Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2101910 times)

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3739
  • Liked: 461
  • Likes Given: 7
To do that you need a repeatable test with enough precision.  As you can see from the previous messages they are trying to address repeatability by increasing the power and modulation.

Hmm, just regarding the precision issue: I realize that my suggestion is more akin to a garage-tinkerer's approach rather than rigorous experimental determination. But I suggested it because the primary issue seems to be about demonstrating that this phenomenon/effect even exists at all, rather than what its exact quantifiable parameters are.

When I push a kid on a swingset, each of my pushes is not an exact repetition of the previous ones, and yet in spite of this the swinging motion will eventually build up, even if I only have the strength of a mouse and the kid has the mass of a SaturnV.

If there really is a signal here, won't enough simple additive repetition eventually make it visible over the noise -- ie. make the kid on the swingset move -- even if each push isn't identical?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3739
  • Liked: 461
  • Likes Given: 7
Although any sum below $100-400k could be readily obtained through something simple like a kickstarter for means of R&D (due to prior popularization of the concepts amongst sci-fi faithfuls), I'm assuming that there is a strong aversion to such methods because contributions made from the general public are likely to come with pressure to produce a tangible end-product and not simply confirm or disprove a scientific hypothesis? Judging by how lightly speculation and confirmation is being handled by Dr. White and colleagues I'm assuming the development of expectation and the pressures of it are the primary reason such avenues are unfavorable even if they could fast-track development... Basically, the last thing they want is to become the latest cold fusion incarnation. Is this an accurate assessment?

Kickstarter doesn't work that way -- in exchange for receiving the donations, all you have to do is deliver these side-rewards (eg. the promised T-shirt, or mousepad, or coffee mug, etc)
Yes, people are mainly donating because they want to support you in finding the Holy Grail, but that's not what you're legally bound to deliver.

But maybe you should open-source the experimentation, like the Polywell people. More efforts in parallel can mean more progress.

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Quote
Although any sum below $100-400k could be readily obtained through something simple like a kickstarter for means of R&D (due to prior popularization of the concepts amongst sci-fi faithfuls), I'm assuming that there is a strong aversion to such methods because contributions made from the general public are likely to come with pressure to produce a tangible end-product and not simply confirm or disprove a scientific hypothesis? Judging by how lightly speculation and confirmation is being handled by Dr. White and colleagues I'm assuming the development of expectation and the pressures of it are the primary reason such avenues are unfavorable even if they could fast-track development... Basically, the last thing they want is to become the latest cold fusion incarnation. Is this an accurate assessment?

This sort of thing has been suggested more than once in this thread.  Apparently, the Eagleworks team cannot accept any outside money or equipment.

Offline Peter Svancarek

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Slovensko
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 18
Can't you just test it in 2D by floating an apparatus in a pool of water or something? (suitably protecting it from the water to avoid any electrical hazards, of course)

Or what about hanging it like a pendulum, and then turning the power on and off to gradually make the pendulum swing from side to side?

Or what about using some sensitive torsion balance thing like Dr Stephen Lamoreaux did for his Casimir measurement experiment?

Pendulum is not good for experiment. Vibrations can induce movement. I saw that with so called mechanical inertial engines . The same vibrations can move a boat. I would be also careful to believe in torsion balance.

But what about submerged case with thruster in it? That case would have to have spherical shape to eliminate possibility of by vibration induced movement. The case should be thermally isolated with at least polyurethane (aerogel would be better) so thermally induced flow would be reduced.

EM Drive is not solar sail, it could be small and it would show results even on low orbit.  Also it is not something very conspicuous if you don't want it look as such. You can mask it by solar collectors... NASA is public, I agree. I don't believe in conspiratorial theories much. I'm sure there are some things which are secret, but I'm sure there are not such hare-brained reasons as some people are thinking. It all goes whether you need for it to be secret because you are afraid of public. It is better to know whether that thruster is feasible or it is not. All those experiments here on earth are maybe more expensive than one try in zero G.  1kg experiment wouldn't be that costly to get on the orbit... I believe it is about 10.000$ per kg.

