Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1877046 times)

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Don't mistake my enthusiasm for believing science hype. If this blows a gasket than we will have learned something, if it works then we will have learned much more. There is no bad data.

I don't.  I think you are exactly where an experimenter should be psychology and am looking forward to your results.  Any ETA as to when we might see them?

Quote
What I find extremely interesting is the chance we might find new physics at work here. To me there is a good chance of that. There is so much we don't know. For a quick instance, where does the extra spin come from on a proton? Simple question.  I think anyone who empirically states they know it all is being a pompous ass and as bad as ones pushing SciFi science.

Nature could care not one iota about your ego.

Shell

No idea about the proton question because I'm not a particle physicist.  I am, however, an academic, and so I speak first hand when I say people love seeing academics fail.  I'm seeing lots of that same attitude in the emdrive material I've been reading on the web, and a little bit of it here too in regards to Carroll's comments.

Do people actually care that he used "low/vulgar" language (whatever that means) when, as an academic, he is beholden to acting better?  Or is it that he went against the drive?  If the first option, I'd advise them to take life less seriously :).  If the second, then who are they to accuse anyone else of being biased?       

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 251
Wall, I disagree especially when you say taking life less seriously. This is not the case. I recognize, when you can be critique, but I also recognize, when someone show arogance as Mr. Caroll unfortunately did.

Those people use to fall for this side because they know their status and are sure in their knowledge. So, few insults would not hurt only support my work right? Agorance is easy. True critic trough experiments is hard and time costing. None of you here that go for critic actually did not done any of that, even when I recognize you have knowledge I will never have.

As I said you guys have good critic and you are polite thank you for that, but there is too much experiments already done and none from the "Critic" side. Your knowledge and logic is great, but I really lack some data from you guys.

Edit: Sorry for my English it is really not good.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 07:44 PM by Chrochne »

Offline cee

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • CA
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 281
@Rodal
1.Thanks for verification (picture Tajmar device yesterday @4,556GHz).
My calculation was verry close :)

2. impressing picture of the fractal antennas... like that
But for what is that good in the frustrum? This type of antenna will be use to get large bandwide, for multiband mobilephones for example. We don't need large BW.
What is need is ~constand impedance match in the possible drift BW if a high Q is recommend like discussed before?
 
3.
"3) We also verified that one cannot excite Transverse Electric (TE) modes with a dipole antenna, regardless of orientation or placement in the truncated cone, the mode excited by a dipole antenna is a Transverse Magnetic (TM) mode."

At the center it doesn't work.

I remember that is possible to get TE resonance with a simple dipole:
(rfmwguy posted something similar / plans for his frustrum...)
 It's most simple for TE01p. At this mode there are currents in Phi vector inside the metallic endplate, the strongest at the radius who the besselfunktion is maximal.
Place a dipole at this radius close to the plate, E-field vector in Phi direction(tangetial to the radius).
The result will be the correct mode if the cone has the correct length to catch that eigenfrequence.

Something similar is possible at the sidewall, one have to activate currents in the right direction for the mode in the wall..
of course one need a full 3D model

very interesting posts today too much to read all after long day full of work  :-[

Very nice post X_Ray.  I was thinking of potentially using a 1/10 wave loop (like the square one I posted as it could be modeled) to excite a TE mode center in either center plate. The bandwidth should be around 20-30 mhz. Thoughts?

Also won't a loop on the side wall excite either mode depending on orientation?

Would love your feedback.

Shell

garbage wording.
Can you repost a link to your setup please?
I'm a little tired today, don't wanna search...
I think up to a quater wavelength will work like you want without bigger problems.
couple the end of the loop direct to the copper( matching capacitor will also work between loops end and copper).
Dipoles very close to the wall will work also.
Picture:
In general,pace the antenna in one of the positions like in the sketch.
Per your sketch, I believe Yang used the lower right hand port for his loop, closer to the big end.

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Wall, I disagree especially when you say taking life less seriously. This is not the case. I recognize, when you can be critique, but I also recognize, when someone show arogance as Mr. Caroll unfortunately did.

Those people use to fall for this side because they know their status and are sure in their knowledge. So, few insults would not hurt only support my work right? Agorance is easy. True critic trough experiments is hard and time costing. None of you here that go for critic actually did not done any of that, even when I recognize you have knowledge I will never have.

As I said you guys have good critic and you are polite thank you for that, but there is too much experiments already done and none from the "Critic" side. Your knowledge and logic is great, but I really lack some data from you guys.

Edit: Sorry for my English it is really not good.
No worries on the English.

It's no surprise data from critics is short, where is their incentive?  A "believer", if it works out as planned, will be on the ground floor of the greatest breakthrough for a century, or have the opportunity to get some good IP or even a Nobel prize.  The "skeptic", if everything goes as planned for them, will just manage to prove a largely anonymous internet crowd wrong, and will probably be resented for doing so.  The incentives make no sense for a skeptic to actually do any experimenting themselves.

So I suppose in that sense, it is the believers who will have to carry the day after all, as it requires a non zero  belief in the emdrive to bother testing it in the first place.

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
The ability to freely question "established knowledge" is the very core business of what science really is about and what made it progress for centuries into our current world view model(s), no? why else do you still have scientists trying to validate or nullify General Relativity with ever new testing methods?

The moment you're no longer morally allowed to question things that are true, only by appearance, you slip into what i would call "scientific fundamentalism". A dogmatic attitude has never been very productive...

Been reading today that the LHC recently found evidence that questions the need for the super-symmetry theory...Should that have been abandoned also, as it dares to question a general accepted theory (one of many) ?

Every anomaly is worth to be investigated without prejudgement...it is the only way forward...

So many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1001
  • Likes Given: 2195
@Rodal
1.Thanks for verification (picture Tajmar device yesterday @4,556GHz).
My calculation was verry close :)

2. impressing picture of the fractal antennas... like that
But for what is that good in the frustrum? This type of antenna will be use to get large bandwide, for multiband mobilephones for example. We don't need large BW.
What is need is ~constand impedance match in the possible drift BW if a high Q is recommend like discussed before?
 
3.
"3) We also verified that one cannot excite Transverse Electric (TE) modes with a dipole antenna, regardless of orientation or placement in the truncated cone, the mode excited by a dipole antenna is a Transverse Magnetic (TM) mode."

At the center it doesn't work.

I remember that is possible to get TE resonance with a simple dipole:
(rfmwguy posted something similar / plans for his frustrum...)
 It's most simple for TE01p. At this mode there are currents in Phi vector inside the metallic endplate, the strongest at the radius who the besselfunktion is maximal.
Place a dipole at this radius close to the plate, E-field vector in Phi direction(tangetial to the radius).
The result will be the correct mode if the cone has the correct length to catch that eigenfrequence.

Something similar is possible at the sidewall, one have to activate currents in the right direction for the mode in the wall..
of course one need a full 3D model

very interesting posts today too much to read all after long day full of work  :-[

Very nice post X_Ray.  I was thinking of potentially using a 1/10 wave loop (like the square one I posted as it could be modeled) to excite a TE mode center in either center plate. The bandwidth should be around 20-30 mhz. Thoughts?

Also won't a loop on the side wall excite either mode depending on orientation?

Would love your feedback.

Shell

garbage wording.
Can you repost a link to your setup please?
I'm a little tired today, don't wanna search...
I think up to a quater wavelength will work like you want without bigger problems.
couple the end of the loop direct to the copper( matching capacitor will also work between loops end and copper).
Dipoles very close to the wall will work also.
Picture:
In general,pace the antenna in one of the positions like in the sketch.
Per your sketch, I believe Yang used the lower right hand port for his loop, closer to the big end.

Yes, i think so.
I have forgotten yesterday to explain the direction of the loop(s), that's not so clear visible from the sketch.
The density of the field lines is strong in the center of the loop, its just a simple coil...
For good coupling, the orientation of the strong H-field in the loop has to be in the same direction like the corresponding eigenvalue in the same volume of the cavity close to the sidewall.

@aero: If you are able to spend  a little time an you run a simulation please? (dipole orientation, like described yesterday)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
So many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?
It must be floobie-dust flying off in the opposite direction  8)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 10

     An old saying is that, when a scientist says something is impossible, then he is most assuridly wrong.

... a somewhat-oversimplified variant of the original:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws


(memetic drift seems to be unavoidable)  ;)

But it still serves.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 09:19 PM by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
So Tajmar previously NULLIFIED the claims of Prof. Woodward according to this quote ?:

Quote
Martin Tajmar did an independent series of replication experiments on work performed by James Woodward (the ‘Woodward effect’), while working at the Austrian Research Center’s department of electric propulsion physics. While that work produced a null result,

The paper you're talking about:

Buldrini, Nembo; Tajmar, Martin; Marhold, Klaus; Seifert, Bernhard (February 2006). "Experimental Study of the Machian Mass Fluctuation Effect Using a μN Thrust Balance". AIP Conference Proceedings. Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIFF 2006, Albuquerque, New Mexico 813. American Institute of Physics. pp. 1313–1320. doi:10.1063/1.2169316.


Paper attached. Make your own idea about the setup and conclusions.

EDIT: Please be aware that Tajmar tested a particular model of Woodward's MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) called Mach5C which Woodward later completely abandoned in favor of solid-state, piezoelectric PZT discs known as a MET (Mach-Effect Thruster). To date, no MET experiment has been independently replicated.

EDIT2: This paper doesn't provide any insight on real experimental conclusions. It is only a progress report stating "we will do this, record that". Is there a Tajmar paper reporting the actual RESULTS? No other reference from Tajmar about Woodward, other that this one, is referenced in the literature.
If he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.
http://c-flex.com/

These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.

Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.

I dug deeper into that so-called "Tajmar nullification of Woodward's experiment".

The actual results of those experiments were published as the 11th chapter in the book by Millis & Davis on "frontier propulsion:

Millis, Marc G.; Davis, Eric W. (2009). "Frontiers of Propulsion Science", Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (Book 227), AIAA, ISBN 978-1563479564.


But I found the single paper available alone: "Experimental Results of the Woodward Effect on a Micro-Newton Thrust Balance" (paywall).

To summarize, Buldrini & Tajmar tested two Woodward Mach-Lorentz Thrusters (MLTs). With the first model, they recorded a thrust of 2 millinewtons on the very sensitive ARC balance (5 millinewtons predicted by Woodward for the voltage and frequency they used). Worth noting: at higher voltage and frequency not tried by Buldrini & Tajmar, Woodward recorded a thrust up to 50 mN with this device.

For the second model, theoretically better, Buldrini & Tajmar recorded no thrust at first, then a spurious anomalous force with an upgraded version. But I find particularly enlightening the following quote in the paper:
Quote from: Nembo Buldrini
Actually, some electromagnetic field measurements were pursued (with the device operating in air) and a leak in the cable shielding near to the aluminum housing was found: an electric field strength of 2.5 kV/m was detected several centimeters away from the housing, that can perhaps account for the observed effect. The wires were then shielded properly so that a field strength of just 59 V/m was measured. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to date to perform experiments with this last modified version, so we cannot yet confirm the real nature of the effect.

So, Buldrini & Tajmar found a flaw in the electrical system of the second device, but never tested that device with the fix. Oh well. With that information it seems "inconclusive" seems a better word than "nullification".
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 09:25 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1001
  • Likes Given: 2195
@ CEE
TE11p coupling Tajmar

waveguide is visible at the b-side
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 09:37 PM by X_RaY »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
So Tajmar previously NULLIFIED the claims of Prof. Woodward according to this quote ?:

Quote
Martin Tajmar did an independent series of replication experiments on work performed by James Woodward (the ‘Woodward effect’), while working at the Austrian Research Center’s department of electric propulsion physics. While that work produced a null result,

The paper you're talking about:

Buldrini, Nembo; Tajmar, Martin; Marhold, Klaus; Seifert, Bernhard (February 2006). "Experimental Study of the Machian Mass Fluctuation Effect Using a μN Thrust Balance". AIP Conference Proceedings. Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIFF 2006, Albuquerque, New Mexico 813. American Institute of Physics. pp. 1313–1320. doi:10.1063/1.2169316.


Paper attached. Make your own idea about the setup and conclusions.

EDIT: Please be aware that Tajmar tested a particular model of Woodward's MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) called Mach5C which Woodward later completely abandoned in favor of solid-state, piezoelectric PZT discs known as a MET (Mach-Effect Thruster). To date, no MET experiment has been independently replicated.

EDIT2: This paper doesn't provide any insight on real experimental conclusions. It is only a progress report stating "we will do this, record that". Is there a Tajmar paper reporting the actual RESULTS? No other reference from Tajmar about Woodward, other that this one, is referenced in the literature.
If he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.
http://c-flex.com/

These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.

Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.

I dug deeper into that so-called "Tajmar nullification of Woodward's experiment".

The actual results of those experiments were published as the 11th chapter in the book by Millis & Davis on "frontier propulsion:

Millis, Marc G.; Davis, Eric W. (2009). "Frontiers of Propulsion Science", Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (Book 227), AIAA, ISBN 978-1563479564.


But I found the single paper available alone: "Experimental Results of the Woodward Effect on a Micro-Newton Thrust Balance" (paywall).

To summarize, Buldrini & Tajmar tested two Woodward Mach-Lorentz Thrusters (MLTs). With the first model, they recorded a thrust of 2 millinewtons on the very sensitive ARC balance (5 millinewtons predicted by Woodward for the voltage and frequency they used). Worth noting: at higher voltage and frequency not tried by Buldrini & Tajmar, Woodward recorded a thrust up to 50 mN with this device.

For the second model, theoretically better, Buldrini & Tajmar recorded no thrust at first, then a spurious anomalous force with an upgraded version. But I find particularly enlightening the following quote in the paper:
Quote from: Nembo Buldrini
Actually, some electromagnetic field measurements were pursued (with the device operating in air) and a leak in the cable shielding near to the aluminum housing was found: an electric field strength of 2.5 kV/m was detected several centimeters away from the housing, that can perhaps account for the observed effect. The wires were then shielded properly so that a field strength of just 59 V/m was measured. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to date to perform experiments with this last modified version, so we cannot yet confirm the real nature of the effect.

So, Buldrini & Tajmar found a flaw in the electrical system of the second device, but never tested that device with the fix. Oh well. With that information it seems "inconclusive" seems a better word than "nullification".
I agree. They certainly did not disprove The Woodward Effect.

In any case it's a moving target. Woodward now insists that the test masses undergo acceleration - he called it "the [Nembo Buldrini's] bulk acceleration conjecture" originally, but it has now been elevated to the status of Official Theory. Which means that testing an MLT, which has no moving parts, is not supposed to work anyway!

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
I agree. They certainly did not disprove The Woodward Effect.

In any case it's a moving target. Woodward now insists that the test masses undergo acceleration - he called it "the [Nembo Buldrini's] bulk acceleration conjecture" originally, but it has now been elevated to the status of Official Theory. Which means that testing an MLT, which has no moving parts, is not supposed to work anyway!
I agree too on that. However, some ions are moving within the capacitor dielectric lattice. We just don't know if this ionic movement is enough, or if Woodward is right that the whole mass needs "bulk acceleration".

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
GOOD NEWS! As seen on http://cannae.com/updates:

JULY 23, 2015
Cannae has moved into a new headquarters and laboratory. We are installing our vacuum chamber and superconducting test laboratory which will be operational in August 2015. We will be testing next-generation prototypes of the Cannae Drive technology in September 2015. Stay tuned!


Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
For those who may not know:
The good news about Cannae: They have by far the best Newtons/Watt performance of anybody
The bad news about Cannae: They measure about the same amount of "thrust" with a dummy device.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
For those who may not know:
The good news about Cannae: They have by far the best Newtons/Watt performance of anybody
The bad news about Cannae: They measure about the same amount of "thrust" with a dummy device.

