Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/09/2014 02:46 PM3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...

3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?

Best to ignore Goatguy ...

Based on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.

I'm not quite following GoatGuy's reasoning, but there are issues that can arise from a high-Q RF system. My own focus of concern is unbalanced forces from RF in the feed line. Without knowing the routing of the feed line I can't evaluate these potential errors properly, but plausible case can easily produce the force levels I've seen cited.

Quote from: frobnicat on 09/11/2014 09:14 AMMaybe I missed that but anyone inquired or commented on the apparently systematic slope changes (downward) after the relatively clean square thrust periods ? Is there a higher period (>200s) harmonic mode in the system that gives those overall slopes on the order of 1µN/s, or is this just long period "random drifts" due to sensitivity of system ? The charts show the signals measured relative to this slowly drifting baseline (drawn as dotted yellow curve, like piecewise linear best fits). The statistically small sample makes hypothesis risky, but visually there appear a systematic downward change of slope after thruster's pulses, and (also not quite clearly) no slope changes after the (arguably smaller magnitude) 30 µN calibration periods. What is the relevance or irrelevance of this drifting baseline ? We found that this slope change after the test article and RF amplifer were turned on for 10-to-20 seconds was apprently due to IR radiation from the amplifier's heatsink that is mounted on the back side of the torque penlulum on an 8" square platform was affecting the top C-flex bearing more than the lower one. We tried aluminum shielding the top bearing assembly from the heatsink IR source and managed to reverse the metioned thermal slope in the thrust plots, but after shielding the bottom one we could reduce it but still coundn't completely get rid of this thremal drift artifact. Currently we are just living with it.

Maybe I missed that but anyone inquired or commented on the apparently systematic slope changes (downward) after the relatively clean square thrust periods ? Is there a higher period (>200s) harmonic mode in the system that gives those overall slopes on the order of 1µN/s, or is this just long period "random drifts" due to sensitivity of system ? The charts show the signals measured relative to this slowly drifting baseline (drawn as dotted yellow curve, like piecewise linear best fits). The statistically small sample makes hypothesis risky, but visually there appear a systematic downward change of slope after thruster's pulses, and (also not quite clearly) no slope changes after the (arguably smaller magnitude) 30 µN calibration periods. What is the relevance or irrelevance of this drifting baseline ?

Quote from: Rodal on 09/11/2014 04:15 PMQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/09/2014 02:46 PM3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...Hey, thanks! Great overview! 1, 2, & 4?Quote from: sghill on 09/11/2014 07:33 PMBest to ignore Goatguy ...Sheesh, what a diatribe. Speaking as a Capricorn, he is an embarrasment to my sign. Still, a pet peeve of mine regarding these not yet proven technologies is the discussion about future "expectations", based on "theoretical models", and the like.Quote from: the Brady, White, March paperBased on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.The following predictions of missions to Saturn and all strain credulity, because they are merely the application of numbers to an equation, and do not flesh out the many requirements needed to actually carry out one of these missions, other than the single metric of "0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe)".It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models". It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility.Anyhow, it is fascinating to follow the real discussion going on above.Oh. And I can easily lowball your sister. I'll run those ads for $5M.

The NASA managers who control the research dollars have to understand the value proposition in the pursuit of a new propulsion technology or they won't support developing it, period.

John (Fornaro) and Paul (March), The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time. There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured. There is no hurry. I think that we have a great line of communications !. Let's keep it going. To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)Jose' RodalLook up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.

"It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models". It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility." It's really that simple and the managers have at least now been told the theoretical and developmental benifits and risks in the pursuit of this unproven propulsion science and technology, so they can now make an educated choice to pursue it or not based on our orbital analysis work and the current sad state of affairs in the US human spaceflight program.

Mission-to-Saturn.286 days.Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.

Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.286 days.Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?

Quote from: aceshigh on 09/12/2014 02:25 PMPaul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.286 days.Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?

Jose':I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....

Quote from: Star One on 09/12/2014 02:41 PMQuote from: aceshigh on 09/12/2014 02:25 PMPaul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.286 days.Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?You should not. I'm shocked to see him quoted on this thread when we have direct practitioners- including a principle Eagleworks scientist- engaged in open discussion for our benefit. They could have taken it off-line, but didn't, and that bomb-throwers quotes only serve to shut down the benefits we're getting.

Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.

If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?

Quote from: RodalIf your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?This question has been asked over and over again, but it has not yet been answered

Well, yes, it has been answered...

Rodal, The Albercrombie Drive, for example, uses weird matter to distort Space in a fashion similar to that postulated in Inflation Theory...Rodal's previous post concering the instanatious nature of the effect of gravity. ..