@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results. That means and there is evidence out there (Chinese tests) that this might not be true, that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results. That means and there is evidence out there (Chinese tests) that this might not be true, that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellIt is a very confusing picture.Prof. Tajmar will be presenting results at the AIAA in a few days that, it is my understanding will show very low force/PowerInput in vacuum: less than 50 microNewtons for several hundreds of watts input power, at a very low Q (less than 100).NASA's results show a very erratic relationship with Q, certainly not monotonic: there are NASA tests showing larger thrust output with lower Q.Only NASA and Tajmar have run EM Drive tests in vacuum.Roger Shawyer's tests are notorious for not having reported a single test in vacuum ever, even though he has been reporting on tests longer than anyone else. Shawyer's lack of reporting a single test in vacuum maybe telling us something about the true (much lower) performance of the EM Drive in vacuum.Shawyer's theoretically extremely high Q superconducting drive has run into development problems for the reasons discussed in his paper: Doppler shift, resulting in lower thrust/InputPower, as he reported in his 2014 paper. Shawyer's, McCulloch's and Notsosureofit's thrust expressions are all proportional to Q. If my understanding is correct, Todd's thrust expression is not proportional to Q.
@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readability
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readabilityFWIW, High Q and pure signals are where I've always tried to be, but this thing is different somehow. Before putting time/money at signal purity, CW and highest Q possible, I'm just trying to test a basic concept. There is a good chance that I'll stop there if I have null results and pass the hat to someone else. First, we take baby steps with whatever we have, then tweak it...mainly to test other's claims. So my advice is take a swing at it without over-engineering/over-thinking it. The smallest amount of positive results can lead to modifications, such as top-hat tuning, reduced power/cleaner signal, etc.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/08/2015 05:57 am...All the various items are covered by a transparent cover to give very low and symmetrical wind resistance.Are you going to have a vacuum inside the transparent cover?If the answer is no, the initially static air has its own inertia and will resist being moved and rotated, it will be moved by the no-slip condition at the boundary with the rotating solid objects, and dragged by its viscosity mainly at the boundary layer. This will still produce fluid mechanics effects, including vortices and aerodynamic drag (what you call "wind resistance) inside the cover until a steady-state is achieved.
...All the various items are covered by a transparent cover to give very low and symmetrical wind resistance.
Quote from: Possibles on 07/08/2015 01:06 pm@ Shell.I feel the same way. Although I have no resources to physically check things out myself nor your experience as an engineer, everything I have read and investigated brings me to the conclusion that there is something we are missing here. There are too many seemingly related threads that point to there being really something special to discover. You can almost taste it. And from my experience this doesnt tend to happen with bad ideas. Something is definitely going on.It's just that finding that damn thing is the difficult bit.Well dang it thank you! One of my favorite books was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_EyeThey talked about "The Crazy Eddie Drive" and sometimes I begin to feel this is "The Crazy DYI Drive". I have no doubt with the great minds here and those sitting in silence until a time comes to speak up, it will be solved.Shell
@ Shell.I feel the same way. Although I have no resources to physically check things out myself nor your experience as an engineer, everything I have read and investigated brings me to the conclusion that there is something we are missing here. There are too many seemingly related threads that point to there being really something special to discover. You can almost taste it. And from my experience this doesnt tend to happen with bad ideas. Something is definitely going on.It's just that finding that damn thing is the difficult bit.
