Quote from: meberbs on 12/03/2016 01:37 amARW, since you are new to posting in this forum, I do not know how much of the history of these threads you have gone through, but assuming it is not much there is some context you should be aware of. The Traveller has given you a lot of advice and much of it is good, but many of the things he says have nothing to back them up. For example, in the post quoted below he dismisses the actual, high quality experiments by EW as "not representative of reality". He instead quotes figures from Shawyer, when no other emDrive builder has gotten results close to Shawyer's, and Shawyers results are suspect due to insufficient data released for replication, known issues with the data that has been released, and the fact that Shawyer has demonstrated an inability to do a simple force balance.Some of what TheTraveller posts is based on sound RF engineering, but other things are rules of thumb he got from Shawyer, when there is no evidence Shawyer has actually done the types of tests that would be required to determine them.TT will inevitably respond to this saying to not listen to me, because I'm not a builder and therefore I don't know anything. My goal is just to give you context not advice. (If I did give advice it would largely mirror PotomacNeuron's advice above for minimizing error sources) As some additional context, TT's experience with building an emDrive is building a single one, which he has only provided hand sketches of and not a single picture. His explanation involves his RF equipment burning out during testing (a common occurrence here due to the nature of these experiments), but I still haven't figured out how that prevents him from taking a picture of the frustum. He supposedly is working on his second one now.Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/02/2016 05:01 pmPlease review the attached document. I doubt that your cavity will have E field above 50Mv/m. More likely a lot lower. Max E field increases as the sqrt of the incressed power. So increase pwr 9x, E field increases 3x and H field increases 3x.Why do you want to use 10kW? 100W should be fine. Please don't take the NASA 1.2mN/kW as being representative. SPR'S Flight Thruster at 326mN/kW is closer to reality and that was with spherical end plates and a Q of 60,000.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlI don't currently have that frustum. It was a quick build, was gravity stacked & didn't have flanges on the side wall. It was sent to my S band thruster fabricators to have flanges put on and to be machined so the end plates are parallel and orthanagal to the Z axis.Plus I was very sick recovering from the after effects of 5 hours of cancerous prostate removal, then 40 days of radiation treatment as attached. Dark area is cancerous tissue removed and the white line are where the radiation was applied. Plus several visits to hospital to deal with a superbug infection & cancer related bowel shortening. Currently undergoing further cancer treatment with dual hormonal & chemo treatment as the cancer came back. The result of all that took many, many months in bed and not working in my workshop. This is not new to NSF. Have reported it before. Do have 5 professionally fabricated thrusters and 4 Rf amps due to ship this month. $60k worth of gear.Have promised my wife & family to not engage with them until my current treatment is completed and New Year is well over. My next experimental programs will be extensively documented, with a YouTube channel any can watch.If I don't make it, all my frustums, test rigs, amps, freq trackers, etc go to Paul March. Is in my Will.BTW I've built several frustums. The Rf amp didn't burn out. The variable attenuator failed to deliver an output signal.