AhAh ;) don't forget there was a dielectric within the two versions of Cannae drives (the slotted thruster and the unslotted "null" one) and that may be the reason why Eagleworks detected a thrust (at very low power and not in a superconducting version) in both of them!
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 10:14 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1671
If I am to presume that I can get thrust out of this thing by exciting modes in the microwave band, I'm forced to assume the same thing could happen in the infrared band.

In that case the residual heat could be stimulating the EM drive effect (assuming it exists, or course) :)
That's assuming an infrared reflector is in place in the apparatus. I don't think so.

People made mirrors out of copper 1800 years ago....

I agree with LasJayhawk.  IR is another important area that at some point needs to be resolved one way or another.  (And boy wouldn't it be ironic if the main role played by microwaves was to generate IR!!)

So as it turns out, Cu metal is a very good reflector of IR.  Unfortunately, I could not find a nice simple chart for copper oxide which is the more likely case folks will be dealing with except for those like TheTraveller with finished surfaces in N2.

Edit: Clarification.

The following images are from:  http://www.kruschwitz.com/HR's.htm#Bare%20Metal
« Last Edit: 07/29/2015 11:15 PM by demofsky »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
...
The moment you're no longer morally allowed to question things that are true, only by appearance, you slip into what i would call "scientific fundamentalism". A dogmatic attitude has never been very productive...
...

As long as Sean Carroll is not trying to forbid or even impede discussions or experiments on EMdrive the term fundamentalism seems a bit exaggerated. Fundamentalism kills those days, you know, as in the past. He is just stating an opinion, as an expert in evaluation of crazy ideas of how stuff works at a basic level, he must see thousands a year. In not so diplomatic terms all right, but he is not talking to kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist (even if he is still working on the Grinch).

Talking of productivity, what was the productivity in terms of confirmed effects/knowledge originating from the fringe science scene lately, compared to the productivity of research starting from speculative but academic subjects ? Who is to designate what is fringe if not the academics ? Who's faults if practically all fringe claims go nowhere, dogmatic academics or not so fun physical reality ?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8266
  • UK
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 168

So many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?
It must be floobie-dust flying off in the opposite direction  8)

Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275

So many people talk about the violation of CoM and CoE with the EMdrive. But is that really the case? Maybe it does not brake CoM, as some populists let us to believe , but we simply have not yet figured it out how CoM is conserved all together?
It must be floobie-dust flying off in the opposite direction  8)

Maybe trying giving a sensible answer to a legitimate question.
Maybe try[sic] getting a sense of humour  8)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
...
The moment you're no longer morally allowed to question things that are true, only by appearance, you slip into what i would call "scientific fundamentalism". A dogmatic attitude has never been very productive...
...

As long as Sean Carroll is not trying to forbid or even impede discussions or experiments on EMdrive the term fundamentalism seems a bit exaggerated. Fundamentalism kills those days, you know, as in the past. He is just stating an opinion, as an expert in evaluation of crazy ideas of how stuff works at a basic level, he must see thousands a year. In not so diplomatic terms all right, but he is not talking to kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist (even if he is still working on the Grinch).

Talking of productivity, what was the productivity in terms of confirmed effects/knowledge originating from the fringe science scene lately, compared to the productivity of research starting from speculative but academic subjects ? Who is to designate what is fringe if not the academics ? Who's faults if practically all fringe claims go nowhere, dogmatic academics or not so fun physical reality ?
One thing curious about this author/blogger/professor is he appears to embrace the invisible...dark matter. this was fringe not long ago, and may have something to do with the anomaly. So far, theory is dark matter exists but can only be measured indirectly when enough of it exists in clumps. but suppose certain modes and frequencies of em have a very small effect on it, repulsive or attractive. Your triple phd would never know because dark matter is, well, unable to be measured directly. Keep all options on the table outside of com coe violations of course ;)

Ps to dm...is dark matter floobie dust?

Tags: