Ok, would 3Mn worth of 'thrust' be in the ballpark range for the 'Not-so-sure-of-it' hypothesis?
Another concern about Yang's latest test series.What was the size and dimensions of the frustum? I am remembering Doctor Rodal's occasional past comments that 'bigger is better' (paraphrase) when it comes to 'thrust.' Are dimensions given anywhere in the paper that can be checked against the various spreadsheets?
Quote from: rfmwguy on 05/01/2016 08:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:21 pmSo, if I am following this correctly, then...Yang's results nullify any thrust from her devices greater than 3Mn - roughly on a par with other experiments.The thrust *might* even be less than that, given the margin of uncertainty. That margin might also allow for *slightly* larger results. Is that a fair assessment? Seeking clarity here. But assuming 3Mn worth of thrust, give or take, is being produced somehow, then...1 - does the EM Drive still stand in serious violation of CoE and CoM if the self contained version can produce 3Mn worth of thrust in a vacuum? 2 - Would 3Mn worth of thrust be useful for spacecraft?You have it basically. They moved from balance to torsion whose low end was 3mN. Don't think anything was measured, meaning it was nothing or below measurement threshold. 3 mN would be useful for spaceflight if it was this...all we know from her paper is it was below threshold of test stand and at around 275 watts of power. This was reported to be identical device tested originally. Coe and com are still unresolved. Dresden univ is offering phd project on emdrive, they will be moving forward as well.I think I am responsible to clarify that I did not read from the paper that "This was reported to be identical device tested originally". It is only that in the new paper, they tested two settings, that power was on board and that power was supplied from outside. The device was identical in these two settings. It was not mentioned whether the device was the same as 2008 (and I think not; because in 2008 paper they used magnetron and in 2016 paper they used solid state...)
Quote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:21 pmSo, if I am following this correctly, then...Yang's results nullify any thrust from her devices greater than 3Mn - roughly on a par with other experiments.The thrust *might* even be less than that, given the margin of uncertainty. That margin might also allow for *slightly* larger results. Is that a fair assessment? Seeking clarity here. But assuming 3Mn worth of thrust, give or take, is being produced somehow, then...1 - does the EM Drive still stand in serious violation of CoE and CoM if the self contained version can produce 3Mn worth of thrust in a vacuum? 2 - Would 3Mn worth of thrust be useful for spacecraft?You have it basically. They moved from balance to torsion whose low end was 3mN. Don't think anything was measured, meaning it was nothing or below measurement threshold. 3 mN would be useful for spaceflight if it was this...all we know from her paper is it was below threshold of test stand and at around 275 watts of power. This was reported to be identical device tested originally. Coe and com are still unresolved. Dresden univ is offering phd project on emdrive, they will be moving forward as well.
So, if I am following this correctly, then...Yang's results nullify any thrust from her devices greater than 3Mn - roughly on a par with other experiments.The thrust *might* even be less than that, given the margin of uncertainty. That margin might also allow for *slightly* larger results. Is that a fair assessment? Seeking clarity here. But assuming 3Mn worth of thrust, give or take, is being produced somehow, then...1 - does the EM Drive still stand in serious violation of CoE and CoM if the self contained version can produce 3Mn worth of thrust in a vacuum? 2 - Would 3Mn worth of thrust be useful for spacecraft?
Quote from: Tellmeagain on 05/01/2016 09:06 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 05/01/2016 08:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:21 pmSo, if I am following this correctly, then...Yang's results nullify any thrust from her devices greater than 3Mn - roughly on a par with other experiments.The thrust *might* even be less than that, given the margin of uncertainty. That margin might also allow for *slightly* larger results. Is that a fair assessment? Seeking clarity here. But assuming 3Mn worth of thrust, give or take, is being produced somehow, then...1 - does the EM Drive still stand in serious violation of CoE and CoM if the self contained version can produce 3Mn worth of thrust in a vacuum? 2 - Would 3Mn worth of thrust be useful for spacecraft?You have it basically. They moved from balance to torsion whose low end was 3mN. Don't think anything was measured, meaning it was nothing or below measurement threshold. 3 mN would be useful for spaceflight if it was this...all we know from her paper is it was below threshold of test stand and at around 275 watts of power. This was reported to be identical device tested originally. Coe and com are still unresolved. Dresden univ is offering phd project on emdrive, they will be moving forward as well.I think I am responsible to clarify that I did not read from the paper that "This was reported to be identical device tested originally". It is only that in the new paper, they tested two settings, that power was on board and that power was supplied from outside. The device was identical in these two settings. It was not mentioned whether the device was the same as 2008 (and I think not; because in 2008 paper they used magnetron and in 2016 paper they used solid state...)They had never used solid state！
Quote from: oyzw on 05/02/2016 03:10 amQuote from: Tellmeagain on 05/01/2016 09:06 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 05/01/2016 08:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:21 pmSo, if I am following this correctly, then...Yang's results nullify any thrust from her devices greater than 3Mn - roughly on a par with other experiments.The thrust *might* even be less than that, given the margin of uncertainty. That margin might also allow for *slightly* larger results. Is that a fair assessment? Seeking clarity here. But assuming 3Mn worth of thrust, give or take, is being produced somehow, then...1 - does the EM Drive still stand in serious violation of CoE and CoM if the self contained version can produce 3Mn worth of thrust in a vacuum? 2 - Would 3Mn worth of thrust be useful for spacecraft?You have it basically. They moved from balance to torsion whose low end was 3mN. Don't think anything was measured, meaning it was nothing or below measurement threshold. 3 mN would be useful for spaceflight if it was this...all we know from her paper is it was below threshold of test stand and at around 275 watts of power. This was reported to be identical device tested originally. Coe and com are still unresolved. Dresden univ is offering phd project on emdrive, they will be moving forward as well.I think I am responsible to clarify that I did not read from the paper that "This was reported to be identical device tested originally". It is only that in the new paper, they tested two settings, that power was on board and that power was supplied from outside. The device was identical in these two settings. It was not mentioned whether the device was the same as 2008 (and I think not; because in 2008 paper they used magnetron and in 2016 paper they used solid state...)They had never used solid state！Yes they used solid state microwave source. On page 363, I underlined in red, "固态微波源" == solid state microwave source; "信号源" == signal source; "放大器" == amplifier
Quote from: ThinkerX on 05/02/2016 01:55 amAnother concern about Yang's latest test series.What was the size and dimensions of the frustum? I am remembering Doctor Rodal's occasional past comments that 'bigger is better' (paraphrase) when it comes to 'thrust.' Are dimensions given anywhere in the paper that can be checked against the various spreadsheets?It was not mentioned at all... It seems the focus of this paper was the measure system. Only 2 pages out of 9 were used to talk about the measurement of the microwave thruster.
Dear NSF forum:Just to stick my oar in briefly: this is just to point out that the new Chinese data are consistent with MiHsC. Assuming these values: P=220W, Q=1531 (as in your wiki table) and cavity dimensions as before, MiHsC predicts 0.28 mN of thrust. Their sensitivity was quoted as 3 mN so this is below detection threshold.Regards, Mike
Professor Yang has no negative 2008 experimental conclusion, but exclude external interference factors, also did not deny the objectivity of thrust to produce, but rather clear existing measuring conditions within the scope of uncertainty from the thruster in itself
I do not understand so much optimism (from critics) here after the chinese new negative results....
I do not understand so much optimism (from critics) ...I at least hope they will end with their harsh language towards the people that try...
I do not understand so much optimism (from critics) here after the chinese new negative results. It means that we will be still using ancient technology of combustion to get to the space....
we will be still using ancient technology of combustion to get to the space
Did Yang accounted for the change of mass hence inertia when removing or adding the power supply within the test apparatus? I mean: 1- Does including the power supply onto the torsion pendulum decrease its sensitivity due to the fact that the mass of the system is increased? And:2- Has a "dummy mass" of the same weight as the power supply + wires been added to the torsion pendulum when the power supply was external?
