisting of both TE and even TM modes. As the cavity is now with a meep simulated 30MHz bandwidth it operates in 3 different modes (one being a 1.5 hybrid mode) all within the same cavity and it still maintains a high reported Q. Why does it do this and what profound (or not) effects will be seen by testing these other close modes? No one can answer that for me because it's never been done.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 12:48 AM - Shell, I've followed your design logic for some time now and am impressed by your analysis and plans. This could be a millinewton level ke force your about to measure, well above the snowflake levels we've had to deal with. My phase II is a 17.5 millinewton goal, I may need some power supply help from you or phil.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:23 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435040#msg1435040">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 12:48 AM</a>
Shell, I've followed your design logic for some time now and am impressed by your analysis and plans. This could be a millinewton level ke force your about to measure, well above the snowflake levels we've had to deal with. My phase II is a 17.5 millinewton goal, I may need some power supply help from you or phil.
I suspect the 1st DIY result >= 10mN should be offered to EW to confirm as like a strong positive EW vac result, a fire storm will erupt.
As long as the results are in the show flake range (~30uN), the critics will hold their fire as easy to dismiss.
At 10mNs it all changes. Shawyers 1st Experimental at 16mNs got him serious funding from the UK gov, which he turned into the rotary Demonstrator and then the Flight Thruster. It is interesting to observe that as his Force generated grew, his credibility decreased until he was called a fraud and ignored.
Hopefully with the openness of the Internet, that may be avoided this time around as the EMDrive DIYers learn what Shawyer learned back in 1996 - 2006 and our EMDrive Force generation slowly increases until it can't be ignored or called fraud and discredited. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434958#msg1434958">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 PM</a>
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.
Shell
I disagree
(
)
:)
keep up the good work SeeShells -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 01:51 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435049#msg1435049">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434958#msg1434958">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 PM</a>
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.
Shell
I disagree
()
:)
keep up the good work SeeShells
hahahaaa snort... Although he turned out to be a good Data. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435015#msg1435015">Quote from: Bob Woods on 10/11/2015 11:17 PM</a>
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.
Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.
Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.
I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.
But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435049#msg1435049">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434958#msg1434958">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 PM</a>. I'm after data and there is no bad data.
Shell
I disagree
()
:)
keep up the good work SeeShells
Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)
Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.
Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.
I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications". -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 03:52 AM -
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.
You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we know nothing about you or your credentials.
Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.
Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435060#msg1435060">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435015#msg1435015">Quote from: Bob Woods on 10/11/2015 11:17 PM</a>
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.
Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.
Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.
I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.
But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435049#msg1435049">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434958#msg1434958">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 PM</a>. I'm after data and there is no bad data.
Shell
I disagree
()
:)
keep up the good work SeeShells
Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)
Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.
Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.
I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".
I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.
A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.
I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.
I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.
So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.
Shell
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 04:46 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1? :D
EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 08:25 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435079#msg1435079">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 04:46 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1? :D
EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding.
0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:35 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435067#msg1435067">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 03:52 AM</a>
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.
You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we no nothing about you or your credentials.
Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.
Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion.
Just to put in my two cents as they say. Good for you standing your ground on this matter. Critical comment is fair enough where I have more of an issue is this talk about leaving it to the professionals & that there is no place for the amateur experimenter. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 08:50 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435110#msg1435110">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 08:25 AM</a>
0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.
Oh I know, I'm just being a dreamer. Floating a spacecraft in Earth's gravity well, and making orbit without the aid of rockets, would be the greatest trick of all. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
I am 110% with you on this, Shell.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435060#msg1435060">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 AM</a>
Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)
Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.
Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.
I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".
I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.
A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.
I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.
I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.
So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.
Shell
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Although I found the initial remarks of Tetrakis a bit harsh and brutal, I do think it is good to have highly critical people on the sidelines that ask pesky questions....
For a part I can relate to his observations, as my self I was a bit disappointed to see the inability to produce a signal above the background noise.
I do however not side with his conclusions that only vacuum and a professional lab/team will lead to meaningful results.
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.
And in order to answer this question, we need to follow the method that Shell's proposing: attempting to understand what's happening in that "tin can", with small incremental steps.
Going vacuum will solve nothing if you do not understand what is needed to generate that presumed mysterious force...
To keep on track with the Wright brothers: many before them tried and tried (with some hilarious results) and failed... it is until the brothers started experimenting with wing profiles that they started to understand what "airlift" really meant for flight...
Consider the 5 pages of the NSF forum to be just that: the search for answers, be them on a theoretical level or a more pragmatic engineering/DIY level...
I think we came a long way already from Iulian's fast shotgun approach to what rfmwguy did and others will do in the future...
If each of these incremental steps turns out to be inconclusive, then yes, we might consider that it all turned out to be a hoax, but we're not there yet. A fuzzy signal is not a null signal, but means it needs further investigation to understand where the fuzzy signal comes from...
To me, the main question is now: what did Shawyer and Yang do, to get their claimed results. I'm not dismissing possible fraud (harsh word here) but it is NOT in my nature to assume fraud (deliberate or not) from start. Let's first make a serious attempt to understand what they did and any info provided by DIY builders can contribute.
5 pages of high level discussions inhere thought me that the possible effects inside the microwave filled frustum are not simple to understand...Rushing to the end result might not be the right thing to do. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 10/12/2015 11:37 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435060#msg1435060">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 AM</a>
But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.
Props for being a professional scientist; I would consider the 'DIYers' here far better scientists then a lot of those who are still in the field being paid to do science. In many ways, home scientists have always done better when unfettered from the restrictions and, dare I say, biases, of the ruling class, or the money class.
Nobody here is naive enough to not understand the literal billions of dollars that influence scientific research in corporations, universities, and governments. And this here little ol' technology may be worth more than those billions.
You complained earlier of a 'lack of interest' in this thread; it's already been discussed that there are many research efforts ongoing currently on this technology. There *are* peer reviewed papers, there *is* money going into research. Those facts alone make the discussion and group experimentation that's happening here a reasonable and very worthwhile exercise.
Don't confuse amateur with skill, or being professional with being unbiased.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435060#msg1435060">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 AM</a>I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA.
Where did you learn to science, dude? Since when does experimentation and reproduction of results to add to data sets not count as 'science'. There continue to be experiments that show that something is happening beyond "well known" thermal effects, however small. Can these self-funded experiments generate specific pico-data points to 'prove' what is happening? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the macro-level results (there is a force beyond thermal happening in a frustum of shape X, energy Y etc) aren't worth a *huge* amount, too.
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.
2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?
But hey, don't ask me, I really am an amateur when it comes to all of this EM Drive and the physics behind it and all. But I am enough of a professional in my own rights to know science when I see it.
Thank you for inspiring me enough to write.
Ronald
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435119#msg1435119">Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM</a>
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.
The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.
Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".
Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?
BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435142#msg1435142">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435119#msg1435119">Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM</a>
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.
The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.
Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".
Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?
BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
Phil,
Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error. Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings. ::)
Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.
It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.
So why do I do it and fight for my right to?
"Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/12/2015 03:28 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434554#msg1434554">Quote from: geza on 10/10/2015 07:05 AM</a>
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?
A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please? We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435067#msg1435067">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 03:52 AM</a>Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.
You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?).
I will point out that Paul March at Eagleworks also does much of his work from his kitchen table. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/12/2015 03:28 PM -
Quote
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/12/2015 03:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435171#msg1435171">Quote from: sghill on 10/12/2015 03:28 PM</a>
A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please? We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.
http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435142#msg1435142">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435119#msg1435119">Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM</a>
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.
The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.
Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".
Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?
BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
Phil,
Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error. Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings. ::)
Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.
It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.
So why do I do it and fight for my right to?
"Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"
Michelle:
Bravo girl, way to go!! We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.
Now back to how to get there.
BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results. Been there, done that. However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.
Phil:
The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient. We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
All:
In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring. I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig. Why? Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).
Best, Paul March -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM -
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:33 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
"Uhhh, am I delusional?" Whoa big guy, I'm not going there. You're just a "Crazy Eddie" like me.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
I think if you can divert the major component of heat from a vertical rising to a horizontal one and let it rise outside the frustum boundary. I forget who posted a top plate over the magnetron but it was a good idea and shoot the hot air out to the sides you should remove the vertical column of hot air dragging the frustum upwards and force it to dissipate out into the room.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/12/2015 04:42 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.
Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.
Don't know - might help.
I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs. :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 05:17 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435198#msg1435198">Quote from: aero on 10/12/2015 04:42 PM</a>
Yep, lower air pressure above will remain, just trying to offset it a bit by downward flowing cold air. Will not be a 100% balance to lift I don't think. I was just surprised how strong and quickly lift developed.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.
Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.
Don't know - might help.
I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs. :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/12/2015 05:31 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435142#msg1435142">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 PM</a>Michelle:<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435119#msg1435119">Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM</a>
Bravo girl, way to go!! We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.
Now back to how to get there.
BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results. Been there, done that. However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.
Phil:
The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient. We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
All:
In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring. I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig. Why? Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).
Best, Paul March
Fantastic to hear from you Paul. Cannot wait to read the paper. Cheers.
Bob -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/12/2015 06:50 PM -
Quote
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.
At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people. I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves).
I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435172#msg1435172">Quote from: aero on 10/12/2015 03:28 PM</a>
hahhaa snort sputter!!! Made me almost spew out my coffee aero.QuotePS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435232#msg1435232">Quote from: ThinkerX on 10/12/2015 06:50 PM</a>
No. It would not work, it needs air to float the plates but a magnetic bearing could do it.QuoteBrainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.
At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people. I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves).
I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/12/2015 07:32 PM -
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.
But this stuff...<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a>Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.
(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a>So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."
(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435112#msg1435112">Quote from: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:35 AM</a>Good for you standing your ground on this matter.
(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434995#msg1434995">Quote from: Blaine on 10/11/2015 09:56 PM</a>It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]
This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.
Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".
Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.
Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.
One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.
What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.
--
CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error. [Brin]
Because, the easiest person to fool is yourself. [Feynman] -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 07:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435123#msg1435123">Quote from: Fugudaddy on 10/12/2015 11:37 AM</a>
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.
2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?
I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.
I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.
Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.
A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.
I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.
I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.
So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.
Shell
I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data. They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.
I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a>The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient. We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:49 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435246#msg1435246">Quote from: Paul451 on 10/12/2015 07:32 PM</a>
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.
But this stuff...<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a>Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.
(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a>So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."
(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435112#msg1435112">Quote from: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:35 AM</a>Good for you standing your ground on this matter.
(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434995#msg1434995">Quote from: Blaine on 10/11/2015 09:56 PM</a>It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]
This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.
Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".
Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.
Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.
One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.
What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.
--
CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.
Because, "the easiest person to fool is yourself."
Don't confuse my choice to dream with my research, as it's a dream that gives me the drive to test this device, if it's a flop then it's a flop, if it goes then great. You dream of a better job, you dream of a better future for your friends and family, you dream of discovering fire again, making more money. Of course you and we dream, it is in our nature. We all dream, for that gives us the drive to achieve.
I was asked about using a vacuum in my testing and then told anything I gained from not doing it in a vacuum, wasn't worth while. I explained that wasn't in the cards at this time but it was in the future. How is that not listening? Testing in a vacuum is a fine idea.
I have no reason to try to fool myself, it would be a fools choice. Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 08:22 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435252#msg1435252">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 07:46 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435123#msg1435123">Quote from: Fugudaddy on 10/12/2015 11:37 AM</a>
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.
2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?
I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.
I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.
Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.
A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.
I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.
I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.
So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.
Shell
I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data. They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.
I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.
Thank you, I never took you differently than willing to help and offer us your professional thoughts.
The funds simply don't exist right now to go up to the level I'd like to be, that bothers me greatly, but I am trying to build the best I can with the few thousand contributed with my gofundme account. I hope and it is with the help of many here to be able to push this test up to a level that the effect shows above the noise and good data pulled. We'll see what happens and that's the best I can hope for.
Shell<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a>The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient. We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 08:25 PM -
Time Out - It might be a good time to insert this link again to the 2015 South African Science fair gold winner for his DIY EMDrive accomplishments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3odlez/science_fair_complete/
...and to remind critics that even the most humble DIY experiments can lead to great things.
Not all DIY experiments are going to be gold standards, and they don't have to be. For there is no perfect experiment. Might I suggest that we need to moderate gold scientific standards to allow people like Paul to get involved in DIY work and not become discouraged. Opinions and terms like "never", "amateur" and "cannot" when applied to DIY work is not only counterproductive, it could be terribly wrong and potentially discourage another Paul in the making.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:33 PM - I think both sides, how depressing that it has come to sides, will need to be patient as I imagine it will not be until 2016 that we hear more results from groups such as EW.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/12/2015 09:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435252#msg1435252">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 07:46 PM</a>
I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Giovanni DS on 10/12/2015 09:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435293#msg1435293">Quote from: not_a_physicist on 10/12/2015 09:36 PM</a>
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some.
There are thermal effects that could push it down, asymmetric expansion of the scale arms for example, the hotter arm would expand more than the colder one. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/12/2015 09:59 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 10:56 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435303#msg1435303">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/12/2015 09:59 PM</a>
Yes, I characterized lift on 3 test runs. There were anomalies in mag power ON/OFF time block comparisons. In OFF mode, lift continued a (fairly) linear rise to its peak (around 200 deg C meg temp). When mag ON, this (upwards) lift was disrupted, sometimes by a momentary downward force, sometimes with an attenuated lift rate. This was discussed alot towards the end of Thread 4 and some nice data analysis was done. Basically, the mag ON introduced unexpected non-linearities in lift progression. Just a simple, basic experiment.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.
So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.
Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.
Uhhh, am I delusional?
It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining?
This is what some skeptics are trying to claim are experimental errors. I did do a system noise analysis on the LDS and A/D converter and it was random and very insignificant whether mag was ON/OFF. All other variables have been accounted for to the best of my abilities. The test stand only had one source of data readings, the LDS which had insignificant noise levels as mentioned above.
On of the spreadsheets that illustrate this was wallofwolfstreet's analysis of Flight Test 2B. It showed a statistically different set of numbers mag ON to OFF periods:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38203.0;attach=1070977
Glennfish also did some fine analysis as well (FT 2C). So while my Test Report claimed lift anomalies between mag ON & OFF, I labeled this as the emdrive effect which albeit small, was not attributable to system errors. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sandrot on 10/12/2015 11:14 PM - How hot does the frustum get during an experiment?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Uhhh, am I delusional?
IMHO yes, that is delusional. :)
I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal. If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational. Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured. Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand. Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
IMHO -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a>
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:31 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand, but it might turn you into a business lady.
The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.
I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1. The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2. The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3. The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4. The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5. The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6. The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.
Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"
Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind. :)
1. It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2. In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435336#msg1435336">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a>
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.
Aw come-on. I thought I had a brilliant idea. Are you the dark lord of winter? :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:43 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435342#msg1435342">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:34 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435336#msg1435336">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a>
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.
Aw come-on. I thought I had a brilliant idea. Are you the dark lord of winter? :)
A bit glum after a few too many "frauds," "meme-drives," "no credible research group is attempting to replicates," and "they'll never get signal above the noise floors." Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. :( -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 11:45 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Uhhh, am I delusional?
IMHO yes, that is delusional. :)
I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal. If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational. Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured. Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand. Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
IMHO
Eagleworks mount their EMDrive horizontally, flip it 180 deg and use a dummy load (gens the same heat load as their EMDrive) to eliminate thermal, EMC and H/E Force effects.
Despite doing all that, those with too much invested in the data being bad, continue to claim thermal or out gassing effects are responsible.
In reality you only need to look at the very rapid rise and fall times to know the measured Force is not a thermal or out gassing effect.
The 1st image is what you see when running at resonance. Rapid rise and fall times as the Rf is switched On and Off.
The 2nd image is what you get when off resonance and thermal effects dominate.
See any difference? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:03 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435339#msg1435339">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand, but it might turn you into a business lady.
The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.
I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1. The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2. The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3. The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4. The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5. The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6. The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.
Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"
Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind. :)
1. It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2. In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.
Been there, done that. Several times.
I can deliver 1 - 6, with 6 being conditional on my payout. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435183#msg1435183">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 PM</a>
Uhhh, am I delusional?
IMHO yes, that is delusional. :)
I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal. If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational. Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured. Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand. Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
IMHO
This is the Eagleworks setup.
None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 12:14 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435347#msg1435347">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435342#msg1435342">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:34 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435336#msg1435336">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435333#msg1435333">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 PM</a>
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.
They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.
Aw come-on. I thought I had a brilliant idea. Are you the dark lord of winter? :)
A bit glum after a few too many "frauds," "meme-drives," "no credible research group is attempting to replicates," and "they'll never get signal above the noise floors." Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. :(
I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 12:22 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435339#msg1435339">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:31 PM</a>
Let's see. If I did do a business it means it would be my 4th time and each one was successful. The last I had to close because of the crash of '08 with a lot of others because we lost millions in canceled orders, so what does a gal do? BTW I did have 1-5 covered very well.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand, but it might turn you into a business lady.
The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.
I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1. The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2. The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3. The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4. The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5. The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6. The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.
Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"
Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind. :)
1. It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2. In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.
I never sold my soul to a VC group and sometimes that is what they would want in return when they approached me. I did manage to start each one without any major investments by the VC community. It's not easy I'll grant you that, but it's doable if you mind your Ps and Qs and get good people.
Number 6 is a position I would never allow, I knew the end game. I was the CEO and the major stock holder so the buck would always stop with me. I saw too many startups in Silicon Valley simply implode under extreme pressures of VC investors to perform to allow it to happen.
But all that said, right now my focus if getting this thing off the ground. <groan>
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:26 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a>
... I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig. Why? Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).
Best, Paul March
Spot on and where I'm going.
And yes I fully agree, we can make 100mN or more DIY EMDrives but there is a recipe that needs to be followed.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/13/2015 12:51 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435354#msg1435354">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:03 AM</a>
#6 is where I've drawn the line in my previous lives. Never could get past answering to the CEO club types. You know, the round-robin CEOs moving (and messing up) one company after another in 3-6 year increments.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435339#msg1435339">Quote from: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:31 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435074#msg1435074">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 AM</a>
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand, but it might turn you into a business lady.
The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.
I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1. The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2. The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3. The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4. The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5. The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6. The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.
Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"
Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind. :)
1. It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2. In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.
Been there, done that. Several times.
I can deliver 1 - 6, with 6 being conditional on my payout.
BTW, knowledge of the products and markets must be viewed as a negative, because none of them I've know had a clue. Creative accounting? Yes. Products? No.
Will be interesting to watch the scramble if this technology scales up...talk about disruptive market intros.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435363#msg1435363">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:26 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a>
... I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig. Why? Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).
Best, Paul March
Spot on and where I'm going.
And yes I fully agree, we can make 100mN or more DIY EMDrives but there is a recipe that needs to be followed.
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:29 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435369#msg1435369">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/13/2015 12:54 AM</a>
Hey, our good friend Chris Bergin made some Tech Times news!
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/93272/20151010/is-spacex-going-to-mars-rumors-of-a-red-planet-mission-circulate-after-cryptic-tweet-from-space-journalist.htm
Attaboy Chris, keep 'em guessing!
I'd speculate it is more than JFK's speech at Rice University, sort of things we know, but at a much higher than expected level. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435374#msg1435374">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM</a>
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.
My design is 2nd image.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 02:45 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435355#msg1435355">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 AM</a>
This is the Eagleworks setup.
None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.
Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 04:04 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435396#msg1435396">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 02:45 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435355#msg1435355">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 AM</a>
This is the Eagleworks setup.
None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.
Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?
From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074
I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 04:10 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435414#msg1435414">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 04:04 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435396#msg1435396">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 02:45 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435355#msg1435355">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 AM</a>
This is the Eagleworks setup.
None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.
Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?
From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074
I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.
Thank you! I thought he went silent. It seems he is active again.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 04:45 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435416#msg1435416">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 04:10 AM</a>
Yeah; but he still cannot divulge much. for instance did the test article ever get sent to and accepted at Glenn? I don't think he has said. If he did I missed it. An affirmative answer would almost have to mean they met the stated thrust signal goal involved.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435414#msg1435414">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 04:04 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435396#msg1435396">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 02:45 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435355#msg1435355">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 AM</a>
This is the Eagleworks setup.
None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.
Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?
From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074
I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.
Thank you! I thought he went silent. It seems he is active again. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 05:04 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435424#msg1435424">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 04:45 AM</a>
Yeah; but he still cannot divulge much. for instance did the test article ever get sent to and accepted at Glenn? I don't think he has said. If he did I missed it. An affirmative answer would almost have to mean they met the stated thrust signal goal involved.
Paul said:QuoteWe are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
That should answer your question.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:07 AM -
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)
So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/13/2015 05:10 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435433#msg1435433">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:07 AM</a>
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)
So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)
microNewtons not milliNewtons -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:13 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435434#msg1435434">Quote from: birchoff on 10/13/2015 05:10 AM</a>
details, details! :)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435433#msg1435433">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:07 AM</a>If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)
So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)
microNewtons not milliNewtons -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 05:18 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435434#msg1435434">Quote from: birchoff on 10/13/2015 05:10 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435433#msg1435433">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:07 AM</a>
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)
So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)
microNewtons not milliNewtons
Think Paul mentioned some time ago they needed a reliable right & left facing min 100uN in vac for the Glenn tests. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/13/2015 08:58 AM -
whaaaa... :o I skip just one day of forum reading and then Paul March posts....damn... i should have skipped more then...
Anyway, I'm veeeery excited to read that the tests are done and peer reviewers (I'm guessing we know at least 1 of them) are doing their jobs...
The full, long version of Shawyer's rotary test video is what kept my interest in this EMdrive project and keep it in consideration as something "real". Still on the fence though. I'd need more "evidence" to be really convinced.
The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...
arrhhh...
Curiosity killed the cat.. for sure...
Paul, seriously, how am I supposed to sleep at night now, for the coming weeks ? sigh... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/13/2015 09:11 AM -
I think that EM Drive could be a disruptive technology even if it never manages to provide enough thrust for earth lift off. Notbfor going to Mars. I'd rather like to see it helps make this planet a better place. How?
Just managing to keep stuff afloat in the orbit would be more than enough.
Now just pair that with the idea of space solar panels. If those could be kept in earth orbit by Emdrives, and if a suitable method for beaming this energy to Earth gets developed, it would be a game changer. Think of a lof of clean electricity. No coal power plants, no nuclear ones. They would become obsolete. We would have enough electricity to charge all these electric cars. Oh, I forgot, the batteries. Hope that Musk has something up his sleeve. :) I expect a breakthrogh there as well. Now couple that with ongoing LENR experiments and the real possibility to get it work fairly soon.
I just truly hope these things will become real in the next five years...and I won't be bothered anymore by the Dieselgate and a Coal power plant in my backyard...
Call me biased, but I choose to believe that the Em drive works, for the sake of our kids health... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/13/2015 09:32 AM -
Morning people.
Encouraging stuff from Paul March!
The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.
I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!
Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.
The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.
I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.
I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:12 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435484#msg1435484">Quote from: RERT on 10/13/2015 09:32 AM</a>
Morning people.
Encouraging stuff from Paul March!
The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.
I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!
Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.
The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.
I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.
I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.
Another approach is to increase the N/kW results by applying a step by step process during the design process:
1) do VNA scans to ensure resonance exists at the desired freq.
2) design in ability to impedance match so 95% of the generated Rf gets inside the cavity.
3) ensure the Rf generator bandwidth is smaller than cavity bandwidth.
4) optimise 1 - 3 to obtain highest measured Q (loaded Q)
5) paint frustum with high thermal emmissitivity coating to reduce operational temp.
6) use active min VSWR freq tracking.
7) design for Shawyers suggested TE013 mode.
8) measure loaded Q following Shawyer's suggestions using S11 VNA 3dB away from max rtn loss dB freq.
9) if designing in active narrow band Rf tracking, consider designing in spherical end plates.
10) use a SPR like frustum Df & resonant design tool.
Be rewarded wirh 0.3-0.5N/kW specific Force capable EMDrive. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 AM -
[speculation on]
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.
