That would certainly throw all kinds of motion induced errors into the mix. Best to carefully rebuild the original configuration.Anyway, there is an interesting, if probably coincidence, between the reported results in the above paper using a 19 period optical cavity. When you compare their (PT transition) frequency shift to a 2 period cavity you get 2.1 GHz which is of the order of magnitude of the shift (~ 1.7 GHz) the calculation for the Brady cavity.Probably means nothing....but curious.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:48 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:44 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:17 pmThere are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.So nonlinearity of the HD PE, rather than being by intelligent design, would be by accidental impurity, due to lax quality control in the manufacture of the industrially supplied bulk HD PE used by NASA Eagleworks.That's a possibility. Could also explain the difference between some chambers w/ and w/o dielectric Still, what types and how much impurity would be necessary to take place in order to have significant nonlinear effects?Good question. One of the papers Mulletron brought up:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6690216has interesting curves showing the frequency shifts. Maybe Mulletron has a PT input on this point ?Dr. Rodal & Notsosureofit:We had an interesting failure in the Eagleworks lab yesterday. That being I was getting ready to pull a vacuum on our copper frustum mounted in its "reverse" or to the right thrust vector position and ran a preliminary data un to see if it was performing in air as it had two weeks ago just before our last RF amplifier died. Sadly it wasn't for it was producing less than half of what it did before and in the wrong direction! I had Dr. White come in and take a look over my latest test article installation last night and he found that the center 1/4"-20 nylon PE disc mounting bolt that holds the second PE disc to the small OD frustum's PCB endplate was no-longer tensioned as it had been before. In fact it had partially melted at the interface between the two PE discs thus relieving the strain induced by its bolts threads and nut. (There are three ~1.00" 1/4-20 nylon bolts mounted on a ~2.00" radius spaced every 120 degrees that hold the first PE disc to the PCB end cap. There is then a layer of 3/4" wide office scotch tape at the interface between the first and second PE discs and the center 1/4"-20 nylon bolt that hold second PE disc to the first PE disc.) Apparently not having the PE discs firmly mounted to the frustum's small OD end cap hindered the thrust producing mechanism that conveys the generated forces in the PE to the copper frustum. And/or the melted nylon was hogging all the RF energy in the PE discs due to its higher dissipation factor in its semiliquid state. Either way it looks like there is a high E-field volume where this center nylon bolt hangs out while running in the TM212 resonant mode. Too bad Teflon bolts are so weak even in comparison to the nylon, for its dissipation factor is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the nylon's. Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:48 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:44 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:17 pmThere are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.So nonlinearity of the HD PE, rather than being by intelligent design, would be by accidental impurity, due to lax quality control in the manufacture of the industrially supplied bulk HD PE used by NASA Eagleworks.That's a possibility. Could also explain the difference between some chambers w/ and w/o dielectric Still, what types and how much impurity would be necessary to take place in order to have significant nonlinear effects?Good question. One of the papers Mulletron brought up:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6690216has interesting curves showing the frequency shifts. Maybe Mulletron has a PT input on this point ?
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:44 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:17 pmThere are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.So nonlinearity of the HD PE, rather than being by intelligent design, would be by accidental impurity, due to lax quality control in the manufacture of the industrially supplied bulk HD PE used by NASA Eagleworks.That's a possibility. Could also explain the difference between some chambers w/ and w/o dielectric Still, what types and how much impurity would be necessary to take place in order to have significant nonlinear effects?
Quote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 03:44 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:17 pmThere are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.So nonlinearity of the HD PE, rather than being by intelligent design, would be by accidental impurity, due to lax quality control in the manufacture of the industrially supplied bulk HD PE used by NASA Eagleworks.That's a possibility. Could also explain the difference between some chambers w/ and w/o dielectric
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 03:17 pmThere are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.So nonlinearity of the HD PE, rather than being by intelligent design, would be by accidental impurity, due to lax quality control in the manufacture of the industrially supplied bulk HD PE used by NASA Eagleworks.
