Quote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 pm. I'm after data and there is no bad data.ShellI disagreekeep up the good work SeeShells
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.Shell
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.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 10/11/2015 11:17 pmIn 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. Quote from: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 amQuote from: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 pm. I'm after data and there is no bad data.ShellI disagreekeep up the good work SeeShellsMe 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".
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?
Quote from: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 amPS: 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? 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.
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.
0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.http://emdrive.wiki/images/4/4e/ISXClarkMars.jpg
Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 amMe 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. ShellPS: 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?
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".
But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.
I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA.
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.
Quote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 amThere 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.
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?
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(?).
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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 pmQuote from: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 amThere 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"
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?
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 pmBrainstorming 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.