Quote from: DrBagelBites on 07/07/2015 09:11 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/07/2015 08:58 pmDuty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ):1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner. /end soapbox ramble.Maybe it is just me, personally, but I would like to be, statistically speaking, at least 95% confident I have something before I start crying wolf. I only have one chance to have a first impression, and I want to be pretty sure it works before I give that up. As you said, if not properly announced, demonstrated, and verified it's just another fluke. So, until I can convince myself, I will not be able to convince others. -IFor comparison, the CERN guys' threshold was five sigma before announcing Higgs.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/07/2015 08:58 pmDuty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ):1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner. /end soapbox ramble.Maybe it is just me, personally, but I would like to be, statistically speaking, at least 95% confident I have something before I start crying wolf. I only have one chance to have a first impression, and I want to be pretty sure it works before I give that up. As you said, if not properly announced, demonstrated, and verified it's just another fluke. So, until I can convince myself, I will not be able to convince others. -I
Duty cycle on magnetrons...a new power supply would be needed AND figure on 50% reduced RF power (CW) output, or about 400W from an 800W magnetron. Realistically, most of us will have to stick with off the shelf stuff. I suggest that independent experimenters who want to go in that direction should do so, but be aware of the costs associated with custom power supplies and tubes. Here's what I suggest to those about to embark on a more expensive experiment (unless your wealthy ):1) prove you've gotten some results (video the build and test - avoid vaporware/unsubstantiated claims)2) publicly commit to open source disclosure (unless I am mistaken, this forum is non-commercial)3) describe where you want to take it next in detail (maybe ask for equip donations)4) set up a gofundme or similar site and link to it (with the mods permission, that is)We have a unique opportunity to shove this thing along or simply prove its not possible. While I'd love to prove its real, I'd also feel accomplishment by showing the alternative, as we all should.As a side note, if I see the slightest positive results when I fire this thing up (prior to the live video stream) I plan to get a 3rd party in to film it as well. Could be a local media outlet or my old colleague who works at NASA Glenn nearby. drbagelbites could get his school's CCTV station there, shell could twist an arm or two in her local media.Look, this thing could be revolutionary, but if not properly announced, demonstrated and verified, its just another free energy, perpetual motion machine in the public's eye. Experimenters need to think carefully how its presented and it should be done so in a professional manner. /end soapbox ramble.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readabilityHave we run a Meep simulation of the input signal being an oscillating signal from one frequency to another and back down again? I'm not even sure Meep can do that.Perhaps, creating something like a square wave pattern would be ideal.
Quote from: DrBagelBites on 07/08/2015 03:07 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readabilityHave we run a Meep simulation of the input signal being an oscillating signal from one frequency to another and back down again? I'm not even sure Meep can do that.Perhaps, creating something like a square wave pattern would be ideal.yes Meep can do that. Meep is an open source program. Most users write their own constitutive equations and routines, (certainly when they publish papers), instead of using it as a black box. At the moment we are at a post-processing stage rather than a pre-processing stage: interpreting the data:1) Initial Meep runs were output with each frame having different Max Min. This lead to images showing fractals which have no physical significance as the fractals were the numerical artifact of very low values (close to zero) showing the numerical fractality of the FD grid and not a physical phenomenon. This was addressed by having all the frames have the same Max Min. This enables the "movies" to show values close to zero as being close to zero. This also eliminated the artifact of different colors outside the EM Drive geometry.2) At that point we still had only images, no numerical values, and only for the electromagnetic fields in Cartesian coordinates. The next advance was to output csv files, that everybody has access to: everybody can view these files to ascertain the numerical values in Meep units. We plotted those values as Contour Plots and 3D Plots. The value of this was not just that they look "prettier". The value is that we showed the numerical values and we have contours associated with numerical values in increasing colors. The htoutput images on the other hand have no numerical values and the colors repeat themselves, which is confusing as one cannot ascertain the intensity of the field with a given color.3) The next stage was to take the numerical csv data that everybody has access to, to show the Poynting vector field. Notice that these are vector field plots. These vector plots have much more significance than the contour plots of Cartesian scalar components of the 6 electromagnetic fields, as the Poynting vector gives power surface density= Power/CrossSectionalArea vectors. The Poynting vector was shown to not average to zero (as it does for standing waves with the RF feed OFF). This is due to the RF feed ON from the antenna, which produces time-varying travelling waves (that Zeng and Fan show to "run continuously from a propagating through evanescent as they get closer to the apex of the cone ") instead of frozen in space standing waves.4) The next stage was to plot the time fluctuation of the Poynting vector. We have done this for just two cycles. We are in the process of evaluating the Meep units into SI units and to ascertain its numerical growth for those two cycles. Obviously two cycles is not enough. After that is done we will need to look at several more cycles to ascertain the evolution of the Poynting vector field through time.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readabilityHave we run a Meep simulation of the input signal being an oscillating signal from one frequency to another and back down again? I'm not even sure Meep can do that.Perhaps, creating something like a square wave pattern would be ideal instead of sinusoidal.
...A Magnetron naturally pulses and sprays all sorts of byproducts around 2.45 GHz. If I were to take another step, it would be to reduce power and spurious to see if the "junk" helps or hurts the cause.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/08/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:52 pm@rfmwguy or any that care to answer.Everyone (almost) believes that the highest Q will produce the largest results, that's not quite true, that means there is evidence (Chinese tests) that a slight off tuned resonance or sweeping through a resonance mode can produce higher thrust values.I'm asking because it will help develop my thinking on the next step of MW control and testing. I'm grasping here for thoughts and ideas of why that might be true.ShellEDIT: readabilityFWIW, High Q and pure signals are where I've always tried to be, but this thing is different somehow. Before putting time/money at signal purity, CW and highest Q possible, I'm just trying to test a basic concept. There is a good chance that I'll stop there if I have null results and pass the hat to someone else. First, we take baby steps with whatever we have, then tweak it...mainly to test other's claims. So my advice is take a swing at it without over-engineering/over-thinking it. The smallest amount of positive results can lead to modifications, such as top-hat tuning, reduced power/cleaner signal, etc.You're right but I'm thinking after this very basic run. I sometimes feel that I'm pounding a nail with a large rock this first test, when I need a small hammer.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 11:01 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 09:36 pmI see that Shawyer's "latest paper" contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?Just a little follow-up here to answer a question that some may be asking: "What is a reasonable value of Newtons/Watt such that overunity could be achieved with a rotary device in a terrestrial lab?"It's a mechanical limitation. An aggressive spec. is something like 1,000 gee with a 1 metre radius arm. That's about 1,000 rpm and a tangential velocity of about 100 m/s. That in turn calls for a minimum k-value of 0.02 N/W.Keep that figure in mind.@kdhilliard has been kind enough to point out to me that the correct figure here should be 0.01 N/W, because the power breakeven velocity is what's important from a practical point of view. To recap:Energy breakeven velocity = 2/kPower breakeven velocity = 1/kThe power breakeven proof is not difficult:Pout = d/dt(0.5 m v2) = m v a = Pin when v := vpSo vp = Pin / (m a) = Pin / F = Pin / (k Pin) = 1/kQED
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/07/2015 09:36 pmI see that Shawyer's "latest paper" contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?Just a little follow-up here to answer a question that some may be asking: "What is a reasonable value of Newtons/Watt such that overunity could be achieved with a rotary device in a terrestrial lab?"It's a mechanical limitation. An aggressive spec. is something like 1,000 gee with a 1 metre radius arm. That's about 1,000 rpm and a tangential velocity of about 100 m/s. That in turn calls for a minimum k-value of 0.02 N/W.Keep that figure in mind.
I see that Shawyer's "latest paper" contains a specification of 2/3 N/W. This corresponds to a breakeven velocity of 3 m/s, mechanically an easily attainable value. Can we therefore expect Shawyer to branch out into the power generation field in the near future?
...Shawyer's, McCulloch's and Notsosureofit's thrust expressions are all proportional to Q. If my understanding is correct, Todd's thrust expression is not proportional to Q....
...Your equation for Pout is wrong.Pout = d/dt(0.5 m v2) = m v a + 0.5 v2 dm/dtWhen you leave out dm/dt, it results in your over-unity paradox. In order to have acceleration, dm/dt cannot be zero. The kinetic energy gained can never exceed the change in mass, dm * c2.Todd
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/08/2015 01:45 pmQuote from: Possibles on 07/08/2015 01:06 pm@ Shell.It's just that finding that damn thing is the difficult bit.Shell "...any Motie who comes to believe a solution is possible is labeled as a "Crazy Eddie" and deemed insane".Hmmmmm...
Quote from: Possibles on 07/08/2015 01:06 pm@ Shell.It's just that finding that damn thing is the difficult bit.Shell
@ Shell.It's just that finding that damn thing is the difficult bit.