There are a lot of references to nonlinear effects in polyethylene, but most seem to be due to impurities of one sort or another.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 01:34 pm....While the formula I've been using is based on satisfying General Relativity, it does not tell us anything about the mechanism of momentum conservation.. PT asymmetry, as Mulletron mentions, is a viable candidate, and nonlinear frequency effects could (in theory) satisfy the requirement.Can anybody present quantitative experimentally-measured data showing significant PT asymmetry or nonlinear frequency effects for a bulk High Density Polyethylene (purchased commercially from McMaster Carr, if my memory serves me correctly ?) used as the dielectric by NASA Eagleworks in their tests ?That could be a Rosetta Stone...
....While the formula I've been using is based on satisfying General Relativity, it does not tell us anything about the mechanism of momentum conservation.. PT asymmetry, as Mulletron mentions, is a viable candidate, and nonlinear frequency effects could (in theory) satisfy the requirement.
Can anybody present quantitative experimentally-measured data showing significant PT asymmetry or nonlinear frequency effects....
Apparently not having the PE discs firmly mounted to the frustum's small OD end cap hindered the thrust producing mechanism that conveys the generated forces in the PE to the copper frustum. ...........Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 01:46 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 01:34 pm....While the formula I've been using is based on satisfying General Relativity, it does not tell us anything about the mechanism of momentum conservation.. PT asymmetry, as Mulletron mentions, is a viable candidate, and nonlinear frequency effects could (in theory) satisfy the requirement.Can anybody present quantitative experimentally-measured data showing significant PT asymmetry or nonlinear frequency effects for a bulk High Density Polyethylene (purchased commercially from McMaster Carr, if my memory serves me correctly ?) used as the dielectric by NASA Eagleworks in their tests ?That could be a Rosetta Stone...http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-plastic-rods/=w0bzy0Website won't let me direct link to it. Can't find that 6.25" dimension. See Rigid HDPE Polyethylene....
Quote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 12:31 pmQuote from: Flyby on 02/21/2015 09:19 am....My gut feeling (i know, hardly a scientific approach) says that the chinese drawing has little to no correlation to the real testunit they've build.What Chinese drawing are you referring to? Could you please give a link or a reference to it? ThanksI think Flyby refers to the fact that the various EmDrive drawings from the Chinese do not look alike each others. See for example the compilation attached. The two last drawings, largely different, even come from the same 2015 paper. All we can say looking at those pictures is the length of their cavity is perhaps shorter than Shawyer's or Eagleworks designs. But the angles and proportions are all different.
Quote from: Flyby on 02/21/2015 09:19 am....My gut feeling (i know, hardly a scientific approach) says that the chinese drawing has little to no correlation to the real testunit they've build.What Chinese drawing are you referring to? Could you please give a link or a reference to it? Thanks
....My gut feeling (i know, hardly a scientific approach) says that the chinese drawing has little to no correlation to the real testunit they've build.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 02/21/2015 01:03 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/21/2015 12:31 pmQuote from: Flyby on 02/21/2015 09:19 am....My gut feeling (i know, hardly a scientific approach) says that the chinese drawing has little to no correlation to the real testunit they've build.What Chinese drawing are you referring to? Could you please give a link or a reference to it? ThanksI think Flyby refers to the fact that the various EmDrive drawings from the Chinese do not look alike each others. See for example the compilation attached. The two last drawings, largely different, even come from the same 2015 paper. All we can say looking at those pictures is the length of their cavity is perhaps shorter than Shawyer's or Eagleworks designs. But the angles and proportions are all different.Good to see all Chinese drawings at once, I was not familiar with all of them... thnx for that, flux_The only one that strikes me to be a real world technical drawing would be the bottom right one. All the rest will most likely be pure schematic/concept drawings, intended rather to explain something and not intended to represent actual build systems.I'm not doubting they made several designs and tests, but I seriously doubt that every drawing made relates back to a real test or model. Most of these drawings simply do not hold enough technical info to be credible "as build" plans. You can not use those drawings and proportions to base a real build model on them.Technical drawings do follow a certain code and stick to general conventions.The majority of those drawings do not follow those... Hence why I say that they "do not correlate" with any real made object. They're not construction drawings, but function as communication drawings, explaining the workings, concepts and layouts. You should not base dimensional extrapolations for a real world object on them.But hey, I'm merely sharing 30 years of experience handling technical drawings... if you feel I'm wrong on that assumption... I can live with that...the earth will continue spinning..
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/21/2015 05:21 pmThat would certainly throw all kinds of motion induced errors into the mix. Best to carefully rebuild the original configuration.Anyway, there is an interesting, if probably coincidence, between the reported results in the above paper using a 19 period optical cavity. When you compare their (PT transition) frequency shift to a 2 period cavity you get 2.1 GHz which is of the order of magnitude of the shift (~ 1.7 GHz) the calculation for the Brady cavity.Probably means nothing....but curious.Using a unidirectional reflectionless PT grating with a nonlinear silicon distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) cavity consisting of: 20 modulation periods of 2 Pi /q = 0.27 micro meters EDIT;<<the emergence of the Optical Rogue Waves (ORWs) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_rogue_waves ) has been explored based on the system parameters>>http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.3400.pdf
1) I was just asking for a link to understand what you were referring to. 2) I was not intending to use any of those drawings to build anything but instead to conduct calculations that take a fraction of a second to calculate. Calculating the frequencies and mode shapes from an estimated geometry and comparing it with the published results quickly tells me how representative was the drawing of the actual build system. That's how for example, we quickly eliminated the @Fornaro estimate of geometry and zeroed in on the @aero and @Mulletron estimates, for example.Thanks
There is no such thing as a ‘quantum vacuum virtual plasma,’ so that should be a tip-off right there. There is a quantum vacuum, but it is nothing like a plasma. In particular, it does not have a rest frame, so there is nothing to push against, so you can’t use it for propulsion. The whole thing is just nonsense. They claim to measure an incredibly tiny effect that could very easily be just noise.” There is no theory to support the result, and there is no verified result to begin with.
observers shouldn’t take too seriously the grandiose claims of theorists about what is and is not possible; they should do their experiments and see what the data imply. It would be a shame to miss out on a fantastic discovery because you believed some theorist who told you it couldn’t possibly be there.
I think the following concerns by @seanmcarroll have been addressed in this thread:Quote...and there is no verified result to begin with.source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-validate-imposible-space-drive-word/#.VOk1XC6pjSg...The device has also been successfully tested in vacuum.
...and there is no verified result to begin with.
@ Star-DriveWe've battled the Nylon vs Teflon fasteners for years in our plasma chambers. These days we replace the Nylon ones every run. Teflon holds up very well, just won't take much mechanical load.
... then many scientists tried to replicate their experiment but hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, and the withdrawal of many positive replications.
We've fried a number of nylon bolts and have found that the best way to keep them from getting cooked is to keep them out of the high E-field regions in the cavity. For Instance we tested the copper frustum in its TM010 mode and mounted a 5.0 inch OD by 1.0" thick PTFE disk at the center of the large OD end cap of the copper frustum with one 1/4-20 nylon bolt. We got some large thrust signatures in that configuration, see attached slide, but the dam nylon bolt kept melting and dropping the PTFE discs into the main body of the cavity.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/22/2015 05:17 amWe've fried a number of nylon bolts and have found that the best way to keep them from getting cooked is to keep them out of the high E-field regions in the cavity. For Instance we tested the copper frustum in its TM010 mode and mounted a 5.0 inch OD by 1.0" thick PTFE disk at the center of the large OD end cap of the copper frustum with one 1/4-20 nylon bolt. We got some large thrust signatures in that configuration, see attached slide, but the dam nylon bolt kept melting and dropping the PTFE discs into the main body of the cavity.Are there low E-field regions across multiple resonance modes that can be used as mounting points to secure the PTFE discs?