Quote from: Star-Driveone can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used
one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used
...2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. ..."1) In the NASA experiments the truncated cone's center of mass moved towards the [ ? ] diameter end (where ? stands for big or small)"For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum....
I will calmly wait for the person that conducted the experiments (Paul March "Star-Drive") to confirm whether the EM Drive can indeed be run at will (by changing the exciting frequency) with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, and if so, to point out the relevant data demonstrating that fact.Mr. Frobnicat, with all due respect, since you did not perform these experiments, you cannot write with pontificating authority to resolve this matter.
If Paul March answers that the EM Drive cannot be run with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, I will be very pleased to have learned this fact and to have corrected my misunderstanding.On the other hand if Paul March answers that the EM Drive can indeed be run with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, by changing the exciting frequency, your conjecture (if it pretends to explain the total measurement) will be shown to have been already nullified by NASA Eagleworks. In that case, your conjecture might, at best, serve to explain a fraction of the measurement as a biasing artifact.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/14/2015 09:06 pmI understand that we need to wait for Paul March to explicitly "re-verify" the manner in which thrust reversal was achieved, but it does appear to me that he has already addressed this in the above quote from Feb 14. Quoting Mr. March: "one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end". To my admittedly untrained eye, this appears to be in agreement with Dr. Rodal's earlier statements, and in conflict with Mr. Frobnicat's contention that reversal was achieved by simply rotating the entire mechanism 180 degrees.
....
Paul's statement that "For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum." Would seem to explicitly contradict the calculated chart as to the direction for those modes.
To me, it seems like 'frobnicat' came very close to 'reinventing the wheel' with these recent posts.We really do need a glossary of the known points about this device.
Re. Hypotheses looked at - where does our lengthy discussions of dark matter fit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1347946#msg1347946
Quote from: Rodal on 03/18/2015 11:16 amQuote from: Star-Driveone can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used Thank you for bringing up this citation that allows to find the original mention of "true reverse" by mode switching.Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/14/2015 09:06 pm...2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. ......If a clear signal toward big end was actually recorded, it seems rather strange that such experimental plot would not have been disclosed as it may confirm the theoretical blue plot, and even if wasn't confirming this formula that would still be a strong case against a lot of classical explanations for the signal.In the above quoted post by Star-Drive it is a matter of interpretation to understand that it is explicitly stated that there was actual toward big end thrusts or not explicitly stated. My reading is that it is not explicitly stated, but the wording is ambiguous enough that the reverse reading could be argued. I hope Paul March can settle this matter in the clearest manner : yes or no was there at some point an experimentally recorded thrust toward the big end ?Quote from: RodalI will calmly wait for the person that conducted the experiments (Paul March "Star-Drive") to confirm whether the EM Drive can indeed be run at will (by changing the exciting frequency) with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, and if so, to point out the relevant data demonstrating that fact.Mr. Frobnicat, with all due respect, since you did not perform these experiments, you cannot write with pontificating authority to resolve this matter.I did brought to the subject a fresh and rational third party look, as you did, as many contributors here did, and I'm not the first of the thread to give the impression of thinking having decisive arguments. My style is what it is, but I'm making perfectly sensible, substantiated, articulated arguments from the available data and what Star-Drive had the courtesy to share with us. Any sceptical person with mechanical engineering background caring to dig the disclosed informations would arrive at similar questions and doubts. So while I said I a lot of time lately (regrettably, would rather hear we), this is not a matter of me.QuoteIf Paul March answers that the EM Drive cannot be run with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, I will be very pleased to have learned this fact and to have corrected my misunderstanding.On the other hand if Paul March answers that the EM Drive can indeed be run with the thrust force directed towards the big base (instead of towards the small base) of the truncated cone, by changing the exciting frequency, your conjecture (if it pretends to explain the total measurement) will be shown to have been already nullified by NASA Eagleworks. In that case, your conjecture might, at best, serve to explain a fraction of the measurement as a biasing artifact.
...2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. ......
Quote from: aero on 03/19/2015 01:49 amRe. Hypotheses looked at - where does our lengthy discussions of dark matter fit?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1347946#msg1347946we had a lengthy discussion of dark matter and i didn't know about it?!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306091617.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black-holes-lhc-parallel.html
Well, I just searched the complete advanced concepts forum and found no mention of dark matter on any EM drive developments thread, so I guess either my memory is faulty or there has been some heavy clean-up of what many consider to be "Uggy-Bogy" science. That means we won't be including it in "hypotheses discussed."
QuoteWell, I just searched the complete advanced concepts forum and found no mention of dark matter on any EM drive developments thread, so I guess either my memory is faulty or there has been some heavy clean-up of what many consider to be "Uggy-Bogy" science. That means we won't be including it in "hypotheses discussed."That is strange. I remember bringing it up in the first thread. We had to max out the amount of 'local' dark matter to get even close to the results reported by this device. Somebody - I think it was you, Aero - proposed a sort of 'dark matter ramjet' in connection with all this, but ultimately we went in other directions. More recently, Doctor Rodal's colleague Marshal pretty much ruled out a Dark Matter Axiom solution for the EM Drive. Maybe the thread was edited? In any event, Dark Matter looks to be something we pretty much rejected months ago.
2. Classic unknown physics i. Casimer related ii. Evanescent wave related iii. General Relativity 3. New Physics i. Quantum Vacuum -Quantum plasma theory ii. MiHsC theory iii. Dark Matter - Nullified based on insufficient density of DM.
I would note that in order to generate thrust according to M-E theory, the dielectric really needs to act as a quarter wave mechanical/acoustic resonator. It's hard to imagine this happening by accident, but it could so act even if very imperfectly. Paul [March] is aware of all this, and has had a hand in designing the experiment, so there is a strong possibility what they're seeing is M-E thrust