ARW, since you are new to posting in this forum, I do not know how much of the history of these threads you have gone through, but assuming it is not much there is some context you should be aware of. The Traveller has given you a lot of advice and much of it is good, but many of the things he says have nothing to back them up. For example, in the post quoted below he dismisses the actual, high quality experiments by EW as "not representative of reality". He instead quotes figures from Shawyer, when no other emDrive builder has gotten results close to Shawyer's, and Shawyers results are suspect due to insufficient data released for replication, known issues with the data that has been released, and the fact that Shawyer has demonstrated an inability to do a simple force balance.Some of what TheTraveller posts is based on sound RF engineering, but other things are rules of thumb he got from Shawyer, when there is no evidence Shawyer has actually done the types of tests that would be required to determine them.TT will inevitably respond to this saying to not listen to me, because I'm not a builder and therefore I don't know anything. My goal is just to give you context not advice. (If I did give advice it would largely mirror PotomacNeuron's advice above for minimizing error sources) As some additional context, TT's experience with building an emDrive is building a single one, which he has only provided hand sketches of and not a single picture. His explanation involves his RF equipment burning out during testing (a common occurrence here due to the nature of these experiments), but I still haven't figured out how that prevents him from taking a picture of the frustum. He supposedly is working on his second one now.Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/02/2016 05:01 pmPlease review the attached document. I doubt that your cavity will have E field above 50Mv/m. More likely a lot lower. Max E field increases as the sqrt of the incressed power. So increase pwr 9x, E field increases 3x and H field increases 3x.Why do you want to use 10kW? 100W should be fine. Please don't take the NASA 1.2mN/kW as being representative. SPR'S Flight Thruster at 326mN/kW is closer to reality and that was with spherical end plates and a Q of 60,000.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Please review the attached document. I doubt that your cavity will have E field above 50Mv/m. More likely a lot lower. Max E field increases as the sqrt of the incressed power. So increase pwr 9x, E field increases 3x and H field increases 3x.Why do you want to use 10kW? 100W should be fine. Please don't take the NASA 1.2mN/kW as being representative. SPR'S Flight Thruster at 326mN/kW is closer to reality and that was with spherical end plates and a Q of 60,000.http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
"4 meter long photons" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202074852.htm
Quote from: M.LeBel on 12/03/2016 03:31 amThe uncertainty principle; revisited?First off, position and velocity (for momentum) are two contradictory aspects. Movement is a blur on position. But the problem is not there.Consider an oil tanker coming into harbor. We can determine its position by GPS to the centimeter precision. But, the oil tanker is 500 meters long and, it is “all tanker” from one end to the other. See me coming? The precision on the position of the oil tanker can NEVER be more precise than the actual size of the tanker! This is what you get when you work with “point” like particles without considering that things that exist must have an actual size. Furthermore, the wake, or the Broglie associated wave is an integral part of the moving particle making its operational size bigger than the actual particle. The moving particle is somewhere inside its associated wave... Associated wave ....Wass that? The particle replaces by logical substitution some of the local (explosive) time process, which creates a local explosive deficit of the time process, i.e. a slower time field a.k.a. its gravitational field. The gravitational field is the signature of the existence of the particle. What is existence? Anything that somehow-anyhow makes a difference... exists! So, the particle exists via this time process substitution, a difference. When the particle moves, the signature of its existence is distorted. How far the distortion goes (wavelength) depends on the velocity of the particle. (all absolute velocities wrt c). A slow particle allows more time (at c) for the change in signature to travel; equals a long De Broglie wavelength. A very fast particle gives little time for the change in signature to travel away; equal a short De Broglie wavelength. Very near c, no more change in signature may travel away and/and make a difference. Then, no more change in signature can happen as well. In summary, existence is about making a difference, somehow. Near c, no more change in signature difference may travel away. Therefore, no more change is possible. IMO, at this point, the time process substitution is maximum and so is its relative mass.... Now, because this existence is about replacing a dynamical process, “to exist” is also a dynamical process, not a steady state. In other words, how long an object stays in one place, the “time of residence”, determines how far away its gravitational signature will travel. The time of residence is inversely proportional to velocity.. This is also to be considered in macroscopic situations.... like planets.Consider the probability of finding a planet anywhere on its complete orbit around the Sun. (Assuming here a closed loop, not a slinky..) The integrated probability of finding a planet somewhere on its complete orbit within a complete period is equal to 1; it is there, somewhere. But, the “time of residence” is not the same in all parts of the orbit as the planet speeds up or slows down in various places of the orbit. From a large distance, the influence of its existence is blurred accordingly and would appear to be (averaged out) at the long foci. IMO, Keppler’s first law is about the computation of the relative existence (time of residence) of the celestial body along its orbit. Now, I believe, IMO, that one day we will teach in say, 7th grade, how logical and simple the universe DOES what it does by itself. If one want to DO something WITH the universe in our reality, he will get 12th grade physics and later, engineering. Sounds to me like, this emDrive adventure is like a 12th grade project without the 7th grade knowledge.... (headaches anyone )Food for thoughtsome of these things like the fact than an electron is not actually a point particle are only recently experimentally observed/verified. I digress...Most if not all of the EM drive DIYers *here* are certainly not lacking in education.
The uncertainty principle; revisited?First off, position and velocity (for momentum) are two contradictory aspects. Movement is a blur on position. But the problem is not there.Consider an oil tanker coming into harbor. We can determine its position by GPS to the centimeter precision. But, the oil tanker is 500 meters long and, it is “all tanker” from one end to the other. See me coming? The precision on the position of the oil tanker can NEVER be more precise than the actual size of the tanker! This is what you get when you work with “point” like particles without considering that things that exist must have an actual size. Furthermore, the wake, or the Broglie associated wave is an integral part of the moving particle making its operational size bigger than the actual particle. The moving particle is somewhere inside its associated wave... Associated wave ....Wass that? The particle replaces by logical substitution some of the local (explosive) time process, which creates a local explosive deficit of the time process, i.e. a slower time field a.k.a. its gravitational field. The gravitational field is the signature of the existence of the particle. What is existence? Anything that somehow-anyhow makes a difference... exists! So, the particle exists via this time process substitution, a difference. When the particle moves, the signature of its existence is distorted. How far the distortion goes (wavelength) depends on the velocity of the particle. (all absolute velocities wrt c). A slow particle allows more time (at c) for the change in signature to travel; equals a long De Broglie wavelength. A very fast particle gives little time for the change in signature to travel away; equal a short De Broglie wavelength. Very near c, no more change in signature may travel away and/and make a difference. Then, no more change in signature can happen as well. In summary, existence is about making a difference, somehow. Near c, no more change in signature difference may travel away. Therefore, no more change is possible. IMO, at this point, the time process substitution is maximum and so is its relative mass.... Now, because this existence is about replacing a dynamical process, “to exist” is also a dynamical process, not a steady state. In other words, how long an object stays in one place, the “time of residence”, determines how far away its gravitational signature will travel. The time of residence is inversely proportional to velocity.. This is also to be considered in macroscopic situations.... like planets.Consider the probability of finding a planet anywhere on its complete orbit around the Sun. (Assuming here a closed loop, not a slinky..) The integrated probability of finding a planet somewhere on its complete orbit within a complete period is equal to 1; it is there, somewhere. But, the “time of residence” is not the same in all parts of the orbit as the planet speeds up or slows down in various places of the orbit. From a large distance, the influence of its existence is blurred accordingly and would appear to be (averaged out) at the long foci. IMO, Keppler’s first law is about the computation of the relative existence (time of residence) of the celestial body along its orbit. Now, I believe, IMO, that one day we will teach in say, 7th grade, how logical and simple the universe DOES what it does by itself. If one want to DO something WITH the universe in our reality, he will get 12th grade physics and later, engineering. Sounds to me like, this emDrive adventure is like a 12th grade project without the 7th grade knowledge.... (headaches anyone )Food for thought
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 12/03/2016 04:30 pmQuote from: aero on 12/03/2016 03:29 pmAs for why EW would do this, it is explained in their paper - EW was looking to verify that a thrust exists and so were satisfied with a mode that they could well control, while TheTraveler and SPR are beyond the point of existence and are looking for increased thrust. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.)You're right, but strong critics of the Eagleworks peer-reviewed paper focus on the fact the very tiny anomalous force recorded is inferior to the thermal signature, which leads to a method trying to separate the real anomalous force from the normal thermal force. An anomalous force well above thermal would have not triggered such criticism.Concerning your prior post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1613822#msg1613822I am periodically updating drafts of my article on Mach Effect Propulsion, a chapter in the proceedings of the 2016 Advanced Propulsion Workshop at Estes Park Colorado, to be published in the near future.If you like, you can download my report from here:https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mach-effect-propulsionBest regards
Quote from: aero on 12/03/2016 03:29 pmAs for why EW would do this, it is explained in their paper - EW was looking to verify that a thrust exists and so were satisfied with a mode that they could well control, while TheTraveler and SPR are beyond the point of existence and are looking for increased thrust. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.)You're right, but strong critics of the Eagleworks peer-reviewed paper focus on the fact the very tiny anomalous force recorded is inferior to the thermal signature, which leads to a method trying to separate the real anomalous force from the normal thermal force. An anomalous force well above thermal would have not triggered such criticism.
As for why EW would do this, it is explained in their paper - EW was looking to verify that a thrust exists and so were satisfied with a mode that they could well control, while TheTraveler and SPR are beyond the point of existence and are looking for increased thrust. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.)
Quote from: ARW on 12/02/2016 03:50 pmThank you for your feedback. Over the weekend we will be having few meetings to discuss and finalize all the details so I could start working on getting necessary equipment. Feel free to add any other remarks.Another question I have is how to proceed with end plates, is there a need for any kind of seal or simply bolt 2 pieces together? Also could you recommend RF generator to match my design vision of up to 10kw.Dude has a vision and good money to spend to crank 10kw into a frustrum, and everyone is saying 100w is better. I for one really want to see what happens! Surely if that's a narrow band source then it's a very useful set of data? Especially if it's adjustable, so it can be measured at 100w, 1kw, 10kw. Maybe that's where the signal really leaves the noise.
Thank you for your feedback. Over the weekend we will be having few meetings to discuss and finalize all the details so I could start working on getting necessary equipment. Feel free to add any other remarks.Another question I have is how to proceed with end plates, is there a need for any kind of seal or simply bolt 2 pieces together? Also could you recommend RF generator to match my design vision of up to 10kw.
Went through my notes and created a spreadsheet of the result as attached. Was very careful to make each measurement sequence procedure as identical as the others. Did quite some practice to get the process to work well.I can't explain the difference between up and down weight changes. Roger also measured the same effect.Please note that each test run was hand tuned to the lowest reflected power. Test setup was very KISS as attached.I know all you guys are going to beat me up as no photos but I was in the heat of the measurements and I didn't have my phone handy. BTW my phone is a Samsung Note 10.1, so it doesn't fit in my pocket and I don't normally carry it with me.Then the Rf amp died and I was sucked back into hospital so it all stopped.Will not happen the next time. Will be heaps of videos and pics.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/03/2016 04:44 amI can't explain the difference between up and down weight changes. Roger also measured the same effect.Surprisingly you recorded a greater force downwards, yet heated uprise airflow and thermal buoyancy (if thermal effects sufficiently present, maybe they were quite low in your tests) should have added to the upwards force. Moreover Shawyer had the same stronger force downwards than upwards?! Weird. Glad to see more tests are coming because you need to quantify EMI with the electronic scale as well as any electrostatic, magnetic, Lorentz and thermal effects on the cables attached to the frustum.
I can't explain the difference between up and down weight changes. Roger also measured the same effect.
Any thoughts or comments on this cheap experiment would be helpful. Thank you.
Quote from: WarpTech on 12/03/2016 06:39 pmAny thoughts or comments on this cheap experiment would be helpful. Thank you.I think you have likened this previously to "ringing a bell," but there are some key differences, which is why I don't think this will work the way you are thinking.When you ring a bell, you transfer energy to it by hitting it, but then you pull the hammer back, so the energy is trapped in the bell. Also, generally the hit is much faster than the frequencies you are trying to excite.For your setup, a 1 ns pulse corresponds to a 1 GHz primary frequency, and some additional higher order frequencies depending on what actual rise/fall times you can achieve. Also, I would expect most of the energy to simply be reflected back due to mismatched frequency.I have some concerns about the potential to do bad things to the power supply when most of the energy feeds back into the battery, but I'll let someone with experience working with spark gaps determine if that is a real concern.