If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.
Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....
[/speculation] -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435377#msg1435377">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435374#msg1435374">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM</a>
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.
My design is 2nd image.
But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 PM -
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: andygood on 10/13/2015 02:59 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435357#msg1435357">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 12:14 AM</a>
I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.
I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:
0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.
This potentially means one of two things:
0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.
While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.
PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D
PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/13/2015 03:23 PM -
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency. Could a Maser do this? (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)
@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 03:25 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435551#msg1435551">Quote from: andygood on 10/13/2015 02:59 PM</a>
I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:
0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.
This potentially means one of two things:
0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.
While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.
PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D
PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)
You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware". -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM -
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!
Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).
Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.
(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435501#msg1435501">Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 AM</a>
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.
Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:19 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435556#msg1435556">Quote from: SteveD on 10/13/2015 03:23 PM</a>
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency. Could a Maser do this? (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)
You'll be back, we'll haunt your dreams. The tar baby frustum rarely lets go. If I was working at a full time job I'd be hard pressed to do any of this. It's quite demanding.
@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.
I think building a frustum similar to this thought would be quite interesting.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150923/ncomms9251/full/ncomms9251.html -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/13/2015 04:19 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435569#msg1435569">Quote from: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:13 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435501#msg1435501">Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 AM</a>
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.
Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.
Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:21 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
Personally visited mine....
I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!
Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).
Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.
(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:34 PM -
Before I head out to the shop I wanted to cover again the why I'm building the way I am. It may eventually lead to a active PLL frequency control to the frustum although I wanted a stable frustum to work with, one that could negate the thermal heat issues and remain tunable to research other modes and other theories of operation. My next step is to modify the end plates to a curved surface and make the magnetron tunable over a narrow range but not until I gain some results from this basic design. I very much agree with Paul March's, Shawyer's and TT's thoughts on a stable high Q design but not until I see how stable I can make this mechanically.
http://imgur.com/a/stBOj
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435575#msg1435575">Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/13/2015 04:19 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435569#msg1435569">Quote from: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:13 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435501#msg1435501">Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 AM</a>
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.
Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.
Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?
I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/13/2015 05:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435501#msg1435501">Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 AM</a>
[speculation on]
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.
If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.
Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....
[/speculation]
I can tell you Mr. Flyby that last cover of the Tajmar work almost made it to the main media.
The numbers were huge indeed. Even Forbes took notice. Main stories on bbcnews and cnn have millions of views per hour.
NASA space flight forum server might crash and yes our calm community here will no longer be calm. At least for a month I guess. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 06:51 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435478#msg1435478">Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 08:58 AM</a>
...
The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...
Or that they have determined that is the direction they need to go next. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/13/2015 07:04 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435580#msg1435580">Quote from: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:46 PM</a>
I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.
Agreed. But if the next paper from EagleWorks was called something like "Experimental falsification of the Emdrive thruster: how we were all duped by a not-so-simple experimental error", I doubt Paul would be encouraging DIYers to continue.
That bit of encouragement in itself, is the most positive news he could bring us without violating the secrecy he was told to keep (at least until peer reviewed publication and independent replication). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 07:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435557#msg1435557">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 03:25 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435551#msg1435551">Quote from: andygood on 10/13/2015 02:59 PM</a>
I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:
0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.
This potentially means one of two things:
0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.
While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.
PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D
PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)
You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".
And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/13/2015 07:18 PM -
How would one implement a Q-switched EM drive cavity?
I wonder if the EM drive effect is dependent on pulse output power in some way other than linear with Q. Reading wikipedia, I noticed that some Q-switched cavities use wavelength in the 10 cm range, which is our frequency of interest. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Ender on 10/13/2015 07:48 PM -
Here's a question:
Why are all the calculated predictions for the Emdrive's thrust so far off the mark? In many of the papers I've read on the subject (ex. Mcculloch 2015), the author speaks as though his results match with the data "generally" or "more accurately" - basically scientist speak for "balllpark." Why are they even publishing such organized speculation? Their theories don't line up with the data but they still continue on about those same theories.
I get the difficulty in determining this very important piece of information. I've had tons of trouble with it myself. Best I can figure, there isn't a relatively large set of consistent data from similarly formed cavites, but I'm no expert. What am I missing? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 08:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435629#msg1435629">Quote from: aero on 10/13/2015 07:18 PM</a>
How would one implement a Q-switched EM drive cavity?
Waveguides for power and add additional Insertion antennas, "like a modified loop" to provide the "seed".
I wonder if the EM drive effect is dependent on pulse output power in some way other than linear with Q. Reading wikipedia, I noticed that some Q-switched cavities use wavelength in the 10 cm range, which is our frequency of interest.
It's a thought. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 08:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435634#msg1435634">Quote from: Ender on 10/13/2015 07:48 PM</a>
Here's a question:
Good Question!
Why are all the calculated predictions for the Emdrive's thrust so far off the mark? In many of the papers I've read on the subject (ex. Mcculloch 2015), the author speaks as though his results match with the data "generally" or "more accurately" - basically scientist speak for "balllpark." Why are they even publishing such organized speculation? Their theories don't line up with the data but they still continue on about those same theories.
I get the difficulty in determining this very important piece of information. I've had tons of trouble with it myself. Best I can figure, there isn't a relatively large set of consistent data from similarly formed cavites, but I'm no expert. What am I missing?
I'll throw out the first ball here and then have to get back to my build.
Thermal instabilities will ruin a drive. When the thermal expansion with materials "thickness of a piece of paper" can cause you to drift out of resonance. You could almost hold your hand on the frustum and cause it to expand that much.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:30 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435622#msg1435622">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 07:05 PM</a>
And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.
Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/13/2015 08:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435648#msg1435648">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:30 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435622#msg1435622">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 07:05 PM</a>
And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.
Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement.
Its actually from 10/12 post here:<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435182#msg1435182">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435150#msg1435150">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435142#msg1435142">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435119#msg1435119">Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 AM</a>There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.
The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.
Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".
Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?
BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
Phil,
Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error. Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings. ::)
Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.
It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.
So why do I do it and fight for my right to?
"Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"
Michelle:
Bravo girl, way to go!! We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.
Now back to how to get there.
BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results. Been there, done that. However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.
Phil:
The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient. We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.
All:
In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring. I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig. Why? Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).
Best, Paul March -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435652#msg1435652">Quote from: Blaine on 10/13/2015 08:46 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435648#msg1435648">Quote from: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:30 PM</a>
Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement.
Its actually from 10/12 post here:
Thank you! Got it. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 09:36 PM -
Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...
Then back at it.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:49 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435541#msg1435541">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 PM</a>
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell
Photos looking good.
Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.
BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.
Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.
I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.
Phil -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/13/2015 11:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435667#msg1435667">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 09:36 PM</a>
Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...
Then back at it.
Shell
SeeShells. I know of some under 14 folks who are following this.
Do you think that if you put some stickers of Barnie on the outside it would affect the resonance? :)
Just kidding. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 11:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435522#msg1435522">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435377#msg1435377">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435374#msg1435374">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM</a>
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.
My design is 2nd image.
But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.
It is a schematic, not a build plan. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:56 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435691#msg1435691">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:49 PM</a>
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435541#msg1435541">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 PM</a>We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell
Photos looking good.
Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.
BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.
Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.
I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.
Phil
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm
My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:59 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435694#msg1435694">Quote from: glennfish on 10/13/2015 11:09 PM</a>
You think it would be less attenuation than SpongeBob SquarePants? ;D<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435667#msg1435667">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 09:36 PM</a>Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...
Then back at it.
Shell
SeeShells. I know of some under 14 folks who are following this.
Do you think that if you put some stickers of Barnie on the outside it would affect the resonance? :)
Just kidding. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 12:03 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435704#msg1435704">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:56 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435691#msg1435691">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:49 PM</a>
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435541#msg1435541">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 PM</a>We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell
Photos looking good.
Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.
BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.
Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.
I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.
Phil
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm
My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.
Thanks for the dimensions. Will check them out.
Try to put the filters as close to the maggie power input as possible. Use the maggie outer shell for the ground for the caps. Ensure the caps and ferrite are rated to handle 2.5ghz noise filtering. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/14/2015 12:03 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435702#msg1435702">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 11:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435522#msg1435522">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435377#msg1435377">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435374#msg1435374">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM</a>
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.
My design is 2nd image.
But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.
It is a schematic, not a build plan.
But you've dodged the question. Is that a diameter or a radius? Even a schematic should be labeled correctly, unless you are attempting intentional obfuscation. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435706#msg1435706">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 12:03 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435704#msg1435704">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:56 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435691#msg1435691">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:49 PM</a>
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435541#msg1435541">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 PM</a>We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell
Photos looking good.
Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.
BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.
Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.
I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.
Phil
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm
My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.
Thanks for the dimensions. Will check them out.
Try to put the filters as close to the maggie power input as possible. Use the maggie outer shell for the ground for the caps. Ensure the caps and ferrite are rated to handle 2.5ghz noise filtering.
I know. Thanks for covering it anyway.
Shell
Added...
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 12:46 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. T
...
I am a Canadian citizen and worked at NASA's Ames Research Center for about 12 years. I never thought there was any consequence to being a foreign national but over time the restrictions got worse. Eventually my manager decided the extra paperwork was not worth his time. He was already getting flack from the FBI because a co-worker was accused of being a Chinese spy, despite being a US citizen. I suspect I was the unescorted foreign national that didn't have a security plan for 3 years mentioned in the NASA Inspector General's report on ITAR compliance at NASA's Ames Research Center. Maybe I should have kept quiet about my Tory ancestors who left the US after the revolution. I think it's just as well I am no longer working at a NASA center. I do not have the security clearance required to do the research I have been doing since leaving NASA.
https://oig.nasa.gov/Special-Review/Ames_ITAR.pdf -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/14/2015 12:48 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
That seems to imply that NASA management believes EM Drive may be a real effect (if so, it could be used as a kinetic weapon), but my impression has been much more on the line that NASA just wants to avoid negative light and mocking of the science it does, which would explain why the firewall on the info from EagleWorks was erected only after Eagle Works experiments became "mediatic" appearing EVERYWHERE and also being criticized everywhere.
If was just protection against foreign espionage, NASA would have acted long before the EM Drive and Warp Drive appeared on Forbes... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/14/2015 01:29 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435718#msg1435718">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/14/2015 12:48 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
That seems to imply that NASA management believes EM Drive may be a real effect (if so, it could be used as a kinetic weapon), but my impression has been much more on the line that NASA just wants to avoid negative light and mocking of the science it does, which would explain why the firewall on the info from EagleWorks was erected only after Eagle Works experiments became "mediatic" appearing EVERYWHERE and also being criticized everywhere.
If was just protection against foreign espionage, NASA would have acted long before the EM Drive and Warp Drive appeared on Forbes...
I doubt whether there was any evaluation of the "reality" of EMDrive. "Advanced propulsion" could be enough to trigger some ITAR considerations. I also think there was an understandable concern of preliminary/incomplete information being disseminated which might then later need to be retracted. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ScottD on 10/14/2015 02:54 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435707#msg1435707">Quote from: rq3 on 10/14/2015 12:03 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435702#msg1435702">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 11:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435522#msg1435522">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435377#msg1435377">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435374#msg1435374">Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 AM</a>
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.
My design is 2nd image.
But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.
It is a schematic, not a build plan.
But you've dodged the question. Is that a diameter or a radius? Even a schematic should be labeled correctly, unless you are attempting intentional obfuscation.
I am certainly not part of the conversation, and TheTraveller can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are misunderstanding what the schematic is showing. I believe that it is labeled correctly, but that you are interpreting the measurements of the diameters of the small and big ends as being rounded versions of the radius measurements given on the side. I don't think that is correct. I believe TT is stating that the radius from the vertex to the big end is exactly as listed 399.5 mm and the diameter of the big end that he is using happens to be 0.5 mm larger - 400 mm. The same applies to the small end. It is confusing since the radius that describes the curvature of the ends and the diameter chosen for the ends are so similar. But that combination of radius from vertex and diameter of "arc sphere" (I don't know the proper term) give TT a fustrum with the angle/shape he desires.
Scott -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/14/2015 03:10 AM - The term is "Spherical cap or dome." What is confusing to all is that the diameter and radius are referring to two completely different parts of the EM drive. The radius is referring to the sphere from which the spherical cap is cut. The diameters are referring to the conic frustum, big and small end diameters.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: snoozdoc on 10/14/2015 03:26 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434789#msg1434789">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 AM</a>
... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.
...
The question “What can DIY experimenters do?” is of interest.
It has been rather a long time since anyone has been able to significantly push forward the knowledge physics from inside their home, on a budget that an average person can afford.
Whilst it is true that you don’t really need a $17 billion advanced collider, it usually takes the resources of a fairly decent educational institution or a government funded enterprise to achieve something that would appear in a peer approved journal today. The days of Newton and Faraday seem to have long gone. The low hanging fruit has essentially being picked over.
It is thus easy for the professional scientist to make the obvious observations that signals from any experiment that are in the dirt or below the noise floor cannot obtain real or valid data. At first glance it would seem that only low level signals free from error and noise can be only be obtained with incredibly well thought out and carefully designed experiments to eliminate known sources of noise. And when amateurs who use incredibly ingenuity, skill and sheer determination do obtain some possibly spurious signals which “could” be anomalous with known physics, it is easy to critique under the guise of guiding methodology whilst in reality they are just being negative. It actually sounds like they are trying to enhance their own cred for minimal effort though I suppose in their own minds they see it as being helpful rather than trying to put the amateurs off. (By amateurs I only mean those that are working privately with extremely limited funding compared to some institution.)
Forget the fact, that for those smart enough, this may be a really fun and entertaining way to spend time trying to discover new knowledge in a similar way to those amateur astronomers who actually do contribute to the total knowledge of astronomy. Yes it is perhaps unlikely that the DIY experimenters might actually find the million to one loophole in existing physics theory but the thing is ... it is the chase that is fun!
The prize makes it worthwhile and following the breadcrumbs of My. Shawyer makes it a really fun and interesting treasure hunt. In reality they are not trying to out compete the likes of the big boys like CERN, NASA or Boeing etc. They are just having a lot of fun doing something which their own skills are eminently suitable for.
My only regret is that my own knowledge isn’t quite sufficient to play at the level of the likes of Shells, Aero, rfmwguy, Elizabeth Green, the Traveller and others who I would love to mention. Early on (back in thread 1) I realized I was likely to fry off some valued portion of my anatomy if I tried to do what rfmwguy did and so I took my meager budget and donated it to others so I could at least live vicariously through their efforts.
But the point is in my own view, none of the DIY experimenters really need to spend huge $$$ on vacuum chambers and other technologies in an attempt to remove all sources of error – which is the same as lowering the noise floor. There is another completely different approach which has just as great a potential of yielding real results (assuming there are any to be had) and isn’t so fraught with having to fight with the scientific method of peer reviewed journals.
As I see what rfmwguy and Shells and the others are doing, it is not so much as messing with the noise floor as tinkering with the experiment to see if any anomalous signals start to rise up above that noise floor. Since nobody as yet understands how this thing works (if it does) then tweaking anything; anything at all, whether it be Q, geometry, different feed methods or maybe even sprinkling in fairy dust is fair game. If a signal changes in any meaning full way, either up or down then it will tell us something. Something at best that might even possibly suggest what is going on or at worst, something else that can be tried. In which case Shells is on target with “No data is bad data”.
Some tweaks may indeed also affect buoyancy, forces from currents from environmental magnetic fields etc. So what? Yes this isn’t the way CERN or Fermi labs go about it (and hopefully not Eagle Works) but hey! That’s the advantage of being an amateur. They don’t have to play by rules and doing something outside of the box occasionally produces results. Shawyer and Yang and others may have produced spurious signals above the noise floor. rfmwguy saw something that wasn’t easily explainable. If any tweaks cause this “something” to change then it could well give a clue to what is happening – even if it is just understanding the real affects of magnetron heating.
Right now I would love nothing more than to work besides the likes of Shell, Traveller and rfmwguy. If Aero lived closer and he could teach me MEEP I would love to involve myself with that … I just fear that if I tried to learn on line I would show how big a fool I really am.
Whether the DIY’ers ever find anything or not, this is perhaps the last opportunity of a life time when someone in their garage could actually contribute to physics knowledge in a similar way to that those guys with their telescopes in their back yards do. The fact that it could be done using a modified kitchen appliance also appeals to my sense of wonder (and humor) at how strange the universe really is.
The scientific method is not defined by professional scientists. In the end it is far more about discovery of new knowledge than can be confirmed and repeated by others … if necessary in the fancy labs with the one micro-torr vacuum chambers. But that is for later.
My plea is that the DIY’ers never ever be distracted … oh and if any live in So Cal, please PM me … I would love to team up. :)
In the meantime I’ll go back to lurking and saving my cash to contribute to the people here I am most envious of – those that are having fun! 8)
Cheers to all the DIY'ers
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ScottD on 10/14/2015 03:28 AM -
Thanks areo for the term "Spherical Cap".
So, I believe that the radius in TT's schematic is represented by r in this image, and TT's diameter by 2a.
(
)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap)
Scott -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 03:36 AM -
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-particle-purely-nuclear.html
Synopsis: the best fit for the nature of some mesons is a ball of gluons and that this fits higher dimensional models of gravity. Perhaps it refers to N=8 SUSY super-gravity. It reminds me of this:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/03/guest-post-lance-dixon-on-calculating-amplitudes/
and more specifically this:QuoteAlong the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.
The team that came up with this won The Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics for their work.
I can juxtapose the information in these articles and (because I can afford to be Ko0ky with no professional repercussions) some stuff from the fringe and i begin to think about gravity drives. Specifically there is a rather famous fringe character that claimed long ago that the strong force and gravity were closely related or in fact two aspects of the same force. Now there are bits of non fringe science such as these two articles that seem to lend at least some support to his claim.
I know it might be hard to *concretely* relate this to EM drives but it was so interesting i wanted to share it with everyone here :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 04:18 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435752#msg1435752">Quote from: snoozdoc on 10/14/2015 03:26 AM</a>
Reading what you wrote simply hit on all cylinders. I thought I was at the end of my career building things that would in some way benefit humanity, but I was so very wrong. If some little thing comes out of the work I'm doing to advance the art and maybe humanity then it will be like the frosting on the cake.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1434789#msg1434789">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 AM</a>... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.
...
The question “What can DIY experimenters do?” is of interest.
It has been rather a long time since anyone has been able to significantly push forward the knowledge physics from inside their home, on a budget that an average person can afford.
Whilst it is true that you don’t really need a $17 billion advanced collider, it usually takes the resources of a fairly decent educational institution or a government funded enterprise to achieve something that would appear in a peer approved journal today. The days of Newton and Faraday seem to have long gone. The low hanging fruit has essentially being picked over.
It is thus easy for the professional scientist to make the obvious observations that signals from any experiment that are in the dirt or below the noise floor cannot obtain real or valid data. At first glance it would seem that only low level signals free from error and noise can be only be obtained with incredibly well thought out and carefully designed experiments to eliminate known sources of noise. And when amateurs who use incredibly ingenuity, skill and sheer determination do obtain some possibly spurious signals which “could” be anomalous with known physics, it is easy to critique under the guise of guiding methodology whilst in reality they are just being negative. It actually sounds like they are trying to enhance their own cred for minimal effort though I suppose in their own minds they see it as being helpful rather than trying to put the amateurs off. (By amateurs I only mean those that are working privately with extremely limited funding compared to some institution.)
Forget the fact, that for those smart enough, this may be a really fun and entertaining way to spend time trying to discover new knowledge in a similar way to those amateur astronomers who actually do contribute to the total knowledge of astronomy. Yes it is perhaps unlikely that the DIY experimenters might actually find the million to one loophole in existing physics theory but the thing is ... it is the chase that is fun!
The prize makes it worthwhile and following the breadcrumbs of My. Shawyer makes it a really fun and interesting treasure hunt. In reality they are not trying to out compete the likes of the big boys like CERN, NASA or Boeing etc. They are just having a lot of fun doing something which their own skills are eminently suitable for.
My only regret is that my own knowledge isn’t quite sufficient to play at the level of the likes of Shells, Aero, rfmwguy, Elizabeth Green, the Traveller and others who I would love to mention. Early on (back in thread 1) I realized I was likely to fry off some valued portion of my anatomy if I tried to do what rfmwguy did and so I took my meager budget and donated it to others so I could at least live vicariously through their efforts.
But the point is in my own view, none of the DIY experimenters really need to spend huge $$$ on vacuum chambers and other technologies in an attempt to remove all sources of error – which is the same as lowering the noise floor. There is another completely different approach which has just as great a potential of yielding real results (assuming there are any to be had) and isn’t so fraught with having to fight with the scientific method of peer reviewed journals.
As I see what rfmwguy and Shells and the others are doing, it is not so much as messing with the noise floor as tinkering with the experiment to see if any anomalous signals start to rise up above that noise floor. Since nobody as yet understands how this thing works (if it does) then tweaking anything; anything at all, whether it be Q, geometry, different feed methods or maybe even sprinkling in fairy dust is fair game. If a signal changes in any meaning full way, either up or down then it will tell us something. Something at best that might even possibly suggest what is going on or at worst, something else that can be tried. In which case Shells is on target with “No data is bad data”.
Some tweaks may indeed also affect buoyancy, forces from currents from environmental magnetic fields etc. So what? Yes this isn’t the way CERN or Fermi labs go about it (and hopefully not Eagle Works) but hey! That’s the advantage of being an amateur. They don’t have to play by rules and doing something outside of the box occasionally produces results. Shawyer and Yang and others may have produced spurious signals above the noise floor. rfmwguy saw something that wasn’t easily explainable. If any tweaks cause this “something” to change then it could well give a clue to what is happening – even if it is just understanding the real affects of magnetron heating.
Right now I would love nothing more than to work besides the likes of Shell, Traveller and rfmwguy. If Aero lived closer and he could teach me MEEP I would love to involve myself with that … I just fear that if I tried to learn on line I would show how big a fool I really am.
Whether the DIY’ers ever find anything or not, this is perhaps the last opportunity of a life time when someone in their garage could actually contribute to physics knowledge in a similar way to that those guys with their telescopes in their back yards do. The fact that it could be done using a modified kitchen appliance also appeals to my sense of wonder (and humor) at how strange the universe really is.
The scientific method is not defined by professional scientists. In the end it is far more about discovery of new knowledge than can be confirmed and repeated by others … if necessary in the fancy labs with the one micro-torr vacuum chambers. But that is for later.
My plea is that the DIY’ers never ever be distracted … oh and if any live in So Cal, please PM me … I would love to team up. :)
In the meantime I’ll go back to lurking and saving my cash to contribute to the people here I am most envious of – those that are having fun! 8)
Cheers to all the DIY'ers
Thank you all for being there and rooting for us builders and even the critical add to the knowledge, even if they give us a focus in the reality of what we're doing.
Thank you for a wonderful post, I'm going to save it.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 06:19 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435711#msg1435711">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 AM</a>
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads
Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.
Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 09:40 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
And you are also very correct! Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS) can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher. In my former position I had training on this every six months or so. I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone". It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR.
ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. . And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha. And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.
I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration Regulations). Google/Wikipedia is a good start. Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on". That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.
One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer.
Herman -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/14/2015 10:19 AM -
Oh,and then we wonder why conspiracy theories do exist! This makes me believe that if there is a silence after initial announcement (EmDrive, LENR etc), there's no joke, it is real and working somewhere in a secret lab. Public and media will be fed with fake data in order to believe that it doesn't work and it never did :(
Unless...a large group of diy-ers proves with no doubt that it works, every time, and it can be reproduced/rebuilt using common household items, before the wordwide ban of microwave ovens takes place! :)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 11:57 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435815#msg1435815">Quote from: Vix on 10/14/2015 10:19 AM</a>
Oh,and then we wonder why conspiracy theories do exist! This makes me believe that if there is a silence after initial announcement (EmDrive, LENR etc), there's no joke, it is real and working somewhere in a secret lab. Public and media will be fed with fake data in order to believe that it doesn't work and it never did :(
;D
Unless...a large group of diy-ers proves with no doubt that it works, every time, and it can be reproduced/rebuilt using common household items, before the wordwide ban of microwave ovens takes place! :)
You know if they ban Microwave Ovens we will have to re-invent fire again...
Excuse me I slept in and on my first cup of coffee. ;) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:36 PM -
Finally got in the ceramic bottom plate I wanted delivered at 7:30 last night, the other was a little too warped and way too heavy. This is 2.54 mm thick, lighter, very flat and will work beautifully.
Shell
Added: Sorry for the fuzzy picture, I'll get a better one with my other camera. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/14/2015 02:43 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435813#msg1435813">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 09:40 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
And you are also very correct! Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS) can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher. In my former position I had training on this every six months or so. I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone". It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR.
ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. . And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha. And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.
I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration Regulations). Google/Wikipedia is a good start. Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on". That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.
One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer.
Herman
Can we be done with ITAR please? It's totally off-topic, and it's distracting.
ITAR is not the boogeyman, and it's not the reason Eagleworks stopped updates on their EMDrive research. If any one thing triggered the cut-off, the NSF article I helped write precipitated that (I have no regrets that we wrote it).
EW didn't need wild speculative press banging on their doors (it was) and distracting everyone with headlines like "NASA ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE" (real headline) while they are trying to conduct basic theoretical research that may or may not pan out, but which definitely does not synch with the 24-hour news cycle.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435871#msg1435871">Quote from: sghill on 10/14/2015 02:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435813#msg1435813">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 09:40 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435699#msg1435699">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435690#msg1435690">Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 PM</a>
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435567#msg1435567">Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 PM</a>great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.
...
My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
And you are also very correct! Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS) can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher. In my former position I had training on this every six months or so. I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone". It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR.
ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. . And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha. And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.
I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration Regulations). Google/Wikipedia is a good start. Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on". That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.
One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer.
Herman
Can we be done with ITAR please? It's totally off-topic, and it's distracting.
ITAR is not the boogeyman, and it's not the reason Eagleworks stopped updates on their EMDrive research. If any one thing triggered the cut-off, the NSF article I helped write precipitated that (I have no regrets that we wrote it).
EW didn't need wild speculative press banging on their doors (it was) and distracting everyone with headlines like "NASA ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE" (real headline) while they are trying to conduct basic theoretical research that may or may not pan out, but which definitely does not synch with the 24-hour news cycle.
Short answer: No. ITAR exists and is relevant. We don't need to discuss it further here [although quite frankly its relatively easy to skip reading posts you are not interested in- I use the page down button myself ;) ], BUT There are many folks reading this who are likely unaware of its existence and it is unfair to them to ignore some of its implications or to not share relevant knowledge. Whether or not NASA is having ITAR/EAR issues or not I have no idea and don't really care; however as I plan my DIY efforts I take ITAR and what I can and cannot say or promulgate very serious. Leavenworth is cold in winter.
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/14/2015 06:00 PM -
Just another new article on the EmDrive - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415532/-EmDrive-Jesus-What-a-Day
What I found interesting about this is that this article reflects on the recent tests of the Rfmwguy and the success of South African student Paul, so recent news!
As you know guys I like to check internet for every little bit about the EmDrive and just see, if the world is following us and share some of those information here. Indeed they do, and it seems it is even on much more larger scale than I tought. When I compare it to the time when I started to follow this forum (after EW first results) you could find very few articles and knowledge about this issue. Now when you type EmDrive into your search there are new articles almost each day.
At the start of my interest about the EmDrive I wrote few articles to get more attention to this technology. It definitely needed more support by that time. Now it is almost opposite case, but still I am proud that I was able to add my little contribution to this, but not in the form of maths and physics...I still hoped on other hand that it might boost funds to the EW lab. Silly me, not even a cent more for their work! :P (after Paul March post)
The journalist follow reddit and NSF forum here mostly. Some just copy from other news sites. For you guys it means that we better be careful what we say here as it might get to the news very fast.
Lets move from ITAR back to the true topic of the EmDrive as we do not want that to damage EW and their work right?
To stars and beyond! :)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM - posting a thing that might be relevant for future EM drive projects. THZ modules in miniature? plus miniature particle accelerators. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/particle-accelerators-using-terahertz.html
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/14/2015 06:06 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated yet. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
I agree. But if they fulfill the requirements of NASA's TRL, yes, they will be.
The ongoing work of replication in another NASA lab seems to go precisely in that direction. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM -
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/14/2015 06:36 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435951#msg1435951">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM</a>
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
Paraphrasing Vix: what are they going to do to protect this, if it pans out, ban microwave ovens and copper kettles? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a>
Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
• Level 1 - Basic Research: basic principles are observed and reported {NOT necessarily agreed upon - my addition}. This is the lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include fundamental investigations and paper studies.
• Level 2 – Applied Research: technology concept and/or application formulated. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be formulated. Examples are limited to analytic studies and experimentation.
We have had paper studies and observation and reporting of basic principles for Level 1. While the data is equivocal as to magnitude, degree and validity of existence of the effect, but there is sufficient evidence (theoretical, simulation, and experimental) to proceed with trying to understand the effect.
Level 2 is just that -applied research. As the definition says - limited to analytic studies and experimentation. It could be argued we are there but I think not. That is why I said on the cusp. Further, I believe that careful experimentation can result in a) better signal to noise ratio to further prove or disprove existence and b) determine effects and trend lines of most significant variables. Specifically applying some of the principals of Design of Experiments method (DOE) may allow us to simultaneously to a) and b).
I am not trying to convince or force anyone to believe in either the effect or my judgment of TRL. I simply intend to use the TRL concepts and DOE to attempt to define a next generation of DIY experiments aimed at the goals I mentioned above.
Herman
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435951#msg1435951">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM</a>
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 07:39 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435960#msg1435960">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a>
Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :
...
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
...
Herman
There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is. The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1. NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas. An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor. There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results. I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435964#msg1435964">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 PM</a>
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435951#msg1435951">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM</a>Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:58 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435981#msg1435981">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435964#msg1435964">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 PM</a>
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435951#msg1435951">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM</a>Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
Hmmm, there's a thought. With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic RF? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 08:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435984#msg1435984">Quote from: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:58 PM</a>
Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435981#msg1435981">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435964#msg1435964">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 PM</a>
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435951#msg1435951">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 PM</a>Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
Hmmm, there's a thought. With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: kencolangelo on 10/14/2015 08:31 PM -
Possibly an actual constructive contribution to make. ::)
I wonder if an image-based method for measuring distance might be an easy way to get some cheap precision?
Perhaps a highish-megapixel digital camera, maybe 16MP+, coupled to a macro lens whose optical properties were well described. Combined with an optical scale for reference this can easily provide inexpensive, relatively high precision (1:3000) linear movement measurement.
Optionally, and way more precise, you could use the linear optical sensor array bar off a flatbed scanner. These typically provide a purely linear resolution of 300+ pixels per inch, up to a claimed 1200 ppi non-interpolated (!) and a very high sampling rate, well over 1khz.
Here are some examples of this sort of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY)
http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts (http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c)
Some folks make a nifty spectrometer out of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo)
Just throwing this out there. Hope it helps. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 08:43 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435984#msg1435984">Quote from: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:58 PM</a>
Probably the EMdrive to work, needs the presence of all the mater/energy and so of all the stars of the causal universe to exchange momentum ! ;) ;) (It is at least the theoretical explanation given by James Woodward to the mechanism of his own exotic propulsion system similar to EMDrive : they both don't need to expell matter with momentum to accelerate).
Hmmm, there's a thought. With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Solar arrays of spacecrafts can collect the energy of close enough stars. This will not work if the spacecraft is too far from the closest star.
To collect the energy of cosmic radiations is not something we know how to do today.
But there is something strange with the EMDrive concept : apparently its kinetic energy could become greater than the energy requested to operate it. If this fact is confirmed, the EMDrive could produce more energy than it consumes !! :o :o Really strange ....
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435975#msg1435975">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 07:39 PM</a>
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435960#msg1435960">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a>
Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :
...
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
...
Herman
There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is. The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1. NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas. An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor. There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results. I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 10:58 PM -
BREAKING NEWS at 5!
Drive Building Update!!!
In for the day but got a lot done. Recap in pictures.
Shell
http://imgur.com/a/rkRGq -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 11:06 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435995#msg1435995">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 08:09 PM</a>
Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.
Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.
Hey! I found it! not a solar panel...THIS:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/solar-cells-will-be-made-obsolete-by-3d.html -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 12:18 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436059#msg1436059">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.
BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.
My last comments on the subject.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
Concur - and likewise. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/15/2015 02:41 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436023#msg1436023">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435975#msg1435975">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 07:39 PM</a>
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435960#msg1435960">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a>
Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :
...
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
...
Herman
There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is. The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1. NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas. An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor. There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results. I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.
NASA is chronically underfunded. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 03:43 AM -
Thought stream alert - 20 years ago I would help specify filter designs for use in radar applications where group time delay distortion of pulses were unacceptable. These were LC filters, mainly IF range. Gaussian topologies were the best, not for shape factors but for lack of pulse distortion called ringing and overshoot.
Time domain distortion...ringing...never once considered any kinetic energy associated with this type of em pulse distortion. Who would have? Indeed.
Who would have ever noticed or measured for KE? Not me, for sure. Too bad, I might have been on to something.
/end thought stream alert -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/15/2015 04:30 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436059#msg1436059">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study. However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:
"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."
So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1. But this is just semantics. If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt? Is it still at TRL1? If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null? At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1. And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1. The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.
The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 04:33 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436136#msg1436136">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/15/2015 02:41 AM</a>
You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.
NASA is chronically underfunded.
When I was young I was indeed under that illusion. I did learn differently WRT to doing big things. But what i expect is if such an agency agrees to take on a relatively simple short term project such as validating or nullifying some table top experiment that is barely above the pay grade of a garden shed tinkerer that they would fund it if such funds are akin to a small businesses' petty cash box contents.
That the replication team could not get a special materials ceramic plate fabricated to size spec due to budget is appalling. That they could not find a high speed motor the equivalent of a dental air powered drill rig because of budgeting is also appalling. Those engineers had to know how to do it so the failure had to be due to budget issues. How much would that have cost?
Now EW is working on a shoestring as well with engineers working out of pocket and off the clock at times to get stuff they need. Arguably they do have extraordinary resources in ways as well like that floating table lab building. But they also have areas where they are completely on their own.
I just think for stuff you could probably get done for the price of a used car NASA should not be so stingy on particularly if they have agreed to take the job on. I can see being tight and careful on larger expenses like launch costs or space probes or satellites but this is like arguing over whether to get one or two ply Toilet Paper for the office bathroom when the expendables budget line items is well in the green.
Giving these guys a few thousand isn't even going to affect the schedules of NASA's big ticket projects and procurements. "We'd like to get that Space Shuttle mark II but we can't because some clerk down in S4 ordered fancy TP for the bathroom!" I may have had too much faith in NASA's budget when i was young and in high school but It doesn't work like this either. :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/15/2015 06:17 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435981#msg1435981">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 PM</a>
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Okay we can negotiate : no neutron reactor in your garage ;) ;), we would just be happy to see installed a thermal vacuum chamber. :) :). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/15/2015 10:50 AM -
Stumbled across this today:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4913.pdf
This describes a force resulting from interaction of EM waves with solid objects, which can be either attractive or repulsive. It treats solids as 'Solid State Plasmas', and discusses experiments showing light falling on a lead ball leading to an attractive force, which I think is reported higher than the incident radiation pressure.
The effect is known as the Gradient/Miller or Ponderomotive effect.
Seems relevant if it is correct.
R. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:37 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436164#msg1436164">Quote from: zen-in on 10/15/2015 04:30 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436059#msg1436059">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study. However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:
"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."
So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1. But this is just semantics. If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt? Is it still at TRL1? If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null? At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1. And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1. The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.
The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.