Just a thought... What about persuading Elon Musk for this experiment?
« Last Edit: 04/26/2015 09:25 PM by Peter Svancarek »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Kurt Zeller and Brian Kraft at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, CA, just published this (April 13, 2015) in the AIAA:

Investigation and Analysis of Anomalous Electromagnetic Propulsion Devices
Kurt Zeller and Brian Kraft
http://www.slideshare.net/KurtZeller/investigation-and-analysis-of-anomalous-electromagnetic-propulsion-devices-41315-46946953

Notice that their last reference (#8) is a very recent post (April 5, 2015) by Paul March in this NASA SpaceFlight Forum, and a lot of the material they discussed can be found in previous pages of the EM Drive threads at NASA SpaceFlight Forum.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2015 10:18 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Elon Musk is aware that his first two initials are identical with the first two initials of "EM Drive"   ;)  , and has been aware for several years about the EM Drive work in the UK, China and the US, as well as being aware of Dr. White's research on warping spacetime.  In an older interview, Musk laughed and basically said that there have been breakthroughs in the field, presumably referring to NASA’s recent work, but such technology "isn’t on SpaceX’s immediate roadmap".
« Last Edit: 04/26/2015 10:32 PM by Rodal »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8004
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168

Elon Musk is aware that his first two initials are identical with the first two initials of "EM Drive"   ;)  , and has been aware for several years about the EM Drive work in the UK, China and the US, as well as being aware of Dr. White's research on warping spacetime.  In an older interview, Musk laughed and basically said that there have been breakthroughs in the field, presumably referring to NASA’s recent work, but such technology "isn’t on SpaceX’s immediate roadmap".

I noticed Space X were the conference sponsors on one of those videos featuring Dr White.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3739
  • Liked: 461
  • Likes Given: 7
What kind of earth-side experiment can be done to very tangibly and visibly demonstrate that the effect exists?

Because even if you do an experiment in LEO, then people will claim "oh, it's probably just some magnetic field from the equipment interacting with the Earth's magnetic field"

Isn't it better to try and create an experimental result that people can see with their own eyes and can be captured on video?

When Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions fell into controversy, there were still outfits like US Naval Research Laboratories who were willing to keep poking at the problem. Even the more recent Polywell Fusion results were done there. Unfortunately, massless propulsion doesn't seem to have a compelling military application the way that compact energy does.

Would some farsighted group like DARPA ever be interested in this research?


Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16

Elon Musk is aware that his first two initials are identical with the first two initials of "EM Drive"   ;)  , and has been aware for several years about the EM Drive work in the UK, China and the US, as well as being aware of Dr. White's research on warping spacetime.  In an older interview, Musk laughed and basically said that there have been breakthroughs in the field, presumably referring to NASA’s recent work, but such technology "isn’t on SpaceX’s immediate roadmap".

I noticed Space X were the conference sponsors on one of those videos featuring Dr White.

which is quite different from having warp drive on SpaceX roadmap. Or at least, on their PUBLIC roadmap. :)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Okay, points taken on 2,3,4 - but for point 1, why wouldn't the pendulum approach work?

Just keep cycling the power on and off until you gradually build up some large oscillation, and the thing is visibly moving from side-to-side in a significant way.
To do that you need a repeatable test with enough precision.  As you can see from the previous messages they are trying to address repeatability by increasing the power and modulation.

Dr. Rodal:

You also need to add dc parametric amplification to the above list of possible EM-Drive improvements.  Applying large dc E-fields and/or B-fields in a complimentary way to a particular frustum ac resonance like the TM011 could also greatly increase the thrust generation potential of these devices.

Best,  Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
I wonder if in light of the range of parameters that need to be evaluated if it wouldnt be beneficial to pull togther a set of experiment descriptions that outside replicators could attempt?

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
Some questions and ideas.

