The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion.
I received another very interesting e-mail from Bob Ludwick, that I reproduce below:From: Robert LudwickSent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:54 PMTo: Dr. J. RodalSubject: Testing the EmDriveHello Dr. RodalAlthough thrust without throwing something out the back is at least improbable (I am of course rooting for the improbable.), I think that the testing problem (to rule out heat artifacts) could be resolved by the test plan I proposed awhile back. i. e. A. Establish the resonant frequency (s) and bandwidths of the thruster.B. Select a test frequency range that is at least double the bandwidth of the thruster, so that the start and stop frequencies are well outside the high Q region of the thruster.C. Select frequency steps so that you are guaranteed AT LEAST ten steps in the high Q region of the thruster.D. Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.E. Start the frequency sweep, with dwell times on each frequency long enough for the mechanical system to settle. Change NOTHING other than frequency. F. For each frequency step, record forward and reflected power from the thruster.G. After allowing for mechanical settling time, record the thrust.H. Go to the next frequency and repeat. If there is any ‘anomalous’ thrust related to thruster Q this procedure will detect it. If the ‘thrust’ is due to thermal effects, it should remain constant throughout the test, as the power/current will be constant throughout the testIt DOES require a highly stable, computer controlled signal source rather than a VCO with a knob, but those, including those suitable for testing superconducting cavities, are available from any equipment rental place (such as ElectroRent) if the lab is too cheap to buy one. Power meters, too.I am completely baffled at the apparent disinterest of people and organizations who should be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting their hands on a relatively simple device that can convert microwave power into translational motion at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than simple photon rockets. Apparently they have decided that it is prima facie impossible and therefore don’t want to waste any time or money in finding the problems in some fringe PhD’s test setup.On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP. I’d have lab crews—more than one, at different labs, using different equipment--working overtime until I knew, one way or another, whether it was real or not. And I would insist in more than one ‘fail’ before I called a halt. Frankly, doing so should be cheap AND fast. And the stakes are enormous.Bob Ludwick
And about the shrewdness thing. . .it is good to note that without publishing in peer review and putting out all the work this entails, Sonny has managed not only to redirect substantial NASA resources and DARPA funding onto his project, but now several NASA centers will be pursuing it. That is at the least, highly efficient, and he still hasn't stuck his neck out for his QVF model. That's more than shrewd. It's clever even. I'm not suggesting this is how science should be done, but he is getting what he wants. The trouble is, that eventually everyone will figure out the truth of the issue and the consequences of that will be interesting to say the least.
Quote from: birchoff on 11/12/2014 08:48 pmThe conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion.I'm not saying that at all. I'm a firm believer in the scientific process and one can't project one's desires onto someone else's methods, data and conclusions. I think the whole QVF model is going to crash and burn. That's what is interesting. . .the fact this stuff cannot forever be done covertly. The facts will come out before there are larger funds released, but for the time being it seems several other centers have taken an interest, all because of this conference paper.
....I see no reason for him to publish in peer review when he can get 3 other NASA centers to go after validation without risking anything. He's very shrewd that way.
Its almost like Doctor White doesn't want anybody to duplicate his efforts, which sort of negates the point of having three other NASA centers go after validation - how are they supposed to check his results if they cannot adequately replicate the device?
The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion. Shouldn't labs be doing an equivalent level of review of another teams work before taking on the job of doing validation?
Quote from: Rodal, channeling LudwickSet the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
The amp must be operating from a standby mode, where it is ready to give as square a wave as it can as soon as it is triggered. Otherwise, there would have to be a warm-up period for the amp, where they would have to shunt the signal elsewhere, till it got up to spec. But they were sloppy on the frequencies, as earlier noted, so what do me know?
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP.
...this would be shot down at any peer-reviewed journal worth a dime...
Quote from: birchoff on 11/12/2014 08:48 pmThe conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion. Shouldn't labs be doing an equivalent level of review of another teams work before taking on the job of doing validation?Sorry. That is a heretical viewpoint worthy of dismissal.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/13/2014 02:04 pmQuote from: birchoff on 11/12/2014 08:48 pm... Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion...Sorry. That is a heretical viewpoint...I expect you're joking?
Quote from: birchoff on 11/12/2014 08:48 pm... Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion...Sorry. That is a heretical viewpoint...
... Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion...
There just isn't enough information to decide what is really going on
Now taking from this, I can tell you that removing the dielectric from an otherwise resonant cavity, will de-tune that cavity. And if the Nasa experimenters didn't re-tune the cavity after taking the dielectric out, they would think that the dielectric is important for there to be a "thrust." If the cavity works best by having a very high Q for example (empty cavity advocates), that would be broken.
When someone states QuoteThere just isn't enough information to decide what is really going onwhat they are stating is that they cannot decide what is really going on based on the available information and their background and experience.It would be presumptuous in the extreme for somebody to pretend to speak as to what anyone else may be able to accomplish.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/13/2014 04:58 pmNow taking from this, I can tell you that removing the dielectric from an otherwise resonant cavity, will de-tune that cavity. And if the Nasa experimenters didn't re-tune the cavity after taking the dielectric out, they would think that the dielectric is important for there to be a "thrust." If the cavity works best by having a very high Q for example (empty cavity advocates), that would be broken.I'm pretty sure they were specific that the Q was measured to be very high without the dielectric, which was I believe the first way they tested it. I think they added the dielectric afterward.And in any event, to presume they would not know what you just said is to presume they're rarther stupid when they are not.
F. Tapered Cavity RF Evaluation, General Findings and Lessons Learned....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