To do that you need a repeatable test with enough precision. As you can see from the previous messages they are trying to address repeatability by increasing the power and modulation.
Although any sum below $100-400k could be readily obtained through something simple like a kickstarter for means of R&D (due to prior popularization of the concepts amongst sci-fi faithfuls), I'm assuming that there is a strong aversion to such methods because contributions made from the general public are likely to come with pressure to produce a tangible end-product and not simply confirm or disprove a scientific hypothesis? Judging by how lightly speculation and confirmation is being handled by Dr. White and colleagues I'm assuming the development of expectation and the pressures of it are the primary reason such avenues are unfavorable even if they could fast-track development... Basically, the last thing they want is to become the latest cold fusion incarnation. Is this an accurate assessment?
Can't you just test it in 2D by floating an apparatus in a pool of water or something? (suitably protecting it from the water to avoid any electrical hazards, of course)Or what about hanging it like a pendulum, and then turning the power on and off to gradually make the pendulum swing from side to side?Or what about using some sensitive torsion balance thing like Dr Stephen Lamoreaux did for his Casimir measurement experiment?
Elon Musk is aware that his first two initials are identical with the first two initials of "EM Drive" , and has been aware for several years about the EM Drive work in the UK, China and the US, as well as being aware of Dr. White's research on warping spacetime. In an older interview, Musk laughed and basically said that there have been breakthroughs in the field, presumably referring to NASA’s recent work, but such technology "isn’t on SpaceX’s immediate roadmap".
Quote from: Rodal on 04/26/2015 10:31 pmElon Musk is aware that his first two initials are identical with the first two initials of "EM Drive" , and has been aware for several years about the EM Drive work in the UK, China and the US, as well as being aware of Dr. White's research on warping spacetime. In an older interview, Musk laughed and basically said that there have been breakthroughs in the field, presumably referring to NASA’s recent work, but such technology "isn’t on SpaceX’s immediate roadmap".I noticed Space X were the conference sponsors on one of those videos featuring Dr White.
Quote from: sanman on 04/26/2015 07:20 pmOkay, points taken on 2,3,4 - but for point 1, why wouldn't the pendulum approach work?Just keep cycling the power on and off until you gradually build up some large oscillation, and the thing is visibly moving from side-to-side in a significant way.To do that you need a repeatable test with enough precision. As you can see from the previous messages they are trying to address repeatability by increasing the power and modulation.
Okay, points taken on 2,3,4 - but for point 1, why wouldn't the pendulum approach work?Just keep cycling the power on and off until you gradually build up some large oscillation, and the thing is visibly moving from side-to-side in a significant way.
Some questions and ideas.Eagleworks can't accept donations, I think I read. Is that universally true, or just true from random people? If we were to establish "Space Flight Research Foundation", a NPO, which would buy and lend Eagleworks equipment like these vacuum-capable RF amplifiers, would that somehow fit in the rules?Regarding amplifers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one? Can someone explain how this might be?My understanding is that there is increased efficiency by the use of a dielectric and a cleaner, more stable sine wave, such as that produced by a PLL, and amplified by the use of a linear amplifier using a device such as a TWT (Travelling Wave Tube), but the problem is that the capacitors used are not vacuum-proof, as they leak electrolyte at vacuum/low pressure. I don't understand why the amplifier itself, or at least the section containing the capacitors, can't be kept in a pressurized compartment.Please don't think these are leading questions, I don't claim to be a professional. But am an interested hobbyist. I have it in my mind to produce a Shawyer-like first-gen EmDrive (i.e. without the piezoelectric compensator) constructed out of Magnesium diboride and cooled with liquid helium (yes, higher-temp superconductors would allow me to use liquid nitrogen, but coating the inside of the frustum with such a material seems to be more difficult), and drive it with a 20KW Magnetron. Yes, I know, a crude attempt, which is why I am learning more before I go about this project. My thought is that by using such a high power, I would not need very accurate or precise thrust measurement, as it should be pretty obvious if it's working, and of course I wouldn't be doing it in a vacuum.I think Eagleworks is doing a great job, and I eagerly await the results of further tests.
Meanwhile, I became President and a Trustee of the Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) and we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative. It is possible to donate to the fund at our website. SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit
From this post, how do we interpret the "RF Dissipated Power" in the central caption of this slide ?...
...How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense? I've been plowing through literally hundreds of copper frustum tests over the last year with various RF tuning configurations and finding that some appear to generate nothing but spurious thermal like results as demonstrated by their positive and then negative going gradual exponential rise and fall times, others that show a very prompt signal at RF turn-on and turn-off comparable to the electrostatic force calibrator on/off slopes, overlaid with the above thermal signatures and some that fall in between. The only real way I can make sure the "thrust" plots I've been generating are real thrust signatures is to first check for a prompt signal during the first ~5 seconds before thermal effects take hold and then going into reverse thrust mode where the thrust signature opposes the thermal signature to the point it goes negative like the one I've already appended but repeat it here. Any other testing approaches to cull out these blasted thermal signatures would be appreciated.
BTW, when the RF is first turned on we literally have an RF induction heating system that immediately starts warming the copper cavity walls, especially at the large OD end of the frustum. How long does that RF induced thermal heating take to start moving the copper frustum and to what degree? Looks like another COMSOL problem that will take into account the specific heat of all the frustum components, then profiles the resulting differential temp rise of cone that then generates a frustum expansion rate that will then have to feed into a model of the torque pendulum's deflection sensitivity to off axis loading. Yuck! Best, Paul M.
Quote from: frobnicat on 04/27/2015 03:44 pmFrom this post, how do we interpret the "RF Dissipated Power" in the central caption of this slide ?...WELCOME BACK @frobnicat !!! We missed you !
A bit of history might also be enlightening. Paul will have to remind me on the dates, but before he and Sonny established Eagleworks at NASA JSC, the two of us and myself actually set it up as a small R&D company, which I funded for about a year. Unfortunately, I couldn't keep up the support required, and after Sonny was awarded his PhD, thankfully JSC found funding and facilities for them to use to keep the dream alive. Meanwhile, I became President and a Trustee of the Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) and we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative. It is possible to donate to the fund at our website. SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit and thus contributions are tax-deductiable. Targeted contributions go almost 100% to the named projects since we have very modest overhead costs (we don't pay salaries to our volunteer staff, for example).SSI is currently supporting the work of Prof. Woodward, but it has always been our intent to expand the base of researchers as resources permit. At the moment about the best we can do is to buy equipment and fund the occasional student intern, rather than pay for principal investigator labor, but that could be enough to help out more than one lab, JSC Eagleworks included. So no need to set up another organization to help – we are here and willing to be involved if the need can be articulated.Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...er, discussion...which has been very enjoyable to follow!(*I think I made that word up.)