Eagleworks can't accept donations, I think I read. Is that universally true, or just true from random people? If we were to establish "Space Flight Research Foundation", a NPO, which would buy and lend Eagleworks equipment like these vacuum-capable RF amplifiers, would that somehow fit in the rules?

Regarding amplifers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one? Can someone explain how this might be?

My understanding is that there is increased efficiency by the use of a dielectric and a cleaner, more stable sine wave, such as that produced by a PLL, and amplified by the use of a linear amplifier using a device such as a TWT (Travelling Wave Tube), but the problem is that the capacitors used are not vacuum-proof, as they leak electrolyte at vacuum/low pressure. I don't understand why the amplifier itself, or at least the section containing the capacitors, can't be kept in a pressurized compartment.

Please don't think these are leading questions, I don't claim to be a professional. But am an interested hobbyist. I have it in my mind to produce a Shawyer-like first-gen EmDrive (i.e. without the piezoelectric compensator) constructed out of Magnesium diboride and cooled with liquid helium (yes, higher-temp superconductors would allow me to use liquid nitrogen, but coating the inside of the frustum with such a material seems to be more difficult), and drive it with a 20KW Magnetron. Yes, I know, a crude attempt, which is why I am learning more before I go about this project. My thought is that by using such a high power, I would not need very accurate or precise thrust measurement, as it should be pretty obvious if it's working, and of course I wouldn't be doing it in a vacuum.

I think Eagleworks is doing a great job, and I eagerly await the results of further tests.

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 265
Some questions and ideas.

Eagleworks can't accept donations, I think I read. Is that universally true, or just true from random people? If we were to establish "Space Flight Research Foundation", a NPO, which would buy and lend Eagleworks equipment like these vacuum-capable RF amplifiers, would that somehow fit in the rules?

Regarding amplifers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one? Can someone explain how this might be?

My understanding is that there is increased efficiency by the use of a dielectric and a cleaner, more stable sine wave, such as that produced by a PLL, and amplified by the use of a linear amplifier using a device such as a TWT (Travelling Wave Tube), but the problem is that the capacitors used are not vacuum-proof, as they leak electrolyte at vacuum/low pressure. I don't understand why the amplifier itself, or at least the section containing the capacitors, can't be kept in a pressurized compartment.

Please don't think these are leading questions, I don't claim to be a professional. But am an interested hobbyist. I have it in my mind to produce a Shawyer-like first-gen EmDrive (i.e. without the piezoelectric compensator) constructed out of Magnesium diboride and cooled with liquid helium (yes, higher-temp superconductors would allow me to use liquid nitrogen, but coating the inside of the frustum with such a material seems to be more difficult), and drive it with a 20KW Magnetron. Yes, I know, a crude attempt, which is why I am learning more before I go about this project. My thought is that by using such a high power, I would not need very accurate or precise thrust measurement, as it should be pretty obvious if it's working, and of course I wouldn't be doing it in a vacuum.

I think Eagleworks is doing a great job, and I eagerly await the results of further tests.

Anything to do with NASA and non-gov't money is always tricky so I'll take a swing at commenting on the first part of your inquiry. 

NASA can't take money via Kickstarters and such; that's pretty much a given.  But NASA can cooperate with both for-profit and non-profit corporate organizations, provided the necessary contractual arrangements are made.  Usually these involve a so-called "Space Act' agreement.  I've been involved with several, and they can be fairly straightforward but time-consuming to negotiate.

A bit of history might also be enlightening.  Paul will have to remind me on the dates, but before he and Sonny established Eagleworks at NASA JSC, the two of us and myself actually set it up as a small R&D company, which I funded for about a year.  Unfortunately, I couldn't keep up the support required, and after Sonny was awarded his PhD, thankfully JSC found funding and facilities for them to use to keep the dream alive.  Meanwhile, I became President and a Trustee of the Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) and we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative.  It is possible to donate to the fund at our website.  SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit and thus contributions are tax-deductiable.  Targeted contributions go almost 100% to the named projects since we have very modest overhead costs (we don't pay salaries to our volunteer staff, for example).

