Quote from: rfmwguy on 12/18/2015 12:13 amUnless someone demonstrates or points out a potential error source that approaches a triple-digit micronewton level, I will not chase those phantoms. Lorentz force in the horizontal axis falls into this category as does thermal plume turbulence (fluid analysis), imho. Show me a non-jet down force test result or example and I may take that off of my phantom list. There were no jets identified on the top plate emanating from the mag per my thermal scans, nor was there uneven heating of any of the outer surfaces; a clear sign of air jets.So, statistics are most straight-forward way to analyze beam displacement variances between mag on and mag off cycles. No other error source hypothesis approaches the force level needed to interrupt the thermal lift track; Lorentz, air jets, plume turbulence, thermal expansion, etc., etc.If anyone has other ideas...I'm all ears and will test for them if funding allows next year.Well I had thought that the transformer hum might have vibrated the hot air trapped in the heat sink chamber, causing more of it to spill out, reducing lift. Would think that this would have shown up clearly on the thermal camera though. Best was I can think of to test for this would be simply proceeding as planned. If you remove the magnetron from the top of the thing and it goes down more with higher Q . . . well that's interesting.I think the big problem with mangetrons are that their outputs can take a random walk. Sometimes you get very little in resonance and sometimes you get more. Statistics would seem to be an excellent way of dealing with an rf source given to random walks.
Unless someone demonstrates or points out a potential error source that approaches a triple-digit micronewton level, I will not chase those phantoms. Lorentz force in the horizontal axis falls into this category as does thermal plume turbulence (fluid analysis), imho. Show me a non-jet down force test result or example and I may take that off of my phantom list. There were no jets identified on the top plate emanating from the mag per my thermal scans, nor was there uneven heating of any of the outer surfaces; a clear sign of air jets.So, statistics are most straight-forward way to analyze beam displacement variances between mag on and mag off cycles. No other error source hypothesis approaches the force level needed to interrupt the thermal lift track; Lorentz, air jets, plume turbulence, thermal expansion, etc., etc.If anyone has other ideas...I'm all ears and will test for them if funding allows next year.
I don't believe gyroscopic precession can be used to explain Shawyer's video. The pump is not spinning fast enough for gyroscopic effects. But just having a motor mounted with its shaft parallel to the rotational axis of the apparatus is enough to start it rotating. Several years ago I mounted a motor on a rotating table. When the motor was spun up the table rotated. When the motor was switched off the table rotated back to its original position. We don't now enough about Shawyers apparatus to be able to analyze what is happening. That's why the focus has been on DIY experiments.
Except therm vids show little heating below mag
Quote from: rfmwguy on 12/18/2015 05:31 pmExcept therm vids show little heating below magOne thing that's important that I didn't do the first time in my post testing prior to a full scale run was monitor the spectrum of the magnetron with my Spectrum Analyzer. It can show when the magnetron powers on, reaches lock or not and even shifting out of lock during a run. I will be doing so in the next tests because that time stamp data can be used to overlay any thrust or lack of thrust data from the digital acceleration or digital force profiles.Shell
It is explained by thermal convection on a plate that is heated above the plate (by the magnetron). Convection currents are generated whereby the hotter air above the plate experiences a buoyancy force going upwards. As a result of this the plate is virtually "sucked up" experiencing a lift force and the colder air above the hot air goes downward to occupy the space previously occupied by the hotter air. This convection is time-dependent, the fluid flow is not laminar, but it involves vortices above and below the plate. Vortex shedding takes place intermittently. The lift experienced by the plate and by the hot magnetron partially open cavity (due to their own buoyancy) is a chaotic function of time (due to the nonlinear nature, time dependent nature of the Navier-Stokes equation, particularly in this low Reynolds number regime). Due to the low Reynolds number regime being above Stokes flow, in an intermediate region of the Navier-Stokes flow which is difficult to model (unless done numerically) the time dependence of the convection and vortex shedding is complicated, involving chaotic fluctuations with time. The turning ON and OFF the magnetron further complicates the time-dependent nature of these fluctuations.The chaotic time dependence of the lift force, and its direction is not subject to intuition any more than you can intuit the time dependence and direction of lift of a wing in the region of stall, beyond the critical angle of attack.
Quote from: Rodal on 12/18/2015 05:47 pmIt is explained by thermal convection on a plate that is heated above the plate (by the magnetron). Convection currents are generated whereby the hotter air above the plate experiences a buoyancy force going upwards. As a result of this the plate is virtually "sucked up" experiencing a lift force and the colder air above the hot air goes downward to occupy the space previously occupied by the hotter air. This convection is time-dependent, the fluid flow is not laminar, but it involves vortices above and below the plate. Vortex shedding takes place intermittently. The lift experienced by the plate and by the hot magnetron partially open cavity (due to their own buoyancy) is a chaotic function of time (due to the nonlinear nature, time dependent nature of the Navier-Stokes equation, particularly in this low Reynolds number regime). Due to the low Reynolds number regime being above Stokes flow, in an intermediate region of the Navier-Stokes flow which is difficult to model (unless done numerically) the time dependence of the convection and vortex shedding is complicated, involving chaotic fluctuations with time. The turning ON and OFF the magnetron further complicates the time-dependent nature of these fluctuations.The chaotic time dependence of the lift force, and its direction is not subject to intuition any more than you can intuit the time dependence and direction of lift of a wing in the region of stall, beyond the critical angle of attack.Just a thought - It is well understood that turbulent flow is very difficult to model in detail. However, streamlining is a proven technique to minimize turbulence in airflow around high speed vehicles, cars and aircraft, resulting in near total laminar flow. Laminar flow is much more amenable to mathematical modelling. Is it within the reach of a DYI'ers to construct a very low mass attachment for each end of the frustum to streamline the apparatus and thereby significantly reducing or eliminating turbulence?@Kenjee - cross posted, we're thinking along the same lines.
Maybe?
Urm, can we establish a floor above which it becomes unlikely that a device not specifically engineered to produce thrust will be able to reach. Seems like there should be a point, on a N/kw basis where you need some kind of propeller or rocket nozzle. An efficiency beyond that point, and something is happening.
Could this effect, in any way, start causing superconductivity in the copper? Is their any possible way that this could happen? I'm not thinking along the lines of Roger Shaywer. I'm think maybe if their is super conductivity then gravitons could be reflecting off the surface of the copper.
Quote from: Blaine on 12/18/2015 08:48 pmCould this effect, in any way, start causing superconductivity in the copper? Is their any possible way that this could happen? I'm not thinking along the lines of Roger Shaywer. I'm think maybe if their is super conductivity then gravitons could be reflecting off the surface of the copper.Super conductors of theirselves don't react differently to gravity than anything else.Drop an apple and a super conductor rock and they fall at the same rate.
Hi Guys...Been a long time since I have posted here. The place seems to have "Thinned out" somewhat... and gotten down to grass roots. Can someone put a quick summary up? Got to admit I'm a bit fearful of reading through it all. And I'm worn out.....
Quote from: Kenjee on 12/18/2015 07:05 pmMaybe?This would reinforce the balloon effect...I think to separate the magnetron from the cavity (like Shells design) is on of the best possibilities, especially at ambient pressure.
Quote from: SteveD on 12/18/2015 06:01 pmUrm, can we establish a floor above which it becomes unlikely that a device not specifically engineered to produce thrust will be able to reach. Seems like there should be a point, on a N/kw basis where you need some kind of propeller or rocket nozzle. An efficiency beyond that point, and something is happening. Anything beyond the thrust of a photon rocket or on par with a ion engine is a game changer in many many ways.But here is the kicker, we not even sure if what we're seeing is thrust, maybe masses are being changed somehow, maybe it can't accelerate, just somehow reduce mass? This is why I'm doing acceleration profiles with a moving beam and static pressure readings on the same DUT and test stand. Is there a difference? I don't honestly know.Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 12/18/2015 08:26 pmQuote from: SteveD on 12/18/2015 06:01 pmUrm, can we establish a floor above which it becomes unlikely that a device not specifically engineered to produce thrust will be able to reach. Seems like there should be a point, on a N/kw basis where you need some kind of propeller or rocket nozzle. An efficiency beyond that point, and something is happening. Anything beyond the thrust of a photon rocket or on par with a ion engine is a game changer in many many ways.But here is the kicker, we not even sure if what we're seeing is thrust, maybe masses are being changed somehow, maybe it can't accelerate, just somehow reduce mass? This is why I'm doing acceleration profiles with a moving beam and static pressure readings on the same DUT and test stand. Is there a difference? I don't honestly know.ShellWell if the thing can produce thrust at the same N/kw as a Cesna engine, then it would seem to have clear terrestrial applications even as a thermal effect.Reduced mass shouldn't be a downward movement. If this thing really is playing with mass then I'm pretty sure the implications for physics are mind blowing.
Quote from: SteveD on 12/18/2015 10:55 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 12/18/2015 08:26 pmQuote from: SteveD on 12/18/2015 06:01 pmUrm, can we establish a floor above which it becomes unlikely that a device not specifically engineered to produce thrust will be able to reach. Seems like there should be a point, on a N/kw basis where you need some kind of propeller or rocket nozzle. An efficiency beyond that point, and something is happening. Anything beyond the thrust of a photon rocket or on par with a ion engine is a game changer in many many ways.But here is the kicker, we not even sure if what we're seeing is thrust, maybe masses are being changed somehow, maybe it can't accelerate, just somehow reduce mass? This is why I'm doing acceleration profiles with a moving beam and static pressure readings on the same DUT and test stand. Is there a difference? I don't honestly know.ShellWell if the thing can produce thrust at the same N/kw as a Cesna engine, then it would seem to have clear terrestrial applications even as a thermal effect.Reduced mass shouldn't be a downward movement. If this thing really is playing with mass then I'm pretty sure the implications for physics are mind blowing.ANY thrust or deviation from nothing happening is going to upset the apple cart SteveD.Shell