1. NIAC is only one user of TRL concepts. Re: NIAC item 6 is in their solicitation, others may or may not have such an item, however that is also "semantics". Solicitations often have language designed to limit responses and the number of proposals or to easily eliminate proposals from consideration. Proposal evaluation is an EXPENSIVE activity. As a principal or bookboss contributor to dozens major proposals with values from a few hundred thousand to well over a billion dollars I am very familiar with such items, usually in sections L or M of solicitations. Likewise as a writer of dozens of solicitations I have crafted similar exclusionary or elimination language.
2. TRLs are widely used in much of engineering development and well beyond the solicitation/proposal stage. Often, TRLs are evaluated at such events as PDR, CDR, Milestone C etc.
3. WRT to "appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1." First I would say that several credible defenses have been offered. These include various simulations and theoretical discussions. These are important BTW. None have been conclusively proven, and some ( or all) have been questioned by critics as unlikely, but credible defenses have been offered. Those critics are most important as they too help define the limits and parameters. Second point that seems pedantic but is central to this. In many instantiations of TRL, there is nothing below "1". NASA may consider that realm, either explicitly with "TRL 0" or implicitly by statements such as "not yet at TRL 1". That is not necessarily the common usage in other institutions. So, based on my professional work experience, I utilize TRL 1 as the "starting point", YMMV.
4. The "offered defenses" are important as they allow some guidance for a plan of experimentation (DOE or otherwise) in the advancement of EMDrive to TRL2.
Why is this important, particular as it relates to spaceflight applications? Because it allows a defined maturation of the technology towards where reasonable testing in a spaceflight environment might be planned. Until the parameters affecting EMDrive are at least predicted qualitatively and impacts, interactions and effects begun to be measured qualitatively I doubt anyone would consider shouldering the expense, not to mention potential liability and danger of incorporating such a test into a mission (manned or unmanned).
As for myself, for my test planning and execution, I shall proceed with the approach of attempting to advance EMDrive from TRL 1 to TRL 2. Going back to working on my whitepaper now.
Curmudgeon mode off.
Herman
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:39 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436182#msg1436182">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/15/2015 06:17 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435981#msg1435981">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 PM</a>
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Okay we can negotiate : no neutron reactor in your garage ;) ;), we would just be happy to see installed a thermal vacuum chamber. :) :).
Darn. Say - do you know if Ebay will allow me to list my neutron reactor? It warms up the garage very nicely in winter heh heh.
H. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:49 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436152#msg1436152">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 03:43 AM</a>
Thought stream alert - 20 years ago I would help specify filter designs for use in radar applications where group time delay distortion of pulses were unacceptable. These were LC filters, mainly IF range. Gaussian topologies were the best, not for shape factors but for lack of pulse distortion called ringing and overshoot.
Time domain distortion...ringing...never once considered any kinetic energy associated with this type of em pulse distortion. Who would have? Indeed.
Who would have ever noticed or measured for KE? Not me, for sure. Too bad, I might have been on to something.
/end thought stream alert
Keep up the thought streams. This is fascinating. Never considered this (KE) either. and have built, tested, rebuilt, retested ad nauseum more filters than I care to remember. Controlling time distortion of pulses was a bitch.
Now I have something else to think about all day. Those chickens keep running by. ;) Darned ADD chickens. :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/15/2015 12:04 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436164#msg1436164">Quote from: zen-in on 10/15/2015 04:30 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436059#msg1436059">Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435946#msg1435946">Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435879#msg1435879">Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 PM</a>
...
I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.
Herman
It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study. However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:
"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."
So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1. But this is just semantics. If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt? Is it still at TRL1? If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null? At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1. And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1. The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.
The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.
OK, but there is no "TRL 0". What you're describing is a non-viable idea. Any 'viable' idea is TRL 1. Any non-viable idea is simply not credible.
Edit: Add NASA TRL definitions: http://esto.nasa.gov/files/trl_definitions.pdf
And PLEASE let's not argue about this stuff, it's right here and pretty unambiguous. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 12:29 PM -
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
Fascinating video, they did a beautiful job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
Shell<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436011#msg1436011">Quote from: kencolangelo on 10/14/2015 08:31 PM</a>Possibly an actual constructive contribution to make. ::)
I wonder if an image-based method for measuring distance might be an easy way to get some cheap precision?
Perhaps a highish-megapixel digital camera, maybe 16MP+, coupled to a macro lens whose optical properties were well described. Combined with an optical scale for reference this can easily provide inexpensive, relatively high precision (1:3000) linear movement measurement.
Optionally, and way more precise, you could use the linear optical sensor array bar off a flatbed scanner. These typically provide a purely linear resolution of 300+ pixels per inch, up to a claimed 1200 ppi non-interpolated (!) and a very high sampling rate, well over 1khz.
Here are some examples of this sort of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY)
http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts (http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c)
Some folks make a nifty spectrometer out of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo)
Just throwing this out there. Hope it helps. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/15/2015 01:07 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436023#msg1436023">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 PM</a>
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts. Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 01:30 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436236#msg1436236">Quote from: sghill on 10/15/2015 01:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436023#msg1436023">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 PM</a>
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts. Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real.
Not my discussion but I'd like to add something.
By luck or planning, na it's luck ::) that builders who are posting here each have a little different design. Mr. t's follows Shawyers guidance in a rotary device and self contained, rfmwguy does a little of NASA's EagleWorks with a modified mesh screen and I'm going a little of Shawyer, EagleWorks and the Chinese and my own.
Each will add to the gestalt of pooled data that has went before. It's all good data.
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM -
Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/15/2015 02:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0 One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2015 03:12 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>
Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 03:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436284#msg1436284">Quote from: Star One on 10/15/2015 03:12 PM</a>
And you think that's a problem? ::)<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 03:35 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436276#msg1436276">Quote from: sghill on 10/15/2015 02:57 PM</a>
Just read it. Very nice work. Thank you very much for linking it!<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0 One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf).
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/15/2015 04:01 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436236#msg1436236">Quote from: sghill on 10/15/2015 01:07 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436023#msg1436023">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 PM</a>
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts. Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real.
At least for me, it's an ontological question. That is, a quest towards truth and reality definition. As such, it is not free from doubt.
The more people replicate the effect in ways that go against trivial explanations, for example, showing downwards thrust against thermal buoyancy or nearly instantaneous horizontal thrust, the more I feel we are betting on reality and not just wishes.
Because the participation of many several independent experimentalists reduces the probability this is a concerted lie to zero (I know more now about the DIYers and I know they are incredible trustworthy people, but for a external observer that is new, this is also very important to realize).
Also, the fact they act independently only sharing the knowledge how to do it, ensures there is something real behind it. The question whether that reality is what we believe or hope or not is still pending to be closed, but it is undeniable there is something real there.
That's the value I see in the work of these people, risking money and probably some of their personal safety (magnetrons and such aren't innocuous toys) for elucidating the truth. My respect and admiration for them, because you work for all of humanity. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Kit on 10/15/2015 04:38 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>
...
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
SeeShells may have beat me to announcing this wonderful piece of information (in fact, just I registered to post this, I've been silently following this since Thread #2), but I feel I have some salient implications to point out for the casual reader.
This (assuming it is* a Dyson Sphere being built) strongly implies** at the very least a fusion or antimatter rocket (or an RF cavity drive, given the topic of this thread wink wink nudge nudge), either in terms of thrust mechanism (such as a direct fusion drive) or power source (such as an indirectly fusion-powered ion drive). Nuclear impulse may be less practical, but it is still a possibility. It is important to note that this would not just be affirmation of the viability of that class of technology, but that it also would have become cheap enough as to mass produce them on the scale required to construct a Dyson Sphere ;D It would be severe a blow to the pessimistic view that a post-scarcity civilization is 'impossible'.
I may be stating the obvious, but with enough observation we may be able to detect a drive signature, and it would strongly help such detection if activity were present further away from the star as it would be less drowned-out by the brightness of the star. A Dyson Sphere under construction has long been proposed as a target for identifying an alien civilization, and given that an RF cavity drive would have a specific impulse approaching infinity (which is exactly why we want one), it would be a very strong candidate for choice of propulsion for constructing one, if the effect both exists and is of magnitude as to be of practical use. If we had better architecture for space construction, we'd have far more powerful imaging capabilities (such as a system-wide radio telescope) and would be able to discern a lot more. Cue my complaints about the lack of permanent space bases, etc. As for now, hurry up James Webb (and HDST)!
*It probably isn't
**Granted you could achieve a Dyson sphere with von Neumann (self-replicating) chemical thrusters that harvest fuel from the mass that they are moving, but I'd argue that that is unreasonably inefficient given the low specific impulse (Isp) of chemical rockets. The timescales for constructing a Dyson Sphere mean that the instantaneous thrust advantage provided by chemical rockets is not very helpful. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 PM -
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 05:47 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436317#msg1436317">Quote from: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 PM</a>
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/15/2015 06:40 PM - Maybe we've found a target for the Gravitational Focus telescope? I wonder what the resolution would be for the star at 1500 ly distance. But isn't this a different thread?
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 07:01 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436284#msg1436284">Quote from: Star One on 10/15/2015 03:12 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>
Because I choose to dream.
I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:)
Where's the signup sheet - I volunteer. One way you say? No problem. They will probably either be friendly or tasty or looking to practice their new homo sapien with alfradeo sauce. .
Herman
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 08:45 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436337#msg1436337">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 05:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436317#msg1436317">Quote from: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 PM</a>
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
It's probably something mundane like that.
:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/15/2015 08:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436392#msg1436392">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 08:45 PM</a>
Indeed, and if they are, that makes them superior to us. We are type 0 civilization. If there is something there they would easily kick our butts.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436337#msg1436337">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 05:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436317#msg1436317">Quote from: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 PM</a>This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
It's probably something mundane like that.
:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/15/2015 09:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436392#msg1436392">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 08:45 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436337#msg1436337">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 05:47 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436317#msg1436317">Quote from: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 PM</a>
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
It's probably something mundane like that.
:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization)
No it is not Dyson swarm. A Dyson swarm is periodic. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: D_Dom on 10/15/2015 09:17 PM - Thread topic is EM Drive, just sayin'.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2015 09:21 PM -
A shout out from PBS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZGPCyrpSU
Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁
I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.
And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 09:45 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436400#msg1436400">Quote from: Mulletron on 10/15/2015 09:21 PM</a>
A shout out from PBS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZGPCyrpSU
Safe travels. Panasonic is experimenting with solid state cooking "magnetrons" not there yet I'm afraid.
Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁
I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.
And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America.
Not sure about others, but think we need some null data to add to emdrive.wiki to show where someone has gone before and not hit paydirt yet. Consider this and let me know if you agree. Could save some grief down the road. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/16/2015 03:36 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436234#msg1436234">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 12:29 PM</a>
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity ! :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/16/2015 04:41 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436480#msg1436480">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/16/2015 03:36 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436234#msg1436234">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 12:29 PM</a>
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity ! :)
Ah, the "Lazarus Bowl" (X-Files). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/16/2015 10:43 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436276#msg1436276">Quote from: sghill on 10/15/2015 02:57 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436265#msg1436265">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 PM</a>
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0 One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf).
The paper is an excellent analog to EMDrive done right, IMHO. It starts by describing an unusual phenomenon, examines and eliminates the potential for measurement error, examines and eliminates "traditional" explanations and describes future investigations that should be performed to help figure out what is going on. It even involves citizen scientists (a much better term than "amateurs") and "DiY" analysis.
Kudos to everyone involved. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/16/2015 01:29 PM - Guess where I'll be going this weekend: http://bucyruscopperkettle.com/
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/16/2015 01:33 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436575#msg1436575">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/16/2015 01:29 PM</a>
Guess where I'll be going this weekend: http://bucyruscopperkettle.com/
TOTALLY forgot about this place, knew it was there when I lived in Ohio. What a great idea!!!! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/16/2015 03:46 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436400#msg1436400">Quote from: Mulletron on 10/15/2015 09:21 PM</a>
Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁
I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.
And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America.
Glad to hear it ! (you being alive, that is)
Reminded me that I meant to comment (back a bit!) when the topic was Nother's Theorem and separate conservation laws for energy and momentum. I think required reading should be:
Sachs, M.,"The Mach Principle and the Origin of Inertia
From General Relativity", see: mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf
"I am not aware that Einstein gave any explicit reason for this requirement in his writings. However, I believe that it can be based on the empirical requirement that the (local) flat spacetime limit of the general field theory in a curved spacetime, must include laws of conservation – of energy, linear momentum and angular momentum. For, according to Noether’s theorem,4 the analyticity of the field solutions is a necessary and a sufficient condition for the existence of these conservation laws. Strictly, there are no conservation laws in general relativity because, covariantly, a ‘time rate of change’ of some function of the spacetime coordinates in a curved spacetime cannot be separated from the rest of the formulation that can go to zero. Thus, the laws of conservation apply strictly only to the local domain. The conservation laws are then a local limit of global laws in general relativity."
Havn't even had time to follow up though, barley even able to read the forum at the moment.
PS: I do have, of course, a good selection of vacuum chambers if we ever get that far.... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/16/2015 04:23 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436493#msg1436493">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/16/2015 04:41 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436480#msg1436480">Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/16/2015 03:36 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436234#msg1436234">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 12:29 PM</a>
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity ! :)
Ah, the "Lazarus Bowl" (X-Files).
Actually this concept was utilized frequently in the "Fringe" TV series (getting voice data from glass). I do chuckle as well that Walter Bishop was always talking about "resonant frequencies" while opening portals to alt universe....... A little far fetched EMDrive humor for this morning.....
Dr B -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: DaCunha on 10/16/2015 06:51 PM -
Dear all
I thought this could be interesting for other DIYers.
I am manufacturing a self-made two-chamber klystron in my local FabLab. I will manufacture the buncher and catcher cavities with the help of a 3D printer and I am going to order tungsten wires for the electron gun filament. The accelerating anodes will be made of a circular aperture electrode The most difficult/expensive part will be the helmholtz coil for the external e- beam confining axial magnetic field.
The bandwidth will be very limited as for all klystron, so you guys have to fit your geometries to it if you want to use it, but several tens of kW should be realistic if operated as an oscillator with chamber feedback.
Once finished I would lend the klystron to all other DIYers here!
I'd wish I had more time to spend on this but I am only free on weekends.
You either don't have the money or you don't have the time, when you're young.
If you find grammar or spelling mistakes in the text above, you may keep them ;-)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/16/2015 09:12 PM -
There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2015 02:09 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436789#msg1436789">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/16/2015 09:12 PM</a>
There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm
This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)
By going to a superconductor, the usual resistive losses are eliminated and the variation in Q can be blamed on the vacuum fluctuations, but the influence of the reflected (virtual ?) wave remains the same.
They have another very interesting experiment using a superconducting-transition ring resonator showing time-reversal symmetry-broken states, which could also be relevant.
Håkansson, M., Löfwander, T. and Fogelström, M. (2015) Spontaneously broken time-reversal symmetry in high-temperature superconductors. Nature Physics (1745-2473). Vol. 11 (2015), 9, pp. 755-760.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3383
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437007#msg1437007">Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2015 02:09 PM</a>
"This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)"<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1436789#msg1436789">Quote from: Stormbringer on 10/16/2015 09:12 PM</a>There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm
This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)
By going to a superconductor, the usual resistive losses are eliminated and the variation in Q can be blamed on the vacuum fluctuations, but the influence of the reflected (virtual ?) wave remains the same.
They have another very interesting experiment using a superconducting-transition ring resonator showing time-reversal symmetry-broken states, which could also be relevant.
Håkansson, M., Löfwander, T. and Fogelström, M. (2015) Spontaneously broken time-reversal symmetry in high-temperature superconductors. Nature Physics (1745-2473). Vol. 11 (2015), 9, pp. 755-760.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3383
I am so impressed, all I did was build a radio and TV. You were doing superconducting experiments!
The longer I'm here the more humble I become, what a wonderful brilliant and great group you all are. You have given me the greatest gift of hope, hope that we will not only solve this conundrum but make it better, finer and ultimately of value to our future generations.
Just a pat on the back to all...
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435773#msg1435773">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 06:19 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435711#msg1435711">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 AM</a>
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads
Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.
Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/17/2015 04:43 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437042#msg1437042">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a>
Meep can do it but it's the real world tests that will make it apparent the level of co-planar that's going to be needed.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435773#msg1435773">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 06:19 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435711#msg1435711">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 AM</a>You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads
Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.
Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
I was concerned of the alignments of the two plates. To try and keep the top plate aligned with the bottom I've done several things. One was to have the copper water jet cut to better than .001". Second the bottom plate is flat to better than .001".
The top tuning chamber is the concern with the small end plate. I'm building it to make sure the tuning cylinder is perpendicular to the frustum by using a simple laser alignment. (I'll post pictures when I do it). On the top of the small top plate I have three long sections of PTFE pushed out to the side walls to keep it from tilting during tuning and co-planar to the bottom plate. Testing will tell how well that aligns the whole system.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2015 04:50 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437041#msg1437041">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a>
"This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)"
I am so impressed, all I did was build a radio and TV. You were doing superconducting experiments!
Shell
Sorry about that Shell. Was doing the non-superconducting, room temperature version back then..... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/17/2015 05:37 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437042#msg1437042">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435773#msg1435773">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 06:19 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1435711#msg1435711">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 AM</a>
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads
Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.
Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)
Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?" -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Machine on 10/17/2015 10:29 PM -
Quote
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
he wants to see how good the alignement has to be to get the modes to stabilize. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:34 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437069#msg1437069">Quote from: aero on 10/17/2015 05:37 PM</a>
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds. Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections. For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437042#msg1437042">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a>I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)
Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program. Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling. Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent.
Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction. Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems. When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive to alignment. Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.
In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment. IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q. How sensitive is it to alignment? AFAICT, we have no idea. Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude. Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.
I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold. I may have more time when the snow flies. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:37 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437106#msg1437106">Quote from: Machine on 10/17/2015 10:29 PM</a>Quote
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
he wants to see how good the alignement has to be to get the modes to stabilize.
Much more concise than I put it. Thanks! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/17/2015 10:57 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437107#msg1437107">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:34 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437069#msg1437069">Quote from: aero on 10/17/2015 05:37 PM</a>
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds. Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections. For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437042#msg1437042">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a>I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)
Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program. Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling. Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent.
Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction. Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems. When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive to alignment. Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.
In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment. IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q. How sensitive is it to alignment? AFAICT, we have no idea. Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude. Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.
I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold. I may have more time when the snow flies.
Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 12:42 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437111#msg1437111">Quote from: aero on 10/17/2015 10:57 PM</a>
Nice post!<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437107#msg1437107">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:34 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437069#msg1437069">Quote from: aero on 10/17/2015 05:37 PM</a>
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds. Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections. For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437042#msg1437042">Quote from: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 PM</a>I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored. Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body? I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize. E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree? Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.
http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)
Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program. Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling. Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent.
Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction. Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems. When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive to alignment. Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.
In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment. IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q. How sensitive is it to alignment? AFAICT, we have no idea. Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude. Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.
I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold. I may have more time when the snow flies.
Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know.
For me testing the device, the more cause for error that I can take out and stay within a small budget the better I can define any results gained. I'm not sure if it's going to be good enough or over kill, but it at least it's starting with the least amount of unknowns.
What meep has shown is that with the extreme tolerances (it uses something like out to 12+ decimal places) that a very high Q could be achieved, do I think I'll see those Qs, good grief no. I couldn't hand build it to those tolerances, but I can within a small budget do a frustum to good tolerances and try to negate some of the red flagged problems. Fine control non-active tuning, resonance locking with captured end plates, addressing thermal expansion issues and cavity warping. Stable microwave generation will come later as I have some tests I want to sweeping through the different cavity modes using a broadband Rf source. It could just be exciting multiple modes and the interactions of those modes are the reasons for the increased Q and exciting a sweet spot in additive mode actions is a key.
Will it be be enough? The only thing that can be assured of is it will be enough to point me to the next build issues that need to be addressed.
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/18/2015 02:20 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437128#msg1437128">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 12:42 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437111#msg1437111">Quote from: aero on 10/17/2015 10:57 PM</a>
Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know.
Nice post!
For me testing the device, the more cause for error that I can take out and stay within a small budget the better I can define any results gained. I'm not sure if it's going to be good enough or over kill, but it at least it's starting with the least amount of unknowns.
What meep has shown is that with the extreme tolerances (it uses something like out to 12+ decimal places) that a very high Q could be achieved, do I think I'll see those Qs, good grief no. I couldn't hand build it to those tolerances, but I can within a small budget do a frustum to good tolerances and try to negate some of the red flagged problems. Fine control non-active tuning, resonance locking with captured end plates, addressing thermal expansion issues and cavity warping. Stable microwave generation will come later as I have some tests I want to sweeping through the different cavity modes using a broadband Rf source. It could just be exciting multiple modes and the interactions of those modes are the reasons for the increased Q and exciting a sweet spot in additive mode actions is a key.
Will it be be enough? The only thing that can be assured of is it will be enough to point me to the next build issues that need to be addressed.
Shell
Thanks for the affirmation! ::) The civility in this thread contributes to the free flow of ideas.
One thought I had about Shawer's more recent configuration with the spherical end cap is that it may be inherently less sensitive to alignment due to its curvature, compared with a flat plate. Can't quite put my finger on the mathematical formulas, but my intuition is saying that the affects from bouncing off the curved surface is going to be less sensitive since the center of the spherical section is quite a bit further from its surface than the distance between the end caps. A slight deviation from perfect alignment would then not affect the "bounce path" of the photons as much as the flat end cap configuration, resulting in more stable modes.
But then again, this is my intuition, and its been a long time since my EM theory classes in college. I'd trust the meep results better or the word of someone with more experience with RF/microwave design and practice. At any rate, looking forward to more data from the experiment /analysis / modeling / theory team. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing with the rest of us! -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/18/2015 04:45 AM -
Shell, Aero & Crew:
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 10:09 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437160#msg1437160">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/18/2015 04:45 AM</a>
Shell, Aero & Crew:
Thanks Paul that's helpful and great piece of information on the AIAA/JPC build and how you built it.
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March
I used a spread sheet to map out the Q versus the wave guides from meep and it agreed very well with your numbers. .040" can be a very workable number for DYI builders.
I have one other reason to keep the build as best as I can and it's really not that much more work. The tuning chamber needs to slide as free as it can without binding and I also want to do some extended high power runs within a high Q tune range.
Thanks for offering this, it's very time consuming to review papers and dig out the information and you can do a simple summary in one paragraph, saving so much time.
Thanks,
Shell
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 PM - VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/18/2015 07:13 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437234#msg1437234">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 PM</a>
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done. :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ??? Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.
Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!! :)
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 08:51 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437261#msg1437261">Quote from: X_RaY on 10/18/2015 07:13 PM</a>
These are just scans without the frustum attached. The vna will be S11 and the spec an will paint a shot when the frustum fires up. The spec an module was plug and play, the vna from miniradiosolutions.com was not. Lots of extra drivers and jre needed...real hassle but finally got it sorted out. Am awaiting another mag and will pull off radome and stick an sma connector on it. I'll use this on the empty frustum for the RL sweep.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437234#msg1437234">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 PM</a>VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done. :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ??? Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.
Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!! :) -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 10:30 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437291#msg1437291">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 08:51 PM</a>
Need a dead maggie? If so PM me and I'll drop it into the mail ASAP.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437261#msg1437261">Quote from: X_RaY on 10/18/2015 07:13 PM</a>
These are just scans without the frustum attached. The vna will be S11 and the spec an will paint a shot when the frustum fires up. The spec an module was plug and play, the vna from miniradiosolutions.com was not. Lots of extra drivers and jre needed...real hassle but finally got it sorted out. Am awaiting another mag and will pull off radome and stick an sma connector on it. I'll use this on the empty frustum for the RL sweep.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437234#msg1437234">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 PM</a>VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done. :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ??? Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.
Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!! :)
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 AM -
Now that the thread is back on track, I think I want to pose a question I haven't seen asked so far. I think its an important question because of how easy it is to move the goalposts for success after experiments have been run.
What would count as "strong" evidence for an anomalous result from these force measurement experiments, assuming a reasonably well-designed experiment?
Personally I think a test in a clean (no hot soft parts) microtorr environment which shows something like 10-100 mN of thrust (which would be about 1000 times the environmental gas pressure on the faces of the device) would be very interesting and hard to dismiss as a thermal effect. In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force). -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 10/19/2015 03:59 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437362#msg1437362">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 AM</a>
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437364#msg1437364">Quote from: Dortex on 10/19/2015 03:59 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437362#msg1437362">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 AM</a>
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit?
Perhaps I do have excessive expectations, but a jet is essentially an efficient "thermal effect" :)
I arrived at those numbers because differences in pressure/density are the sources of confounding factors in these experiments, and at about one atmosphere thermally induced pressure differences can probably put out a maximum of one to ten newtons of force at any realistic power level (in the ballpark of a vacuum on one side of the test article). In other words, the noise floor is pretty high and difficult to characterize. In a microtorr vacuum the maximum expected force from surrounding gases is millions of times lower, concomitantly lowering the expected height of the noise floor.
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed? -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 04:27 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437234#msg1437234">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 PM</a>
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Excellent news.
I'm really looking forward to the S11 scan results on your frustum and those of the spectrum analyser showing what your maggie is outputting.
Phil -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 04:45 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437364#msg1437364">Quote from: Dortex on 10/19/2015 03:59 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437362#msg1437362">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 AM</a>
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit?
Perhaps I do have excessive expectations, but a jet is essentially an efficient "thermal effect" :)
I arrived at those numbers because differences in pressure/density are the sources of confounding factors in these experiments, and at about one atmosphere thermally induced pressure differences can probably put out a maximum of one to ten newtons of force at any realistic power level (in the ballpark of a vacuum on one side of the test article). In other words, the noise floor is pretty high and difficult to characterize. In a microtorr vacuum the maximum expected force from surrounding gases is millions of times lower, concomitantly lowering the expected height of the noise floor.
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
I have Shawyer's kindly laid bread crumb trail to follow and expect to see around 50mN at 100Ws Rf IF I do a really good job building my spherical end plate frustum AND doing an excellent job dynamically tracking the lowest rtn loss / VSWR point.
Using a carefully designed cordless & battery powered rotary table I expect it to accelerate at ~15 rpm/minute until the battery is drained or losses exceed the torque being generated. Should be able to get to 120 rpm.
Around 0.5N/kW for a solid state narrow band Rf gen driven EMDrive with a very high Df (large diff between big & small end spherical diameters) and excellent best freq tracking is about the current state of the art as Shawyer demonstrated with his 2009 Flight Thruster series of tests at an overall 326mN/kW. http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
If you really expect an EMDrive to fly off the table, you may be waiting a very long time. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 10/19/2015 05:07 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
rfmwguy already gave what I would consider a "big enough" signal. He minimized the effects of thermal lift and showed us a consistent and otherwise inexplicable push fighting the rising gas when the frustum was activated. If I were just now hearing of the drive, this would go a ways to convince me on its own. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 05:35 AM -
Seems BBC Horizon are working on a Roger Shawyer / EMDrive documentary. Claimed NASA is also involved.
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/roger-shawyer-emdrive
Click on the full Shawyer youtube interview and then scroll down to the comments. Nick Breeze has done 4 Shawyer / EMDrive YouTube interviews. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 06:56 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437386#msg1437386">Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 05:35 AM</a>
Seems BBC Horizon are working on a Roger Shawyer / EMDrive documentary. Claimed NASA is also involved.
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/roger-shawyer-emdrive
Click on the full Shawyer youtube interview and then scroll down to the comments. Nick Breeze has done 4 Shawyer / EMDrive YouTube interviews.
Very interesting news Mr. Traveller. BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology. They always require higher level of confirmation. It really looks like that NASA also told them about recent developments
The dam is starting to leak. The flood is on the horizon. Following months will be interesting indeed!
Mr. Paul March, this rise hopes that EmDrive project may recieve more funds in the future. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 07:27 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437398#msg1437398">Quote from: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 06:56 AM</a>
BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.
Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.
This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 07:49 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437401#msg1437401">Quote from: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 07:27 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437398#msg1437398">Quote from: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 06:56 AM</a>
BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.
Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.
This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue.
Good critique thanks :), but if you want to get such thing as the EmDrive to the wide public, you first need to show "easy to eat nice bits", that will introduce it. Making it difficult to understand will not help either and may confuse rather than help. Most of the people will hear for the first time about it. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/19/2015 08:19 AM -
Yep, Horizon episodes should make hard things easy to chew, otherwise someone may get it wrong, like: "they said that some new conical microwave ovens will no longer fry chicks, it will make them fly!" ;)
A bit of humor, but on the other hand, I feel disapointed because so many possible new "magical" technologies are still in the domain of "magical" and not real. (Cold fusion, for example). You watch a nice documentary about it and start dreaming, and then you realize that it is slowly but surely being pushed towards "fairy tales" category and will never become real... :( -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 11:34 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437411#msg1437411">Quote from: Vix on 10/19/2015 08:19 AM</a>
Yep, Horizon episodes should make hard things easy to chew, otherwise someone may get it wrong, like: "they said that some new conical microwave ovens will no longer fry chicks, it will make them fly!" ;)
A bit of humor, but on the other hand, I feel disapointed because so many possible new "magical" technologies are still in the domain of "magical" and not real. (Cold fusion, for example). You watch a nice documentary about it and start dreaming, and then you realize that it is slowly but surely being pushed towards "fairy tales" category and will never become real... :(
Would suspect with the NASA mention, nothing will air until the new EWs paper and results are released. If the EW results are strongly positive and are included in the Horizon episode, a whole lot of people are going to get a heads up that there is a new way to move things about. I would also suspect we may see some SPR tech we have never seen before. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 11:40 AM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
There are recognized methods for extracting signal from noise and identifying statistically significant results. None invoke a universal "threshold". They would depend upon the specific test setup and measurement technique. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 10/19/2015 12:44 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Any force greater than a 'light drive' or 'solar sail' type would be scientifically interesting enough to warrant much greater investigation I would think.
Heck any even minimal and reproducible signal over noise would be enough to ask some serious questions given the lack of understanding about how such a thing could work within the parameters of COE, COM, and relativity.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 01:12 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437362#msg1437362">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 AM</a>
Now that the thread is back on track, I think I want to pose a question I haven't seen asked so far. I think its an important question because of how easy it is to move the goalposts for success after experiments have been run.
Nice post and relevant for sure. My goal, lofty and potentially not doable with my current design, is 100x force increase or about 17 mN from about 177 microN. Ways I'm trying to get there:
What would count as "strong" evidence for an anomalous result from these force measurement experiments, assuming a reasonably well-designed experiment?
Personally I think a test in a clean (no hot soft parts) microtorr environment which shows something like 10-100 mN of thrust (which would be about 1000 times the environmental gas pressure on the faces of the device) would be very interesting and hard to dismiss as a thermal effect. In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
1) Force maggie to "lock" to single, stable freq.
2) Re-tune frustum for this freq.
Personally, I would have quit at 177 micros if I felt it was far enough out of the noise, but I am not yet satisfied. While I do think I had positive force, more significant results are what the emdrive community needs. Its getting down to the point where I'm trying to determine the factors that contribute to higher force levels. The good folks in the community are steering me towards resonance and cleaner signal, which makes total sense.
If this 17 mN is achievable, I'm not sure how much more force this home-boy could achieve on a very modest budget and non-exotic materials design, such as superconductors. Got my VNA up and running, Shell is sending me a mag radome to use as a probe (antenna) and we'll see where the frustum Qr was during my first tests.
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 01:19 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437160#msg1437160">Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/18/2015 04:45 AM</a>
Shell, Aero & Crew:
Revisiting this again this morning. My thoughts are if I was dealing in a simple cavity with a single frequency it would scale linearly. The build error of 10 mm could be tolerated but in a very high Q broad Spectrum asymmetrical cavity with additive and subtractive wave actions in the mixing of high Q modes it becomes much more critical.
The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance. Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000. Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required. And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.
BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.
Best, Paul March
Maybe I'll take some time for my build and do some maths I've not done in 30 years to look deeper. Or maybe not, I'm very driven to get this build done.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 01:46 PM -
It's kind of weird here without WarpTech (Todd), DeltaMass and Dr. Rodal. What I suspect is one thing, but what I do know, is they are greatly missed and God's speed in whatever you all are doing.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/19/2015 01:54 PM -
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...
It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).
As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...
Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 02:04 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437451#msg1437451">Quote from: Flyby on 10/19/2015 01:54 PM</a>
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...
I call it a 800 pound gorilla, I miss wrestling with it sometimes. lol
It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).
As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...
Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...
I'm glad for Paul's clarification as well, very smart man, dang good engineer.
Shell -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2015 03:05 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437401#msg1437401">Quote from: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 07:27 AM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437398#msg1437398">Quote from: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 06:56 AM</a>
BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.
Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.
This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue.
Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/19/2015 03:14 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...
So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).
I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.
To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...
I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.
anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 03:16 PM - Altho they didn't make it to the final round, we should congratulate our Aachen Germany friends for making it to the hackaday semifinals. Tscheuss guys...
-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 03:20 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437470#msg1437470">Quote from: Star One on 10/19/2015 03:05 PM</a>
Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose.
Outside agenda? Please. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is present within every current Horizon episode. It will muddy the waters considerably. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 04:42 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437471#msg1437471">Quote from: Flyby on 10/19/2015 03:14 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...
So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).
I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.
To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...
I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.
anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...
I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.
I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 05:18 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437484#msg1437484">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 04:42 PM</a>
I believe this is very true, considering the nature of computing in todays economy. An elephant in the room is the scaling, can it provide a platform for earth-bound transport as well as space. Scaled up EMDrive "levitation" is a big possibility for rail transport, not to mention everything else.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437471#msg1437471">Quote from: Flyby on 10/19/2015 03:14 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...
So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).
I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.
To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...
I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.
anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...
I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.
I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists.
If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.
I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.
Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: D_Dom on 10/19/2015 05:42 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437452#msg1437452">Quote from: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 02:04 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437451#msg1437451">Quote from: Flyby on 10/19/2015 01:54 PM</a>
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...
I call it a 800 pound gorilla, I miss wrestling with it sometimes. lol
It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).
As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...
Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...
I'm glad for Paul's clarification as well, very smart man, dang good engineer.
Shell
Agree with all of the above. I have learned to be very careful choosing the wrestle the 800 pound gorilla. I am never allowed to quit when I get tired, I only get to quit when the gorilla gets tired. Still great good fun and all... -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/19/2015 05:51 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437489#msg1437489">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 05:18 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437484#msg1437484">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 04:42 PM</a>
I believe this is very true, considering the nature of computing in todays economy. An elephant in the room is the scaling, can it provide a platform for earth-bound transport as well as space. Scaled up EMDrive "levitation" is a big possibility for rail transport, not to mention everything else.<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437471#msg1437471">Quote from: Flyby on 10/19/2015 03:14 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437374#msg1437374">Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 AM</a>
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...
So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).
I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.
To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...
I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.
anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...
I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.
I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists.
If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.
I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.
Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.
Yeah scaling will be very important. But I think there will be a good scaling story if you can get a number of drives to operate in parallel. Even better if max thrust is not overly dependent on volume. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2015 06:52 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437473#msg1437473">Quote from: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 03:20 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437470#msg1437470">Quote from: Star One on 10/19/2015 03:05 PM</a>
Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose.
Outside agenda? Please. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is present within every current Horizon episode. It will muddy the waters considerably.
Again you try & paint a whole series with a broad brush which serves no purpose. Yes Horizon has its good & bad episodes but as I said above so do all shows. For example their recent episode on orbital debris was pretty decent in getting across the issue to the layperson who is the not going to have the specialist knowledge of many on here.
Outside agenda because your posts have seemed more focused on tarnishing the reputation of the show than actually considering the matter of it covering this topic. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 07:24 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437489#msg1437489">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 05:18 PM</a>
...
If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.
I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.
Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.
The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed. The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).
That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply. I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that. -
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 07:49 PM -
<a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437524#msg1437524">Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 07:24 PM</a><a href="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437489#msg1437489">Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 05:18 PM</a>
...
If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.
I am