"4 meter long photons" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202074852.htmsynopsis: the "shape" of a photon and the shape of the matter it interacts with determines whether it will be absorbed or not. Com'on; it's related to what we are discussing here... you know it is how photons interact with matter and that photons and their interactions can be even weirder than we knew.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 12/03/2016 12:48 pm"4 meter long photons" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202074852.htmsynopsis: the "shape" of a photon and the shape of the matter it interacts with determines whether it will be absorbed or not. Com'on; it's related to what we are discussing here... you know it is how photons interact with matter and that photons and their interactions can be even weirder than we knew.The researchers found that if the photon arrived dimly, from the atom's point of view, then ended brightly, the peak probability of excitation was just over 50% higher than when the photon arrived bright and had a long, fading tail.So there's an asymmetry in excitation. Is it possible to build a device where one side preferentially absorbs and another side preferentially reflects photons of a standing wave? You'd get a net thrust in the direction towards absorption. Until we can figure out the mechanism of the asymmetry, you'd have an apparent CoM violation.. but basically you are getting the difference between the force of absorption and reflection of a light sail, times Q.Alas, the article didn't detail the mechanism behind the asymmetry.Sounds kinda familiar. Add this one to the list of theories?
IAC, Adelaide, Australia, Sept, 2017Hi Guys,I'm very seriously considering setting up an exhibit booth, so to demo my non cryo S band thruster happily spinning and accelerating on a rotary test rig during the conference.Will any of you guys be going and/or will any of you have a product in the market by then?All the best,Philof course assuming my health will support that plan
Paul March was kind enough to invite me to tour the NASA Eagleworks lab as I was passing through Houston in September to visit family. I agreed at the time to delay posting about the tour until the AIAA paper had been released since I was given free reign to look around and take pictures. The visit to Eagleworks and touring the lab and meeting Paul was the highlight of my Texas trip. Thanks to Paul for taking three hours of his time and showing me around. Here are a few of my favorite pictures.
The visit to Eagleworks and touring the lab and meeting Paul was the highlight of my Texas trip. Thanks to Paul for taking three hours of his time and showing me around. Here are a few of my favorite pictures.
"Potential Energy" ...: “energy” is a nice paper concept for sentient beings. Alone, it means nothing in this universe. ...
Quote from: Peter Lauwer on 12/03/2016 10:08 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 12/03/2016 09:48 amI did tests in 4 locations and rotated the thin & flexible 0.5m coax in different orientations to Earth's mag field. Even so no way can a 0.5m long coax with 100W of 2.45GHz can generate any significant Lorentz force to alter the frustums weight.I was thinking more of mechanical forces. I guess the dielectric inside the cable heats up with supply of 100 W.Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/03/2016 09:48 amAlso consider that when the frustum was reversed on the scale and nothing else changed, other than the weigh gain changed to weight loss.That certainly is a good point. Well... the angle of the cable must have been changed (acc to your drawing).When the frustum was flipped / reversed / rotated 180 deg, the height and alignment of the Rf amp and frustum SMA connectors were adjusted so they were level, pointing at each other and the same distance apart. Which is what it says on the drawing.While the cable may stiffen, never noticed that happening, there is a 2cm dip in the centre of the cable. Any expansion of the cable is not going to at one time generate a 0.9g down force and then generate a 0.7g up force when the frustum is flipped.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/03/2016 09:48 amI did tests in 4 locations and rotated the thin & flexible 0.5m coax in different orientations to Earth's mag field. Even so no way can a 0.5m long coax with 100W of 2.45GHz can generate any significant Lorentz force to alter the frustums weight.I was thinking more of mechanical forces. I guess the dielectric inside the cable heats up with supply of 100 W.Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/03/2016 09:48 amAlso consider that when the frustum was reversed on the scale and nothing else changed, other than the weigh gain changed to weight loss.That certainly is a good point. Well... the angle of the cable must have been changed (acc to your drawing).
I did tests in 4 locations and rotated the thin & flexible 0.5m coax in different orientations to Earth's mag field. Even so no way can a 0.5m long coax with 100W of 2.45GHz can generate any significant Lorentz force to alter the frustums weight.
Also consider that when the frustum was reversed on the scale and nothing else changed, other than the weigh gain changed to weight loss.
From what I know, the EW frustum's antenna was designed to excite TM modes strongly. As such, I don't believe it is a good design to excite TE modes. My antenna is very different.