SSI is currently supporting the work of Prof. Woodward, but it has always been our intent to expand the base of researchers as resources permit.  At the moment about the best we can do is to buy equipment and fund the occasional student intern, rather than pay for principal investigator labor, but that could be enough to help out more than one lab, JSC Eagleworks included.  So no need to set up another organization to help – we are here and willing to be involved if the need can be articulated.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...er, discussion...which has been very enjoyable to follow!

(*I think I made that word up.)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Some questions and ideas.

Eagleworks can't accept donations, I think I read. Is that universally true, or just true from random people? If we were to establish "Space Flight Research Foundation", a NPO, which would buy and lend Eagleworks equipment like these vacuum-capable RF amplifiers, would that somehow fit in the rules?

Regarding amplifers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one? Can someone explain how this might be?

My understanding is that there is increased efficiency by the use of a dielectric and a cleaner, more stable sine wave, such as that produced by a PLL, and amplified by the use of a linear amplifier using a device such as a TWT (Travelling Wave Tube), but the problem is that the capacitors used are not vacuum-proof, as they leak electrolyte at vacuum/low pressure. I don't understand why the amplifier itself, or at least the section containing the capacitors, can't be kept in a pressurized compartment.

Please don't think these are leading questions, I don't claim to be a professional. But am an interested hobbyist. I have it in my mind to produce a Shawyer-like first-gen EmDrive (i.e. without the piezoelectric compensator) constructed out of Magnesium diboride and cooled with liquid helium (yes, higher-temp superconductors would allow me to use liquid nitrogen, but coating the inside of the frustum with such a material seems to be more difficult), and drive it with a 20KW Magnetron. Yes, I know, a crude attempt, which is why I am learning more before I go about this project. My thought is that by using such a high power, I would not need very accurate or precise thrust measurement, as it should be pretty obvious if it's working, and of course I wouldn't be doing it in a vacuum.

I think Eagleworks is doing a great job, and I eagerly await the results of further tests.

R.W. Keys:

"Regarding amplifiers: Magnetrons are cheap and dirty, microwave-oven equipment. But am I correct in saying that someone, Perhaps Paul March, said that the reason why the Chinese and Shawyer designs work, in spite of having no dielectric, is that their messy RF eliminated the need for one?  Can someone explain how this might be?"

To tell you how one could create thrust without a dielectric all depends on what physical model is actually at work in producing the observed thrust effect in these frustum EM-Drives.  As far as I know there are only two robust conjectures that can explain how these "propellant-less" EM-Drives work. 

The first and earliest conjecture is Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture that assumes that the thruster directly interacts with cosmological gravitational field via local E&M induced transient inertial mass fluctuations in a dielectric predicted by special and general relativity (SRT & GRT), without stating what the cosmological gravitational field actually is at its lowest level, other than stating it is created by all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  Some would say that this rules out the M-E in regards to the cause of the dielectric-less frustums generating thrust, but are any of them really dielectric free?  Please remember that our copper frustum has a baked on silicone PCB anti-oxidation ~0.001" thick coating on its interior surfaces to keep the copper surfaces from oxidizing and thus lowering its Q-factor over time.  Is that enough dielectric to keep the M-E in the running?  TBD but perhaps it is at high enough power levels and/or modulation techniques.

The second conjecture by Dr. White that might explain these results also posits that these EM-Drives interact with the cosmological gravitational field to generate thrust via SRT & GRT based interactions, but goes one step further in stating that the cosmological gravitational field IS the Quantum-Vacuum (Q-V) pressure field that's also created by all the mass & energy in the causally connected universe.  This is a subtle difference I know, but in doing so one can now treat gravity as an emergent force that can be manipulated with the application of local E&M fields using plasma physics' Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic (MHD) rules since the Q-V is consider to be a neutral electrical plasma made primarily from the transient e/p pairs in the Dirac sea.  It also allows one to think of transient mass fluctuations as actually being density fluctuations in the Q-V that can be generated hydrodynamically via Bernoulli pressure effects, etc.  Just as in a wing with air flowing over it can create lift via the Bernoulli effect, just by the SHAPE of the wing surfaces, a frustum can generate Q-V plasma flows under E&M excitations, AKA thrust, just by the shape of its topology with no need for dielectrics.

"I don't understand why the amplifier itself, or at least the section containing the capacitors, can't be kept in a pressurized compartment."

We can do that and where about ready to do so when we thought we had found an off the shelf "hermetically" sealed RF amplifier that didn't need an extra pressure sealed box around it.  However we found that EMPower's hermitically sealed boxes really weren't, but since they didn't use electrolytics caps in their design, all we had to do was vent this RF amp's interior to the vacuum and make sure that we didn't try to run the RF amp while in the corona discharge pressure region during depressing and pressurizing the vacuum chamber.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
From this post, how do we interpret the "RF Dissipated Power" in the central caption of this slide ?


bigger

Is it the (DC) power input to RF amplifier ?  Or the difference of RF power input to frustum minus reflected power back to amplifier ? What is measured exactly ? What is horizontal scale, is the != 0 part 16.5s long like the power-on period of the thrust chart ? Why this particular profile with initial spike and 2 plateaus ? Why don't we see a corresponding 3x magnitude "step" on the thrust chart at half the excitation time ?

I'm not sure how to interpret the next one either :

bigger

Is it to say that when the spectrum is broader the initial slope on thrust chart is steeper ? On most other charts ~10s of power-on is enough to reach a plateau (kind of), why isn't it the case here ? Seems to me this is magnitude of plateau vs spectrum width that would be relevant, not slope, too much noise on top of those transients. For instance, the decay after power-off looks like having a significantly longer time constant with the richer spectrum, is it relevant ?

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 105
Meanwhile, I became President and a Trustee of the Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) and we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative.  It is possible to donate to the fund at our website.  SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit

Personally I have always found your leadership to be inspiring, thanks for establishing Exotic Propulsion Initiative!
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
From this post, how do we interpret the "RF Dissipated Power" in the central caption of this slide ?
...

WELCOME BACK @frobnicat !!!

We missed you !  :)

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
@ Paul March,

Quite a number of concerns that have been raised here about the frustum assembly (PCB caps and nylon screws...) could be dismissed with the Cannae test article. But there appear to have no report of test of Cannae in vacuum. A Cannae test in vacuum would have the advantage of answering both concerns of frustum assembly specifics and of air interactions, the test article exists and can be run in the same conditions with only the ambient pressure parameter different (from 2014 campaign results) making comparisons easier : do you have or plan to test Cannae in vacuum ?

Also, I for one, would really like to see a few recorded charts for "failed" thrust pulses, the ones that look "in between" (and their conditions of appearance), and most importantly at least one (preferably a few) of the charts showing "no significant thrust" without dielectrics.

...
How does one report "negative" results when at times the acquired data just doesn't make sense?  I've been plowing through literally hundreds of copper frustum tests over the last year with various RF tuning configurations and finding that some appear to generate nothing but spurious thermal like results as demonstrated by their positive and then negative going gradual exponential rise and fall times, others that show a very prompt signal at RF turn-on and turn-off comparable to the electrostatic force calibrator on/off slopes, overlaid with the above thermal signatures and some that fall in between.  The only real way I can make sure the "thrust" plots I've been generating are real thrust signatures is to first check for a prompt signal during the first ~5 seconds before thermal effects take hold and then going into reverse thrust mode where the thrust signature opposes the thermal signature to the point it goes negative like the one I've already appended but repeat it here.  Any other testing approaches to cull out these blasted thermal signatures would be appreciated. 

Running the horizontal pendulum strictly horizontal would help, at least for the displacement of centres of mass thermal effects. I understand a slight tilt of the vertical axis is helpful (needed) to stabilize to a confortable rest position, and that there is in the present configuration no way to compensate for the rest position (in rotation around vertical) of the flexure bearings as they appear to be fixed in angular position (both on the fixed part and on the pendulum arm).

Wouldn't it be relatively straightforward to add 1 or 2 tension springs between pendulum arm and fixed part, near axis of rotation (weak apparent added stiffness), with a position tuning system (basically pulling more or less one way or the other), to settle the problem of the rest position without resorting to tilting the whole platform : that has the very unfortunate consequence of making the system sensitive to displacements of CoMs, I mean not only as recoil effects but as sustained signals. A strict horizontal setup would eliminate the sustained component of CoMs shifts, making it way more convincing to interpret long lasting plateaus as thrust, as the only remaining CoMs shifts effects would be second order (can't last for long).

Quote
BTW, when the RF is first turned on we literally have an RF induction heating system that immediately starts warming the copper cavity walls, especially at the large OD end of the frustum.  How long does that RF induced thermal heating take to start moving the copper frustum and to what degree?  Looks like another COMSOL problem that will take into account the specific heat of all the frustum components, then profiles the resulting differential temp rise of cone that then generates a frustum expansion rate that will then have to feed into a model of the torque pendulum's deflection sensitivity to off axis loading.  Yuck!   

Best, Paul M.

Not only that but also the probable glass transitions of the nylon screws and the subsequent possible buckling of PCB end plates and/or change of shape relative to their natural "warp" and this partial release of constraints... Yes, this is not pretty but this needs to be done. But the Cannae in vacuum seems both experimentally cleaner and easier to model.

And, sorry if I sound insistent, but the vertical scale variability + apparent inconsistency of stiffness (wrt known parameters) needs really to be addressed and settled one day or another, especially since we see contradictory data when the balance is used in reverse (180° turn of test article that should yield same deflection magnitudes to the left or to the right, assuming same thrusts magnitudes). A central aspect of the pendulum appears to be not properly characterised. Having to rely only on calibration pulses and proportionality is not satisfactory, given the unusual physics involved and the general scepticism, everything must fit. If one were told that a scale had 10cm long arms, but dynamics (oscillation periods) showed it was rather 1m long arms, the fact that this wont change the end result (equal weight on the plates...) is not satisfactory, there would still be a 1 order of magnitude unexplained aspect at the heart the experiment.



Thanks for the regular feedbacks and open stance.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
From this post, how do we interpret the "RF Dissipated Power" in the central caption of this slide ?
...

WELCOME BACK @frobnicat !!!

We missed you !  :)

Thanks dr Rodal ! This is an attempt at a come back but not sure I will be able to contribute much in the coming months... hopefully there will be more data to answer the aspects I won't have time to tackle by modelling. Still enjoy reading, keep it alive !

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16

A bit of history might also be enlightening.  Paul will have to remind me on the dates, but before he and Sonny established Eagleworks at NASA JSC, the two of us and myself actually set it up as a small R&D company, which I funded for about a year.  Unfortunately, I couldn't keep up the support required, and after Sonny was awarded his PhD, thankfully JSC found funding and facilities for them to use to keep the dream alive.  Meanwhile, I became President and a Trustee of the Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) and we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative.  It is possible to donate to the fund at our website.  SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit and thus contributions are tax-deductiable.  Targeted contributions go almost 100% to the named projects since we have very modest overhead costs (we don't pay salaries to our volunteer staff, for example).

SSI is currently supporting the work of Prof. Woodward, but it has always been our intent to expand the base of researchers as resources permit.  At the moment about the best we can do is to buy equipment and fund the occasional student intern, rather than pay for principal investigator labor, but that could be enough to help out more than one lab, JSC Eagleworks included.  So no need to set up another organization to help – we are here and willing to be involved if the need can be articulated.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...er, discussion...which has been very enjoyable to follow!

(*I think I made that word up.)

I am sorry I don´t know by name more people there, but I was surprised and happy to see Prof. Freeman Dyson on the board of trustees of an organization funding ME research and possibly if everything goes right, also EM research.

(Paul March says both are possibly two sides of the same coin, so it cracks me up ME and EM are mirrored acronyms!  ;D)

Tags: