NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:25 pm

Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:25 pm
This is a thread - Thread 5 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.


Commercial advertisement is discouraged.


In order to minimize bandwidth and  maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/



This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:

http://emdrive.wiki




Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 3 million thread reads and 800,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.

(https://peninkandpaper.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/be-careful-safety-first-sign-s-4115.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:26 pm
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:33 pm
Disappointed to notice wallofwolfstreet has left the building here and on reddit apparently. Anyone have the details on this? I enjoyed his posts, even tho he was not a firm believer...

I appreciate that you feel my posts have been constructive.

I haven't left actually, just have some other things taking up more time.  I deleted my reddit account because whenever I commented on /r/emdrive, I found myself wasting time just looking through random posts on /r/all.  Someone with better impulse control could have saved the account and just posted less, but I went for the burnt bridge option.   

Great wolfy. glad you remained here. Ya know, we need all angles to help sort this thing out. Stay "you" and it will help  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 08:51 pm
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 08:57 pm
Curious?

While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:

At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?

Better references to what I am getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Don
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:15 pm
Curious?

While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:

At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?

Better references to what I am getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Don
Wish I knew the answer to that. On reddit, someone made a comparison to the big bang...matter from nothing. I remain on the fence. I feel there is an emdrive effect, but it very well might be a repulsive or attractive force at the quantum particle or wave level. I think we'll soon have the answer late this year or next.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 09:20 pm
Curious?

While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:

At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?

Better references to what I am getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Don
Wish I knew the answer to that. On reddit, someone made a comparison to the big bang...matter from nothing. I remain on the fence. I feel there is an emdrive effect, but it very well might be a repulsive or attractive force at the quantum particle or wave level. I think we'll soon have the answer late this year or next.

Thanks.

I also should have included this reference as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

Looking forward to your 2016 tests as well.

Don
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/04/2015 09:36 pm
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Dave,

I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.

I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept.   I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies -  I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate.   However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain.  I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.     

Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"? 

Herm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/04/2015 09:48 pm
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Dave,

I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.

I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept.   I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies -  I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate.   However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain.  I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.     

Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"? 

Herm
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.

<edit> clarification of shape factor example
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2015 10:49 pm
This topic seems to be on one of its periodic slow periods. I suppose there is quite a bit of waiting around for various results from the professional groups as well as more home experimenters to get things fired up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/04/2015 11:36 pm
Curious?

While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:

At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?

Better references to what I am getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Don
While the effect may prove out to be real. Like many things that have been discovered in the past with no clear theories to lead the building it will remain in dispute for some time.
Even though flight has been around for over a hundred years there has been dispute.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.html

So that leaves it to the builders of the Drive to build and evaluate almost by trial and error as to what works and what doesn't. Build by build, data bit by data bit (No Bad Data). I know it's a slap in the face to the many theorists who are trying so hard to come up with answers, but I believe the theories will abound for a long time.

I have given thoughts as to what is causing this thrust, I have my pet ones and even one that some say can't work, but I firmly believe you need to take into consideration CoM and CoE and there must be a "hole" of some force made by the Drive interacting with the outside frame reference to produce thrust.

Over the months of my build (I even started in that direction with my octagonal walled drive) it became clear that's it's not enough for me to get some tiny thrust or even to be first, but the real work and real need became to be able to test out the different theories to provide clear and concise data. Maybe I'll get lucky and hit a home run with one of the designs backing a theory. That's when the real fun will begin.

But this weekend I've taken off to split wood and get ready for the winter that is coming and the old bones are screaming "I hate you" :)

Shell

PS: I also want to say this group is some of the finest people I've ever had the joy of working with, my deepest respect goes to you all.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/04/2015 11:48 pm
This topic seems to be on one of its periodic slow periods. I suppose there is quite a bit of waiting around for various results from the professional groups as well as more home experimenters to get things fired up.
http://www.trekcore.com/audio/toscomputer/voice/tos_working.mp3

Working hard to get'er done Star One. This next week is going to be very busy as I'm just getting the last few items in for the build and I hope to have something very soon!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/04/2015 11:52 pm
Curious?

While I do understand and respect that with the limited and different results produced and published by several tests so far. That nothing really can be concluded at the moment. As the cause of any positive results achieved. I still have one question:

At this point. Does anyone feel that somehow someway that at least some energy is being converted to mass or does everyone feel that energy itself remains entirely energy with no portion being converted to mass and energy alone, is the sole cause of the forces being seen in some results?

Better references to what I am getting at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Don
While the effect may prove out to be real. Like many things that have been discovered in the past with no clear theories to lead the building it will remain in dispute for some time.
Even though flight has been around for over a hundred years there has been dispute.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.html

So that leaves it to the builders of the Drive to build and evaluate almost by trial and error as to what works and what doesn't. Build by build, data bit by data bit (No Bad Data). I know it's a slap in the face to the many theorists who are trying so hard to come up with answers, but I believe the theories will abound for a long time.

I have given thoughts as to what is causing this thrust, I have my pet ones and even one that some say can't work, but I firmly believe you need to take into consideration CoM and CoE and there must be a "hole" of some force made by the Drive interacting with the outside frame reference to produce thrust.

Over the months of my build (I even started in that direction with my octagonal walled drive) it became clear that's it's not enough for me to get some tiny thrust or even to be first, but the real work and real need became to be able to test out the different theories to provide clear and concise data. Maybe I'll get lucky and hit a home run with one of the designs backing a theory. That's when the real fun will begin.

But this weekend I've taken off to split wood and get ready for the winter that is coming and the old bones are screaming "I hate you" :)

Shell

PS: I also want to say this group is some of the finest people I've ever had the joy of working with, my deepest respect goes to you all.

Thanks Shell.

Looking forward to your tests as well.

Don
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:19 am
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
RFMWGUY!

I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:34 am
[quote ::) author=rfmwguy link=topic=38577.msg1432708#msg1432708 date=1443991863]
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
Quote
RFMWGUY!

I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...

Shell
I will beam him back soon, shell...just before your first thermal test...no pressure  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/05/2015 03:02 am
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe. 

Quantum physics says that energy exists in discrete packets.  These packets are defined by the plank constant.  A plank constant is the energy in one oscillation (1hz) of rf frequency.  You can't have a a fractional frequency.  There is no 107.4 hz.  The universe won't let you do it.  You either have to broadcast on 107hz or 108hz.

Einstein says that all mass is made up of two things.  A rest mass and energy.  Energy has a mass of m=e/c^2.  Your desk actually has a lot of energy in it, making up the bulk of its mass.  You just aren't going to get that energy out without splitting or fusing atoms.  Moreover relativity wants very precise answer.  This much energy must always, and without fail have the same mass.

Here's the thing.  Almost everything we do with light is governed by the number of photons.  Your wireless router is putting out X photons which each have a frequency of around 2.5ghz right now.  When you turn the power up, more photons (a higher amplitude wave) comes out.  When it comes to energy, all that really matters to us (most of the time) is amplitude.  More photons = more energy.

It doesn't work that way for the photons.  A photons frequency equals the amount of energy it contains.  You might be able to have a single photon that contained 1 watt of energy all by itself, but it'd be a high powered gamma ray that you wouldn't want to be anywhere near.  When a photon is emitted it gives the atom that is emitting it momentum equal to what that atom would have gained had it shot out a particle with the same mass at the speed of light.  This energy has to come from somewhere.  It comes from redshifting the photon.  The photon looses a couple hz of frequency as it transfers energy to the atom.

Relativity says that it doesn't matter if you have 10 photons at 100hz or 100 photons at 10hz, both groups of photons must have the exact same mass.  On the other hand, quantum physics says that a photon has to be redshifted in 1hz intervals.  10 Photons at 99hz do not have the same energy as 100 photons at 9hz.  You have a rounding error, a bug in the programming of the universe.

If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical.  The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity.  Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound.  I did up a spreadsheet earlier that showed the error (though only on one column, I had the output rounded in the others so that drive builders could see if they were in danger of redshifting their photons outside of their frustums bandwidth).  That would imply that one side is being moved by a heavier mass than what is hitting the other side (and also that an ELF transmitter would produce a photon rocket effect many times stronger than it is "suppose" to). 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 03:53 am
Maybe Dr. Rodal is working with Dr. White on the next version of this recent paper?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster

Or maybe doing work for Dr. White on the next EMDrive vac results paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 04:12 am
Dr. Mike McCulloch has a new paper on why he believes the EMDrive works.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282357284_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_the_emdrive

Testing quantised inertia on the EMDrive
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/05/2015 05:04 am
Very interesting report; another anomaly.  Newton's laws still intact though.   There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust.  If this seems off-topic I apologize and will not mind if this post is expunged.   However it is an interesting claim since the thrust measured is in the milliNewtons.    This professor has also been able to patent his device.  Below is a simple drawing of this device, from his patent.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-light-years-ahead-of-the-dawn-spacecraft-ion-propulsion-system/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8952773.PN.&OS=PN/8952773&RS=PN/8952773
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/05/2015 05:08 am
Maybe Dr. Rodal is working with Dr. White on the next version of this recent paper?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster

Or maybe doing work for Dr. White on the next EMDrive vac results paper?

How much is this paper recent? Did I missed something?  :o

By the way, I was thinking the same about Dr. Rodal. This silence is similar to that of the NASA folks.
NASA you have to release your people from cages :D We miss them dearly here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/05/2015 05:31 am
Quantum physics says that energy exists in discrete packets.  These packets are defined by the plank constant.  A plank constant is the energy in one oscillation (1hz) of rf frequency.  You can't have a a fractional frequency.  There is no 107.4 hz.  The universe won't let you do it.  You either have to broadcast on 107hz or 108hz.

While your post is a fun thought experiment, physics doesn't work the way you presented it. 1 Hz is a human number and has no special meaning to the universe. If any unit system has special significance it would be Planck units. We don't actually know what happens at the Planck scale because it is very small lengths and times. the Planck frequency would be the inverse of the Planck time, which would be a very, very high frequency.

IF the universe does have discrete times, the difference this makes is well beyond our current ability to measure. This would still allow for arbitrarily low frequencies, but they would all be quantized to be equal to the inverse of a discrete number of Planck times. You could have arbitrarily low frequencies (oscillation takes arbitrarily large number of Planck times), so there would be no expectation for rounding errors.

When a photon is emitted it gives the atom that is emitting it momentum equal to what that atom would have gained had it shot out a particle with the same mass at the speed of light.

By this do you mean if it had shot out a particle with 0 mass with infinite proper velocity*? (to solve a problem like that you would need more context so you could set up a proper limit to get rid of the 0 * inf) You unfortunately can't just treat photons like they have mass equal to their energy, and no object with mass can travel at the speed of light.

*Proper velocity is distance measured by observer, divided by time measured by the moving object. I like thinking in terms of it, but it isn't really useful for most calculations, since it uses data split between reference frames.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2015 05:44 am
Very interesting report; another anomaly.  Newton's laws still intact though.   There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust.  If this seems off-topic I apologize and will not mind if this post is expunged.   However it is an interesting claim since the thrust measured is in the milliNewtons.    This professor has also been able to patent his device.  Below is a simple drawing of this device, from his patent.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-light-years-ahead-of-the-dawn-spacecraft-ion-propulsion-system/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8952773.PN.&OS=PN/8952773&RS=PN/8952773

And the Energy to support the claimed Force/Thrust doing Work over a Distance comes from where?

As I see it there is a Force to the right on the cone and an equal but opposite Force to the left on the magnet. Thus no net Force is generated so no need to be concerned as to the source of the Energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/05/2015 05:59 am
Dave:

I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?


Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic  8)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/05/2015 06:37 am
Very interesting report; another anomaly.  Newton's laws still intact though.   There is a professor in Greece who claims that an open cone made of YBCO superconductor, with a magnet at the apex generates a thrust.
...

And the Energy to support the claimed Force/Thrust doing Work over a Distance comes from where?

As I see it there is a Force to the right on the cone and an equal but opposite Force to the left on the magnet. Thus no net Force is generated so no need to be concerned as to the source of the Energy.

Yes it is a free energy machine he is claiming.  I'm surprised a US patent was issued.   The last sentence of the abstract has the following phrase:  "as well as in the production of energy".    But it does show that small amounts of anomalous force can be observed with many different devices. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/05/2015 07:43 am
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Dave,

I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.

I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept.   I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies -  I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate.   However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain.  I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.     

Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"? 

Herm
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.

<edit> clarification of shape factor example
Shape factor was exactly where I was going in my late night noodling and then your post caught my eye.    I was trying to come up with a way to relate the concept for those who aren't familiar with filters and their behavior.   I have always found shape factor to be a challenge to explain to someone who hasn't built or used or quantified filters.   

However, I really think there is a similarity here (by that I mean two phenomena which present at least a surface or 1st order similarity without a definite or at least defined conceptual link).   Consider the relationship of shape factor to the magnitude of overshoot. And just some way after midnight unconstrained thoughts - isn't overshoot a bit reminiscent of evanescent waves.  I know I know that's just crazy talk.

Herm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:01 am
DIY’s maybe could do with some help here –or see if you can run with it.   
Back on subject of “Reducing Thermal Lift”.

 Do we think looking in, another direction might help?

What if we take a look at the sheer simplicity of the thermal management system as used on the Lunar Rover Battery and then apply it to the elevated Magnetron heat output?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
quote:
” Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).[15] These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. LRV batteries and electronics were passively cooled, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces. While driving, radiators were covered with mylar blankets to minimize dust accumulation. When stopped, the astronauts would open the blankets, and manually remove excess dust from the cooling surfaces with hand brushes.”

In other words, perhaps it’s better to go down the path of building in improved  ‘thermal capacitance’ rather than high ‘thermal dispersion’ rates in EMdrive test bed setups. In the case of the lunar rover it was a case of using 2.5 pounds or 1.14kgs of wax to absorb the heat and then to releasing it back slowly to space as radiant energy.
The way I see it the EM rig's would then have extended warm up and cool down periods and would better able to handle the thermal cyclically nature when in Operational mode. I would expect to see less in thermal heat changes happing in a smaller thermal band. Between the  ON and OFF modes. To draw an analogy it could liken it, to putting a bigger capacitor in an electrical circuit to better smooth things out.
The hope being of course, that this evens out or smooths out those ‘nasty thermal lift’ eddies and in turn making it easier to separate out further the true EM effect.
 To start with we need to find:

1.Someone willing to do a thermal flow analysis on a spreadsheet with the aim of find an anticipated ‘thermal band’ like 150°C-170°C when in operational use with say a nominal  50% ON /50% OFF magnetron [we would need some efficiency numbers and  it might for example show it could only run 10 minutes before temperatures gets to out of hand and the need to turn off for a while to cool back down] and the wax weight required. Then if worth pursing further…
 
2.Find a suitable wax to use: for example first thoughts are paraffin wax that melts from about 65°C to flashpoint of 200°C density of around 900 kg/m3. [noted magnetron max is 170°C]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin_wax

Paraffin wax is an excellent material for storing heat, with a specific heat capacity of 2.14–2.9 J g−1 K−1 (joules per gram kelvin) and a heat of fusion of 200–220 J g−1.[11] This property is exploited in modified drywall for home building material: a certain type of wax (with the right melting point) is infused in the drywall during manufacture so that it melts during the day, absorbing heat, and solidifies again at night, releasing the heat.

3. Consider if any negative effects as the specific density changes slightly when in liquid state  [ i.e. point of balance changing] suspect negligible.

4.Consider the extra beam weight and its possible loading effects [by the way, rfmwguy do up you have an all up weight for the copper frustum and the magnetron together, and its pieces as a matter of interest?  Kind of cool to know what that possible 177 micro newtons of force is pushing! ]

5.Construct a wax tight box around the magnetron and fill it with a suitable volume of heat control wax.

6.Test and evaluate for increased stability or lack thereof.

 And best part of all. A more definitive, EMforce reading.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/05/2015 11:04 am
Forgot to mention a caution

Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:16 pm
Dave:

I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?


Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic  8)

Cool!

Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.

This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.

My head hurts just thinking about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 01:18 pm
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Dave,

I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.

I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept.   I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies -  I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate.   However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain.  I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.     

Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"? 

Herm

I've tried to stay out of it although I would have to agree with rfmwguy's assessment in how to take and measure Q. Ham's have been doing it that way for decades and I have a lot of respect for what they do what they know and have added to the general field of electronics, let alone the good work they have done.

Meep has calculated a absurdly huge number for Q for the dual waveguide and I know it is just an idealized computer dream calculation, although it has merit in comparison to the real world.

That's when I decided to get my copper laser cut, to build as close of a model to the calculated meep one, just to see what I can get out of it and also to see if even with the cavity stabilizing route I've taken how high a Q I can hope to achieve. In my todo list I have designs to add a small motor to the end of the micrometer situated on the bottom plate to fine tune during operation with a feed back system during a hot run. First I want to get the data on how stable locking the plates together with the quartz rod can be by allowing the frustum to expand past it. 

Calculating Q is quite important when considering it will be a number referenced throughout the runs and it's very important that I keep the same standard throughout the testing. That's the important one, others can recalculate how ever they want from the data.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 01:20 pm
NSF-1701 Paper Update. With thanks to many, I am releasing my paper a day early. I look forward to your commentary.

All the best,
Dave

Dave,

I really like your report - I think this sort of formal documentation is critical to making people fully aware of DIY builders and their contributions to this original research.

I particularly like your contribution to the discussion of Q and the introduction of the QR concept.   I am still going over the implications of the math - I had missed that Yang and NASA had such wildly different methodologies -  I had been focusing too much on the 1-port vs 2-port debate.   However, I will be including a QR calculation in any results I obtain.  I'm going to look at it a little more tonight but I think this approach will be very significant with wideband RF sources like maggies.     

Shell - how are you approaching the "Q conundrum"? 

Herm
Thanks Herm, the Qr concept is akin to a shape factor, i.e. a 30 to 3dB shape factor being 2.5:1 (or whatever) when talking about bandpass filters. I think it has some merit to "force" unification of methodology.

<edit> clarification of shape factor example
Shape factor was exactly where I was going in my late night noodling and then your post caught my eye.    I was trying to come up with a way to relate the concept for those who aren't familiar with filters and their behavior.   I have always found shape factor to be a challenge to explain to someone who hasn't built or used or quantified filters.   

However, I really think there is a similarity here (by that I mean two phenomena which present at least a surface or 1st order similarity without a definite or at least defined conceptual link).   Consider the relationship of shape factor to the magnitude of overshoot. And just some way after midnight unconstrained thoughts - isn't overshoot a bit reminiscent of evanescent waves.  I know I know that's just crazy talk.

Herm
I hear ya Herm. I tried to visualize how we could characterize return loss rather than amplitude response and Poof! Shape factor forcing experimenters to declare both 3dB Q measurement points and compare them to one another.

Sooooo, we have invented Qr, or Q ratio, measuring the steepness of the return loss trace on a single port device.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 01:34 pm
Dave:

I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?


Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic  8)

Cool!

Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.

This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.

My head hurts just thinking about it.

The cavity and end plates are going to try and deform. Even with the low power EW used you can see the difference in heating caused by the modes. When you apply >10x that power the effects are going to increase as well. I'm not sure how well a PLL will be able to offset the thermal deformations you'll see in the copper sheeting. Have you thought about trying to compensate for those hot spots by re-enforcing the end plates with sinks or a heftier plate? Or do you think it's not a issue. Sometimes I think I worry too much and bonded mine onto a ceramic plate.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JonathanD on 10/05/2015 02:08 pm
Brief layman question.  Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit?  Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.

Been reading since Thread 3.  Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:18 pm
Dave:

I read your paper and was very impressed, very well thought out and put together! Congratulations on a successful experiment. I'm curious though, how do you plan on obtaining 100 times the thrust in your next experiment?


Our paper should be ready to publish in the next week or so. Unfortunately we will not be able to continue this year and will instead focus on graduating on time, the department won't let us skip Senior Spacecraft Design for an individual project. But an Electrical Engineering student has contacted me and expressed interest in doing an EM Drive experiment as his senior project, so perhaps I'll play advisor this year! Maybe that will lead nicely into a Masters or PhD thesis on the topic  8)

Cool!

Well, that the 17.5 millilnewton question...I set the goal arbitrarily to try and get the signature as far above the noise as I think possible from my humble home lab. First will be to clean up the mag signal. Second will be to get it tunable. Third will be to design a feedback system to autotune to best return loss.

This will be a big challenge. Not trying to try mechanical tuning of the frustum as I'm afraid it could induce mechanical variations, so trying it electrically first.

My head hurts just thinking about it.

The cavity and end plates are going to try and deform. Even with the low power EW used you can see the difference in heating caused by the modes. When you apply >10x that power the effects are going to increase as well. I'm not sure how well a PLL will be able to offset the thermal deformations you'll see in the copper sheeting. Have you thought about trying to compensate for those hot spots by re-enforcing the end plates with sinks or a heftier plate? Or do you think it's not a issue. Sometimes I think I worry too much and bonded mine onto a ceramic plate.

Shell
I think one of the unintended consequences of using the PCB is that the fiberglass layers between the deposition acks as a bit of an isulator. IOW, I think deformation, like your thoughts on the ceramic, may be minimal.

I'm hoping so, as I really want to avoid mechanical tuning during mag ON.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 02:19 pm
Forgot to mention a caution

Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 02:41 pm
Brief layman question.  Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit?  Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.

Been reading since Thread 3.  Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.

Kind of. Good thought!

I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.

I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 03:49 pm
Emdrive papers accepted at UK workshop

http://emdrive.io/community/threads/4th-uk-space-propulsion-workshop-29-october-2015-emdrive-presentation-accepted.200/

Kudos to http://www.emdrive.io for linking this article.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/05/2015 04:14 pm
While Doc's been busy, it is my privilege to kick off Thread 5 after this topic has had over 3 million views! Onward to 4 million...
RFMWGUY!

I heard a rumor you beamed Dr. Rodel via EMDrive into another dimension.. another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, ...
Getting scary rfmwguy...

Shell


Shell
I followed a link from you a few days back and saw something that may be of interest to this discussion.  Your "beaming in and out of another dimension" comment sparked me to post this ;)


Signals from empty space
Physicists succeed in direct detection of vacuum fluctuations

Date:
    October 2, 2015
Source:
    University of Konstanz
Summary:
    What are the properties of the vacuum, the absolute nothingness? So far, physicists have assumed that it is impossible to directly access the characteristics of the ground state of empty space. Now, a team of physicists has succeeded in doing just that. They demonstrated a first direct observation of the so-called vacuum fluctuations by using short light pulses while employing highly precise optical measurement techniques.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151002082311.htm

RFMWGUY: EXCELLENT WORK!  Another small step to a better understanding of this proposed effect.

Continued success to all.
Dr. Bob
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:26 pm
Brief layman question.  Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit?  Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.

Been reading since Thread 3.  Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.

Kind of. Good thought!

I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.

I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.

Shell
Shell, not trying to pollute your punchbowl, but even if the mags were 2 feet away via a mesh or solid waveguide they, themselves, will still try to lift...meaning they will transfer this angular force to the waveguides, then the frustum...unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible, especially when I do yard work  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 04:38 pm
Mark your calendars. Perhaps the next big event where our favorite topic might appear:

http://www.aiaa-scitech.org/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/05/2015 04:55 pm
Brief layman question.  Is there any way to remove the magnetron from the device entirely and instead direct its output into the chamber using some sort of insulated conduit?  Not sure if that would really help or just complicate things, but curious if it's been considered.

Been reading since Thread 3.  Fascinating stuff, keep up the great work.

Kind of. Good thought!

I've got my magnetron away from the frustum. It feeds into a waveguide>coax and down to the frustum into a waveguide>antenna. I'll lose about 3db in each step but that's workable considering I'll keep heat from the magnetron away from the frustum.

I remember there were suggestions on using a feed horn into a matched receiver on the frustum, although I'm not that savvy to want to try it, maybe one of the other (Crazy Eddies) DYIers might give it a shot.

Shell
Shell, not trying to pollute your punchbowl, but even if the mags were 2 feet away via a mesh or solid waveguide they, themselves, will still try to lift...meaning they will transfer this angular force to the waveguides, then the frustum...unless I'm missing something...which is entirely possible, especially when I do yard work  :o
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.

I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.

If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 05:17 pm
Mark your calendars. Perhaps the next big event where our favorite topic might appear:

http://www.aiaa-scitech.org/

Quote
San Diego is beautiful in January
Haa -  January is right in the middle of the rainy season in San Diego. Bring your umbrellas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 10/05/2015 05:20 pm
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe. 

If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical.  The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity.  Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound. 

I love the notion that it might work by accumulating rounding errors.  We know there are step functions in the energy levels of electron shells in atoms - and this could/would tie into them as well, wouldn't it? 

Collecting rounding errors is one of my favorite bank robbery techniques, and it would be nice to see it make an appearance in the physical/quantum world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 06:18 pm
This is kind of off the wall but I find it interesting enough to share.

Most of us here know that Maxwell's equations are linear. I have recently been chasing resonance for cavities operating at higher frequency (23.87 GHz) with meep, and discovered a very interesting result from that linearity. That is:

Starting with a cavity that resonates very well at 2.48 GHz and scaling the frequency up by a factor of (23.87/2.48) while simultaneously scaling the cavity dimensions down by that same factor, I find that the resulting small cavity resonates just as well at the large cavity. That is, the meep calculated Q factors are the same within meep's limitations.

Reading McCulloch's paper posted on the previous page, and in particular starting with Equation (14), I have:

Eqn (14) from McCulloch's paper

F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))}

And from linearity of Maxwell's equations, letting the scale factor =a,

Q (f, L, ws, wb) = Q (a*f, L/a, ws/a, wb/a)

Using f ~= c/L and substituting into eqn (14) gives

F = -(6*P*Q/a*f) * {(1/(L+4ws)/a) – (1/(L+4wb)/a)}

Clearing the scale factor a, and replacing ~f with c/L gives.

F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))}

Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.

I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.

    1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
    2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
 
 Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2015 06:51 pm
"Appendix 1

Proof that scaling dimensions inversely proportional to frequency keeps the thrust invariant:

Suppose that the thrust at frequency f1, and dimensions L1, Ds1, and Db1 is

NT1=2PQL1(2πf1)3(cX)2(1Ds21−1Db21)

then, at frequency f2 a multiple of frequency f1

f2=nf1

where the frequency ratio

n=f2f1

can be any irrational number (not equal to zero). Scaling dimensions to be inversely proportional to the frequency ration n:

L2=L1n

Ds2=Ds1n

Db2=Db1n

and substituting, we get the thrust for frequency f2 and dimensions L2, Ds2, and Db2 to be:

NT2=2PQL1(2πf1n)3(cX)2(1(Ds1n)2−1(Db1n)2)

and since the factor of n3 occurs both in the numerator and the denominator, it cancels out, leaving

NT2=NT1

If the mode shape is kept invariant, for constant quality factor and input power, the thrust force is invariant, independent of frequency when the diameter and the length of the cavity are both scaled to change inversely proportional to the frequency ratio n."

As Rodal noted for the notsosureofit Hypotheses

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/05/2015 08:35 pm
...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.

I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.

    1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
    2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
 
 Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?

Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.

Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?

I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/05/2015 08:47 pm
...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.

I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.

    1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
    2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
 
 Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?

Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.

Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?

I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers).

It's well within the range of MEMS technology.  Just for jollies, taking an arbitrary EM specification and scaling it for a commercial laser bar made by OSRAM at 802 nm, with each frustrum at about 1 x 2 micro meters, the bar sized at 10mm x .125 mm, 25 emitters at a total of 60w per bar... you could build a 1 meter x 1 meter array that would (assuming any of this is real and scales) generate about 978 newtons.  The minor gotcha, besides cost, is you'd be pumping about 3 megawatts into that one square meter.  You'd have to dissapate 2.5 million kilocalories per hour from that 1 square meter.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 08:48 pm
Ok - Now that we have confirmation that McCulloch's equation satisfies that constraint, what is the Figure of Merit, FM?

F = -(6*P*Q*L/c) * {(1/(L+4ws)) – (1/(L+4wb))}  McCulloch - eqn (14)

F is proportional to FM = L/(L+4ws) - L/(L+4wb)

For lack of better math skills, I threw this into my spreadsheet program with the constraints that wb =<2, ws =< 1 and L=1. The results are plotted in the attached image.

There was a discussion on thread 3 about the thrust of the cavity increasing as the frustum became more pointy. I think this data just illustrates the same thing. Difference is that in this case, L is constrained to a constant, =1, not allowed to go to infinity, and wb is constrained to be less than or equal to 2 L. Of course ws is constrained to be less than wb.

This gives me hope for the Yang-Shell 6 degree model.

Edit - I suppose I should mention that the horizontal axis is wb, and the colored lines are ws, with the figure of merit on the vertical axis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 09:26 pm
...
Which is exactly eqn (14). So, according to McCulloch, and a direct result of the linearity of Maxwell's equations, the force from an EM drive is constant, no matter the size of the device.

I'll let someone else check Shawyer's and other force equations. If McCulloch and my conclusions are correct there are a couple of ramifications.

    1) The force from a single EM drive is fixed, but the force from an array of EM drives is linear in the number of drives per given area of big bases of the drives.
    2) Square bases have a better form factor per given area, so someone needs to look at a Square Pyramid frustum for an EM drive effect.
 
 Is there significant mutual interference between EM drives packed closely together? Layered?

Interesting bit of data. Raise the frequency, make it inverse proportionally smaller and get the same thrust per power (if it really exists, which seem more likely experiment after experiment). That would certainly help to make them into arrays, for multiplying the thrust.

Could we have infrared cavities (up to 1 mm sized)?

I imagine visible light cavities would be quite microscopic and possibly unfeasible (visible light having a wavelength in the few hundred nanometers).
Interesting...from a practicality standpoint, huge amounts of RF energy are more easily generated and understood up to UHF bands, or about 450 MHz. From there, the stuff gets more "exotic" and cumbersome to work with (the magic of microwaves). I know there are 100kW mags out there, but from a realistic standpoint, I believe arrays should be as low a frequency as practical in your sims.

If there is a way to scale down the frustum dimensions, using a lower frequency, I think this would not need as many "discoveries" as microwave freqs and above.

Another way to visualize this is with a single RF source, with multiple frequency multipliers along the array, so the source power could be low freq and delivered to each individual element (frustum) multiplied up; its sort of like a sprinkler system, where the nozzles feed higher freqs off the main feed.

Weird? Yep, I think so... :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/05/2015 10:05 pm
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
                                                                Normalized
                        Length      Big dia     Small dia.    L      wb          ws      ~FM
  Shawyer Demo      0.187       0.28       0.14921       1      1.5         0.8     -0.095
  Shawyer flt.         0.1386      0.2314     0.1257        1      1.67        0.92    -0.088
  rfmwguy              9.91 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.11        0.63    -0.1
  Yang-Shell           0.24        0.201      0.1492        1      0.8375      0.62    -0.052
  SeeShell CE2      0.1634      0.2950     0.1600        1      1.8         0.98    -0.08

Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.

The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.

There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/05/2015 10:17 pm
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
                                                                Normalized
                        Length      Big dia     Small dia.    L      wb          ws      ~FM
  Shawyer Demo      0.187       0.28       0.14921       1      1.5         0.8     -0.095
  Shawyer flt.         0.1386      0.2314     0.1257        1      1.67        0.92    -0.088
  rfmwguy              9.91 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.11        0.63    -0.1
  Yang-Shell           0.24        0.201      0.1492        1      0.8375      0.62    -0.052
  SeeShell CE2      0.1634      0.2950     0.1600        1      1.8         0.98    -0.08

Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.

The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.

There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.

Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/05/2015 11:38 pm
Here's what I think is causing the EMDrive to work: it's a bug in the functioning of the universe. 

If you have a photon bouncing between the same two points, the bug is symmetrical.  The EMDrive effect does not show up in a symmetrical resonance cavity.  Start bouncing light around a non-symmetrical cavity,and the rounding error can compound. 

I love the notion that it might work by accumulating rounding errors.  We know there are step functions in the energy levels of electron shells in atoms - and this could/would tie into them as well, wouldn't it? 

Collecting rounding errors is one of my favorite bank robbery techniques, and it would be nice to see it make an appearance in the physical/quantum world.

Not to diminish the Eer idea or SteveD response at all (seriously - I think that might be interesting to examine) but I can also see some excellent science fiction plotlines developing out of this concept.    "Cap'n - We canna go to warp - we have a rounding error in the dilithium crystals and the emdrive thrusters won't ignite". 

Sorry  - long day dealing with in-laws - so my thinking cap is about 20 degrees off reality.

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/06/2015 12:57 am
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
                                                                Normalized
                        Length      Big dia     Small dia.    L      wb          ws      ~FM
  Shawyer Demo      0.187       0.28       0.14921       1      1.5         0.8     -0.095
  Shawyer flt.         0.1386      0.2314     0.1257        1      1.67        0.92    -0.088
  rfmwguy              9.91 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.11        0.63    -0.1
  Yang-Shell           0.24        0.201      0.1492        1      0.8375      0.62    -0.052
  SeeShell CE2      0.1634      0.2950     0.1600        1      1.8         0.98    -0.08

Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.

The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.

There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.

Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91

Ok - I remember that now. Just an older data list not totally updated.

 NSF-1701              10.2 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.08       0.613    -0.1-

That did increase the magnitude of FM a little bit but I need a better method of interpreting the data in order to read it more closely. Maybe  10 times as many rows and columns ... Or a more efficient presentation. 

The point I get from the data table is that the FM is quite sensitive to bw, not so much to sw. FM is just very small when sw/L gets into the range we have been working with. It seems to show that the frustums need to be more pointy. Didn't we already conclude that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 01:43 am
But why stop now, I'm on a roll ... We have all of these different cavities already. Here:
                                                                Normalized
                        Length      Big dia     Small dia.    L      wb          ws      ~FM
  Shawyer Demo      0.187       0.28       0.14921       1      1.5         0.8     -0.095
  Shawyer flt.         0.1386      0.2314     0.1257        1      1.67        0.92    -0.088
  rfmwguy              9.91 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.11        0.63    -0.1
  Yang-Shell           0.24        0.201      0.1492        1      0.8375      0.62    -0.052
  SeeShell CE2      0.1634      0.2950     0.1600        1      1.8         0.98    -0.08

Well now - isn't that interesting? While the normalized cavity dimensions are all over the grid, the figure of merit is very clustered. And yes, the Yang-Shell model is an outlier, unfortunately, not to the high side.

The highest FM calculated in the grid is -0.6 for L=1, wb = 2 and ws = 0.1, but there are other candidates. For example,
L = 1, wb = 1.0, ws = 0.1 gives FM = -0.5, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.2 gives FM = -0.4, and
L = 1, wb = 1.4, ws = 0.3 gives FM = -0.3.

There are other candidates, I'll just attach my spreadsheet for those interested.

Actually mine moved up to 10.2 in. Length from 9.91

Ok - I remember that now. Just an older data list not totally updated.

 NSF-1701              10.2 in.   11.01 in.ID 6.25 in ID    1      1.08       0.613    -0.1-

That did increase the magnitude of FM a little bit but I need a better method of interpreting the data in order to read it more closely. Maybe  10 times as many rows and columns ... Or a more efficient presentation. 

The point I get from the data table is that the FM is quite sensitive to bw, not so much to sw. FM is just very small when sw/L gets into the range we have been working with. It seems to show that the frustums need to be more pointy. Didn't we already conclude that?

Not sure if it was a conclusion rather that it may be an interesting thing to look at, I remember some of it but not all my search function is about as bad as this sites. It was one reason that lead me to make the Yang-Shell so that I could test the theory with different inserts down the cavity.

Was in-town today working with the water jet cutters getting the final pieces cut and to make sure that they got the curf cut correctly this time for the DXF file.

Other than that I'm working to get some PC-Lab200 Software installed and working on my XP system so I can have a Oscope to monitor the frequency for the power on the inverter driving the magnetron.

I just may get a cookie and a cup of decaf instead. ;)

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JonathanD on 10/06/2015 02:06 am
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.

I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.

If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.

You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible.  Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself?  I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic.  I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?

Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 am
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.

I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.

If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.

You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible.  Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself?  I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic.  I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?

Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions.
???
You are far from a layman. Anyone here disagree? No? See. ;)

One time I entertained of putting the magnetron onto the top of the frustum  with dual waveguide injectors although the weight, costs and the logistics of doing so killed that idea. Now I'm doing a magnetron into a waveguide to antenna in the center section of the test stand and then run coax out to antennas on the top small plate. Or I can do antennas to waveguide into the frustum. Mainly I'm looking to remove as much heat from the frustum and allow two methods to test. Controlled TE xx mode through the top small plate with antennas or highly symmetrical waveguides injecting into the side walls. I'm building for both options.

I believe I can ramp up the inverter to run the magnetron up to 2 KW although that will be further down the line. If it doesn't all sync and give me a great SWR it will kill the test with heat. That process will be a slower one but could allow for a respectable input of power into the frustum after it's "tuned up".

I so wanted to have this fired up this week for a birthday present to me but I don't think I'll make it. dang!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/06/2015 03:18 am
Go ahead and pollute my punch bowl but it better be something tasty.

I think he was referring how to get the heat generated by the magnetron away from the frustum.

If the power supply and the magnetron are lets say 1 meter away and the RF is fed via coax to either antennas or a waveguide the only heat you would be dealing with would be the heat from the actions in the frustum.

You are correct Shell, I was only trying to think of ways to remove as much heat from the immediate site of the test as possible.  Frustum will obviously still get hot, but presumably not as hot as the magnetron itself?  I put a question mark because I honestly have no idea and am not qualified to make any remark on the topic.  I also was wondering then if you do move the magnetron away and you transfer the output via conduit, at that point you'd have the magnetron fixed stationary on to something, but then there would be some weight to the conduit itself, do you suspend that some way to prevent that from interfering with these very minute measurements of movement?

Thanks again for entertaining the layman questions.
???
You are far from a layman. Anyone here disagree? No? See. ;)

One time I entertained of putting the magnetron onto the top of the frustum  with dual waveguide injectors although the weight, costs and the logistics of doing so killed that idea. Now I'm doing a magnetron into a waveguide to antenna in the center section of the test stand and then run coax out to antennas on the top small plate. Or I can do antennas to waveguide into the frustum. Mainly I'm looking to remove as much heat from the frustum and allow two methods to test. Controlled TE xx mode through the top small plate with antennas or highly symmetrical waveguides injecting into the side walls. I'm building for both options.

I believe I can ramp up the inverter to run the magnetron up to 2 KW although that will be further down the line. If it doesn't all sync and give me a great SWR it will kill the test with heat. That process will be a slower one but could allow for a respectable input of power into the frustum after it's "tuned up".

I so wanted to have this fired up this week for a birthday present to me but I don't think I'll make it. dang!

Shell

Good luck with your schedule Shell, just don't over do. Next week will be soon enough and belated birthday gifts are as common as mud.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 05:29 am
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-diamond-maser-room-temperature.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/06/2015 11:37 am
Forgot to mention a caution

Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?

You know what funny enough I am,
need to do a size up first on time and effort, verses other commitments of course.
I think I can find a microwave at the junk yard or sacrifice the old one in the kitchen in the 'name of science and the common good for mankind' and argue its almost due for replacing although it works just fine.
It's going to be the digital logging gear parts -that’s the killer $’s isn't it?
Going to be thinking the next few days about it, and see if there is a simpler and better work around?

rfmwguy  most or us would probably like to know how much time and effort have you spent on project so far?
100, 500, maybe a 1000 hours?
First time builds I imagine lots of setup time and fiddling, and if you had to do a repeat and a second time now the build 1/2 that time?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 12:13 pm
Forgot to mention a caution

Consider FIRE HAZARD if gets to hot!
Interesting...ok, now for the big question...interested in building one for me to test?

You know what funny enough I am,
need to do a size up first on time and effort, verses other commitments of course.
I think I can find a microwave at the junk yard or sacrifice the old one in the kitchen in the 'name of science and the common good for mankind' and argue its almost due for replacing although it works just fine.
It's going to be the digital logging gear parts -that’s the killer $’s isn't it?
Going to be thinking the next few days about it, and see if there is a simpler and better work around?

rfmwguy  most or us would probably like to know how much time and effort have you spent on project so far?
100, 500, maybe a 1000 hours?
First time builds I imagine lots of setup time and fiddling, and if you had to do a repeat and a second time now the build 1/2 that time?
Build/test/study hours would be closer to 500 rather than 1000 is my estimation. Test time about 10%, build time about 30%, the rest is research and parts chasing (rough guess).

Phase II will be about the same ratio I think. A (perhaps too) lofty goal of 100X force improvement to get it out of the noise wile require some real inventions...not outside my expertise, but right at the edge.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 01:40 pm
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/06/2015 02:23 pm
Could it be that emission of a photon is required, otherwise the energy becomes some kind of potential energy.  I am reminded of the slits in the Cannae drive that Shawyer seems to have adopted recently (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?).  If you bounced light around, and it got more redshifted than it should be, then bounced it out, an observer would see a bunch of light that is redshifted more than it should be along with a photon rocket that is going faster than it should.  The observer could well decide that you had developed some way to enhance the efficiency of a photon rocket.

I wonder how much RF leakage an EMDrive has and if there is more leakage moving away from the big base than in other directions.  Just because it's suppose to be a closed system doesn't mean that it actually is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 02:45 pm
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/06/2015 02:48 pm
.......... (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?)......

IIRC, the video shows pretty much how the slits are oriented..
http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/bc/rtmp_uds/1418450360/2014/08/01/1418450360_3708361650001_CANNAE.mp4

skip to timestamp 0:42...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 02:58 pm
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.

Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me.  A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.

This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/06/2015 03:07 pm
....
This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
A century ago? nah.... make that 2400 years... try Aristotle... :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 03:41 pm
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.

Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me.  A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.

This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
Zombie Like... "Neeed Cooofffeee" back in from the shop.

My video simply isn't up to it, kind of bad out of the camera but I'm taking snapshots. working on getting a better video camera, it's on the bucket list before first light.

As to photons, I find this a quick refresher.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137293/what-happens-to-photons-after-they-hit-objects

Know Quantum actions smell funny anyway rfmwguy and might not pass sniff tests.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zero123 on 10/06/2015 04:11 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 05:16 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/06/2015 06:56 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 07:47 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:02 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 08:24 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 08:48 pm
(...)

These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.

Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.

If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?

Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:10 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
When I started this build one thing I stated was I had no idea why it does what it does but I was going to pick this apart bit by bit. That hasn't changed, it's even more so.

I started with the octagonal extended cavity that would look at several theories and I'm working on this current project that will give insight into two basic ideas of mode generation and big end versus small end and how the modes decay into them and if thrusts follow the decays of the modes. or are just related to any kind of resonance mode in the cavity. Also being able to tune past or into resonance using the small end cap to see what effects on thrust may happen will also look at other theories.

Theories abound but, sadly data is very scarce and the time is for data, we'll get it and plug it in to see what fits.

YEA! tomorrow I'm picking up the rest of the water jet cut frustum just confirmed it, visiting a dear friend who's birthday is the same as mine, going out to dinner and not working in the shop until the next day. Funny, but picking up the copper cut sheets seems like a darn good present to me. ;)

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 09:13 pm
(...)

These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.

Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.

If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?

Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers.
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/06/2015 09:32 pm
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/06/2015 10:29 pm
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/06/2015 11:02 pm
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell
Wonder if edison waited to test the next filament until after he rewrote his theory paper  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Cinder on 10/07/2015 12:29 am
Why limit yourself to one or the other?  Some people are/were clearly gifted for one more than the other.  Collaboration takes care of any gaps; the more the merrier.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: kml on 10/07/2015 03:00 am
I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.

Standard Model particles gain rest mass through the Higgs mechanism, by bouncing off of spontaneously appearing Higgs Bosons.    The greater the interaction with the Higgs field (more bounces per second) the higher the rest mass.  Could the photons in a resonant cavity be gaining rest mass by bouncing off of the waveguide (side) walls?   Maybe not directly but indirectly through interaction with the electrons in the walls which themselves interact with the Higgs field.   In this model a lower group velocity corresponds with more frequent interactions with the (narrowing) waveguide walls.  Photons with a non-zero rest mass would necessarily travel slower than c which is congruent with the observed slower group velocity.    The momentum transferred at the end walls would no longer be 2hv/c but 2x the relativistic momentum for a massive particle, using the newly calculated rest mass and the group velocity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Devilstower on 10/07/2015 03:48 am
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/07/2015 04:24 am
Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.

What meep give us is the ability to see in detail the actions using Maxwell's equations, to model them and define them and when things happen outside of the box that meep can't see I think we can be better prepared to define it. I would hate guessing what mode TE012 or TE01 actions would look like in the frustum. I've seen simulations on the net but they were for cylinders or rectangular waveguides and we know the cavity actions are nothing like they are.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/07/2015 07:48 am
Concerning the methodology to follow, being theory before building or building before theory, i can say there are ample examples of both approaches.
Englert and Higgs had formulated their theories decades before a device could be build to prove their ideas.
And as already suggested, Edison did build things first, without any theoretical frame to back him up...

These approaches are not contradictory or conflicting and allow perfect coexistence. They're both valid  ways to study nature...

As for rfmwguy being "biased"...let me say that being unbiased does simply not exist. We are all biased. The moment an image or thought enters our brain it gets a certain preference (or bias) attached to it. It is an essential element in the process to make sense of our world.
You can only be unbiased if you can not place it among previous acquired information and/or in total absence of emotions, which is... never....
We always have a preferred interpretation of what we see or think. We're evolutionary trained to see and search for patterns and attribute sentiments to what we experience...
ah well, so far for the illusion of objectivity... :)

So, back to the science level, what makes good science is the ability to question (and possible revise) your "natural" bias, either with a new theoretical framework, or a puzzling experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: PaulF on 10/07/2015 10:36 am
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell
Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell


It's quite funny how the search for the first filament that would keep going for a while, resembles how in the 1990's the search was on for the last link in the chain for LEDs - A blue LED with high luminoscity. They were literally throwing together semi-metals in the hopes they'd find the right mix. And eventually they did. And the cheap RGB LED was a fact.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/07/2015 03:18 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.

It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.

Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.



A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: francesco nicoli on 10/07/2015 03:58 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/07/2015 07:58 pm
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.

It's too bad. You're injecting too much emotion into physical results and it endangers the value of any output.

Perhaps the EM Drive is a bug of another sort — an exploit.

In every simulation, there are edge conditions where behavior is tough to model. Those on this forum trying to model the actions of microwaves in the frustrum have seen this first hand.

In software, an exploit is a bit of code, or user behavior, that takes advantage of coding in the system to do something otherwise "illegal."  The EM drive may represent another expression of the same phenomenon — a simulation failing to stand up to a deliberate assault in a weak point in the design.



A tapered cavity with spherical ends has already been analytically solved and there isn't anything there that is unexpected. 3d solvers are approximate at best and there are all kinds of pitfalls you can find if the limitation of the software is not respected. I think in general everyone here has used meep quite well especially considering the computational resources available. Large cavities are just a pain in the butt to simulate, especially transients.
1) Please point to your reference to the study of tapered cavity with spherical ends, specifically measuring KE or kinetic force.
2) Other than Shawyer, no EmDrive design uses spherical ends to my knowledge.
3) No emotion here, but a proper request for my time and information should not begin with an accusation, as this makes me believe you are not serious about my answer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/07/2015 08:31 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/07/2015 09:26 pm
FYI:

https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1077242

 Force Calibration: Common Errors Laboratories Make
Live Presentation: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 • 2:00 pm ET

This Webinar will cover metrological traceability in relation to force measurement.  The Webinar will show the attendee common force measurement errors and the importance of calibrating the instrument in the manner it is being used.   By the end of the Webinar the attendee should be able to understand metrological traceability hierarchy and identify potential force measurement errors.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/07/2015 11:07 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/07/2015 11:32 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....

If I was leading a team researching this and I had the budget, I'd be pleased to have someone like him doing some modeling and data analysis for me.

After all, he and aero came with the best model so far of what really happens in the resonant cavity using Maxwell's equations, and all in front of our very eyes.

And yes, this is something people usually gets paid to do (professional scientists and technical consultants, I mean). We tend to forget it because we had the privilege of following this outburst of creativity in this forum at the right moment and time.

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/07/2015 11:36 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Shell and I were joking about nsf-1701 accidentally beaming him into an alternate dimension, but I believe work is the likely cause. Since he's been reported to be ok, doesn't matter why...doc will be back when he can.

Until then, let's bug shell for some more assembly pics  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/07/2015 11:42 pm
Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 12:24 am
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jmossman on 10/08/2015 02:17 am
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modied mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

Re-running the existing NSF-1701 rig using a modified mag without 60Hz pulsing would be a very useful data point.  (albeit creating a bigger thermal management problem)

Adding the ability to sweep the mag frequency would also be very interesting test.    :D

[EDIT: typo]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 03:17 am
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/08/2015 04:05 am
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 04:32 am
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?

Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.

The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.

As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.

BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/08/2015 06:32 am

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.

But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 07:04 am

Of course, he may simply be very busy and/or wanting to take some room to breathe. Whatever it is, I hope he is doing well and gets in contact soon.

A few others are also missed such as deltamass. Maybe working with Dr. Woodward?

Don't think EWs has a budget for outside consultants. Paul made the current copper frustum on his wife's dinning table and I believe he paid for the materials.

But this one would be one of the main places to look if you were an organisation of whatever type seeking some good thinkers in this area to work with.

Agreed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: xexorian on 10/08/2015 12:39 pm
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?

Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.

The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.

As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.

BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.

What's the differences between "Solid-State RF" and "Magnetron" ? Can the SSRF scale upto the KW/MW range? Does one have a finer frequency tuning than the other? What is the cost difference? How would this change the design? Does SSRF require different wave guides into a cavity?

Assuming you could make "Approximately" = EmDrive cavities in thrust, this is the design I had in mind for vector control, if pulsing the 'engines' on and off very fast did not reduce or increase vector thrust in a specific direction, I also opted for this design since I lack a clearer understanding of the engineering required to create a 360 degree enclosed spherical chamber to house an EmDrive component and point it in any given direction.

edit:
Here was my concept of it's usage back in 2004 I came up with (assuming it can actually produce lots of thrust, eventually):
(http://puu.sh/kCOZa/cb37e46ae7.png)

theoretically speaking, would this be possible, or work? I make a few assumptions, like the fact that the emdrives would remain ON at all times (I know this sounds dumb), or at least, enough of them to maintain the craft's real 3 dimensional position in whatever environment it is situated in. Turning it off would require landing and I am assuming warming up/resonating the drives/other technical hurdles.

Assuming a setup like this would or could work to control thrust (by effectively nullifying it's own thrust vectors physically adjusting each drive's angle and direction) one could probably build some really bad@$$ space-based robots to mine rocks with something like this and take it back to the ISS or a mining space station for processing located near or in LEO, then use lift designs to take it to Earth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 01:38 pm
Attached is the patent that cleans up the magnetron "spray". It simply adds 4 magnets to the radome (top) side circular magnet. It disrupts the field and presents a narrow band signal. This is the first step in my Phase II build, cleaning up that maggie. Next step after that...electronically variable center freq (wish me luck on that one).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 01:44 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.

I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing.  I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!

If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!

We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:34 pm
A side note- is there any known reason why Dr. Rodal has disappeared? I actually miss his posts, they were always helpful to clarify ongoing work.

I asked this question a few days ago, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431110#msg1431110

The best answer I got was "He is here, he is fine",
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1431246#msg1431246

I would not worry too much. I think dr Rodal has his good reasons not to communicate, although he clearly has the possibility to do so, simply because he keeps following these posts, as we can observe from his topic "likes".

Knowing that dr.Rodal has his own engineering consultancy business, I would not be surprised he signed an NDA that prohibits any form of related communication.

It's a shot in the dark and I'm the only one to blame for the assumption that follows, but considering his expertise demonstrated inhere and his previous collaboration with some ppl, my wild and outlandish guess is that he is currently, somehow, involved with the Eaglework research or any related paper that might be released in the future.

sometimes, silence says as much as complete phrases...

If dr Rodal does not take time to say "sorry guys/girls, I'm busy, you'll have to do it a few weeks without me" but still finds time to read and like topics on this forum, then it's clear to me that it is not a matter of not being able, but rather of not being allowed to say anything.
If an NDA was signed, then he would simply not be allowed to continue his work here on the forum, as it would undoubtedly overlap with his non-public activities...

so...Really, I do not think we should worry.. on the contrary...
Both thumbs up..."way to go , doc!"  and tell us all about it in a few months... 8)

Again...it is all speculation as nothing is confirmed...it's just a possible explanation, one of many.....
Shell and I were joking about nsf-1701 accidentally beaming him into an alternate dimension, but I believe work is the likely cause. Since he's been reported to be ok, doesn't matter why...doc will be back when he can.

Until then, let's bug shell for some more assembly pics  ;D
Heehee I get some pics, sorry I know I'm bad at it. ;D

Had a great day yesterday, birthday, seeing a dear old friend (her birthday is the same as mine) and getting the final sheets of copper from the water jet company. Nice dinner with some adult beverages... came home and crashed.  :o

Today and for the next several weeks or more I'm going to be quite busy, I'll post some pics but don't expect a lot of chatter. I have a good friend who worked with me in the past in my business. He's a fine engineering tech, visiting for a bit and will be helping. I'll feed him burnt steaks and and a cold brew and he will be quite happy.  :P

I've a lot of loose ends to tie up on the build and I want to get-er done and get it fired up!!!

There has been heat as to me taking my time. Even though I'm double checking, triple checking this build and in one case ripping it all down to rebuild it all again. Realize this just isn't a simple test to determine if I get thrust, it is a serious plan to pick apart this drive bit by bit piece by piece to gain as much useful information as I can in a DYI build as can be done. If I get thrust then it gets fine tuned to see what it takes to get more, if I get none that I want to know why.

I refuse to let it stop at just getting a little force generation (or not) and stand back and admire it, that's not good enough, not even close. There is a schedule of testing events that need to happen for data to profile this device. I've been working towards this for months. Now will come the real work and the real fun. . . for all of us.

With everyone's help here I'm starting out with a solid engineered drive that has a unbelievable Q of over 11 Billion (crazy isn't it?). The ability to test in several different orientations. Test accelerations and static pressures. To limit thermal issues as much as can be with out a vacuum chamber and be configurable to several different methods of cavity injection.

So wish me luck, I'm going to be starting and hopefully reinventing fire...

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:39 pm
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?
The magnetron works because it does have a very wide bandwidth and as the cavity deforms from heat it simply uses another one of the harmonics to lock in the bandwidth.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 02:46 pm
Attached is the patent that cleans up the magnetron "spray". It simply adds 4 magnets to the radome (top) side circular magnet. It disrupts the field and presents a narrow band signal. This is the first step in my Phase II build, cleaning up that maggie. Next step after that...electronically variable center freq (wish me luck on that one).

Yep, that's it! As I'm going down the posts your's was next, was going to post this but your way fast rfmwguy. This is the same one I've been looking at and what seems to work. I'm going to SA mine to death as it's driven by a inverter and the output will be quite different than a chopped percentage of on off, post the results when I get them.  Great find.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: bprager on 10/08/2015 02:58 pm
Had a great day yesterday, birthday, seeing a dear old friend (her birthday is the same as mine) and getting the final sheets of copper from the water jet company. Nice dinner with some adult beverages... came home and crashed.  :o


Happy Birthday SeeShell and Good Luck!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/08/2015 03:45 pm
Technical thoughts out loud - so this electronic frequency lock to resonance is bothering me a bit. As I visualize the setup, it becomes more expensive, complex and heavier.

As a possible solution, was thinking to go simple...rather than more precise, go less.

Mag sprays rf, pulsed. Stop pulsing with new power supply. But, modify mag for sweep. Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed...

On my way home from latest rad treatment. Will then post simple filtered full wave mod to existing maggie 1/2 wave non filtered pwr supply. Will allow fullly variable DC while maintaining fixed AC heater voltage.

I had a chance to chat with a electronics buyer for Lockheed at an info session tonight who seemed to know quite a bit about the EM Drive. He started in Aerospace, then MS in electrical, but I didn't get a complete background... His stance: a magnetron is too dirty, imprecise, and difficult to control to make it worthwhile for the application. He thought even circulators wouldn't constrict the bandwidth enough to supply the cavity you're looking for while maintaining a reasonable vswr. Not exactly what anyone wants to hear, but thought it was worth mentioning...

But the reason a magnetron has apparently yielded such higher efficiencies still perplexes me. Also the reasoning behind the dielectric requirement with an amplifier...
I know I keep bringing these back up but I feel like those two differences are key to understanding the phenomenon. Maybe I should be desinging an amplifier experiment to focus on that factor in particular; what thickness of dielectric is ideal and WHY?

Shawyer did use dielectrics in his 2002 Experimental EMDrive but abandoned dielectrics in 2004. His Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EMDrives are dielectric free plus both use spherical end plates.

The Flight Thruster uses active narrow band solid state + TWTA generation & electronic freq tracking and no mechanical tuning, while the Experimental used mechanical tuning with fixed maggie freq and the Demonstrator used both maggie freq adjustment and mechanical tuning.

As far as I know, SPR currently use solid state Rf gen with active best freq tracking and no mechanical resonance tuning.

BTW I agree with the Lockheed buyer. That is why I have gone pure solid state using a programmable 1kHz freq stepper Rf gen and a 500mHz to 2.5gHz wide band 100w Rf amp.

That seems like the ideal setup, especially when considering actually putting this system on a spacecraft. Satellites already use ss amps for comms so its only a matter of diverting the power that's already there.

So Mr. Traveller, in your opinion, was EW finding (that a dielectric is required for an amplifier) a fluke? Were they using too little power, or was it a matter of the frustum shape? (flat ends vs spherical ends)

Also, didn't Boeing purchase the flight thruster?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 03:47 pm
Happy Birthday Shell!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 03:57 pm
Happy Birthday Shell!

AHHHH! Whoot Whoot Whoot!!!!

Thanks!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 05:23 pm
That seems like the ideal setup, especially when considering actually putting this system on a spacecraft. Satellites already use ss amps for comms so its only a matter of diverting the power that's already there.

So Mr. Traveller, in your opinion, was EW finding (that a dielectric is required for an amplifier) a fluke? Were they using too little power, or was it a matter of the frustum shape? (flat ends vs spherical ends)

Also, didn't Boeing purchase the flight thruster?

Shawyer used dielectrics for years. His 1st 2 patents used dielectrics. He abandoned using them around 2003, a decade before Eagleworks started using them.

I have been told, by a source I fully believe, that Boeing do indeed have a SPR Flight Thruster.

As for the 100uN of Force achieved by EW at around 80Ws, there may be many reasons for such a low result.

Do hope EWs get the chance to try to gen Force without the dielectric. With their existing copper frustum, they should get TE013 resonance around 2.66ghz and for TE012 around 2.33ghz. But they will need to use a TE mode excitation antenna as their existing antenna is designed to excite TM mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2015 05:26 pm
Happy Birthday Shell!

AHHHH! Whoot Whoot Whoot!!!!

Thanks!

Shell

Yes indeed, Happy Birthday Shell. May you enjoy many more.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/08/2015 07:48 pm
FYI:

TESTS OF DISCRETE SPACE-TIME SYMMETRIES


http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/rpp2015-conservation-laws.pdf


Happy Birthday Shell !!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 08:14 pm
FYI:

TESTS OF DISCRETE SPACE-TIME SYMMETRIES


http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/rpp2015-conservation-laws.pdf


Happy Birthday Shell !!
Nice! Thanks! Building and having some fun in the shop! I love this work!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 08:15 pm
Tangent Time - While there's a bit of a lull in data & news, thought I'd muse for a while on some of the other interesting things I've done in the past.

I did the book writing thing a few years ago with a fiction and non-fiction book, which was a lot of fun...a lot of work, but fun. I learned that the publishing industry loves celebrity authors, even though those authors usually farm aout their books to ghost or staff writers.

So, you can imagine my thoughts about writing a suspenseful (science) fiction book about the Emdrive...Don't worry, I have nowhere near the time.  ;)

http://www.amazon.com/A.D.-Distler/e/B004SRQDXO/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/08/2015 08:52 pm
(...)

Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.

I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing.  I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!

If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!

We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.

Shell

Dear Shell,

just one absolutely well-meaning remark (because you consistently get it wrong).. the good doctor's name is Rodal, not Rodel. Maybe the doc is earning tons of money, so there can be better and more EM-Drive research?

Happy birthday & BR ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 10:49 pm
(...)

Most of us know Dr. Rodel does consulting work and also the stock markets for a living. He is easy to lookup and has a quite impressive history. Plus we all know from working with him here he is one of a kind and very very good at what he does.

I PMed him right after he went quiet and he replied he was working the stock markets and very very busy. Knowing the markets and how much flux they are in right now it's an ideal time to make a killing, if you know what your doing.  I for one have no doubt he is pillaging the markets. The man is very sharp!

If If Dr.Rodel is out doing what he needs to be doing to make a living, good for him and if it means for him to be quiet here to get-er done, then all I can say is I'll support him as he has supported us. Give em hell Dr. Rodel and make gazzilions!

We should all do the same and give him the space he needs and best wishes.

Shell

Dear Shell,

just one absolutely well-meaning remark (because you consistently get it wrong).. the good doctor's name is Rodal, not Rodel. Maybe the doc is earning tons of money, so there can be better and more EM-Drive research?

Happy birthday & BR ;)

I do, and I know I've messed up the fine Doctor's name before, no mean intent at all, just me being air head me.

Thank you for the happy birthday.

Shell

Added, Geez that makes me feel very bad. Sorry Dr. Rodal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 10:54 pm
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.

Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.

Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.

If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/08/2015 11:05 pm
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.

Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.

Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.

If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.

Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.

Back at it... still working at it.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/08/2015 11:15 pm
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.

Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.

Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.

If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.

Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.

Back at it... still working at it.

Shell

Everybody is so tight lipped, that it's somewhat disquieting, like the calm before the storm.

Hopefully these happenings include EagleWorks proving their point to the NASA's internal review boards, and getting more appropriate funding, which could result in a news-worthy paper by end of the year.

Or maybe Dr. Tajmar and his diligent Ph.D. students have continued doing experiments, with much better results by now.

Well, that's maybe just me and my child-like desires to see this work, but this calm is indeed odd.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/08/2015 11:56 pm
500 Downloads on the NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report from this thread and last.

Moral of the story...people are still interested in the emdrive concept and they are starving for information.

Does not look like Cannae, Tajmar, Shawyer or Yang have anything new to report. Still have hopes that EW is busy at it from the rumors I heard last year.

If anybody else finds anything out there, be sure to post it here.

Haven't heard much from this side other than rumors that something might be happening. Who knows what it will be.

Back at it... still working at it.

Shell

Everybody is so tight lipped, that it's somewhat disquieting, like the calm before the storm.

Hopefully these happenings include EagleWorks proving their point to the NASA's internal review boards, and getting more appropriate funding, which could result in a news-worthy paper by end of the year.

Or maybe Dr. Tajmar and his diligent Ph.D. students have continued doing experiments, with much better results by now.

Well, that's maybe just me and my child-like desires to see this work, but this calm is indeed odd.
It is funny, isn't it? Have to think that a "breakthrough" in determining this whole thing were measurement or system error would have hit the boards long ago, but they have not. And this is from labs that have a reputation for doing so.

Consider the quiet experimental labs that are likely hoping to disprove this thing and become the first to lay it to rest. Silence. And I don't think its becaused no one tried.

Calm before the storm, indeed Shell  :o

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 12:37 am
It is funny, isn't it? Have to think that a "breakthrough" in determining this whole thing were measurement or system error would have hit the boards long ago, but they have not. And this is from labs that have a reputation for doing so.

Consider the quiet experimental labs that are likely hoping to disprove this thing and become the first to lay it to rest. Silence. And I don't think its becaused no one tried.

Calm before the storm, indeed Shell  :o

Probably a good time to review the report Roger Shawyer put together way back in 2002 on his 1st Experimental EMDrive where the measured Force was 16mN @ 850W.

Lots of good info there for our current magnetron based DIYers. Even back then he used a circulator and a load for the reflected power so as to stop it heating up his magnetron. Because of the use of a waveguide assy, he had a way to impedance match the frustum to the magnetron using both a screw and a choke, which I assume is an aperture.

Also included Roger's latest summary of reported experimental data, with Specific Force (N/kW) sorted by measured loaded Q.

Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)

My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 12:48 am
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.

Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.

http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 02:25 am
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.

Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.

http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1
Attagirl...thanks Shell...looking mighty fine.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/09/2015 02:35 am
So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit.  But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing.  I would never troll this thread.  Ever.  I completely hate reddit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/09/2015 02:40 am
So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit.  But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing.  I would never troll this thread.  Ever.  I completely hate reddit.

Several active users of NSF, including RFMWguy and SeaShells, are active and positive contributors to the EM Drive Subreddit, which is a real and significant part of the community of interested researchers and bystanders. You do us all a disservice by trolling the other, interested parties out of spite for their host.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 02:44 am
So, I just had a ton of fun trolling on reddit.  But in all seriousness I respect what all DIY builders are doing.  I would never troll this thread.  Ever.  I completely hate reddit.

Several active users of NSF, including RFMWguy and SeaShells, are active and positive contributors to the EM Drive Subreddit, which is a real and significant part of the community of interested researchers and bystanders. You do us all a disservice by trolling the other, interested parties out of spite for their host.

Reddit is simply raw humanity. They are good people there who really want to know and understand what's happening. I'll post for them.

Shell

mods... spellings
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/09/2015 03:26 pm
...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)

My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.

100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN).  I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf.  If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible.  With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up.  To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.

To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 03:43 pm
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.

The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...

Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 03:47 pm
...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)

My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.

100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN).  I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf.  If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible.  With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up.  To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.

To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating.

You do know of the EMDrive powered IXS Clarke? Scroll down for transit times versus 0.4N/kW or 4N/kW. My research suggests 4N/kW and more is doable without going to superconductivity. Transit times are from Eagleworks.

http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_ship

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 04:26 pm
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.

The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...

Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.
It is a tube abet a interesting tube but follows most characteristics of a tube. I looked at the ability to shift frequencies in the magnetron and you are quite right it's not that easy. To begin it was easier to stabilize the frustum than mod the magnetron and latter if it was still needed to shift frequency and lock it with a feedback system it will not be quite as hard.

At one time I was looking at a transducer or voice coil on a end plate to vary the cavity dimensions, it may be something you might also want to look at. The thermal growth cycles are well within the range.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2015 04:26 pm
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.

The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...

Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.

Suggest feeding the maggie full wave rectified and filtered 4,000vdc will go a long way toward reducing the freq splatter.

Also try to use the oven's existing waveguide and maggie to waveguide assy as it is designed to over good VSWR to the mounted maggie. It may have a inward dimple, which is for impedance matching. Could flatten it and put in a threaded bolt or 3 to do good impedance matching or go with the existing dimple.

Will do my full wave filtered maggie schematic for you over the weekend. The daily rad makes doing any serious work very difficult. But Horray for 2 days away from the rad treatments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/09/2015 04:27 pm
Thermoelectric cooling

Why not to try to use a thermoelectric cooling module attached to the magnetron to remove part of its dissipated power. Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 04:59 pm
...
Have offered to share with EWs, all the details of the narrow bandwidth 2.45ghz spherical end plate EMDrive design that Roger and I developed. Once their current dielectric based copper frustum is working well enough in vac for Glenn tests, Paul may have enough time to engage this build and do the testing. Predicted Force at 100W is 50 - 100mN (0.5-1.0N/kW)

My goal here is simple. Get Our Butts To Mars.

100mN is better than the best ion thruster (92mN).  I build space systems with 50A@172VDC switches - there are 50A@250VDC solid state switches out there off the shelf.  If we can really talk about 12N of thrust per switched service(12.5Kw) with non-superconducting frustrums Mars gets easy and Titan becomes possible.  With a super conducting system? Heck, Alpha Centauri may become possible.
Additionally every satellite built today that has more than a very short life uses both reaction wheels that wear out and thrusters that use propellant that gets used up.  To replace both requires probably at least 4 EM drives per satellite (yaw,pitch,roll,thrust) and probably a second set for redundancy.

To say that this is a potential $Billion business is not exaggerating.
http://www.space.com/30074-trillion-dollar-asteroid-2011-uw158-earth-flyby.html
You're a little off in your estimate.  :o
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/09/2015 05:14 pm
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.

The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...

Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.

Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:

It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.

Now to the main reason for this post.  After reading through the last few pages of this latest version of the NSF.com/EM-Drive forum, some of you might find interesting the following microwave RF source data.  I've run across several papers over the last few months on how to make the magnetron from a kitchen microwave oven into a frequency tunable, narrow-band, and stable RF source with very low phase noise, just right for the kind of work that Dave, Shell and The Traveler are performing, or will be performing on these EM-Drive thrusters.   

These cross-field magnetron design modifications are authored by an RF engineer by the name of Bill Brown who died in 1999, (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Brown ), and their simplicity and elegance are still striking, at least to me.  In the hope that these papers have not already been posted elsewhere in these EM-Drive threads, or as a reminder to all if they have, find them attached.

BTW, Mr. Brown's phase-controlled, frequency-tunable magnetron design, using feedback from a sense antenna in the frustum, only has a frequency tuning range of ~15MHz as currently designed, so Dave D. will have to use a hybrid mechanical/electrical tuning system for his frustum to obtain his desired +/-40MHz tuning range.  Or Dave could increase the magnetic-field output in the magnetron's B-field Buck-Boost coil used in Brown's design by increasing its driven current range, which might get the increased frequency range Dave needs.

Best of luck to all your efforts and keep up the good work!
 
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/09/2015 05:18 pm
Thermoelectric cooling

Why not to try to use a thermoelectric cooling module attached to the magnetron to remove part of its dissipated power. Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling)

Certainly more efficient than a thermoelectric cooling would be to integrate in the arms of the thrust balance a high efficiency heat pipe similar to those used in communication spacecrafts to transport the heat generated by high power Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers (TWTAs) to radiative panels looking at the cold space.  The heat generated by the magnetron located at one arm end would be transported to the other end for a somewhat similar/symmetric dissipation process.
The effective thermal conductivity of a heat pipe is rather impressive, far in excess of the conductivity of a similar size pure copper (or even silver !) heat conductor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/09/2015 05:36 pm
NSF-1701 Phase II Testing Update - Donations have allowed me to upgrade the PC and get a Spec An module for it. Also ordered another identical magnetron to start modifications for cleaner signals...thus the spec an.

The freq control will be more difficult that I envisioned, so I won't be taking several months off this fall...significant challenges lay ahead to be able to vary the ctr freq +/- 40 Mhz...

Also have to design a feedback system to denote resonance. Thought about this alot. Going back to my old tube days, dip the plate current for resonance...not sure if this will work for mags however, they are strange animals.

Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:

It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.

Now to the main reason for this post.  After reading through the last few pages of this latest version of the NSF.com/EM-Drive forum, some of you might find interesting the following microwave RF source data.  I've run across several papers over the last few months on how to make the magnetron from a kitchen microwave oven into a frequency tunable, narrow-band, and stable RF source with very low phase noise, just right for the kind of work that Dave, Shell and The Traveler are performing, or will be performing on these EM-Drive thrusters.   

These cross-field magnetron design modifications are authored by an RF engineer by the name of Bill Brown who died in 1999, (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Brown ), and their simplicity and elegance are still striking, at least to me.  In the hope that these papers have not already been posted elsewhere in these EM-Drive threads, or as a reminder to all if they have, find them attached.

BTW, Mr. Brown's phase-controlled, frequency-tunable magnetron design, using feedback from a sense antenna in the frustum, only has a frequency tuning range of ~15MHz as currently designed, so Dave D. will have to use a hybrid mechanical/electrical tuning system for his frustum to obtain his desired +/-40MHz tuning range.  Or Dave could increase the magnetic-field output in the magnetron's B-field Buck-Boost coil used in Brown's design by increasing its driven current range, which might get the increased frequency range Dave needs.

Best of luck to all your efforts and keep up the good work!
 
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Paul,

Good to see you again, you are missed. I've read your inputs from almost day one and they were a great help to all.

I believe these designs were posted a couple of months ago when ElisbethGreen was still posting, but it is good to revisit them again. It is a beautiful design and one I considered way back then.

Currently I have plans in slightly modifying a Inverter from Panasonic to deliver a cleaner power signal and variable power than the standard power supplies. I'll need to see how stable my thermally compensating frustum design is as to how much I might or might not need to phase lock the RF to the frustum. I suspect with the high Q frequency tunning is going to be needed. :)

One other point, we all are here rooting for you and the EagleWorks team.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/09/2015 05:45 pm
Hey everyone,

Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)

You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller

Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.

-Kurt
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 05:51 pm
Wow!

Thanks Paul and welcome back!

Kurt! Very cool, thanks for the links!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 06:35 pm
Hey everyone,

Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)

You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller

Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.

-Kurt
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity

6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.

Should be:

6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/09/2015 07:00 pm
Hey everyone,

Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)

You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller

Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.

-Kurt
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity

6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.

Should be:

6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH.

Ah, apologies, thank you for the correction!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 07:14 pm
Hey everyone,

Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)

You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller

Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.

-Kurt
Excellent papers! Quick update (words marked in red) on the 3rd paper: Analysis of Anomalous Thrust Experiments from an Asymmetric Cavity

6Dristler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Fall, OH.

Should be:

6Distler, D., "Microwave Energy Injection into a Conical Frustum: The NSF-1701 Phase I Test Report", Chagrin Falls, OH.

Ah, apologies, thank you for the correction!
No problem Kurt! I did update emdrive.wiki with my data, only awaiting VNA testing for resonance & Q numbers. Think I'll be using the Qr or Q ratio measuring the 3dB BW ratios from insertion and best return loss resonance.

If you need any pics for your paper, let me know, otherwise, feel free to reference the Phase I TR data or commentary as needed.

Dave

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/09/2015 08:00 pm
In case anyone wonders just how linear are Maxwell's equations, the attached shows what meep calculates.

I started with SeeShells CE3 cavity and multiplied the frequency by scale = 23.87 GHz / 2.48 GHz = 9.625
Then I divided each of the dimensions by "scale" ie. 9.625. I used the drive frequency of 23.87 GHz and ran meep/Harminv. This calculated a resonant frequency of about 23.91 GHz, with high  Q . 

You will observe that the error in the original resonant frequency, 2.48 GHz, was also scaled by this approach. I'm pretty sure that is why the resonant frequency was initially off by 0.04 GHz.

Leaving the drive frequency at 23.87 GHz, I multiplied the dimension scale by a factor, given on the image. As you can see, the resonant frequency was driven to 23.87 GHz in a very nice, linear fashion. All of the calculated Q's were nice and high, showing good resonance.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cosmo on 10/09/2015 08:05 pm
I see that there are interesting solid-state alternatives to magnetrons coming available from NXP semiconductor.  Also, they have some evaluation tools that might fit in well with EMDrive validation efforts.  Here are some links to the relevant information -

http://www.nxp.com/applications/rf-energy/ (http://www.nxp.com/applications/rf-energy/)
http://www.nxp.com/documents/leaflet/75017630.pdf (http://www.nxp.com/documents/leaflet/75017630.pdf)
http://www.nxp.com/documents/white_paper/75017647.pdf (http://www.nxp.com/documents/white_paper/75017647.pdf)

Just curious what the EE/Microwave engineers could make of these products.  The frequency tunability and stability would fit well into EMDrive use.  Although the components are relatively inexpensive, the ready to use evaluation products aren't (pretty typical in the semi industry).

After some digging, the evaluation Blaze 250 (300W) / Blaze 500 (600W) 2.45GHz amplifiers are $2495 and $3995, respectively.  Probably out of the budget of individual builders, but certainly not some universities or NASA.

[Edit]
Re-ordered links above.  Note that the System 250-2.45-1 or System 500-2.45-1 (see 2nd link above) look like a complete, easily programmable solution for a Frustum microwave source without the problems associated with a Magnetron drive.

Kurt
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/09/2015 08:07 pm
Drive builders head's up. Cheap magnetrons...bought a couple just to disassemble and use radome:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151832903779
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/09/2015 09:55 pm
This is my last spreadsheet in comparison to the NASA_Comsol calculations using a single formula based on cylindrical coordinates for all the different modes in the plot. I think this is the border using that kind of equations, for more accuracy the method explained by dr.rodal  (or FEM/FDM) ::) , using sperical coordinates (or field simulations)is necessary,not the simple sin/cos properties of the cylindrical system.
But I think it's not really bad ;)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/10/2015 12:15 am
For Inquiring Minds Who Want To Know.

Some building pictures, took the time to upload and write about each step.

http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

Thanks for the pic's. You get bonus points for neatness of your shop.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 12:29 am
Drive builders head's up. Cheap magnetrons...bought a couple just to disassemble and use radome:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/151832903779
Guess what? This seller raised his price to 89 each after I bought 2 for 2.95 each.

Bet they won't ship...we'll see >:(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/10/2015 12:35 am
Hey everyone,

Papers have been published, the first details our investigation, the second outlines our newest proposal, and the third discusses the previous experiments. (The third hasn't changed much and could use more updating)

You can find them all on my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller

Or I'll attach a download link for those that don't have a linkedin account.

-Kurt

Nice work. Keep at it and get ready for a long and fruitful life in research.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 03:02 am
This is my last spreadsheet in comparison to the NASA_Comsol calculations using a single formula based on cylindrical coordinates for all the different modes in the plot. I think this is the border using that kind of equations, for more accuracy the method explained by dr.rodal  (or FEM/FDM) ::) , using sperical coordinates (or field simulations)is necessary,not the simple sin/cos properties of the cylindrical system.
But I think it's not really bad ;)

Nice work.

Can you please share your spreadsheet? Would like to compare our resonance versus mode data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 03:12 am

Dave, Shell, The Traveler & Crew:

It's been awhile since I last posted on this forum and sadly I still can't say anything about what is going on in the Eagleworks (EW) Lab other than Dr. White & I continue to work on testing Q-Thrusters and delving into the science behind them, within the constraints of a still VERY limited budget.

Paul March, Friendswood, TX

Hey Paul. Welcome back.

Must be something we can do to make your management take your work seriously and properly fund it. I mean what would be the effect of a working 50mN (0.5N/kW) EMDrive, accelerating for 10 minutes, with full data, have on their opinion?

Phil Wilson
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 am
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 04:09 am
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"

My understanding is:

At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.

All reverse at the small end.

This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.

The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.

End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required enviroment for the effect to happen.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 am
Hello,

Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently.  I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology.  It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement).  If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology.  Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now.  That is more than a little disruptive.

For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause.  If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature?  A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective.  If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations.  I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.

Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 05:42 am
Hello,

Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently.  I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology.  It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement).  If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology.  Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now.  That is more than a little disruptive.

For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause.  If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature?  A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective.  If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations.  I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.

Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.

Hi and welcome. Consider this, published in "Forbes" and first quoted back on thread 3.

Quote
The reason I’m writing this? If this force engine were to work, every industry you invest in will be turned upside down. Admittedly, this is a very early call.  Inventing a time machine would be more dramatic than EmDrive but not a lot more. A force engine would be like inventing fire.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/05/29/investor-alert-emdrive-could-make-uber-seem-about-as-disruptive-as-a-sweat-smear/2/)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: geza on 10/10/2015 06:09 am
Quote
My understanding is:

At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.

All reverse at the small end.

This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.

The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.

End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required environment for the effect to happen.

Phil

Thanks for your explanation! Still, I do not understand fully. If the EM wave bounces back at the end plate, then the momentum generated according to your explanation does not leave the cavity. You cannot ignore the bounce force (momentum transfer from the EM field to the cavity) just by saying that it is not directly involved in the effect. Can you clarify?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 06:29 am
Quote
My understanding is:

At the big end, the guide wavelength is the shortest and the group velocity / momentum of the EM wave is the highest.

All reverse at the small end.

This causes a monentum gradient to develope inside the EMDrive with the EM waves moving toward the small end losing momentum and the EM waves moving toward the big end gaining momentum.

The EMDrive then obeys Newton 3 and moves toward the small end to balance the momentum increase toward the big end.

End plate bounce force is not directly involved in the Shawyer Effect's externally generated Force but the end plate bounce does setup part of the required environment for the effect to happen.

Phil

Thanks for your explanation! Still, I do not understand fully. If the EM wave bounces back at the end plate, then the momentum generated according to your explanation does not leave the cavity. You cannot ignore the bounce force (momentum transfer from the EM field to the cavity) just by saying that it is not directly involved in the effect. Can you clarify?

The end plate bounces are not what generates the external Force. Their action/reaction Forces balance each other out.

What causes the external Force is the change in the EM wave's momentum, guide wavelength and group velocity during the passage of the EM wave BETWEEN the end plates.

For the EM wave to GAIN momentum as it travels from the small end to the big end, requires the frustum to move in the opposite way, toward the small end. Rocket like action.

Likewise for the EM wave to LOSE momentum as it travels from the big end to small end, requires the frustum to move in the same way, toward the small end. Sail like action.

So it is the changing EM wave momentum as it "travels" between the end plates that breaks symmetry and not the end plate bounce.

As per the attached SPR graphic, Shawyer shows the end plate action/ reaction bounce Forces balance each other out and are NOT the source of the externally generated "Shawyer Effect" Force.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: geza on 10/10/2015 07:05 am
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 07:24 am
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?

QV is a theory of NASA Eagleworks Dr. White.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 08:19 am
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
How about modeling it in meep? We have the frustum dimensions for the Q-thruster. I believe you can do a loop well enough.

Shell

Added a pic of the loop
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2015 10:13 am
Hello,

Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently.  I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology.  It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement).  If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology.  Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now.  That is more than a little disruptive.

For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause.  If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature?  A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective.  If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations.  I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.

Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.

You have just given reasons why planning 30 years a head is very risky. On the other hand I suspect in 40 years time we may have EMDrive cars, driving above roads first built by the Romans 2000 years ago.

Beyond a few probes to the Moon, Mars and GEO there will be little output from these experiments in 10 years time. There may however be major research programs to develop EMDrives able to push manned transfer vehicles to Mars - say halving the launch mass. Above road vehicles and aircraft could have similar development programs producing results in about 20 years time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Silversheep2011 on 10/10/2015 10:43 am

Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.

You have just given reasons why planning 30 years a head is very risky. On the other hand I suspect in 40 years time we may have EMDrive cars, driving above roads first built by the Romans 2000 years ago.


humoring you...
 
Commentary from way back in 1989

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjsUxbNmIs

note the x4 emDrive thruster's  within the wheels!
very disruptive...
It could all be happening here in thread5....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 02:09 pm
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?

Added:

It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.

Busy day today.

Shell

Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 03:35 pm
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.

Will take screen shots.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming  8)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 03:44 pm
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.

Will take screen shots.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming  8)

Attaboy big guy! Now you can do some big boy/girl testing.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 05:50 pm
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week.

Will take screen shots.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming  8)

Attaboy big guy! Now you can do some big boy/girl testing.

Shell
Coming from the Test Equipment industry, I decided to use PC based modules rather than stand alone stuff like I used to sell.

Come to think of it, perhaps thats why it was an ex-career ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/10/2015 06:47 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting  8)

I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:54 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting  8)

I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o
Yes, it was by me and the data analsyst as well as those who bothered to download the paper.

This poster is uninformed...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 06:55 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?

I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.

How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 07:13 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?

I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.

How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.

Shell
Whatever you say, you amateur... ::) lol
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 07:20 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done?

I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.

How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.

Shell
Whatever you say, you amateur... ::) lol
Ham it up... lol
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/10/2015 07:29 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting  8)

I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. :o
Yes, it was by me and the data analsyst as well as those who bothered to download the paper.

This poster is uninformed...

... and impatient.

Research takes a long time and a great deal of work. How many years has Shawyer been working on this? Our "amateur" scientists and engineers should be applauded for all their hard work and contributions to this forum.

Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 07:58 pm
Well today I'm not going to be working on the Tests. Have 2 friends who's birthdays fall in the month of October like mine. It's party time with about 30-40 ppl showing and no building the drive today.  ;D

Tomorrow is another day and back at it.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Ayreos on 10/10/2015 08:11 pm
I wish i had something better to contribute to the magnificent pursuit of knowledge this thread represents, but alas, my field of study is biotech, so i'll just contribute two elementary thoughts:

1) Feeding trolls is a waste of infinitely precious experiment time.
2) Science gains more by ruling out the impossible than by pursuing the plausible!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/10/2015 09:22 pm
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?

Added:

It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.

Busy day today.

Shell

Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.

Shell - We have ran enough simulations and members of this forum have evaluated enough EM wave propagation theory to understand that a very tiny antenna source down in the corner of the big end can not cause a symmetrically propagating resonant wave to appear within the limited start-up time available for meep computation/simulation.

I haven't made that run but I will do so now that you bring it up. I expect to see a very skewed wave pattern, what do you expect?

Oh, and a simulation problem. Paul reported that he rotated the loop antenna to maximize the S11 return loss. Is that to be simulated by rotating the antenna to maximize Q?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2015 11:19 pm
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?

I suggest you review my NASA Eagleworks EMDrive test data archive:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iS3hvZzV5Rzl6Rlk&usp=sharing

The EMDrive Force generation profiles are very clear. Especially like these 5:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0iQkZwS0RaX0RiN00/view

Apply Rf power, Force is generated. Remove Rf power, Force generation stops. Nice, clean & very clear.

The Eaglework professionals do a good job.

Anyone still thinking this is measurement error is crawing out on a very thin branch, that may one day fail them very badly.

It is time to ask why traditional analysis and theory when applied to the EMDrive fails to predict the real world Force as measured in 5 labs, in 4 countries, on 8 devices.

That is where the measurement error exists and not in the work of the 5 labs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 am
I suppose I should be more specific. The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.

And as I have said before, I am a chemist. I'm trying to inject some "non-enthusiast" perspective into the thread. I'm amazed that I'm considered a troll when posts predicting flying cars in 10 years are welcomed. I understand that you are all excited about the Eagleworks data (which, as I understand, do not include a rigorous error analysis), but if you want people outside the thread to care about what you do you should do it right or not at all. Compared to the amount of money spent on your test rigs a vacuum pump/turbomolecular pump and associated piping can be had for about 7,000. A chamber is also pretty easy to build, disposable copper gaskets and a big piece of welded steel should be relatively obtainable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2015 02:58 am
I suppose I should be more specific. The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.

And as I have said before, I am a chemist. I'm trying to inject some "non-enthusiast" perspective into the thread. I understand that you are all excited about the Eagleworks data, but if you want people outside the thread to care about what you do you should do it right or not at all.

You have read how the Eagleworks tests were done?

The frustum length axis was horizontal as was the generated and measured Force vector. Thermal effects produce a vertically upward lift, which should not generated a horizontal Force.

Next look at the rise and fall time of the Force signals as the Rf is turned on and off. As an engineer, no way is that a thermal signal, which would take time to build up and time to decay.

While there may be some thermally generated centre of mass movement from slow thermal expansion of the frustum visible as slow base line shifts, again no way is this capable of generating the rapid rise and fall of the Force as the Rf is turned On and Off.

I really struggle to understand how you can see the horizontal Force profile's rapid rise and fall times being thermally generated. Please share how you see this being possible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:05 am
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.

I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?

I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2015 03:29 am
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.

I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?

I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments.

So you have no explaination of how slow thermal effects could generate rapid horizontal rise and fall time Force signals?

And yes we need more experimental data and more experimental data in vac, which I believe Paul said Eagleworks are working on.

My work is to show the relationship between power supply delivered energy and the increasing kinetic energy of my rotary test setup during sustained periods of continuous EMDrive acceleration. Here I mean for periods of around 10 minutes, acceletating my test rig from stop to around 120 rpm and being totally cordless and on board battery powered.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 03:40 am
Not just more, but better data is needed. And that means data collected only in very high vacuum, under highly controlled conditions, equal or better to the NASA setup. Unless the effect (IMO not currently supported by the evidence) is very large, no data collected in the air is worth any serious consideration due to intractable thermal effects (there are too many to list here). Any test done in the air will need to be done in vacuum later anyway, so experimenters should just bite the bullet and do everything in vacuum from the beginning.

Thermal emission of gases from polymers and other materials can likely produce asymettric forces in any direction, since the hot spots generated by the microwaves won't be symmetrically distributed in a dielectric material. The reason I bring this up is that in the best eagleworks run, a dielectric material was used and this effect was likely not accounted for. Ultra-high vacuum systems use a minimum of "soft" parts and those that are used are not normally put under high thermal loads. There are many pitfalls when making these kinds of measurements and to my knowledge the available data from NASA doesn't exactly come with a detailed "supporting information" section including complete descriptions of how the runs were performed and how all gas effects were eliminated (were the test rigs baked under vacuum prior to experimental runs? How were the parts handled, with gloves or without? etc.).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Unentitled on 10/11/2015 07:42 am
Ideals surely have their place when considering experimental verification and your input is also sure to shape future considerations. Acknowledging the patience aspect it would be prudent to acknowledge that such experiments will follow?

Within a limited testing environment is an environment still worth testing and all that jazz.

I thank you for sharing your thoughts and do not find them unwelcoming.

These tests are meant to eliminate doubts whether data shows true/false/null. I am interested in any specific criticisms of the current data you would care to elaborate on, including an expansion on the levels of asymmetrical horizontal forces may be expected for thermal involvement (materials, machines, environment: air, other elements?)

Thanks for sharing all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/11/2015 09:16 am
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Hopefully you did not live at the time of Newton ! ;) He would never have been allowed to share the conclusions of his experiments. You imagine  : a totally uncontrolled apple falling from a tree, without any knowledge from the weather conditions, with the speed and direction of the wind totally unknown, and with a total ignorance of the possible actions of flying insects or birds ...  :)

You are certainly more a quality control integrist than somebody animated by a true scientific spirit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:30 am
I'm not an expert on this subject. However, since I have worked with high vacuum systems, I do know that there are still many avenues for tests (even in vacuum) to fail. High heat flux on surfaces (such as dielectrics) will inevitably liberate gases in a very high vacuum, which should be considered as ballistic mass emissions. Besides this in the image you link I don't see an error analysis.

I think that the consensus in your thread is that the eagleworks data is exciting but insufficient for publication or recognition by the scientific community, and I would agree. That's why you haven't seen a Nature or Science paper yet, which you surely would have by now if these results were ironclad. The response seems to have been that tests should be run by enthusiasts in less well-controlled conditions, which will do nothing to help determine whether or not an EMdrive effect exists at all. My point is that if you want to really know the answer to that question, you should at the very least perform your experiments to the same level as Eagleworks or better. How is that considered controversial?

I'll also point out that I'm quite a patient person. As an example I worked for three years on a chemical problem before obtaining publishable results. Science should be done right, rather than be done now, if you hope to get anything tractable or credible out of your experiments.
It simply cannot be done at the level your asking for with the budgets the DYI Builders have to work with and even if we could do a build with the proper facilities the data would still come under fire.  Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.

I need to point out the testing you are suggesting in high vacuum will bring its own set of issues, amplifying some thermal effects 3-4 times versus testing in ambient air conditions. It's not a slam dunk solution. It is a wiser route for DYIers to go by testing in ambient air and account for the thermal issues as best we can and hopefully when data sets come from EagleWorks or another lab or university be dovetailed together to produce a clearer picture of what is happening.

I appreciate your candor and your willingness to help point out what is lacking in the DYI tests, we are very aware of it. My company built and designed equipment that  went into Clean Room Fabs for producing not only semiconductors and optics but medical equipment, some of our machines are used in shaping the titanium wires that go into making heart stents. The rigorous requirements for our equipment we provided could be considered on a par with the testing facilities you are describing.

Funding is sorely needed to do this right and it's not a great deal to invest in testing this abnormality. First steps are needed to gain data that is useful, data the can be pulled from the noise of the testing environment regardless if it's in a vacuum or in ambient air. Then maybe funding can happen for some real world class testing. This is my hope.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 11:52 am
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.

In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum?  I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.

This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?

Added:

It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust.
This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.

Busy day today.

Shell

Added. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.

Shell - We have ran enough simulations and members of this forum have evaluated enough EM wave propagation theory to understand that a very tiny antenna source down in the corner of the big end can not cause a symmetrically propagating resonant wave to appear within the limited start-up time available for meep computation/simulation.

I haven't made that run but I will do so now that you bring it up. I expect to see a very skewed wave pattern, what do you expect?

Oh, and a simulation problem. Paul reported that he rotated the loop antenna to maximize the S11 return loss. Is that to be simulated by rotating the antenna to maximize Q?
I think you're quite correct, in we will see a rotating Betty Crocker blender of wave actions, very similar to the simulation of the Poynting vectors in the Yang-Shell that Dr. Rodal provided.  I suspect even after rotating the loop antenna the rotational effect will still be there.  Even now it makes little sense to me how thrust was gained from this configuration.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/11/2015 12:21 pm
Tetrakis does raise an interesting question about vacuum systems albeit his "cheap" solution is about $7k.

SeaShells notes the high cost of running in a vacuum.  In a previous life I was a member of AVS and also lived the life of making vacuum systems.  In fact, my first college part time job was in the chemistry department repairing mechanical pumps.  Quite oily as I recall.

To the Point:

This community shares a lot of technical and engineering ideas.  Perhaps a subtopic could be how to create an appropriate sized vacuum chamber very inexpensively.

For example, jb industries makes a nice line of inexpensive pumps starting in the $250 range.  The one I have, bottom of the line, easily pulls a .1 torr vacuum. 

A 3 gal degassing chamber on ebay starts around $100. 

What issues would we have to resolve to provide VAS (Vacuum As a Service) to this community? 

possible issues to resolve:

How big a chamber is required for the DIY community?  How many and what type of electrical feeds are required into the chamber?    The costs in my mind's eye are in the chamber requirements.

Even if the costs were too high for a single DIY project, could this community build a chamber that would support multiple projects that could be shipped as needed to support testing?

Would having a VAS available change DIY project designs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 04:04 pm
...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell

No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:15 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I need to point out the testing you are suggesting in high vacuum will bring its own set of issues, amplifying some thermal effects 3-4 times versus testing in ambient air conditions. It's not a slam dunk solution. It is a wiser route for DYIers to go by testing in ambient air and account for the thermal issues as best we can and hopefully when data sets come from EagleWorks or another lab or university be dovetailed together to produce a clearer picture of what is happening.

I strongly disagree. The key to a good experimental design is that it should always provide a firm yes/no answer to a hypothesis. A good experiment should be thought of as a well phrased question posed to Nature. So far no experiments have really met this criteria because in every case, spurious effects like outgassing, convection, ambient air currents, EM interference with measuring devices, electrical arcing/discharge interfere with the yes/no answer and render it a maybe/maybe answer. This kind of design is good for maintaining hope that the effect might be real but bad for actually getting an answer to the question.

When you do experiments, the null hypothesis has to be given a fighting chance. I just haven't seen it yet in any of these threads, which is why in my first post on this thread I pointed out that there are no "significant results" yet. Do science like you mean for it to pass the standard of peer-review. Anything less just gives more maybe/maybe answers that only serve to spread confusion. Anything less than "my EMDrive is jumping off the table" should be considered support of the null hypothesis if the experiment is conducted in air.


After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Hopefully you did not live at the time of Newton ! ;) He would never have been allowed to share the conclusions of his experiments. You imagine  : a totally uncontrolled apple falling from a tree, without any knowledge from the weather conditions, with the speed and direction of the wind totally unknown, and with a total ignorance of the possible actions of flying insects or birds ...  :)

You are certainly more a quality control integrist than somebody animated by a true scientific spirit.

Not to speak badly of quality control integrists, but I am a scientist "animated by a true scientific spirit". High-quality science is the only good science.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 04:20 pm
...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell

No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it.
In this report they talk about a vacuum chamber.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 04:33 pm
In that document, the following statement is made:

Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be  valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/11/2015 05:10 pm
...Just like the tests NASA EagleWorks did last year and they did test in vacuum under very controlled conditions. It's a very controversial effect that seems to defy laws of physics as we know them and if it didn't come under fire I'd be very surprised.
...
Shell

No, in their published paper (July 2014) the experiment was not in vacuum. They probably did the vacuum experiment in April 2015, but we have never seen publications about it.
In this report they talk about a vacuum chamber.

Yes, this is the July 2014 paper, published on AIAA conference in Ohio. They talked about vacuum chamber but the experiment was done with air, not in vacuum. Read it carefully and you will find out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/11/2015 05:27 pm
So, something just occurred to me.  Now, keep in mind, I don't have a degree, yet.  So, I was just thinking about some mechanisms that may be involved.  I wasn't thinking what happens when gamma radiation interacts with matter like copper, with photons like microwaves, and with air molecules.  I'd like to think about each kind of interaction separately.  Then, maybe something will allow for a combination of interactions of these types to produce thrust; by acting together in some way.  I don't know, I'm just thinking some kind of electro-static ionization due to bombardment might be why we get thrust.  I could just be imagining things because I just watched a sci-fi show.  Who knows.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/11/2015 05:34 pm
Tetrakis does raise an interesting question about vacuum systems albeit his "cheap" solution is about $7k.

SeaShells notes the high cost of running in a vacuum.  In a previous life I was a member of AVS and also lived the life of making vacuum systems.  In fact, my first college part time job was in the chemistry department repairing mechanical pumps.  Quite oily as I recall.

To the Point:

This community shares a lot of technical and engineering ideas.  Perhaps a subtopic could be how to create an appropriate sized vacuum chamber very inexpensively.

For example, jb industries makes a nice line of inexpensive pumps starting in the $250 range.  The one I have, bottom of the line, easily pulls a .1 torr vacuum. 

A 3 gal degassing chamber on ebay starts around $100. 

What issues would we have to resolve to provide VAS (Vacuum As a Service) to this community? 

possible issues to resolve:

How big a chamber is required for the DIY community?  How many and what type of electrical feeds are required into the chamber?    The costs in my mind's eye are in the chamber requirements.

Even if the costs were too high for a single DIY project, could this community build a chamber that would support multiple projects that could be shipped as needed to support testing?

Would having a VAS available change DIY project designs?
James Woodward who investigates both theoretically and experimentally a mass variation based  exotic propulsion system, has its own little vaccum chamber apparently made of transparent plexiglass : http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html (http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html).
Why not to ask him manufacturing/operation details of his small chamber ?   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 05:47 pm
In that document, the following statement is made:

Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be  valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.

The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.

I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.

If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 06:05 pm
In that document, the following statement is made:

Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be  valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.

The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.

I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.

If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.

I'm not trying to advocate for the perfect at the expense of the good. Tests in the air are pointless and serve only to perpetuate hope in experimental artifacts. And as I keep saying, I'm not impatient, I just have high standards.

I also did a BOTE calculation and the measured force is equivalent to about 0.7 microtorr of surface pressure in the NASA tests, which is lower than the 1 microtorr they say they achieve in their vacuum chamber. They gently warm their entire vacuum chamber from the outside, which provides no guarantee that a big piece of plastic in their UHV chamber even approaches its operating temperature during tests. Furthermore the dielectric heating will not be perfectly even but will be asymmetrically localized on the surface. My point is that only a truly tiny amount of outgassing is needed for the very best NASA data to be worthless. That the presence of a gas-sponge in the middle of the device is required for any measured force is very suspicious.

I'm describing, of course, the gold standard of EMDrive data.


For what its worth, I don't think anyone should build their own high vacuum chamber/setup. These things are expensive when done properly and would likely not be used enough to justify the cost. Look into renting time on an institutional chamber.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 06:37 pm
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one.

It's not about the "perfect experiment". It's that there are so many confounding factors that are in the same micro-newton range as the expected positive results.

If you were building a device that could lift itself and 5kg to the ceiling of your workshop, you'd only need a spring scale from your local bait'n'tackle to measure the force being produced at the accuracy required at this level. You wouldn't need a "perfect experiment" that measures every breath of air down to the micro-newton. The only confounding factors (unless there's a tornado in your lab) is whether you are cheating and using magicians' tricks - and that is easily solved by independent replication.

But when the heating of the air around the device can produce uplift larger than the desired effect, when visually undetectable thermal warping of the mechanism (or of the balance) may be sufficient to swamp the readings, when even current running through the power cables produces forces on the same order as those you're measuring, you are playing a vastly different game.

Unless you are capable of going beyond the level of isolation of the Eagleworks tests, you can't really add anything to the field. I mean, it sounds like ridiculous fun and I wish all of you success, but you aren't doing "research".

No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.

And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.

With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't. But with an effect as tiny and easily confused as the EMDrive, even an experimenter who is honest and genuine can subconsciously bias the results (even if just by dismissing the importance of a confounding factor; as you have with outgassing. Maybe you're right or maybe it's just wishful thinking because you know it's too hard to correct for it if it is an issue, and you already have so many things you need to keep track of.)

Put it another way: What will you do if you didn't get a positive result? Will you believe that you've successfully refuted the original claims? Or will you assume that you've made a mistake (because the effect must be real) and start fiddling with the set-up until you do get a positive response? Note that I'm not calling you a liar, or incompetent, or ungenuine, or too amateurish to be trusted. What I'm saying applies to any professional as much as it does to you, Michelle and others. Commitment-blinkers are really dangerous when playing with effects at the lowest edge of detectability.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 06:48 pm
In that document, the following statement is made:

Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be  valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?
I asked the same question early on. If you do your homework, you'll find outgassing to be relatively uniform around a material, thus not contributing to any vector significantly.

The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one. The ultimate proof will not be ground-based, but space based. While your patience is lacking, many of us realize this is the very early stages of development, so none of us are expecting perfect results with our modest resources.

I am surprised you do not understand development timelines and appear to be willing to discount results without further research or effort. No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.

If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.

I'm not trying to advocate for the perfect at the expense of the good. Tests in the air are pointless and serve only to perpetuate hope in experimental artifacts. And as I keep saying, I'm not impatient, I just have high standards.

I also did a BOTE calculation and the measured force is equivalent to about 0.7 microtorr of surface pressure in the NASA tests, which is lower than the 1 microtorr they say they achieve in their vacuum chamber. They gently warm their entire vacuum chamber from the outside, which provides no guarantee that a big piece of plastic in their UHV chamber even approaches its operating temperature during tests. Furthermore the dielectric heating will not be perfectly even but will be asymmetrically localized on the surface. My point is that only a truly tiny amount of outgassing is needed for the very best NASA data to be worthless. That the presence of a gas-sponge in the middle of the device is required for any measured force is very suspicious.

I'm describing, of course, the gold standard of EMDrive data.


For what its worth, I don't think anyone should build their own high vacuum chamber/setup. These things are expensive when done properly and would likely not be used enough to justify the cost. Look into renting time on an institutional chamber.
I disagree that ambient tests are worthless. Tracking thermal lift, tho variable, is rather linear from cold start to about 100°C in my setup. Extracting variance from linear was done. There was no dielectric and sidewalls were mesh. It was a closed system at mw freqs but open otherwise.

Like it or not, anomylous kinetic forces were detected that could not be attributed to outgassing, system noise or any other common error factors.

A true skeptic should prove claims of errors, otherwise it is a simple opinion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 07:12 pm

And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.


I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, and therefore geared their research and development in that direction. I expect the physicists that constructed the Chicago Pile were significantly committed to proving self-sustaining nuclear fission was "real".

I would guess that experimenters are more often motivated by demonstrating something is possible, rather than it is impossible. That is human nature, and I don't see why it is so concerning to you. If the experimental apparatus and results are public and replicatable, and if publications are peer reviewed, let the dreamers to their thing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2015 07:35 pm
The perfect experiment does not exist. It is folly to assume you or anyone else can design one.

It's not about the "perfect experiment". It's that there are so many confounding factors that are in the same micro-newton range as the expected positive results.

If you were building a device that could lift itself and 5kg to the ceiling of your workshop, you'd only need a spring scale from your local bait'n'tackle to measure the force being produced at the accuracy required at this level. You wouldn't need a "perfect experiment" that measures every breath of air down to the micro-newton. The only confounding factors (unless there's a tornado in your lab) is whether you are cheating and using magicians' tricks - and that is easily solved by independent replication.

But when the heating of the air around the device can produce uplift larger than the desired effect, when visually undetectable thermal warping of the mechanism (or of the balance) may be sufficient to swamp the readings, when even current running through the power cables produces forces on the same order as those you're measuring, you are playing a vastly different game.

Unless you are capable of going beyond the level of isolation of the Eagleworks tests, you can't really add anything to the field. I mean, it sounds like ridiculous fun and I wish all of you success, but you aren't doing "research".

No matter, research will go on without you and our hope is we can clear the rocket engine brick wall.
If we cannot, mankind is destined to live and die on this planet when an entire universe awaits. What a sad resignation that would be.

And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.

With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't. But with an effect as tiny and easily confused as the EMDrive, even an experimenter who is honest and genuine can subconsciously bias the results (even if just by dismissing the importance of a confounding factor; as you have with outgassing. Maybe you're right or maybe it's just wishful thinking because you know it's too hard to correct for it if it is an issue, and you already have so many things you need to keep track of.)

Put it another way: What will you do if you didn't get a positive result? Will you believe that you've successfully refuted the original claims? Or will you assume that you've made a mistake (because the effect must be real) and start fiddling with the set-up until you do get a positive response? Note that I'm not calling you a liar, or incompetent, or ungenuine, or too amateurish to be trusted. What I'm saying applies to any professional as much as it does to you, Michelle and others. Commitment-blinkers are really dangerous when playing with effects at the lowest edge of detectability.

Months ago I'd defined the issues I'd be facing in trying to test this device with the equipment I could acquire with the limited funding.

The largest was thermal, by far. I haven't detailed out many of the smaller things I've done yet but maybe it's time I do some of them.

Moving the 140-160c thermal magnetron off from the frustum was the first step in removing a large chaotic thermal effect obscuring any thrust data. I then had the wires and the heat from the frustum to deal with.

Once I had the thermal heat from the magnetron the issue remains of the thermal expansion of the frustum itself. If you want I'll repeat how via end plate construction and resonance capturing by locking the end plates together for mode capturing one or more of the five modes I plan on testing, I'll do so.

The other issue it the effect of the thermal expansion of the high power passing down the fulcrum length in the cables and into the wave-guides (or antennas). All the wires and coax have been laid out to negate as much as possible spurious forces they may generate and even a dummy load has been planed to map out any forces that may effect measurement.

I'm isolating the frustum from air currents with the Faraday cage and plastic covering most of the side windows. The top is open to allow any heat to escape.

The simple quest I started months ago hasn't changed, to pick this device apart bit by bit to ascertain what the effect it is showing is. It's not a perfect test but I hope to be able to negate as many of the error causing issues down to a level that any thrust abnormalities will be easier to detect. How well these "fixes" will fix the problem depend on physics of the system and my building abilities. We have seen data from tests that haven't done any of these things and something was seen from them, not sure what, but something was there. I think I can drop the error levels lower in these first series of tests to see something. And if there is thrust directly related to the Q of the system I covered that too.

I will be going forth and the data will be presented, how that data is worked on is up to the community of believers, on the fencers and nonbelievers. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: BL on 10/11/2015 08:22 pm
Re Post #93 by rfmwguy on 8 October:

“Mag sprays rf, pulsed.  Stop pulsing with new power supply.  But, modify mag for sweep.  Spray a bandwidth of swept rf, bound to hit resonance at some point as resonance slowly changes due to thermal changes.

Comments welcomed……..”

The EmDrive principle as I understand it is that a frustum excited at resonance by a microwave signal will produce thrust along the axis of the frustum.  The thrust is proportional to the power applied and the Q of the frustum.

If that is what the DIY’ers are trying to confirm—or reject, it seems unlikely that the hardware they have described on the forum, except for TheTraveller’s, can do either.  The power, frequency, and spectral content of their sources are not known or controllable while testing.  It is not known if the frustum, in its test configuration, has a mode of resonance at the nominal drive frequency.   Due to the spiky spectral content of the source, it is not known how much, if any, energy is being injected at a resonant frequency.  Since each frustum typically has multiple modes of resonance, each at different frequencies, which can be closely spaced, the frustum can only be tested at modes and frequencies that serendipitously coincide with source spectral lines.   It is even possible that the frustum has multiple resonant frequencies within the nominal spectrum width of the source AND, if the frustum has a high Q, that NONE of the energy from the source is supplied at ANY of them. 

Forget modifying the magnetron and/or its power supply.  If you are going to expend your resources in an attempt to test frustum based thrusters, rent or borrow a precision signal generator, or, even better, a Vector Signal Generator (VSG) and a broadband amplifier to get its output up to useful levels.  TheTraveller says that he has located a cheap one that puts out 100w, which should be adequate for proof of principle.

The sig gen can produce AM, FM, or pulse modulation and the spectral content of the VSG output can be tailored to your needs/desires using either canned modulation libraries or by creating your own custom output spectrum.  The frequency step size is typically 1 Hz or smaller, which is adequate for Q’s up to 1e9.  The output spectral width can vary from ultra pure CW to hundreds of MHz.  And you KNOW what you are applying to the frustum.   The modified magnetron approach is the experimental equivalent of hunting deer by going out into the woods, firing 100k rounds of ammo in random directions, and then looking for dead deer.  If you don’t find one, do you conclude that there were no deer in the forest?  Or that the deer were bulletproof?  Or both?

If you don’t want to ‘spray and hope’, keeping a CW source tuned to resonance should be pretty easy by using directional couplers and a power meter to monitor the return loss several times per second and adjusting the CW frequency under software control to ensure that it remains tuned to resonance as the frustum heats. If there are multiple resonant modes with different resonant frequencies the SigGen/VSG approach will allow the frustum to be tested at each and every mode, with the assurance that you have full control of the center frequency, spectrum, and power of the stimulus signal.


The DIY’ers are expending their own time and money, so, other than really hoping that the EmDrive effect is real and wanting to see believable test data confirming it, I have no ‘standing’ to criticize their efforts.  It just seems to me, based on my impressions from reading the forum, that if the objective is to confirm or deny the reality of EmDrive thrust they are wasting both.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/11/2015 08:27 pm
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, [...]

{Sigh} You completely ignored what I said immediately after that. Hell, the very next words: "With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't."

Instead you ignored what you didn't want to acknowledge in order to get the effect that you wanted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 10/11/2015 08:32 pm
The other thing that should be mentioned is that the objective very clearly is to see if we can get a statistically significant signal using the experimental configurations that folks could come up with.  When everyone started down this journey around about thread 2 there was a lot of debate around the Eagleworks vacuum experiments.  One thing that became very clear from this debate is that vacuum experiments produce low micro Newton thrust levels which are exceedingly difficult to parse out from all the potential noise sources, particularly thermal.  Most crucially power levels had to be kept very low to ensure nothing melted in the vacuum!  (If you want critiques wait till your apparatus is near melting!)

Also both Shawyer and Yang did not publish any experiments performed in a vacuum and claimed much higher thrust levels.

The critiques by Tetrakis and Paul451 are just too early in the journey.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/11/2015 09:32 pm
And this attitude is concerning too. You are significantly committed to finding the effect. Not just through your time and financial commitment to building a rig, but because you need it to be real.
I'm not concerned that the Wright Brothers "wanted" heavier-than-air flight to be real, [...]

{Sigh} You completely ignored what I said immediately after that. Hell, the very next words: "With a big effect, a bit of psychological bias doesn't matter. It either flies or it doesn't."

Instead you ignored what you didn't want to acknowledge in order to get the effect that you wanted.

Regardless of size of the effect, it is not unreasonable to expect experimenters to have an expectation (even hope) of the outcome. Regardless of the size of the effect,  physics doesn't care what the experimenter expects. Regardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.

So i fall to see the distinction you are making.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/11/2015 09:54 pm
Regardless of size of the effect, it is not unreasonable to expect experimenters to have an expectation (even hope) of the outcome. Regardless of the size of the effect,  physics doesn't care what the experimenter expects. Regardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.

So i fall to see the distinction you are making.

Quote
physics doesn't care what the experimenter expects.

There is literally a field of psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect) devoted to understanding how the above statement isn't correct.  Experimenter bias and how it effects outcomes is a well studied and well understood phenomena.  The double-blind experimental protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment), the gold standard for experimentation, exists solely for the purpose of improving upon the single-blind method by eliminating experimenter bias. 

Quote
Regardless of the size of the effect, experimental bias (either intentional or unintentional) won't survive the scientific and peer review process.

This is just wrong.  Peer review isn't magic.  It can't see through the psychology of an author and determine which data they omitted, which data they squeezed, which data they analyzed using method X because the result was nicer than method Y, etc.  Peer review fails all the time. 

It's a moot point anyway, because we aren't talking about an effect that has been subjected to peer review. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/11/2015 09:56 pm
It doesn't matter what naysayers say.  Btw, their is some awesome news from PaulTheSwag over on reddit.  Check it out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/11/2015 10:08 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 10/11/2015 10:16 pm
At this stage of testing and the varying results. Would it not be a bad idea to exclude by default anything?

Others may disagree with me. But the way I see things as they are now. Nobody can state other frequencies let alone other shapes would not provide results.

Any DIY should do as they wish. Of course many will choose similar frequencies, shapes and feeding methods for their frequency injections into similar cavities. With or without a vacuum.

That said. Someone could decide to use a cube with feeds on every side and different frequencies that nobody at this stage could state was a waste of time.

So, I am somewhat amazed at why anyone would want to suggest "These are the 'only' ways to do this testing right!".

At this stage. If someone said they wanted to use a small cavity shaped like a pyramid submerged 100 foot deep in water using AM Radio frequencies at 10 Watts, fed into the small end. I would look forward to their results. Maybe that's just me?

Don
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 10:22 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3odlez/science_fair_complete/

Congrats to Paul for winning gold in the south african science fair with his emdrive!

Must have impressed peers and scientists to have made it that far...well done.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/11/2015 10:52 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.

Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.

I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:02 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.

Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.

I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.

No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/11/2015 11:17 pm
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.

Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.

Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/11/2015 11:22 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.

Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.

I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.

No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho.

I don't think I'm out of date. In fact I know I'm not. While I'm in awe of your effort, the fact that Freescale, for example, is working on kilowatt level microwave sources for consumer appliances should be evident to everyone involved in this area. Often, a simple phone call will result in donations of equipment, or samples, that the average experimenter can only dream of. You have but to ask, the worst is that they say no.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/11/2015 11:46 pm
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.

Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.

I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
You are a little out of date. Full wave rectifiers and azmuth magnets are planned to clean up the mag. A solid state source is impracticat at kw power levels with current designs. These are points we've discussed adnauseum since thread 3.

No one is 100% certain the effect is lockable yet. It may be a result of phase amplitude frequency or mode changes. We have tk await a peer reviewed paper before drawing any conclusions about source locking, although it seems likely imho.

I don't think I'm out of date. In fact I know I'm not. While I'm in awe of your effort, the fact that Freescale, for example, is working on kilowatt level microwave sources for consumer appliances should be evident to everyone involved in this area. Often, a simple phone call will result in donations of equipment, or samples, that the average experimenter can only dream of. You have but to ask, the worst is that they say no.
Thanks, this is a good tip. I moved from tubes to ss many years ago and am glad 1kw ss at 2 ghz is in development. Now, to get that free sample ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 12:38 am
In that document, the following statement is made:

Quote
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be  valuated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

Where do they account for outgassing from a big block of plastic under high thermal load?

To make my point again.

The very rapid rise and fall times of the Force signals are way too quick to be either thermal or out gassing generated.

With respect as an engineer to a chemist you are beating a dead horse.

Paul has shared vac data with NSF, which was not that good. Based on my resonance prediction spreadsheets which shows the vac resonance for the EW frustum increases by 600kHz, I asked Paul to do atmo versus vac S11 VNA resonance scans. He confirmed the higher resonance in vac. Surprised him. Told me the existing freq control and/or 3 stub impedance tuner system would not handle that much change. My theory is the early vac data was not done at vac resonance and is why it was crap.

So no biggie, but just another issue to be engineered out. I'm sure Paul & the other EW team members have this sorted.

We need to let EW finish their vac test series and have the results verified by another lab.

We ALL understand what strong positive vac results would mean. So give the professional EW team the time to put together solid vac verification before they publish again and the fire storm erupts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 12:38 am
To eliminate gas effects it seems a pressure lower than one microtorr is needed. Such pressures are routinely obtained in large vessels in industry, but need both a roughing pump and a turbomolecular pump/oil diffusion pump (with at least a dry ice/acetone trap) in series and, importantly, a lack of exposed soft parts. UHV metal-metal gaskets would probably be the best and cheapest join type, but cajon or swagelok fittings / welded glass would also work.


I believe that I'm having a hard time finding your assertions credible, your quote being an example.

Granted EM tests at atmospheric preasure at 760 torr see some lift, and this is expected, but  I haven't seen much evidence for hot air balloon flights  at 150,000 feet (28 miles or so), about 1 torr.  In fact, I was suggesting a 10th of a torr, 100 millitorr, for a pump rated to 10 millitorr about 35 mile altitude equivalent.  A relatively cheap embodiment.

You're suggesting a microtorr.  That's a remarkable requirement unless you are in sales for Beckman Coulter or Dynavac.

Science isn't about getting the best equipment.

It's about framing a testable hypothesis and trying to falsify it, followed by replication attempts and reports by many others.  Eventually a consensus may emerge.  Read your Thomas Kuhn and stay away from those parts catalogs.

To your microtorr requirement, I'd be bewildered to see an EM drive hypothesis where the null hypothesis would be rejected because the experimenter operated at 100 millitorr instead of 1 microtorr... But, I'm all ears.

For EM experiments done at atmospheric preassure, while no one finds that ideal, it is possible to frame an hypothesis and an experiment that tests for force under those conditions.  RFMWGUY asked, is the thermal lift retarded when the device is on(?), if so, that is partial (albeit not confirming) evidence.  Thermal lift should not be retarded in a hot air balloon simply because you started spritzing the balloon with microwaves.

It is not axiomatic that it shall fail unless it's done in a vacuum.  Non vacuum testing simply adds to the potential errors and factors to be compensated for.  Careful experimental design and analysis can compensate.

Further, since there is no accepted theory as to why any of this should be real,  for those who want to know, there needs to be testing that is atheoretical to provide a body of observations that ultimately can be used to theorize why, or why not.

Back to lurking.  Wish this site had an ignore poster checkbox.

Look into a Crookes radiometer. They wont work at atmospheric pressure, and they won't work under hard vacuum. The devil is in the details, and it wasn't until fairly recently that anyone understood why they work at all. Folks here are slowly coming around to the protocol that I esposed eons ago, and for which I got a lot of snotty personal e-mails.

I'll say it again:
1) You can't design a cavity which will "tune", at high Q (whatever weird Q method you choose) to a microwave oven magnetron.
2) You can easily design a tuned cavity for any frequency and any mode (common industrial practice).
3) Design a tuned cavity, for the mode of your choice, and use a phase lockable source to drive it.
4) A microwave oven magnetron is a microwave source 100% AM modulated at the rate of its power supply (50-60 Hz).
5) Your phase lockable source should be able to emulate 4 above.
That's not quite correct on the microwave magnetron power supply. Panasonic has a Inverter type that doesn't have a duty cycle at the incoming line frequencies. It's output around 33KHz can be stabilized  with filtering and modifying the final stage to not even have the 33KHz component. The heater can be turned off after powering on for an increased clean signal.

One reason I want the wider output in bandwidth by using a magnetron is simply to be able to test the same cavity by keeping the wider band input of the magnetron with it's sub-harmonics and physically sweep the cavity length through tune points crossing through multiple modes, consisting of both TE and even TM modes. As the cavity is now with a meep simulated 30MHz bandwidth it operates in 3 different modes (one being a 1.5 hybrid mode) all within the same cavity and it still maintains a high reported Q. Why does it do this and what profound (or not) effects will be seen by testing these other close modes? No one can answer that for me because it's never been done.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 12:48 am
Shell, I've followed your design logic for some time now and am impressed by your analysis and plans. This could be a millinewton level ke force your about to measure, well above the snowflake levels we've had to deal with. My phase II is a 17.5 millinewton goal, I may need some power supply help from you or phil.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:23 am
Shell, I've followed your design logic for some time now and am impressed by your analysis and plans. This could be a millinewton level ke force your about to measure, well above the snowflake levels we've had to deal with. My phase II is a 17.5 millinewton goal, I may need some power supply help from you or phil.

I suspect the 1st DIY result >= 10mN should be offered to EW to  confirm as like a strong positive EW vac result, a fire storm will erupt.

As long as the results are in the show flake range (~30uN), the critics will hold their fire as easy to dismiss.

At 10mNs it all changes. Shawyers 1st Experimental at 16mNs got him serious funding from the UK gov, which he turned into the rotary Demonstrator and then the Flight Thruster. It is interesting to observe that as his Force generated grew, his credibility decreased until he was called a fraud and ignored.

Hopefully with the openness of the Internet, that may be avoided this time around as the EMDrive DIYers learn what Shawyer learned back in 1996 - 2006 and our EMDrive Force generation slowly increases until it can't be ignored or called fraud and discredited.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/12/2015 01:44 am
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg)

:)

keep up the good work SeeShells
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 01:51 am
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg)

:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

hahahaaa snort... Although he turned out to be a good Data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 02:57 am
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.

Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.

Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.

I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.


. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg)

:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 03:52 am
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we know nothing about you or your credentials.

Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.

Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:20 am
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.

Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.

Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.

I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.


. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg)

:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".

I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 04:46 am
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1?  :D

EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 08:25 am
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1?  :D

EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding.

0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.

http://emdrive.wiki/images/4/4e/ISXClarkMars.jpg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:35 am
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we no nothing about you or your credentials.

Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.

Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion.

Just to put in my two cents as they say. Good for you standing your ground on this matter. Critical comment is fair enough where I have more of an issue is this talk about leaving it to the professionals & that there is no place for the amateur experimenter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 08:50 am
0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.

http://emdrive.wiki/images/4/4e/ISXClarkMars.jpg

Oh I know, I'm just being a dreamer. Floating a spacecraft in Earth's gravity well, and making orbit without the aid of rockets, would be the greatest trick of all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/12/2015 09:58 am

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".

I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
I am 110% with you on this, Shell.

Although I found the initial remarks of Tetrakis a bit harsh and brutal, I do think it is good to have highly critical people on the sidelines that ask pesky questions....
For a part I can relate to his observations, as my self I was a bit disappointed to see the inability to produce a signal above the background noise.
I do however not side with his conclusions that only vacuum and a professional lab/team will lead to meaningful results.

There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

And in order to answer this question, we need to follow the method that Shell's proposing: attempting to understand what's happening in that "tin can", with small incremental steps.
Going vacuum will solve nothing if you do not understand what is needed to generate that presumed mysterious force...
To keep on track with the Wright brothers: many before them tried and tried (with some hilarious results) and failed... it is until the brothers started experimenting with wing profiles that they started to understand  what "airlift" really meant for flight...

Consider the 5 pages of the NSF forum to be just that: the search for answers, be them on a theoretical level or a more pragmatic engineering/DIY level...
I think we came a long way already from Iulian's fast shotgun approach to what rfmwguy did and others will do in the future...

If each of these incremental steps turns out to be inconclusive, then yes, we might consider that it all turned out to be a hoax, but we're not there yet. A fuzzy signal is not a null signal, but means it needs further investigation to understand where the fuzzy signal comes from...

To me, the main question is now: what did Shawyer and Yang do, to get their claimed results. I'm not dismissing possible fraud (harsh word here) but it is NOT in my nature to assume fraud (deliberate or not) from start. Let's first make a serious attempt to understand what they did and any info provided by DIY builders can contribute.

5 pages of high level discussions inhere thought me that the possible effects inside the microwave filled frustum are not simple to understand...Rushing to the end result might not be the right thing to do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 10/12/2015 11:37 am

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.

Props for being a professional scientist; I would consider the 'DIYers' here far better scientists then a lot of those who are still in the field being paid to do science. In many ways, home scientists have always done better when unfettered from the restrictions and, dare I say, biases, of the ruling class, or the money class.

Nobody here is naive enough to not understand the literal billions of dollars that influence scientific research in corporations, universities, and governments. And this here little ol' technology may be worth more than those billions.

You complained earlier of a 'lack of interest' in this thread; it's already been discussed that there are many research efforts ongoing currently on this technology. There *are* peer reviewed papers, there *is* money going into research. Those facts alone make the discussion and group experimentation that's happening here a reasonable and very worthwhile exercise.

Don't confuse amateur with skill, or being professional with being unbiased.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA.

Where did you learn to science, dude? Since when does experimentation and reproduction of results to add to data sets not count as 'science'. There continue to be experiments that show that something is happening beyond "well known" thermal effects, however small. Can these self-funded experiments generate specific pico-data points to 'prove' what is happening? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the macro-level results (there is a force beyond thermal happening in a frustum of shape X, energy Y etc) aren't worth a *huge* amount, too.

If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

But hey, don't ask me, I really am an amateur when it comes to all of this EM Drive and the physics behind it and all. But I am enough of a professional in my own rights to know science when I see it.

Thank you for inspiring me enough to write.
Ronald
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 01:41 pm
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 02:12 pm
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.

Phil,

Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error.  Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.  ::)

Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.

It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.

So why do I do it and fight for my right to?

"Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/12/2015 03:28 pm
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?

A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please?  We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.

Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?).


I will point out that Paul March at Eagleworks also does much of his work from his kitchen table.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/12/2015 03:28 pm
Quote
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/12/2015 03:34 pm


A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please?  We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.



http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/12/2015 04:05 pm
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.

Phil,

Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error.  Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.  ::)

Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.

It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.

So why do I do it and fight for my right to?

"Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"


Michelle:

Bravo girl, way to go!!  We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.

Now back to how to get there. 

BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results.  Been there, done that.  However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.

Phil:

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

All:

In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring.  I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 04:07 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 04:33 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?
"Uhhh, am I delusional?" Whoa big guy, I'm not going there. You're just a "Crazy Eddie" like me.

I think if you can divert the major component of heat from a vertical rising to a horizontal one and let it rise outside the frustum boundary. I forget who posted a top plate over the magnetron but it was a good idea and shoot the hot air out to the sides you should remove the vertical column of hot air dragging the frustum upwards and force it to dissipate out into the room.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/12/2015 04:42 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.

Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.

Don't know - might help.

I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 05:17 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.

Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.

Don't know - might help.

I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs.  :)
Yep, lower air pressure above will remain, just trying to offset it a bit by downward flowing cold air. Will not be a 100% balance to lift I don't think. I was just surprised how strong and quickly lift developed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/12/2015 05:31 pm
Michelle:

Bravo girl, way to go!!  We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.

Now back to how to get there. 

BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results.  Been there, done that.  However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.

Phil:

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

All:

In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring.  I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March


Fantastic to hear from you Paul.  Cannot wait to read the paper.  Cheers.

Bob
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/12/2015 06:50 pm
Quote
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.

At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people.  I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves). 

I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:09 pm
Quote
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway.
hahhaa snort sputter!!! Made me almost spew out my coffee aero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:20 pm
Quote
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

I suspect you'd only be creating more noise.

At this point, given the thermal issues, the best bet for a detecting legitimate thrust would probably be a variant of Shawyers rotary rig - though that may be a bit of a budget buster for our DIY people.  I do wonder if a 'water' or 'float' test might also work (put the device on a tiny boat, put the boat in a large barrel or some such filled with water, and see if it moves). 

I dunno...would a Shawyer style rotary rig work in a vacuum?
No. It would not work, it needs air to float the plates but a magnetic bearing could do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 10/12/2015 07:32 pm
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.

But this stuff...

Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.

(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)

So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."

(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)

Good for you standing your ground on this matter.

(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)

It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]

This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.

Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".

Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.

Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.

One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.

What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.

--

CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error. [Brin]

Because, the easiest person to fool is yourself. [Feynman]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/12/2015 07:46 pm
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.

I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.

Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.


I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data.  They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.

I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 07:49 pm
Thread activity is picking up again, so I'll go back to lurking. But before I do, I wanted to try to explain what I'm worried about. I'd hate to see all the time, effort (and money) people have put in end up being for nothing.

But this stuff...

Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.

(...Because anyone who offers criticism can never be convinced by evidence, and is on a par with Moon-landing-hoax believers.)

So why do I do it and fight for my right to? "Because I choose to dream. [...] Yes, I dream, for humanity."

(...Whereas anyone who offers criticism is anti-progress, trying to condemn humanity to stay in the caves, an enemy to be "fought".)

Good for you standing your ground on this matter.

(...Because listening to critics is the same as giving up.)

It doesn't matter what naysayers say. [...]

This stuff is what worries me. The growing tribalism. Us vs Them. I've seen it in every alt.science and many fringe science fields for the decades I've been interested in this kind of thing. It's a common pattern that marks them out from actual science.

Nothing Tetrakis (or myself) said indicated dismissal of the possibility of a genuine effect, or of real novel physics. But the reaction from many "supporters" suggests that that's how they read any criticism. If you aren't a supporter, you are a mindless naysayer, an enemy to be vanquished to protect "the dream".

Do you want your research, the result of your huge personal efforts, to be valued outside of a bubble of approved admirers? 'cause that ain't doing it.

Psychological effects (confirmation bias, "commitment-blinkers", etc,) are at least as powerful as the proposed confounding physical effects. And like those physical effects, it needs to be accounted for in the experiments. But some of the comments suggest not only is it not being taken into consideration, but that there's an active hostility towards the very idea of doing so.

One of the things that always impressed me about Paul March was that he didn't sound like that. The guy always seemed to drink in criticism like it was his fuel. Not just engaging with critics, but making shifts in research direction based on the points raised by critics. Critic:"You haven't eliminated [...]" March:"Hey that's a great thought, we can try this [...] in the next round" Critic:"You'll need to [...] or else [...]" March:"Hmmm, first we'd need to know the size of [...]" That pattern is common in science, but completely unlike the the culture that develops in alt.sci.

What worries me is that some in this thread are choosing the other path.

--

CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.

Because, "the easiest person to fool is yourself."

Don't confuse my choice to dream with my research, as it's a dream that gives me the drive to test this device, if it's a flop then it's a flop, if it goes then great. You dream of a better job, you dream of a better future for your friends and family, you dream of discovering fire again, making more money. Of course you and we dream, it is in our nature.  We all dream, for that gives us the drive to achieve.

I was asked about using a vacuum in my testing and then told anything I gained from not doing it in a vacuum, wasn't worth while. I explained that wasn't in the cards  at this time but it was in the future. How is that not listening? Testing in a vacuum is a fine idea.

I have no reason to try to fool myself, it would be a fools choice. Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/12/2015 08:22 pm
If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.

I'll also say that I am not an expert on small force measurements in vacuum. There are people out there that have that expertise. However, I think that the simplest approach is to build a test rig entirely out of metal or ceramic components and to minimize the use of soft parts anywhere near heat sources or the measured mass. Its also going to be important to conduct the tests at a sufficiently high vacuum that low pressure gas-effects (see Crookes radiometer) become negligible (microtorr). Sadly I don't have access to a sufficiently large UHV apparatus to lend out. I'm a chemist, and we use these pressures for gas handling and other small-diameter applications.

Understand that my goal here isn't to antagonize or insult anyone, just to encourage DIY experimenters to do their science as if they were preparing to submit a paper to Nature or Science. Holding yourself to that standard greatly improves the overall quality of your work even if in the end you fail to get sufficiently high-impact results. Those standards have nothing to do with money, influence, or armies of PhDs. Its about discovering something new by asking Nature expertly posed questions.


I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not trying to say that nothing could be done in air at all, just that it worries me when certain DIYers make bold and strong statements from their in-air tests. I think many DIYers would benefit from a much more conservative approach to their data.  They (and I'm not calling anyone out specifically) should recognize that until they can confidently say that there is only a negligible chance of confounding factors affecting their experiments, they shouldn't start making bold claims and proclamations. I don't think there will ever be any ironclad evidence for the proposed "EMDrive effect" with in-air tests unless the magnitude of the effect is truly huge.

I'll also say that I admire your spirit and think you are doing good work. Best of luck to you and your ambitions.

Thank you, I never took you differently than willing to help and offer us your professional thoughts. 

The funds simply don't exist right now to go up to the level I'd like to be, that bothers me greatly, but I am trying to build the best I can with the few thousand contributed with my gofundme account. I hope and it is with the help of many here to be able to push this test up to a level that the effect shows above the noise and good data pulled. We'll see what happens and that's the best I can hope for.

Shell


The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

Glad to hear that your campaign is going well. What do you think the source of your thermal issues are at UHV pressures?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 08:25 pm
Time Out - It might be a good time to insert this link again to the 2015 South African Science fair gold winner for his DIY EMDrive accomplishments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3odlez/science_fair_complete/

...and to remind critics that even the most humble DIY experiments can lead to great things.

Not all DIY experiments are going to be gold standards, and they don't have to be. For there is no perfect experiment. Might I suggest that we need to moderate gold scientific standards to allow people like Paul to get involved in DIY work and not become discouraged. Opinions and terms like "never", "amateur" and "cannot" when applied to DIY work is not only counterproductive, it could be terribly wrong and potentially discourage another Paul in the making.




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2015 08:33 pm
I think both sides, how depressing that it has come to sides, will need to be patient as I imagine it will not be until 2016 that we hear more results from groups such as EW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/12/2015 09:36 pm
I don't think its possible to completely eliminate thermal effects in air. Sure, there are things that can be done to reduce those effects, but at the force levels seen so far there is just no way to state with confidence that any observed forces are due to new physics. The level of experimental quality needed to make such a claim is very high.
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Giovanni DS on 10/12/2015 09:47 pm
I am curious: if someone did a setup like rfmwguy's, with the drive trying to move down, and it actually moved measurably down, would you consider that convincing evidence that thermal effects aren't the cause? Unless I am misunderstanding something, thermal effects would only move it upwards, so that would mean the drive overcame them and then some.

There are thermal effects that could push it down, asymmetric expansion of the scale arms for example, the hotter arm would expand more than the colder one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/12/2015 09:59 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/12/2015 10:56 pm
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

It seems to me that rather than introducing additional forces trying to counteract disturbances, it might be more productive to characterize the disturbances, then analytically eliminate them from the measurements. In other words, is there a way to induce the thermal effects into the apparatus in a way guaranteed NOT to produce thrust, measure them, then subtract them from a full test run and see if there are any forces remaining?
Yes, I characterized lift on 3 test runs. There were anomalies in mag power ON/OFF time block comparisons. In OFF mode, lift continued a (fairly) linear rise to its peak (around 200 deg C meg temp). When mag ON, this (upwards) lift was disrupted, sometimes by a momentary downward force, sometimes with an attenuated lift rate. This was discussed alot towards the end of Thread 4 and some nice data analysis was done. Basically, the mag ON introduced unexpected non-linearities in lift progression. Just a simple, basic experiment.

This is what some skeptics are trying to claim are experimental errors. I did do a system noise analysis on the LDS and A/D converter and it was random and very insignificant whether mag was ON/OFF. All other variables have been accounted for to the best of my abilities. The test stand only had one source of data readings, the LDS which had insignificant noise levels as mentioned above.

On of the spreadsheets that illustrate this was wallofwolfstreet's analysis of Flight Test 2B. It showed a statistically different set of numbers mag ON to OFF periods:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38203.0;attach=1070977

Glennfish also did some fine analysis as well (FT 2C). So while my Test Report claimed lift anomalies between mag ON & OFF, I labeled this as the emdrive effect which albeit small, was not attributable to system errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sandrot on 10/12/2015 11:14 pm
How hot does the frustum get during an experiment?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:15 pm

Uhhh, am I delusional?

IMHO yes, that is delusional.   :)

I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal.  If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational.  Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured.  Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand.  Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

IMHO
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:20 pm
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:31 pm


PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand,  but it might turn you into a business lady.

The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.

I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1.  The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2.  The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3.  The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4.  The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5.  The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6.  The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.

Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"

Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind.  :)

1.  It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2.  In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/12/2015 11:34 pm
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.

Aw come-on.  I thought I had a brilliant idea.  Are you the dark lord of winter?  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/12/2015 11:43 pm
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.

Aw come-on.  I thought I had a brilliant idea.  Are you the dark lord of winter?  :)

A bit glum after a few too many "frauds," "meme-drives," "no credible research group is attempting to replicates," and "they'll never get signal above the noise floors." Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2015 11:45 pm

Uhhh, am I delusional?

IMHO yes, that is delusional.   :)

I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal.  If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational.  Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured.  Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand.  Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

IMHO

Eagleworks mount their EMDrive horizontally, flip it 180 deg and use a dummy load (gens the same heat load as their EMDrive) to eliminate thermal, EMC and H/E Force effects.

Despite doing all that, those with too much invested in the data being bad, continue to claim thermal or out gassing effects are responsible.

In reality you only need to look at the very rapid rise and fall times to know the measured Force is not a thermal or out gassing effect.

The 1st image is what you see when running at resonance. Rapid rise and fall times as the Rf is switched On and Off.

The 2nd image is what you get when off resonance and thermal effects dominate.

See any difference?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:03 am


PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand,  but it might turn you into a business lady.

The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.

I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1.  The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2.  The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3.  The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4.  The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5.  The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6.  The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.

Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"

Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind.  :)

1.  It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2.  In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.

Been there, done that. Several times.

I can deliver 1 - 6, with 6 being conditional on my payout.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:08 am

Uhhh, am I delusional?

IMHO yes, that is delusional.   :)

I think the issue is veritcal vs. horizontal.  If you know you will have veritical lift, then measure horizontally, i.e. rotational.  Put a nice vertical stopper so anything up or down doesn't get measured.  Get one of those gizmos that allows a 180 degree flip so you go clockwise or counter clockwise by flipping the whole gizmo on demand.  Not sure what that means in an actual implementation, but if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

IMHO

This is the Eagleworks setup.

None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 12:14 am
...if you can flip 180 degrees and measure something horizontally, all the hot air balloon arguments go away, or at least, should go away.

They won't. There are too many people (not necessarily here) who are emotionally invested in these experiments being false positives for any experiment to satisfy them. I don't think any publisher short of Nature or Physical Review Letters will convince them that there's a real effect.

Aw come-on.  I thought I had a brilliant idea.  Are you the dark lord of winter?  :)

A bit glum after a few too many "frauds," "meme-drives," "no credible research group is attempting to replicates," and "they'll never get signal above the noise floors." Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. :(

I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 12:22 am


PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand,  but it might turn you into a business lady.

The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.

I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1.  The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2.  The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3.  The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4.  The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5.  The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6.  The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.

Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"

Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind.  :)

1.  It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2.  In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.
Let's see. If I did do a business it means it would be my 4th time and each one was successful. The last I had to close because of the crash of '08 with a lot of others because we lost millions in canceled orders, so what does a gal do? BTW I did have 1-5 covered very well.

I never sold my soul to a VC group and sometimes that is what they would want in return when they approached me.  I did manage to start each one without any major investments by the VC community. It's not easy I'll grant you that, but it's doable if you mind your Ps and Qs and get good people.

Number 6 is a position I would never allow, I knew the end game. I was the CEO and the major stock holder so the buck would always stop with me. I saw too many startups in Silicon Valley simply implode under extreme pressures of VC investors to perform to allow it to happen.

But all that said, right now my focus if getting this thing off the ground. <groan>

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 12:26 am
... I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March

Spot on and where I'm going.

And yes I fully agree, we can make 100mN or more DIY EMDrives but there is a recipe that needs to be followed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/13/2015 12:51 am


PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Actually, having done a few startups in my time, and having a bunch of vultural capitalists in tow, I could make you a "scientist" with a wave of the magic wand,  but it might turn you into a business lady.

The investment issues here is that there are pre-existing patent pendings, few if any physicists that think any of this is real, and no one who's written a business plan detailing how to get a 100 to 1 return on investment at a 30% probability if they invest.

I could sell this to a VC on the following conditions:
1.  The "experimentor" has prior startup experience
2.  The "experimentor" has a solid business plan if it works.
3.  The "experimentor" won't get their ass in court for patent infringement.
4.  The "experimentor" has something that either as patentable or has a trade secret that is unique.
5.  The "experimentor" has data that looks fantastic in a power point presentation (doesn't have to be real)
6.  The "experimentor" is willing to lose control of their company on demand and bow and scrape before a "hot" CEO who has no clue what's happening and will most likely tank the business.

Absent the above, everyone is back to "Go Fund Me"

Two quotes I've personally lived through to keep in mind.  :)

1.  It doesn't matter what is that counts, it only matters what people think it is that counts.
2.  In 30 years of investment banking, I've never heard a bad story.

Been there, done that. Several times.

I can deliver 1 - 6, with 6 being conditional on my payout.
#6 is where I've drawn the line in my previous lives. Never could get past answering to the CEO club types. You know, the round-robin CEOs moving (and messing up) one company after another in 3-6 year increments.

BTW, knowledge of the products and markets must be viewed as a negative, because none of them I've know had a clue. Creative accounting? Yes. Products? No.

Will be interesting to watch the scramble if this technology scales up...talk about disruptive market intros.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 am
... I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March

Spot on and where I'm going.

And yes I fully agree, we can make 100mN or more DIY EMDrives but there is a recipe that needs to be followed.

Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:29 am
Hey, our good friend Chris Bergin made some Tech Times news!

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/93272/20151010/is-spacex-going-to-mars-rumors-of-a-red-planet-mission-circulate-after-cryptic-tweet-from-space-journalist.htm

Attaboy Chris, keep 'em guessing!

I'd speculate it is more than JFK's speech at Rice University, sort of things we know, but at a much higher than expected level.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 am
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 02:45 am

This is the Eagleworks setup.

None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.

Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 04:04 am

This is the Eagleworks setup.

None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.

Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?

From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074

I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 04:10 am

This is the Eagleworks setup.

None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.

Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?

From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074

I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.

Thank you! I thought he went silent. It seems he is active again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 04:45 am

This is the Eagleworks setup.

None dummy load to test for EMC, static and magnetic effects.

Where did you get the photos? The last two pictures seemed new. Are they published?

From Paul's attachments shared on NSF.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=2074

I downloaded ALL of his attachments and put them into a folder for easy access.

Thank you! I thought he went silent. It seems he is active again.
Yeah; but he still cannot divulge much. for instance did the test article ever get sent to and accepted at Glenn? I don't think he has said. If he did I missed it. An affirmative answer would almost have to mean they met the stated thrust signal goal involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 05:04 am
Yeah; but he still cannot divulge much. for instance did the test article ever get sent to and accepted at Glenn? I don't think he has said. If he did I missed it. An affirmative answer would almost have to mean they met the stated thrust signal goal involved.

Paul said:
Quote
We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con.

That should answer your question.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:07 am
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)

So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/13/2015 05:10 am
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)

So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)

microNewtons not milliNewtons
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/13/2015 05:13 am
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)

So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)

microNewtons not milliNewtons
details, details! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 05:18 am
If that refers to Glenn then they got the consistent thrust level they were shooting for in order to do that. :)

So they got their what? 100 110 mn? milestone. Whatever it was they did it! :)

microNewtons not milliNewtons

Think Paul mentioned some time ago they needed a reliable right & left facing min 100uN in vac for the Glenn tests.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/13/2015 08:58 am
whaaaa... :o I skip just one day of forum reading and then Paul March posts....damn... i should have skipped more then...

Anyway, I'm veeeery excited to read that the tests are done and peer reviewers (I'm guessing we know at least 1 of them) are doing their jobs...

The full, long version of Shawyer's rotary test video is what kept my interest in this EMdrive project and keep it in consideration as something "real". Still on the fence though. I'd need more "evidence" to be really convinced.

The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...

arrhhh...
Curiosity killed the cat.. for sure...
Paul, seriously, how am I supposed to sleep at night now,  for the coming weeks ? sigh...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/13/2015 09:11 am
I think that EM Drive could be a disruptive technology even if it never manages to provide enough thrust for earth lift off.  Notbfor going to Mars. I'd rather like to see it helps make this planet a better place. How?
Just managing to keep stuff afloat in the orbit would be more than enough.
Now just pair that with the idea of space solar panels. If those could be kept in earth orbit by Emdrives, and if a suitable method for beaming this energy to Earth gets developed, it would be a game changer. Think of a lof of clean electricity. No coal power plants, no nuclear ones. They would become obsolete. We would have enough electricity to charge all these electric cars. Oh, I forgot, the batteries. Hope that Musk has something up his sleeve. :) I expect a breakthrogh there as well. Now couple that with ongoing LENR experiments and the real possibility to get it work fairly soon.
I just truly hope these things will become real in the next five years...and I won't be bothered anymore by the Dieselgate and a Coal power plant in my backyard...
Call me biased, but I choose to believe that the Em drive works, for the sake of our kids health...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/13/2015 09:32 am
Morning people.

Encouraging stuff from Paul March!

The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.

I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!

Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.

The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.

I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.

I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:12 am
Morning people.

Encouraging stuff from Paul March!

The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.

I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!

Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.

The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.

I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.

I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.

Another approach is to increase the N/kW results by applying a step by step process during the design process:

1) do VNA scans to ensure resonance exists at the desired freq.

2) design in ability to impedance match so 95% of the generated Rf gets inside the cavity.

3) ensure the Rf generator bandwidth is smaller than cavity bandwidth.

4) optimise 1 - 3 to obtain highest measured Q (loaded Q)

5) paint frustum with high thermal emmissitivity coating to reduce operational temp.

6) use active min VSWR freq tracking.

7) design for Shawyers suggested TE013 mode.

8) measure loaded Q following Shawyer's suggestions using S11 VNA 3dB away from max rtn loss dB freq.

9) if designing in active narrow band Rf tracking, consider designing in spherical end plates.

10) use a SPR like frustum Df & resonant design tool.

Be rewarded wirh 0.3-0.5N/kW specific Force capable EMDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 am
[speculation  on]

I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.

If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.

Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....

[/speculation]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 pm
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 02:23 pm
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: andygood on 10/13/2015 02:59 pm
I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/13/2015 03:23 pm
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency.  Could a Maser do this?  (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)

@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 03:25 pm

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)

You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!

Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).

Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.

(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)



My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:13 pm
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:19 pm
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency.  Could a Maser do this?  (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)

@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.
You'll be back, we'll haunt your dreams. The tar baby frustum rarely lets go. If I was working at a full time job I'd be hard pressed to do any of this. It's quite demanding.

I think building a frustum similar to this thought would be quite interesting.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150923/ncomms9251/full/ncomms9251.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/13/2015 04:19 pm
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.

Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:21 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact!

Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).

Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype.

(ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)



My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Personally visited mine....
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 04:34 pm
Before I head out to the shop I wanted to cover again the why I'm building the way I am. It may eventually lead to a active PLL frequency control to the frustum although I wanted a stable frustum to work with, one that could negate the thermal heat issues and remain tunable to research other modes and other theories of operation. My next step is to modify the end plates to a curved surface and make the magnetron tunable over a narrow range but not until I gain some results from this basic design. I very much agree with Paul March's, Shawyer's and TT's thoughts on a stable high Q design but not until I see how stable I can make this mechanically.

http://imgur.com/a/stBOj

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:46 pm
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.

Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.

Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?

I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/13/2015 05:14 pm
[speculation  on]

I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?

Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.

If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world.
The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.

Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....

[/speculation]

I can tell you  Mr. Flyby that last cover of the Tajmar work almost made it to the main media.
The numbers were huge indeed. Even Forbes took notice. Main stories on bbcnews and cnn have millions of views per hour.
NASA space flight forum server might crash and yes our calm community here will no longer be calm. At least for a month I guess.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 06:51 pm
...
The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...


Or that they have determined that is the direction they need to go next.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/13/2015 07:04 pm
I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.

Agreed. But if the next paper from EagleWorks was called something like "Experimental falsification of the Emdrive thruster: how we were all duped by a not-so-simple experimental error", I doubt Paul would be encouraging DIYers to continue.

That bit of encouragement in itself, is the most positive news he could bring us without violating the secrecy he was told to keep (at least until peer reviewed publication and independent replication).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 07:05 pm

I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:

0: The team have a paper in peer review.
1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.

This potentially means one of two things:

0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.
1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.

While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.

PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... ;D

PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... ::)

You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".

And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/13/2015 07:18 pm
How would one implement a Q-switched EM drive cavity?

I wonder if the EM drive effect is dependent on pulse output power in some way other than linear with Q. Reading wikipedia, I noticed that some Q-switched cavities use wavelength in the 10 cm range, which is our frequency of interest.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Ender on 10/13/2015 07:48 pm
Here's a question:

Why are all the calculated predictions for the Emdrive's thrust so far off the mark?  In many of the papers I've read on the subject (ex. Mcculloch 2015), the author speaks as though his results match with the data "generally" or "more accurately" - basically scientist speak for "balllpark."  Why are they even publishing such organized speculation?  Their theories don't line up with the data but they still continue on about those same theories. 

I get the difficulty in determining this very important piece of information.  I've had tons of trouble with it myself.  Best I can figure, there isn't a relatively large set of consistent data from similarly formed cavites, but I'm no expert.  What am I missing?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 08:13 pm
How would one implement a Q-switched EM drive cavity?

I wonder if the EM drive effect is dependent on pulse output power in some way other than linear with Q. Reading wikipedia, I noticed that some Q-switched cavities use wavelength in the 10 cm range, which is our frequency of interest.
Waveguides for power and add additional Insertion antennas, "like a modified loop" to provide the "seed".

It's a thought.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 08:18 pm
Here's a question:

Why are all the calculated predictions for the Emdrive's thrust so far off the mark?  In many of the papers I've read on the subject (ex. Mcculloch 2015), the author speaks as though his results match with the data "generally" or "more accurately" - basically scientist speak for "balllpark."  Why are they even publishing such organized speculation?  Their theories don't line up with the data but they still continue on about those same theories. 

I get the difficulty in determining this very important piece of information.  I've had tons of trouble with it myself.  Best I can figure, there isn't a relatively large set of consistent data from similarly formed cavites, but I'm no expert.  What am I missing?
Good Question!

I'll throw out the first ball here and then have to get back to my build.

Thermal instabilities will ruin a drive. When the thermal expansion with materials "thickness of a piece of paper" can cause you to drift out of resonance. You could almost hold your hand on the frustum and cause it to expand that much.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:30 pm

And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.

Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/13/2015 08:46 pm

And their data are being vetted by a peer-reviewed journal.

Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement.

Its actually from 10/12 post here:
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.

Phil,

Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error.  Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.  ::)

Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.

It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.

So why do I do it and fight for my right to?

"Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"


Michelle:

Bravo girl, way to go!!  We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.

Now back to how to get there. 

BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results.  Been there, done that.  However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.

Phil:

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

All:

In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring.  I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/13/2015 08:57 pm

Where did you get that? I read and re-read star-drive's 10/09 post and I did not see this statement.

Its actually from 10/12 post here:


Thank you! Got it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 09:36 pm
Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...

Then back at it.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 10:49 pm
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell

Photos looking good.

Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.

BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.

Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.

I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/13/2015 11:09 pm
Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...

Then back at it.

Shell

SeeShells.   I know of some under 14 folks who are following this.

Do you think that if you put some stickers of Barnie on the outside it would affect the resonance?  :)

Just kidding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 11:47 pm
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.

It is a schematic, not a build plan.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:56 pm
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell

Photos looking good.

Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.

BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.

Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.

I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.

Phil
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm

My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/13/2015 11:59 pm
Needed to fuel up so I'm taking a break. For your inquiring minds some pics...

Then back at it.

Shell

SeeShells.   I know of some under 14 folks who are following this.

Do you think that if you put some stickers of Barnie on the outside it would affect the resonance?  :)

Just kidding.
You think it would be less attenuation than SpongeBob SquarePants?  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 12:03 am
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell

Photos looking good.

Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.

BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.

Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.

I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.

Phil
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm

My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.

Thanks for the dimensions. Will check them out.

Try to put the filters as close to the maggie power input as possible. Use the maggie outer shell for the ground for the caps. Ensure the caps and ferrite are rated to handle 2.5ghz noise filtering.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/14/2015 12:03 am
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.

It is a schematic, not a build plan.

But you've dodged the question. Is that a diameter or a radius? Even a schematic should be labeled correctly, unless you are attempting intentional obfuscation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:26 am
We are not the first to see a tunable frustum as a interesting device to discriminate and select the modes needed to operate in.
Shell

Photos looking good.

Please share your frustum build dimensions. Will then do analysis runs on mode versus resonance and report back.

BTW have heard running regulated DC on the maggie heater reduces freq splatter versus using AC. If your spectrum analyser is up and running, might be interesting data to share.

Would also suggest installing 5kv filter caps and inline 2.5ghz capable ferrite filter at the maggie DC feed point might again reduce freq splatter and stop the DC feed lines back to the PSU acting like antenna.

I suspect every little bit helps tighten up the system.

Phil
The center length starts at 210 mm can extend additional 125 mm
Bottom Plate 295 mm
Top Plate 165 mm

My plan is to turn the heater off entirely after a few seconds of on time. I'm using an inverter instead of the normal power supply for the maggie and there will be filter caps and a couple ferrite beads on the HV out. When I get over to the maggie and power supply maybe by weeks end or this weekend I'll post a SA of it.

Thanks for the dimensions. Will check them out.

Try to put the filters as close to the maggie power input as possible. Use the maggie outer shell for the ground for the caps. Ensure the caps and ferrite are rated to handle 2.5ghz noise filtering.

I know. Thanks for covering it anyway.

Shell

Added...
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 12:46 am
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   T
...
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

I am a Canadian citizen and worked at NASA's Ames Research Center for about 12 years.   I never thought there was any consequence to being a foreign national but over time the restrictions got worse.  Eventually my manager decided the extra paperwork was not worth his time.   He was already getting flack from the FBI because a co-worker was accused of being a Chinese spy, despite being a US citizen.   I suspect I was the unescorted foreign national that didn't have a security plan for 3 years mentioned in the NASA Inspector General's report on ITAR compliance at NASA's Ames Research Center.   Maybe I should have kept quiet about my Tory ancestors who left the US after the revolution. I think it's just as well I am no longer working at a NASA center.   I do not have the security clearance required to do the research I have been doing since leaving NASA.

https://oig.nasa.gov/Special-Review/Ames_ITAR.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/14/2015 12:48 am
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

That seems to imply that NASA management believes EM Drive may be a real effect (if so, it could be used as a kinetic weapon), but my impression has been much more on the line that NASA just wants to avoid negative light and mocking of the science it does, which would explain why the firewall on the info from EagleWorks was erected only after Eagle Works experiments became "mediatic" appearing EVERYWHERE and also being criticized everywhere.

If was just protection against foreign espionage, NASA would have acted long before the EM Drive and Warp Drive appeared on Forbes...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/14/2015 01:29 am
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

That seems to imply that NASA management believes EM Drive may be a real effect (if so, it could be used as a kinetic weapon), but my impression has been much more on the line that NASA just wants to avoid negative light and mocking of the science it does, which would explain why the firewall on the info from EagleWorks was erected only after Eagle Works experiments became "mediatic" appearing EVERYWHERE and also being criticized everywhere.

If was just protection against foreign espionage, NASA would have acted long before the EM Drive and Warp Drive appeared on Forbes...

I doubt whether there was any evaluation of the "reality" of EMDrive. "Advanced propulsion" could be enough to trigger some ITAR considerations. I also think there was an understandable concern of preliminary/incomplete information being disseminated which might then later need to be retracted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ScottD on 10/14/2015 02:54 am
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.

Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.

My design is 2nd image.

But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.

It is a schematic, not a build plan.

But you've dodged the question. Is that a diameter or a radius? Even a schematic should be labeled correctly, unless you are attempting intentional obfuscation.


I am certainly not part of the conversation, and TheTraveller can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you are misunderstanding what the schematic is showing.  I believe that it is labeled correctly, but that you are interpreting the measurements of the diameters of the small and big ends as being rounded versions of the radius measurements given on the side.  I don't think that is correct.  I believe TT is stating that the radius from the vertex to the big end is exactly as listed 399.5 mm and the diameter of the big end that he is using happens to be 0.5 mm larger - 400 mm.  The same applies to the small end.  It is confusing since the radius that describes the curvature of the ends and the diameter chosen for the ends are so similar.  But that combination of radius from vertex and diameter of "arc sphere" (I don't know the proper term) give TT a fustrum with the angle/shape he desires.

Scott
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/14/2015 03:10 am
The term is "Spherical cap or dome." What is confusing to all is that the diameter and radius are referring to two completely different parts of the EM drive. The radius is referring to the sphere from which the spherical cap is cut. The diameters are referring to the conic frustum, big and small end diameters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: snoozdoc on 10/14/2015 03:26 am
... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.

 ...


The question “What can DIY experimenters do?” is of interest.

It has been rather a long time since anyone has been able to significantly push forward the knowledge physics from inside their home, on a budget that an average person can afford.

Whilst it is true that you don’t really need a $17 billion advanced collider, it usually takes the resources of a fairly decent educational institution or a government funded enterprise to achieve something that would appear in a peer approved journal today.  The days of Newton and Faraday seem to have long gone.  The low hanging fruit has essentially being picked over.

It is thus easy for the professional scientist to make the obvious observations that signals from any experiment that are in the dirt or below the noise floor cannot obtain real or valid data.  At first glance it would seem that only low level signals free from error and noise can be only be obtained with incredibly well thought out and carefully designed experiments to eliminate known sources of noise.  And when amateurs who use incredibly ingenuity, skill and sheer determination do obtain some possibly spurious signals which “could” be anomalous with known physics, it is easy to critique under the guise of guiding methodology whilst in reality they are just being negative.  It actually sounds like they are trying to enhance their own cred for minimal effort though I suppose in their own minds they see it as being helpful rather than trying to put the amateurs off.  (By amateurs I only mean those that are working privately with extremely limited funding compared to some institution.)

Forget the fact, that for those smart enough, this may be a really fun and entertaining way to spend time trying to discover new knowledge in a similar way to those amateur astronomers who actually do contribute to the total knowledge of astronomy.  Yes it is perhaps unlikely that the DIY experimenters might actually find the million to one loophole in existing physics theory but the thing is ... it is the chase that is fun!

The prize makes it worthwhile and following the breadcrumbs of My. Shawyer makes it a really fun and interesting treasure hunt.  In reality they are not trying to out compete the likes of the big boys like CERN, NASA or Boeing etc.  They are just having a lot of fun doing something which their own skills are eminently suitable for.

My only regret is that my own knowledge isn’t quite sufficient to play at the level of the likes of Shells, Aero, rfmwguy, Elizabeth Green, the Traveller and others who I would love to mention.  Early on (back in thread 1) I realized I was likely to fry off some valued portion of my anatomy if I tried to do what rfmwguy did and so I took my meager budget and donated it to others so I could at least live vicariously through their efforts.

But the point is in my own view, none of the DIY experimenters really need to spend huge $$$ on vacuum chambers and other technologies in an attempt to remove all sources of error – which is the same as lowering the noise floor.  There is another completely different approach which has just as great a potential of yielding real results (assuming there are any to be had) and isn’t so fraught with having to fight with the scientific method of peer reviewed journals.

As I see what rfmwguy and Shells and the others are doing, it is not so much as messing with the noise floor as tinkering with the experiment to see if any anomalous signals start to rise up above that noise floor.  Since nobody as yet understands how this thing works (if it does) then tweaking anything; anything at all, whether it be Q, geometry, different feed methods or maybe even sprinkling in fairy dust is fair game.  If a signal changes in any meaning full way, either up or down then it will tell us something.  Something at best that might even possibly suggest what is going on or at worst, something else that can be tried.  In which case Shells is on target with “No data is bad data”.

Some tweaks may indeed also affect buoyancy, forces from currents from environmental magnetic fields etc.  So what?  Yes this isn’t the way CERN or Fermi labs go about it (and hopefully not Eagle Works) but hey!  That’s the advantage of being an amateur. They don’t have to play by rules and doing something outside of the box occasionally produces results.  Shawyer and Yang and others may have produced spurious signals above the noise floor.  rfmwguy saw something that wasn’t easily explainable.  If any tweaks cause this “something” to change then it could well give a clue to what is happening – even if it is just understanding the real affects of magnetron heating.

Right now I would love nothing more than to work besides the likes of Shell, Traveller and rfmwguy.  If Aero lived closer and he could teach me MEEP I would love to involve myself with that … I just fear that if I tried to learn on line I would show how big a fool I really am.

Whether the DIY’ers ever find anything or not, this is perhaps the last opportunity of a life time when someone in their garage could actually contribute to physics knowledge in a similar way to that those guys with their telescopes in their back yards do.  The fact that it could be done using a modified kitchen appliance also appeals to my sense of wonder (and humor) at how strange the universe really is.

The scientific method is not defined by professional scientists.  In the end it is far more about discovery of new knowledge than can be confirmed and repeated by others … if necessary in the fancy labs with the one micro-torr vacuum chambers.  But that is for later.

My plea is that the DIY’ers never ever be distracted … oh and if any live in So Cal, please PM me … I would love to team up.  :)

In the meantime I’ll go back to lurking and saving my cash to contribute to the people here I am most envious of – those that are having fun!  8)

Cheers to all the DIY'ers
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ScottD on 10/14/2015 03:28 am
Thanks areo for the term "Spherical Cap".

So, I believe that the radius in TT's schematic is represented by r in this image, and TT's diameter by 2a.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Spherical_Cap.svg/300px-Spherical_Cap.svg.png)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap)

Scott
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 03:36 am
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-particle-purely-nuclear.html

Synopsis: the best fit for the nature of some mesons is a ball of gluons and that this fits higher dimensional models of gravity.  Perhaps it refers to N=8 SUSY super-gravity. It reminds me of this:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/03/guest-post-lance-dixon-on-calculating-amplitudes/

and more specifically this:

Quote
Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.

The team that came up with this won The Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics for their work.

I can juxtapose the information in these articles and (because I can afford to be Ko0ky with no professional repercussions) some stuff from the fringe and i begin to think about gravity drives. Specifically there is a rather famous fringe character that claimed long ago that the strong force and gravity were closely related or in fact two aspects of the same force. Now there are bits of non fringe science such as these two articles that seem to lend at least some support to his claim.

I know it might be hard to *concretely* relate this to EM drives but it was so interesting i wanted to share it with everyone here :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 04:18 am
... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.

 ...


The question “What can DIY experimenters do?” is of interest.

It has been rather a long time since anyone has been able to significantly push forward the knowledge physics from inside their home, on a budget that an average person can afford.

Whilst it is true that you don’t really need a $17 billion advanced collider, it usually takes the resources of a fairly decent educational institution or a government funded enterprise to achieve something that would appear in a peer approved journal today.  The days of Newton and Faraday seem to have long gone.  The low hanging fruit has essentially being picked over.

It is thus easy for the professional scientist to make the obvious observations that signals from any experiment that are in the dirt or below the noise floor cannot obtain real or valid data.  At first glance it would seem that only low level signals free from error and noise can be only be obtained with incredibly well thought out and carefully designed experiments to eliminate known sources of noise.  And when amateurs who use incredibly ingenuity, skill and sheer determination do obtain some possibly spurious signals which “could” be anomalous with known physics, it is easy to critique under the guise of guiding methodology whilst in reality they are just being negative.  It actually sounds like they are trying to enhance their own cred for minimal effort though I suppose in their own minds they see it as being helpful rather than trying to put the amateurs off.  (By amateurs I only mean those that are working privately with extremely limited funding compared to some institution.)

Forget the fact, that for those smart enough, this may be a really fun and entertaining way to spend time trying to discover new knowledge in a similar way to those amateur astronomers who actually do contribute to the total knowledge of astronomy.  Yes it is perhaps unlikely that the DIY experimenters might actually find the million to one loophole in existing physics theory but the thing is ... it is the chase that is fun!

The prize makes it worthwhile and following the breadcrumbs of My. Shawyer makes it a really fun and interesting treasure hunt.  In reality they are not trying to out compete the likes of the big boys like CERN, NASA or Boeing etc.  They are just having a lot of fun doing something which their own skills are eminently suitable for.

My only regret is that my own knowledge isn’t quite sufficient to play at the level of the likes of Shells, Aero, rfmwguy, Elizabeth Green, the Traveller and others who I would love to mention.  Early on (back in thread 1) I realized I was likely to fry off some valued portion of my anatomy if I tried to do what rfmwguy did and so I took my meager budget and donated it to others so I could at least live vicariously through their efforts.

But the point is in my own view, none of the DIY experimenters really need to spend huge $$$ on vacuum chambers and other technologies in an attempt to remove all sources of error – which is the same as lowering the noise floor.  There is another completely different approach which has just as great a potential of yielding real results (assuming there are any to be had) and isn’t so fraught with having to fight with the scientific method of peer reviewed journals.

As I see what rfmwguy and Shells and the others are doing, it is not so much as messing with the noise floor as tinkering with the experiment to see if any anomalous signals start to rise up above that noise floor.  Since nobody as yet understands how this thing works (if it does) then tweaking anything; anything at all, whether it be Q, geometry, different feed methods or maybe even sprinkling in fairy dust is fair game.  If a signal changes in any meaning full way, either up or down then it will tell us something.  Something at best that might even possibly suggest what is going on or at worst, something else that can be tried.  In which case Shells is on target with “No data is bad data”.

Some tweaks may indeed also affect buoyancy, forces from currents from environmental magnetic fields etc.  So what?  Yes this isn’t the way CERN or Fermi labs go about it (and hopefully not Eagle Works) but hey!  That’s the advantage of being an amateur. They don’t have to play by rules and doing something outside of the box occasionally produces results.  Shawyer and Yang and others may have produced spurious signals above the noise floor.  rfmwguy saw something that wasn’t easily explainable.  If any tweaks cause this “something” to change then it could well give a clue to what is happening – even if it is just understanding the real affects of magnetron heating.

Right now I would love nothing more than to work besides the likes of Shell, Traveller and rfmwguy.  If Aero lived closer and he could teach me MEEP I would love to involve myself with that … I just fear that if I tried to learn on line I would show how big a fool I really am.

Whether the DIY’ers ever find anything or not, this is perhaps the last opportunity of a life time when someone in their garage could actually contribute to physics knowledge in a similar way to that those guys with their telescopes in their back yards do.  The fact that it could be done using a modified kitchen appliance also appeals to my sense of wonder (and humor) at how strange the universe really is.

The scientific method is not defined by professional scientists.  In the end it is far more about discovery of new knowledge than can be confirmed and repeated by others … if necessary in the fancy labs with the one micro-torr vacuum chambers.  But that is for later.

My plea is that the DIY’ers never ever be distracted … oh and if any live in So Cal, please PM me … I would love to team up.  :)

In the meantime I’ll go back to lurking and saving my cash to contribute to the people here I am most envious of – those that are having fun!  8)

Cheers to all the DIY'ers
Reading what you wrote simply hit on all cylinders. I thought I was at the end of my career building things that would in some way benefit humanity, but I was so very wrong. If some little thing comes out of the work I'm doing to advance the art and maybe humanity then it will be like the frosting on the cake.

Thank you all for being there and rooting for us builders and even the critical add to the knowledge, even if they give us a focus in the reality of what we're doing.

Thank you for a wonderful post, I'm going to save it.

Shell 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2015 06:19 am
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads

Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.

Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 09:40 am
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

And  you are also very correct!  Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS)  can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher.   In my former position I had training on this every six months or so.   I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone".  It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR. 

ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. .  And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha.   And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.

I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration  Regulations).  Google/Wikipedia is a good start.   Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on".   That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.

   One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer. 

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/14/2015 10:19 am
Oh,and then we wonder why conspiracy theories do exist! This makes me believe that if there is a silence after initial announcement (EmDrive, LENR etc), there's no joke, it is real and working somewhere in a secret lab. Public and media will be fed with fake data in  order to believe that it doesn't work and it never did :(

Unless...a large group of diy-ers proves with no doubt that it works, every time, and it can be reproduced/rebuilt using common household items, before the wordwide ban of microwave ovens takes place! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 11:57 am
Oh,and then we wonder why conspiracy theories do exist! This makes me believe that if there is a silence after initial announcement (EmDrive, LENR etc), there's no joke, it is real and working somewhere in a secret lab. Public and media will be fed with fake data in  order to believe that it doesn't work and it never did :(

Unless...a large group of diy-ers proves with no doubt that it works, every time, and it can be reproduced/rebuilt using common household items, before the wordwide ban of microwave ovens takes place! :)
;D
You know if they ban Microwave Ovens we will have to re-invent fire again...
Excuse me I slept in and on my first cup of coffee. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 12:36 pm
Finally got in the ceramic bottom plate I wanted delivered at 7:30 last night, the other was a little too warped and way too heavy. This is 2.54 mm thick, lighter, very flat and will work beautifully.
Shell

Added: Sorry for the fuzzy picture, I'll get a better one with my other camera.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/14/2015 02:43 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

And  you are also very correct!  Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS)  can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher.   In my former position I had training on this every six months or so.   I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone".  It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR. 

ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. .  And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha.   And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.

I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration  Regulations).  Google/Wikipedia is a good start.   Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on".   That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.

   One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer. 

Herman

Can we be done with ITAR please?  It's totally off-topic, and it's distracting. 

ITAR is not the boogeyman, and it's not the reason Eagleworks stopped updates on their EMDrive research.  If any one thing triggered the cut-off, the NSF article I helped write precipitated that (I have no regrets that we wrote it).

EW didn't need wild speculative press banging on their doors (it was) and distracting everyone with headlines like "NASA ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE" (real headline) while they are trying to conduct basic theoretical research that may or may not pan out, but which definitely does not synch with the 24-hour news cycle.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.

...

My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?

My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General.   When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents.   This took over a week.    It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality.   They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years.   There is a lot of paranoia there.   If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.

And  you are also very correct!  Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS)  can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher.   In my former position I had training on this every six months or so.   I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone".  It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR. 

ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. .  And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha.   And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.

I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration  Regulations).  Google/Wikipedia is a good start.   Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on".   That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR.

   One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer. 

Herman

Can we be done with ITAR please?  It's totally off-topic, and it's distracting. 

ITAR is not the boogeyman, and it's not the reason Eagleworks stopped updates on their EMDrive research.  If any one thing triggered the cut-off, the NSF article I helped write precipitated that (I have no regrets that we wrote it).

EW didn't need wild speculative press banging on their doors (it was) and distracting everyone with headlines like "NASA ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE" (real headline) while they are trying to conduct basic theoretical research that may or may not pan out, but which definitely does not synch with the 24-hour news cycle.

Short answer: No.   ITAR exists and is relevant.   We don't need to discuss it further here [although quite frankly its relatively easy to skip reading posts you are not interested in- I use the page down button myself  ;)  ], BUT There are many folks reading this who are likely unaware of its existence and it is unfair to them to ignore some of its implications or to not share relevant knowledge.   Whether or not NASA is having ITAR/EAR issues or not I have no idea and don't really care; however as I plan my DIY efforts I take ITAR and what I can and cannot say or promulgate very serious.  Leavenworth is cold in winter.   

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/14/2015 06:00 pm
Just another new article on the EmDrive - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415532/-EmDrive-Jesus-What-a-Day

What I found interesting about this is that this article reflects on the recent tests of the Rfmwguy and the success of South African student Paul, so recent news!

As you know guys I like to check internet for every little bit about the EmDrive and just see, if the world is following us and share some of those information here. Indeed they do, and it seems it is even on much more larger scale than I tought. When I compare it to the time when I started to follow this forum (after EW first results) you could find very few articles and knowledge about this issue. Now when you type EmDrive into your search there are new articles almost each day.

At the start of my interest about the EmDrive I wrote few articles to get more attention to this technology. It definitely needed more support by that time. Now it is almost opposite case, but still I am proud that I was able to add my little contribution to this, but not in the form of maths and physics...I still hoped on other hand that it might boost funds to the EW lab. Silly me, not even a cent more for their work!  :P (after Paul March post)

The journalist follow reddit and NSF forum here mostly. Some just copy from other news sites. For you guys it means that we better be careful what we say here as it might get to the news very fast.
Lets move from ITAR back to the true topic of the EmDrive as we do not want that to damage EW and their work right?

To stars and beyond! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 06:03 pm
posting a thing that might be relevant for future EM drive projects. THZ modules in miniature?  plus miniature particle accelerators.  http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/particle-accelerators-using-terahertz.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pm
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/14/2015 06:06 pm
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated yet.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

I agree. But if they fulfill the requirements of NASA's TRL, yes, they will be.

The ongoing work of replication in another NASA lab seems to go precisely in that direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/14/2015 06:36 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.

Paraphrasing Vix: what are they going to do to protect this, if it pans out, ban microwave ovens and copper kettles?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 pm
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

•   Level 1 - Basic Research: basic principles are observed and reported {NOT necessarily agreed upon - my addition}.  This is the lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include fundamental investigations and paper studies.
•   Level 2 – Applied Research: technology concept and/or application formulated.  Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be formulated. Examples are limited to analytic studies and experimentation.

We have had paper studies and observation and reporting of basic principles for Level 1. While the data is equivocal as to magnitude, degree and validity of existence of the effect, but there is sufficient evidence (theoretical, simulation, and experimental)  to proceed with trying to understand the effect. 

   Level 2 is just that -applied research.  As the definition says - limited to analytic studies and experimentation.   It could be argued we are there but I think not.   That is why I said on the cusp.  Further, I believe that careful experimentation can result in a) better signal to noise ratio to further prove or disprove existence and b) determine effects and trend lines of most significant variables.   Specifically applying some of the principals of Design of Experiments method (DOE) may allow us to simultaneously to a) and b).

I am not trying to convince or force anyone to believe in either the effect or my judgment of TRL.   I simply intend to use the TRL concepts and DOE to attempt to define a next generation of DIY experiments aimed at the goals I mentioned above.

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! . 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/14/2015 07:39 pm

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:58 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)

Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic RF?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 08:09 pm
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).

Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors.
 
So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be  ...)  which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)

Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.

Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: kencolangelo on 10/14/2015 08:31 pm
Possibly an actual constructive contribution to make.  ::)
I wonder if an image-based method for measuring distance might be an easy way to get some cheap precision?

Perhaps a highish-megapixel digital camera, maybe 16MP+, coupled to a macro lens whose optical properties were well described. Combined with an optical scale for reference this can easily provide inexpensive, relatively high precision (1:3000) linear movement measurement.

Optionally, and way more precise, you could use the linear optical sensor array bar off a flatbed scanner. These typically provide a purely linear resolution of 300+ pixels per inch, up to a claimed 1200 ppi non-interpolated (!) and a very high sampling rate, well over 1khz.
Here are some examples of this sort of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY)
http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts (http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c)

Some folks make a nifty spectrometer out of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo)

Just throwing this out there. Hope it helps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 08:43 pm


Hmmm, there's a thought.  With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Probably the EMdrive to work, needs the presence of all the mater/energy and so of all the stars of the causal universe to exchange momentum ! ;) ;) (It is at least the theoretical explanation given by James Woodward to the mechanism of his own exotic propulsion system similar to EMDrive : they both don't need to expell matter with momentum to accelerate).

Solar arrays of spacecrafts can collect the energy of close enough stars. This will not work if the spacecraft is too far from the closest star.

To collect the energy of cosmic radiations is not something we know how to do  today.

But there is something strange with the EMDrive concept : apparently its kinetic energy could become greater than the energy requested to operate it. If this fact is confirmed, the EMDrive could produce more energy than it consumes !!  :o :o   Really strange ....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 09:09 pm

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.

None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 pm
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2015 10:58 pm
BREAKING NEWS at 5!

Drive Building Update!!!

In for the day but got a lot done. Recap in pictures.

Shell

http://imgur.com/a/rkRGq
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/14/2015 11:06 pm


Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.

Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.

Hey! I found it! not a solar panel...THIS:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/solar-cells-will-be-made-obsolete-by-3d.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 12:18 am
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2.  I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today.  Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public".   However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching.   

BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact.  But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious.

My last comments on the subject.

Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

Concur - and likewise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/15/2015 02:41 am

...

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Not necessary for TRL1.  Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question.    NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :

...

Herman

There is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is.   The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1.   NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas.  An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor.  There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results.   I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.

None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.

You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.

NASA is chronically underfunded.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 03:43 am
Thought stream alert - 20 years ago I would help specify filter designs for use in radar applications where group time delay distortion of pulses were unacceptable. These were LC filters, mainly IF range. Gaussian topologies were the best, not for shape factors but for lack of pulse distortion called ringing and overshoot.

Time domain distortion...ringing...never once considered any kinetic energy associated with this type of em pulse distortion. Who would have? Indeed.

Who would have ever noticed or measured for KE? Not me, for sure. Too bad, I might have been on to something.

/end thought stream alert
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/15/2015 04:30 am
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. 
Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study.   However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:

"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."

So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1.   But this is just semantics.   If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt?    Is it still at TRL1?   If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null?    At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1.   And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1.   The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.

The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 04:33 am

You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.

NASA is chronically underfunded.

When I was young I was indeed under that illusion. I did learn differently WRT to doing big things. But what i expect is if such an agency agrees to take on a relatively simple short term project such as validating or nullifying some table top experiment that is barely above the pay grade of a garden shed tinkerer that they would fund it if such funds are akin to a small businesses' petty cash box contents.

That the replication team could not get a special materials ceramic plate fabricated to size spec due to budget is appalling. That they could not find a high speed motor the equivalent of a dental air powered drill rig because of budgeting is also appalling. Those engineers had to know how to do it so the failure had to be due to budget issues. How much would that have cost?

Now EW is working on a shoestring as well with engineers working out of pocket and off the clock at times to get stuff they need. Arguably they do have extraordinary resources in ways as well like that floating table lab building. But they also have areas where they are completely on their own.

I just think for stuff you could probably get done for the price of a used car NASA should not be so stingy on particularly if they have agreed to take the job on. I can see being tight and careful on larger expenses like launch costs or space probes or satellites but this is like arguing over whether to get one or two ply Toilet Paper for the office bathroom when the expendables budget line items is well in the green.

Giving these guys a few thousand isn't even going to affect the schedules of NASA's big ticket projects and procurements. "We'd like to get that Space Shuttle mark II but we can't because some clerk down in S4 ordered fancy TP for the bathroom!" I may have had too much faith in NASA's budget when i was young and in high school but It doesn't work like this either.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/15/2015 06:17 am
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Okay we can negotiate : no neutron reactor in your garage  ;) ;), we would just be happy to see installed a thermal vacuum chamber.  :) :).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/15/2015 10:50 am
Stumbled across this today:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4913.pdf

This describes a force resulting from interaction of EM waves with solid objects, which can be either attractive or repulsive. It treats solids as 'Solid State Plasmas', and discusses experiments showing light falling on a lead ball leading to an attractive force, which I think is reported higher than the incident radiation pressure.

The effect is known as the Gradient/Miller or Ponderomotive effect.

Seems relevant if it is correct.

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:37 am
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. 
Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study.   However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:

"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."

So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1.   But this is just semantics.   If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt?    Is it still at TRL1?   If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null?    At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1.   And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1.   The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.

The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.

1. NIAC is only one  user of TRL concepts.  Re: NIAC item 6 is in their solicitation, others may or may not have such an item, however that is also "semantics".  Solicitations often have language designed to limit responses and the number of proposals or to easily eliminate proposals from consideration.  Proposal evaluation is an EXPENSIVE activity.   As a principal or bookboss contributor to dozens major proposals with values from a few hundred thousand to well over a billion dollars I am very familiar with such items, usually in sections L or M of solicitations.  Likewise as a writer of dozens of solicitations I have crafted similar exclusionary or elimination language.

2. TRLs are widely used in much of engineering development and well beyond the solicitation/proposal stage.   Often, TRLs are evaluated at such events as PDR, CDR, Milestone C etc.   

3. WRT to "appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1."  First I would say that several credible defenses have been offered.  These include various simulations and theoretical discussions.   These are important BTW.   None have been conclusively proven,  and some ( or all) have been questioned by critics as unlikely, but credible defenses have been offered.  Those critics are most important as they too help define the limits and parameters.   Second point that seems pedantic but is central to this.   In many instantiations of TRL, there is nothing below "1".   NASA may consider that realm, either explicitly with "TRL 0" or implicitly by statements such as "not yet at TRL 1".   That is not necessarily the common usage in other institutions.  So,  based on my professional work experience, I utilize TRL 1 as the "starting point", YMMV.

4. The "offered defenses" are important as they allow some guidance for a plan of experimentation (DOE or otherwise) in the advancement of EMDrive to TRL2. 

 Why is this important, particular as it relates to spaceflight applications?  Because it allows a defined maturation of the technology towards where reasonable testing in a spaceflight environment might be planned.   Until the parameters affecting EMDrive are at least predicted qualitatively and impacts, interactions and effects begun to be measured qualitatively I doubt anyone would consider shouldering the expense, not to mention potential liability and danger of incorporating such a test into a mission (manned or unmanned).

As for myself, for my test planning and execution, I shall proceed with the approach of attempting to advance EMDrive from TRL 1 to TRL 2.    Going back to working on my whitepaper now.   

Curmudgeon mode off.

Herman


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:39 am
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house ;)
Okay we can negotiate : no neutron reactor in your garage  ;) ;), we would just be happy to see installed a thermal vacuum chamber.  :) :).

Darn.  Say - do you know if Ebay will allow me to list my neutron reactor?   It warms up the garage very nicely in winter heh heh.

H. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 11:49 am
Thought stream alert - 20 years ago I would help specify filter designs for use in radar applications where group time delay distortion of pulses were unacceptable. These were LC filters, mainly IF range. Gaussian topologies were the best, not for shape factors but for lack of pulse distortion called ringing and overshoot.

Time domain distortion...ringing...never once considered any kinetic energy associated with this type of em pulse distortion. Who would have? Indeed.

Who would have ever noticed or measured for KE? Not me, for sure. Too bad, I might have been on to something.

/end thought stream alert

Keep up the thought streams.   This is fascinating.   Never considered this (KE) either.   and have built, tested, rebuilt, retested ad nauseum more filters than I care to remember.   Controlling time distortion of pulses was a bitch.

Now I have something else to think about all day.  Those chickens keep running by. ;)   Darned ADD chickens.   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/15/2015 12:04 pm
...

I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. 
Herman

It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1.   The science has not been demonstrated.   No consistently repeatable results have occurred.

Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.
(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)

The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study.   However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is:

"6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."

So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1.   But this is just semantics.   If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt?    Is it still at TRL1?   If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null?    At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1.   And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1.   The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.

The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.

OK, but there is no "TRL 0".  What you're describing is a non-viable idea.  Any 'viable' idea is TRL 1. Any non-viable idea is simply not credible.

Edit: Add NASA TRL definitions: http://esto.nasa.gov/files/trl_definitions.pdf
And PLEASE let's not argue about this stuff, it's right here and pretty unambiguous.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 12:29 pm
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.

Fascinating video, they did a beautiful job.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8

Shell


Possibly an actual constructive contribution to make.  ::)
I wonder if an image-based method for measuring distance might be an easy way to get some cheap precision?

Perhaps a highish-megapixel digital camera, maybe 16MP+, coupled to a macro lens whose optical properties were well described. Combined with an optical scale for reference this can easily provide inexpensive, relatively high precision (1:3000) linear movement measurement.

Optionally, and way more precise, you could use the linear optical sensor array bar off a flatbed scanner. These typically provide a purely linear resolution of 300+ pixels per inch, up to a claimed 1200 ppi non-interpolated (!) and a very high sampling rate, well over 1khz.
Here are some examples of this sort of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdDQuVusrw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLJZtY0bqY)
http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts (http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCinWY03mk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88W1MHuXM9c)

Some folks make a nifty spectrometer out of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l8wu7oK_mo)

Just throwing this out there. Hope it helps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/15/2015 01:07 pm
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.

True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts.  Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 01:30 pm
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.

True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts.  Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real.

Not my discussion but I'd like to add something.

By luck or planning, na it's luck  ::) that builders who are posting here each have a little different design. Mr. t's follows Shawyers guidance in a rotary device and self contained, rfmwguy does a little of NASA's EagleWorks with a modified mesh screen and I'm going a little of Shawyer, EagleWorks and the Chinese and my own.

Each will add to the gestalt of pooled data that has went before. It's all good data.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 02:36 pm
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/15/2015 02:57 pm
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0  One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/15/2015 03:12 pm
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 03:34 pm
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:)
And you think that's a problem?  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/15/2015 03:35 pm
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0  One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf).
Just read it. Very nice work. Thank you very much for linking it!
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/15/2015 04:01 pm
None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.

True, but this does underline the importance of DIY efforts.  Each new EMDrive unit being tested out there brings us closer to a definitive answer on whether the thrust effect is real and how it's being generated if it is real.

At least for me, it's an ontological question. That is, a quest towards truth and reality definition. As such, it is not free from doubt.

The more people replicate the effect in ways that go against trivial explanations, for example, showing downwards thrust against thermal buoyancy or nearly instantaneous horizontal thrust, the more I feel we are betting on reality and not just wishes.

Because the participation of many several independent experimentalists reduces the probability this is a concerted lie to zero (I know more now about the DIYers and I know they are incredible trustworthy people, but for a external observer that is new, this is also very important to realize).

Also, the fact they act independently only sharing the knowledge how to do it, ensures there is something real behind it. The question whether that reality is what we believe or hope or not is still pending to be closed, but it is undeniable there is something real there.

That's the value I see in the work of these people, risking money and probably some of their personal safety (magnetrons and such aren't innocuous toys) for elucidating the truth. My respect and admiration for them, because you work for all of humanity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Kit on 10/15/2015 04:38 pm
...

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

SeeShells may have beat me to announcing this wonderful piece of information (in fact, just I registered to post this, I've been silently following this since Thread #2), but I feel I have some salient implications to point out for the casual reader.

This (assuming it is* a Dyson Sphere being built) strongly implies** at the very least a fusion or antimatter rocket (or an RF cavity drive, given the topic of this thread wink wink nudge nudge), either in terms of thrust mechanism (such as a direct fusion drive) or power source (such as an indirectly fusion-powered ion drive). Nuclear impulse may be less practical, but it is still a possibility. It is important to note that this would not just be affirmation of the viability of that class of technology, but that it also would have become cheap enough as to mass produce them on the scale required to construct a Dyson Sphere ;D It would be severe a blow to the pessimistic view that a post-scarcity civilization is 'impossible'.

I may be stating the obvious, but with enough observation we may be able to detect a drive signature, and it would strongly help such detection if activity were present further away from the star as it would be less drowned-out by the brightness of the star. A Dyson Sphere under construction has long been proposed as a target for identifying an alien civilization, and given that an RF cavity drive would have a specific impulse approaching infinity (which is exactly why we want one), it would be a very strong candidate for choice of propulsion for constructing one, if the effect both exists and is of magnitude as to be of practical use. If we had better architecture for space construction, we'd have far more powerful imaging capabilities (such as a system-wide radio telescope) and would be able to discern a lot more. Cue my complaints about the lack of permanent space bases, etc. As for now, hurry up James Webb (and HDST)!

*It probably isn't
**Granted you could achieve a Dyson sphere with von Neumann (self-replicating) chemical thrusters that harvest fuel from the mass that they are moving, but I'd argue that that is unreasonably inefficient given the low specific impulse (Isp) of chemical rockets. The timescales for constructing a Dyson Sphere mean that the instantaneous thrust advantage provided by chemical rockets is not very helpful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: phaseshift on 10/15/2015 05:03 pm
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 05:47 pm
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/15/2015 06:40 pm
Maybe we've found a target for the Gravitational Focus telescope? I wonder what the resolution would be for the star at 1500 ly distance. But isn't this a different thread?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/15/2015 07:01 pm
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

You do realise if the EM drive pans out someone on here is going need to volunteer for a trip out there too see what they are building.:)

Where's the signup sheet - I volunteer.   One way you say?  No problem.  They will probably either be friendly  or tasty or looking to practice their new homo sapien with alfradeo sauce. . 

Herman
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/15/2015 08:45 pm
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.

It's probably something mundane like that.

:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/15/2015 08:57 pm
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.

It's probably something mundane like that.

:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization)
Indeed, and if they are, that makes them superior to us.  We are type 0 civilization.  If there is something there they would easily kick our butts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tellmeagain on 10/15/2015 09:05 pm
This article on Slate gives probably the most information and a nice analysis of what has been reported.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/14/weird_star_strange_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html
First thought is a massive oort cloud/debris far away and inline with the star and us. Not dust, but chunks.

It's probably something mundane like that.

:D But it is also remotely possible it is a Dyson swarm. (a modification of the idea of a Dyson sphere where instead of a solid artificial shell around a star; a multitude of independently flying solar power absorber satellites are used in either a spherical configuration or a band configuration around a star by an advanced Kardashev type I civilization)

No it is not Dyson swarm. A Dyson swarm is periodic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: D_Dom on 10/15/2015 09:17 pm
Thread topic is EM Drive, just sayin'.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2015 09:21 pm
A shout out from PBS. https://youtu.be/EzZGPCyrpSU

Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁

I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.

And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/15/2015 09:45 pm
A shout out from PBS. https://youtu.be/EzZGPCyrpSU

Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁

I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.

And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America.
Safe travels. Panasonic is experimenting with solid state cooking "magnetrons" not there yet I'm afraid.

Not sure about others, but think we need some null data to add to emdrive.wiki to show where someone has gone before and not hit paydirt yet. Consider this and let me know if you agree. Could save some grief down the road.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/16/2015 03:36 am
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity !  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/16/2015 04:41 am
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity !  :)

Ah, the "Lazarus Bowl" (X-Files).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/16/2015 10:43 am
It might look as if someone else had do something like this, way before us. This is just one small step, isn't it?
Little off topic but it's the driving reason we are all here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-most-interesting-star-in-our-galaxy/410023/

Cross-referenced to the last few pages of this thread:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16581.0  One of the authors of the paper being cited in The Atlantic is actively discussing the Kepler team findings on the thread, so hit him up with questions (read the paper first please!!! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf).

The paper is an excellent analog to EMDrive done right, IMHO. It starts by describing an unusual phenomenon, examines and eliminates the potential for measurement error, examines and eliminates "traditional" explanations and describes future investigations that should be performed to help figure out what is going on. It even involves citizen scientists (a much better term than "amateurs") and "DiY" analysis.

Kudos to everyone involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/16/2015 01:29 pm
Guess where I'll be going this weekend: http://bucyruscopperkettle.com/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/16/2015 01:33 pm
Guess where I'll be going this weekend: http://bucyruscopperkettle.com/
TOTALLY forgot about this place, knew it was there when I lived in Ohio. What a great idea!!!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/16/2015 03:46 pm

Yes I'm still alive. I'm wrapped around gravitoelectromagnetism (the theory(ies) is/are a mess) and whether photons with effective mass within waveguide can create GEM fields which in turn influence the motion of moving air molecules via the Gravitational Lorentz Force within the frustum. I'm devoting all of my time to understanding the hypothetical graviphoton. Yes I'm in way over my head. 😁

I get the sense that GR is completely correct of course but it is not the end. There is much more to learn.

And my experimental efforts are on hold until I stop failing. I really need a better high power solid state solution which I can power with DC and my battery solution is not going well. I'm probably going to have to wait until I get back home to America.

Glad to hear it ! (you being alive, that is)

Reminded me that I meant to comment (back a bit!) when the topic was Nother's Theorem and separate conservation laws for energy and momentum.  I think required reading should be:

Sachs, M.,"The Mach Principle and the Origin of Inertia
From General Relativity", see: mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf


"I am not aware that Einstein gave any explicit reason for this requirement in his writings. However, I believe that it can be based on the empirical requirement that the (local) flat spacetime limit of the general field theory in a curved spacetime, must include laws of conservation – of energy, linear momentum and angular momentum. For, according to Noether’s theorem,4 the analyticity of the field solutions is a necessary and a sufficient condition for the existence of these conservation laws. Strictly, there are no conservation laws in general relativity because, covariantly, a ‘time rate of change’ of some function of the spacetime coordinates in a curved spacetime cannot be separated from the rest of the formulation that can go to zero. Thus, the laws of conservation apply strictly only to the local domain. The conservation laws are then a local limit of global laws in general relativity."

Havn't even had time to follow up though, barley even able to read the forum at the moment.

PS:  I do have, of course, a good selection of vacuum chambers if we ever get that far....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/16/2015 04:23 pm
That's a good idea and time permitting I might do one. Here is another from MIT that reconstructs acoustics wave patterns from an object through glass with video of that remote object. Video patterns are simply vibrations and movement of a surface. I was thinking it would be a great way to monitor movement of not only movements in air, but through a vacuum chamber window.
This reminds me of the attempts to find the voice of the craftsman who was registered in ceramics while he was working on his potter's wheel.
This would return the voices of potters living in the days of antiquity !  :)

Ah, the "Lazarus Bowl" (X-Files).


Actually this concept was utilized frequently in the "Fringe" TV series (getting voice data from glass).  I do chuckle as well that Walter Bishop was always talking about "resonant frequencies" while opening portals to alt universe.......  A little far fetched EMDrive humor for this morning.....

Dr B
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: DaCunha on 10/16/2015 06:51 pm
Dear all

I thought this could be interesting for other DIYers.

I am manufacturing a self-made  two-chamber klystron in my local FabLab. I will manufacture the buncher and catcher cavities with the help of a 3D printer and I am going to order tungsten wires for the electron gun filament. The accelerating anodes will be made of a circular aperture electrode The most difficult/expensive part will be the helmholtz coil for the external e- beam confining axial magnetic field.

The bandwidth will be very limited as for all klystron, so you guys have to fit your geometries to it if you want to use it, but several tens of kW should be realistic if operated as an oscillator with chamber feedback.

Once finished I would lend the klystron to all other DIYers here!

I'd wish I had more time to spend on this but I am only free on weekends.

You either don't have the money or you don't have the time, when you're young.

If you find grammar or spelling mistakes in the text above, you may keep them ;-)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/16/2015 09:12 pm
There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2015 02:09 pm
There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm

This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)

By going to a superconductor, the usual resistive losses are eliminated and the variation in Q can be blamed on the vacuum fluctuations, but the influence of the reflected (virtual ?) wave remains the same.

They have another very interesting experiment using a superconducting-transition ring resonator showing time-reversal symmetry-broken states, which could also be relevant.

Håkansson, M., Löfwander, T. and Fogelström, M. (2015) Spontaneously broken time-reversal symmetry in high-temperature superconductors. Nature Physics (1745-2473). Vol. 11 (2015), 9, pp. 755-760.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3383
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/17/2015 04:03 pm
There was some discussion of quantum fluctuations in earlier iterations of this thread such as with Dr White's QVPT thing. Well here is something that will allow someone investigating this hypothesis to tell what those sneaky fluxes are up to:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm

This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)

By going to a superconductor, the usual resistive losses are eliminated and the variation in Q can be blamed on the vacuum fluctuations, but the influence of the reflected (virtual ?) wave remains the same.

They have another very interesting experiment using a superconducting-transition ring resonator showing time-reversal symmetry-broken states, which could also be relevant.

Håkansson, M., Löfwander, T. and Fogelström, M. (2015) Spontaneously broken time-reversal symmetry in high-temperature superconductors. Nature Physics (1745-2473). Vol. 11 (2015), 9, pp. 755-760.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3383
"This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)"

I am so impressed, all I did was build a radio and TV. You were doing superconducting experiments!

The longer I'm here the more humble I become, what a wonderful brilliant and great group you all are. You have given me the greatest gift of hope, hope that we will not only solve this conundrum but make it better, finer and ultimately of value to our future generations.

Just a pat on the back to all...

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 04:03 pm
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads

Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.

Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.

I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/17/2015 04:43 pm
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads

Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.

Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.

I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?
Meep can do it but it's the real world tests that will make it apparent the level of co-planar that's going to be needed.

I was concerned of the alignments of the two plates. To try and keep the top plate aligned with the bottom I've done several things. One was to have the copper water jet cut to better than .001". Second the bottom plate is flat to better than .001".

The top tuning chamber is the concern with the small end plate. I'm building it to make sure the tuning cylinder is perpendicular to the frustum by using a simple laser alignment. (I'll post pictures when I do it). On the top of the small top plate I have three long sections of PTFE pushed out to the side walls to keep it from tilting during tuning and co-planar to the bottom plate. Testing will tell how well that aligns the whole system.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2015 04:50 pm

"This is the superconducting version of a very old experiment. (did this as a teenager w/ war-surplus gear, great fun!)"

I am so impressed, all I did was build a radio and TV. You were doing superconducting experiments!

Shell

Sorry about that Shell.  Was doing the non-superconducting, room temperature version back then.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/17/2015 05:37 pm
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... ::) yes I have spares parts and beads

Just back from daily rad. Will do the analysis runs this evening or early tomorrow and report back.

Take apart the bottom maggie assy where the heater leads are. Should find an inline filter on each lead. Might as well remove them from the dead maggie and put them in series on the -DC feed from your inverter.

I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?

Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.

http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)

Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.

But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Machine on 10/17/2015 10:29 pm
Quote
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"

he wants to see how good the alignement has to be to get the modes to stabilize.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:34 pm
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?

Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.

http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)

Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.

But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds.  Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections.  For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.

For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program.  Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling.  Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent. 

Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction.  Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems.  When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive  to alignment.  Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.

In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment.  IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q.  How sensitive is it to alignment?  AFAICT, we have no idea.  Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude.  Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.

I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold.  I may have more time when the snow flies.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/17/2015 10:37 pm
Quote
But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"

he wants to see how good the alignement has to be to get the modes to stabilize.

Much more concise than I put it.  Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/17/2015 10:57 pm
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?

Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.

http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)

Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.

But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds.  Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections.  For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.

For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program.  Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling.  Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent. 

Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction.  Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems.  When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive  to alignment.  Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.

In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment.  IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q.  How sensitive is it to alignment?  AFAICT, we have no idea.  Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude.  Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.

I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold.  I may have more time when the snow flies.

Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 12:42 am
I mentioned this earlier and am not sure if it was missed or ignored.  Can a meep run be done without having the end cap being perfectly axially aligned with the frustrum body?  I can't help but reflect on all the geometry discussions that have occurred, but we still don't have any idea about how good the alignment has to be to get the modes to stabilize.  E.g does the alignment have to be within a degree, or a thousandth of a degree?  Does meep even have the resolution to be able to evaluate this type of sensitivity?

Can it be done? Of course it can be done, meep source code is available, meep is a numerical algorithm running with a geometric model (in our case). Any reasonable model you care to take the time to construct in a meep control file can be run. Here are the components you have to work with in native mode.

http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Reference#geometric-object)

Of course if needed, you can add stuff using the C++ language and recompile.

But the first question I have is, "Why would you want to model misalignment, what is to be gained?"
As many of us have experienced first hand, the real world tends to rarely (never) have perfect builds.  Fortunately, most systems have some margin for imperfections.  For cutting edge stuff, not having a good handle on what that margin is can result in a lot of wasted time, effort, and cash.

For example, a project I was working on last year spent millions on trying to trace down the source of an intermittent issue that was threatening the entire program.  Similar to the EM builds, it wasn't possible to take measurements of the parameters we wanted while the device was in use, so there was a heavy reliance on FEA modeling.  Our perfect models showed some potential weaker points in the design, but nothing that was the clear culprit. We went through several fix/test cycles, but the issue remained intermittent. 

Ultimately, it appears the issue was a very minor misalignment that led to asymetries in the forces being applied to the uni, resulting in its destruction.  Tolerances were similar to Seashell's work, but we found inconsistencies in measurements when using different measurement systems.  When we did additional runs with the misalignment modeled, it quickly became obvious that the design was quite sensitive  to alignment.  Tightening the spec and increasing the number of data points when checking alignment resulted in perfect performance ever since.

In the EM drive, every model that has been discussed for attempting to establish the best modes assumes perfect alignment.  IIRC, Seashell's current design is supposed to have an absurdly high Q.  How sensitive is it to alignment?  AFAICT, we have no idea.  Given a few more simulation data points, we may find that her chosen build tolerance gives a range of possible Q spanning several orders of magnitude.  Or, we may see that she can increase her build tolerance 10x with little expected impact on the results, making her build easier to accomplish.

I'd like to chip in on the modeling effort, but have some outside projects on the house that need to get done before it gets too cold.  I may have more time when the snow flies.

Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know.
Nice post!

For me testing the device, the more cause for error that I can take out and stay within a small budget the better I can define any results gained. I'm not sure if it's going to be good enough or over kill, but it at least it's starting with the least amount of unknowns.

What meep has shown is that with the extreme tolerances (it uses something like out to 12+ decimal places) that a very high Q could be achieved, do I think I'll see those Qs, good grief no. I couldn't hand build it to those tolerances, but I can within a small budget do a frustum to good tolerances and try to negate some of the red flagged problems. Fine control non-active tuning, resonance locking with captured end plates, addressing thermal expansion issues and cavity warping. Stable microwave generation will come later as I have some tests I want to sweeping through the different cavity modes using a broadband Rf source. It could just be exciting multiple modes and the interactions of those modes are the reasons for the increased Q and exciting a sweet spot in additive mode actions is a key.

Will it be be enough? The only thing that can be assured of is it will be enough to point me to the next build issues that need to be addressed.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/18/2015 02:20 am
Good answer. Maybe later - for now I think all of our "Citizen Scientists" are keeping the tolerances as tight as they are able. Tighter than necessary, don't know.
Nice post!

For me testing the device, the more cause for error that I can take out and stay within a small budget the better I can define any results gained. I'm not sure if it's going to be good enough or over kill, but it at least it's starting with the least amount of unknowns.

What meep has shown is that with the extreme tolerances (it uses something like out to 12+ decimal places) that a very high Q could be achieved, do I think I'll see those Qs, good grief no. I couldn't hand build it to those tolerances, but I can within a small budget do a frustum to good tolerances and try to negate some of the red flagged problems. Fine control non-active tuning, resonance locking with captured end plates, addressing thermal expansion issues and cavity warping. Stable microwave generation will come later as I have some tests I want to sweeping through the different cavity modes using a broadband Rf source. It could just be exciting multiple modes and the interactions of those modes are the reasons for the increased Q and exciting a sweet spot in additive mode actions is a key.

Will it be be enough? The only thing that can be assured of is it will be enough to point me to the next build issues that need to be addressed.

Shell

Thanks for the affirmation!  ::)  The civility in this thread contributes to the free flow of ideas. 

One thought I had about Shawer's more recent configuration with the spherical end cap is that it may be  inherently less sensitive to alignment due to its curvature, compared with a flat plate.  Can't quite put my finger on the mathematical formulas, but my intuition is saying that the affects from bouncing off the curved surface is going to be less sensitive since the center of the spherical section is quite a bit further from its surface than the distance between the end caps.  A slight deviation from perfect alignment would then not affect the "bounce path" of the photons as much as the flat end cap configuration, resulting in more stable modes.

But then again, this is my intuition, and its been a long time since my EM theory classes in college.  I'd trust the meep results better or the word of someone with more experience with RF/microwave design and practice.  At any rate, looking forward to more data from the experiment /analysis / modeling / theory team.  Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing with the rest of us!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/18/2015 04:45 am
Shell, Aero & Crew:

The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance.  Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000.  Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required.  And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.   

BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 10:09 am
Shell, Aero & Crew:

The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance.  Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000.  Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required.  And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.   

BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.

Best, Paul March
Thanks Paul that's helpful and great piece of information on the AIAA/JPC build and how you built it.

I used a spread sheet to map out the Q versus the wave guides from meep and it agreed very well with your numbers. .040"  can be a very workable number for DYI builders.

I have one other reason to keep the build as best as I can and it's really not that much more work.  The tuning chamber needs to slide as free as it can without binding and  I also want to do some extended high power runs within a high Q tune range.

Thanks for offering this,  it's very time consuming to review papers and dig out the information and you can do a simple summary in one paragraph, saving so much time.

Thanks,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 03:27 pm
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/18/2015 07:13 pm
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done.  :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ???  Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.

Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!!  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/18/2015 08:51 pm
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done.  :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ???  Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.

Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!!  :)
These are just scans without the frustum attached. The vna will be S11 and the spec an will paint a shot when the frustum fires up. The spec an module was plug and play, the vna from miniradiosolutions.com was not. Lots of extra drivers and jre needed...real hassle but finally got it sorted out. Am awaiting another mag and will pull off radome and stick an sma connector on it. I'll use this on the empty frustum for the RL sweep.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2015 10:30 pm
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.
Hi, good to see that some measurements were done.  :)
I have some questions about.
What are the conditions for this measurements?
Spec.: µW-Source, Antenna/probe ?
VNA: S11 or S21? Antenna/probe? Can't identify some of the numbers, JPEG quality is to bad. ???  Shows the left y-axis of the VNA measurements the loss in dB? Have you a better pic available or a data export file (Touchstone file or something else)?
At the moment I cant see strong resonance around 2.4 GHz.

Nevertheless good that you post all of your results!!  :)
These are just scans without the frustum attached. The vna will be S11 and the spec an will paint a shot when the frustum fires up. The spec an module was plug and play, the vna from miniradiosolutions.com was not. Lots of extra drivers and jre needed...real hassle but finally got it sorted out. Am awaiting another mag and will pull off radome and stick an sma connector on it. I'll use this on the empty frustum for the RL sweep.
Need a dead maggie? If so PM me and I'll drop it into the mail ASAP.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 03:55 am
Now that the thread is back on track, I think I want to pose a question I haven't seen asked so far. I think its an important question because of how easy it is to move the goalposts for success after experiments have been run.

What would count as "strong" evidence for an anomalous result from these force measurement experiments, assuming a reasonably well-designed experiment?


Personally I think a test in a clean (no hot soft parts) microtorr environment which shows something like 10-100 mN of thrust (which would be about 1000 times the environmental gas pressure on the faces of the device) would be very interesting and hard to dismiss as a thermal effect. In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 10/19/2015 03:59 am
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).

To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/19/2015 04:22 am
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).

To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit?

Perhaps I do have excessive expectations, but a jet is essentially an efficient "thermal effect" :)

I arrived at those numbers because differences in pressure/density are the sources of confounding factors in these experiments, and at about one atmosphere thermally induced pressure differences can probably put out a maximum of one to ten newtons of force at any realistic power level (in the ballpark of a vacuum on one side of the test article). In other words, the noise floor is pretty high and difficult to characterize. In a microtorr vacuum the maximum expected force from surrounding gases is millions of times lower, concomitantly lowering the expected height of the noise floor.

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 04:27 am
VNA and Spec An finally working on laptop. Awaiting a parts donor magnetron to use radome for frustum testing.

Excellent news.

I'm really looking forward to the S11 scan results on your frustum and those of the spectrum analyser showing what your maggie is outputting.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 04:45 am
In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).

To be clear, we get about 6-7 Newtons of force per Kw in jets. Obviously you don't mean 1-10 per Kw (Unless you do...) but it does put into perspective how tall of an order that is. Maybe lower your expectations a bit?

Perhaps I do have excessive expectations, but a jet is essentially an efficient "thermal effect" :)

I arrived at those numbers because differences in pressure/density are the sources of confounding factors in these experiments, and at about one atmosphere thermally induced pressure differences can probably put out a maximum of one to ten newtons of force at any realistic power level (in the ballpark of a vacuum on one side of the test article). In other words, the noise floor is pretty high and difficult to characterize. In a microtorr vacuum the maximum expected force from surrounding gases is millions of times lower, concomitantly lowering the expected height of the noise floor.

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

I have Shawyer's kindly laid bread crumb trail to follow and expect to see around 50mN at 100Ws Rf IF I do a really good job building my spherical end plate frustum AND doing an excellent job dynamically tracking the lowest rtn loss / VSWR point.

Using a carefully designed cordless & battery powered rotary table I expect it to accelerate at ~15 rpm/minute until the battery is drained or losses exceed the torque being generated. Should be able to get to 120 rpm.

Around 0.5N/kW for a solid state narrow band Rf gen driven EMDrive with a very high Df (large diff between big & small end spherical diameters) and excellent best freq tracking is about the current state of the art as Shawyer demonstrated with his 2009 Flight Thruster series of tests at an overall 326mN/kW. http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

If you really expect an EMDrive to fly off the table, you may be waiting a very long time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 10/19/2015 05:07 am
How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

rfmwguy already gave what I would consider a "big enough" signal. He minimized the effects of thermal lift and showed us a consistent and otherwise inexplicable push fighting the rising gas when the frustum was activated.  If I were just now hearing of the drive, this would go a ways to convince me on its own.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 05:35 am
Seems BBC Horizon are working on a Roger Shawyer / EMDrive documentary. Claimed NASA is also involved.

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/roger-shawyer-emdrive
Click on the full Shawyer youtube interview and then scroll down to the comments. Nick Breeze has done 4 Shawyer / EMDrive YouTube interviews.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 06:56 am
Seems BBC Horizon are working on a Roger Shawyer / EMDrive documentary. Claimed NASA is also involved.

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/roger-shawyer-emdrive
Click on the full Shawyer youtube interview and then scroll down to the comments. Nick Breeze has done 4 Shawyer / EMDrive YouTube interviews.

Very interesting news Mr. Traveller. BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology. They always require higher level of confirmation. It really looks like that NASA also told them about recent developments

The dam is starting to leak. The flood is on the horizon. Following months will be interesting indeed!

Mr. Paul March, this rise hopes that EmDrive project may recieve more funds in the future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 07:27 am
BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.

Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.

This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/19/2015 07:49 am
BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.

Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.

This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue.

Good critique thanks :), but if you want to get such thing as the EmDrive to the wide public, you first need to show "easy to eat nice bits", that will introduce it. Making it difficult to understand will not help either and may confuse rather than help. Most of the people will hear for the first time about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/19/2015 08:19 am
Yep, Horizon episodes should make hard things easy to chew, otherwise someone may get it wrong, like: "they said that some new conical microwave ovens will no longer fry chicks,  it will make them fly!"  ;)
A bit of humor, but on the other hand, I feel disapointed because so many possible new "magical" technologies are still in the domain of "magical" and not real. (Cold fusion, for example). You watch a nice documentary about it and start dreaming, and then you realize that it is slowly but surely being pushed towards "fairy tales" category and will never become real... :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/19/2015 11:34 am
Yep, Horizon episodes should make hard things easy to chew, otherwise someone may get it wrong, like: "they said that some new conical microwave ovens will no longer fry chicks,  it will make them fly!"  ;)
A bit of humor, but on the other hand, I feel disapointed because so many possible new "magical" technologies are still in the domain of "magical" and not real. (Cold fusion, for example). You watch a nice documentary about it and start dreaming, and then you realize that it is slowly but surely being pushed towards "fairy tales" category and will never become real... :(

Would suspect with the NASA mention, nothing will air until the new EWs paper and results are released. If the EW results are strongly positive and are included in the Horizon episode, a whole lot of people are going to get a heads up that there is a new way to move things about. I would also suspect we may see some SPR tech we have never seen before.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 11:40 am

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

There are recognized methods for extracting signal from noise and identifying statistically significant results. None invoke a universal "threshold". They would depend upon the specific test setup and measurement technique.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 10/19/2015 12:44 pm
As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

Any force greater than a 'light drive' or 'solar sail' type would be scientifically interesting enough to warrant much greater investigation I would think.

Heck any even minimal and reproducible signal over noise would be enough to ask some serious questions given the lack of understanding about how such a thing could work within the parameters of COE, COM, and relativity.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 01:12 pm
Now that the thread is back on track, I think I want to pose a question I haven't seen asked so far. I think its an important question because of how easy it is to move the goalposts for success after experiments have been run.

What would count as "strong" evidence for an anomalous result from these force measurement experiments, assuming a reasonably well-designed experiment?


Personally I think a test in a clean (no hot soft parts) microtorr environment which shows something like 10-100 mN of thrust (which would be about 1000 times the environmental gas pressure on the faces of the device) would be very interesting and hard to dismiss as a thermal effect. In the air its hard for me to say, but for me I think something in the range of one to ten newtons would be needed to really get me interested (flying off the table levels of force).
Nice post and relevant for sure. My goal, lofty and potentially not doable with my current design, is 100x force increase or about 17 mN from about 177 microN. Ways I'm trying to get there:

1) Force maggie to "lock" to single, stable freq.
2) Re-tune frustum for this freq.

Personally, I would have quit at 177 micros if I felt it was far enough out of the noise, but I am not yet satisfied. While I do think I had positive force, more significant results are what the emdrive community needs. Its getting down to the point where I'm trying to determine the factors that contribute to higher force levels. The good folks in the community are steering me towards resonance and cleaner signal, which makes total sense.

If this 17 mN is achievable, I'm not sure how much more force this home-boy could achieve on a very modest budget and non-exotic materials design, such as superconductors. Got my VNA up and running, Shell is sending me a mag radome to use as a probe (antenna) and we'll see where the frustum Qr was during my first tests.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 01:19 pm
Shell, Aero & Crew:

The manufacturing tolerances for building these EMDrive based room-temp copper frustums does not have to be very good to get Q-factor results that are quite usable in obtaining interesting thruster performance.  Our unloaded, (-7dB down from the VNA S11 amplitude reference plane assuming near optimal antenna coupling using a magnetic loop antenna), with no dielectric discs, the TE012 resonance at 2,167 MHz per our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper's copper frustum came out to be ~54,000.  Considering our garage construction crew used a civil war vintage bending mill to form the copper sheet into a cone, which was then lead/tin soldered together with two half inch wide exterior flanges butted together, and pulled together using 0.050" thick by 1/2 inch wide copper hoops that I hand routered out of copper sheets, which were then lead/tin soldered to the cone, should tell you that great precision for your first frustum prototypes is not required.  And since I also just used semi-flat 1/16" thick FR4 printed circuit boards with one side plated with 1.0 oz (34.8 microns thick) copper with the copper side towards the inside of the cavity, super parallel surfaces on the end caps is not required either.   

BTW, since the wave-length of ~2.0 GHz RF is 5.906" (0.1500m), keeping within 1/100th of a wavelength (0.0591") tolerance of your design in your first build as the telescope builders do, one should just use moderate (0.03") shop tolerances for your first prototype builds and go from there.

Best, Paul March
Revisiting this again this morning. My thoughts are if I was dealing in a simple cavity with a single frequency it would scale linearly. The build error of 10 mm could be tolerated but in a very high Q broad Spectrum asymmetrical cavity with additive and subtractive wave actions in the mixing of high Q modes it becomes much more critical.

Maybe I'll take some time for my build and do some maths I've not done in 30 years to look deeper. Or maybe not, I'm very driven to get this build done.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 01:46 pm
It's kind of weird here without WarpTech (Todd), DeltaMass and Dr. Rodal. What I suspect is one thing, but what I do know, is they are greatly missed and God's speed in whatever you all are doing.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/19/2015 01:54 pm
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...

It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).

As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...

Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 02:04 pm
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...

It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).

As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...

Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...
I call it a 800 pound gorilla, I miss wrestling with it sometimes. lol

I'm glad for Paul's clarification as well, very smart man, dang good engineer.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2015 03:05 pm

BBC would not make a document on just "some" technology.

Compare Horizon episodes from 30 years ago (they're on youtube) to an episode you get today. Today, all you'll get is a lot of inspiring music and a contentless narrative about how 'the world may never be the same again'. The information density in a typical Horizon episode is so low because they need to fill the air time with shots of scientists looking wistfully at the skies.

This will hurt, rather than hinder the efforts to get to the bottom of this issue.

Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/19/2015 03:14 pm

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...

So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).

I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.

To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...

I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.

anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 03:16 pm
Altho they didn't make it to the final round, we should congratulate our Aachen Germany friends for making it to the hackaday semifinals. Tscheuss guys...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: WBY1984 on 10/19/2015 03:20 pm

Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose.

Outside agenda? Please. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is present within every current Horizon episode. It will muddy the waters considerably.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 04:42 pm

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...

So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).

I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.

To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...

I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.

anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...

I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.

I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 05:18 pm

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...

So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).

I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.

To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...

I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.

anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...

I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.

I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists.
I believe this is very true, considering the nature of computing in todays economy. An elephant in the room is the scaling, can it provide a platform for earth-bound transport as well as space. Scaled up EMDrive "levitation" is a big possibility for rail transport, not to mention everything else.

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: D_Dom on 10/19/2015 05:42 pm
I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...

It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).

As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...

Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...
I call it a 800 pound gorilla, I miss wrestling with it sometimes. lol

I'm glad for Paul's clarification as well, very smart man, dang good engineer.

Shell

Agree with all of the above. I have learned to be very careful choosing the wrestle the 800 pound gorilla. I am never allowed to quit when I get tired, I only get to quit when the gorilla gets tired. Still great good fun and all...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/19/2015 05:51 pm

As has been pointed out before, this is a sci-fi-esque energy to momentum drive being discussed. A pretty big signal is going to be needed to get more than niche interest. How "big" of a signal do you think is needed?

Proving there is a signal, from a scientific point of view, is one step, but an EMdrive will only get "meaning" if it finds a real world application that affects us all in a direct or indirect way. I'm not very qualified to establish what the content would be for a 5 sigma, but i know that 5_sigma is what most scientist will accept for the effect being "true". How do you quantify the odds of 1:3.5mil that the signal you see is not thermal or random noise? Beats me...

So, I'd like to flip and invert the question by wondering what is needed to make a real world application with a "working EMdrive" (on the assumption it does).

I believe the real world application with the least needed thrust force would be satellite/space station positioning. I think it was in topic#3 that there was somebody that took the time and effort to calculate what was needed to counter the orbital decay of a satellite.

To have meaning, that is the minimum expectation for the thrust that the EMdrive should develop...

I'll try to locate that post and add it inhere.

anything higher will only boost the importance of an EMdrive.
with 0.4N/kW, several articles start -rightfully- talking about interplanetary space exploration...

I suspect none of us can image eventual "real world" application that might come from the drive itself or, more likely, the results of the underlying principles.

I remember reading somewhere that nearly one-third of the US economy can be attributed to technology that directly utilizes the principles of quantum mechanics - probably one of the most esoteric fields to non-physicists.
I believe this is very true, considering the nature of computing in todays economy. An elephant in the room is the scaling, can it provide a platform for earth-bound transport as well as space. Scaled up EMDrive "levitation" is a big possibility for rail transport, not to mention everything else.

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

Yeah scaling will be very important. But I think there will be a good scaling story if you can get a number of drives to operate in parallel. Even better if max thrust is not overly dependent on volume.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 10/19/2015 06:52 pm

Episodes vary from each as with all shows, some are better than others but to paint them all with the same brush, unless you have an outside agenda, serves no purpose.

Outside agenda? Please. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is present within every current Horizon episode. It will muddy the waters considerably.

Again you try & paint a whole series with a broad brush which serves no purpose. Yes Horizon has its good & bad episodes but as I said above so do all shows. For example their recent episode on orbital debris was pretty decent in getting across the issue to the layperson who is the not going to have the specialist knowledge of many on here.

Outside agenda because your posts have seemed more focused on tarnishing the reputation of the show than actually considering the matter of it covering this topic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/19/2015 07:24 pm

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 07:49 pm

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
I've always said give me a hole to the outside world and I'll make it move. As I don't want to tread on the revered CoE and CoM.

Waiting for my silver solder to be delivered so I can start some final assembly before I model it out with the SMA, (I ran out of my other tube). And it's ok as we cut down this massive tree this weekend, blocked and split it.  I'm kind of moving very slow. I think it's hot tub time anyway.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/19/2015 07:55 pm

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
It's going to be very interesting to see the endgame. I'm making sure I stay tuned.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/19/2015 11:46 pm

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
It's going to be very interesting to see the endgame. I'm making sure I stay tuned.

Shell
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

I did not jump in on those threads a while back, because my synapses we not yet firing on all cylinders ;^)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/20/2015 12:54 am
Quote
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

Which is where Doctor David Bae's bouncing laser (photon recycling) scheme comes in.  A 5000 fold increase in power without violating CoE.  I still maintain a really clever engineer could probably finagle the static version of his setup into a free energy device, in which case, lots of fun and games ensue.   I also maintain his scheme is an insight or clue as to what is going on with the EM Drive.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/20/2015 02:31 am
Quote
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

Which is where Doctor David Bae's bouncing laser (photon recycling) scheme comes in.  A 5000 fold increase in power without violating CoE.  I still maintain a really clever engineer could probably finagle the static version of his setup into a free energy device, in which case, lots of fun and games ensue.   I also maintain his scheme is an insight or clue as to what is going on with the EM Drive.

I have listened to Dr. Bae talk at a NIAC symposium.  NASA has given him $500k to prove his theories.   My naive answer to the conundrum you present is that as the mirrors move in opposite directions from the light hitting them, the light gets red-shifted and its momentum decreases.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 02:33 am

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
It's going to be very interesting to see the endgame. I'm making sure I stay tuned.

Shell
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

I did not jump in on those threads a while back, because my synapses we not yet firing on all cylinders ;^)
Not violating CoE or CoM is my first thought.
There needs to be a hole from that enclosed frame frustum to the outside, NASA EagleWorks Dr. White thinks the hole is VP from the QV. Other theories are out there and I believe there are 7 or 8 more. As to what is really happening Mother Nature is keeping close to her heart.

As far as I know it could be "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but probably not.  ::)

Shell
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3800000/Plan-9-From-Outer-Space-classic-science-fiction-films-3846576-1024-768.jpg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/20/2015 04:59 am

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
It's going to be very interesting to see the endgame. I'm making sure I stay tuned.

Shell
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

I did not jump in on those threads a while back, because my synapses we not yet firing on all cylinders ;^)

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/20/2015 08:57 am
Roger has emailed he will probably appear on the Horizon episode about his EMDrive. Seems details about how far the BBC will be allowed to penetrate into the EMDrive world and what they will be shown are still being worked out.

I would speculate this process may also involve the next NASA EW paper and their findings.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/20/2015 09:15 am

...

If I put an objective hat on, power consumption of heavy lift drives would probably mean commercial transport would be first. However, this could be decades in the future and Space Flight seems the best short term application.

I am hoping last year's rumors of NASA testing this past summer are correct and peer review is underway. Once this opens up, I would envision more labs and even NASA themselves jump-start the small effort to date and its possible a smallsat could be built within a short time frame.

Regardless, times are pretty exciting for a change and we may have more to celebrate than speed and memory in computers which have taken center stage for years.

The thing that was driving everyone nuts a couple of threads back was the implication of a rotary EMDrive driving an alternator and producing more power than it consumed.  The CoM and CoE angst seems to have diminished, but not because the conundrum was "solved", it just led to so many paradoxes that everyone threw up their hands and gave up (or used it as evidence the EMDrive was impossible).

That contradiction still exists as far as I can see - the only way out is to assume energy and momentum are exchanged with "non-traditional" sources. :o  If this is true, we would be tapping into a new energy supply.  I think space applications probably pale in comparison with the implication of that.
It's going to be very interesting to see the endgame. I'm making sure I stay tuned.

Shell
I'm still having trouble visualizing how it can get more power out of an alternator than the power it takes to spin it. This overunity still makes me think of the questionable claims of one motor driving another motor/generator and that assembly being a perpetual motion machine.

Lets say 1200 Watts of energy is firing an emdrive that sits on a rotary table with the friction of an alternator which in turn powers the emdrive...doesn't seem to me it can work. Its like a garden hose shooting into a water pump which then pumps more water into the hose...system losses overcome energy and CoE is maintained.

I did not jump in on those threads a while back, because my synapses we not yet firing on all cylinders ;^)

Roger told me SPR have confirmed experimentally, using the rotary test rig, that neither CofM nor CofE are violated.

As I see it, in effect, the EMDrive creates an internal larger EM wave momentum gradient toward the big end. The EMDrive moves externally toward the small end or opposite to the internal momentum gradient increasing toward the big end.

As the EMDrive accelerates, Q drops as the EM wave momentum converts into opposite direction EMDrive momentum. This drops stored cavity energy, dropping Q and Force generated. Also causes a replacement amount of energy to flow into the cavity, which restores Force generation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 10/20/2015 10:17 am
Roger has emailed he will probably appear on the Horizon episode about his EMDrive. Seems details about how far the BBC will be allowed to penetrate into the EMDrive world and what they will be shown are still being worked out.

I would speculate this process may also involve the next NASA EW paper and their findings.

Thank you for the update. Please send our regards to Mr. Roger and once again invite him here on the NSF. We would be glad for his comments :).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/20/2015 10:36 am

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.

Just as rfmxguy, I'm having difficulties to visualize and "see" how that would be possible.
How can you possibly build a dynamo that delivers more electricity then what the EMdrive needs?
Friction and heat grow exponential with speed.
From what I can find, the best dynamo's have an efficiency of 72%.. It puzzles me how you can achieve over-unity devices with that?

Although I lack the skills to actually calculate the results, my feeling is that the over-unity calculations result in a COE violation due to an oversimplification of the used formula(s). Blame my pragmatism, but i don't see any COE violation from my perspective. Maybe there is a violation in the abstract world, on paper, but out there ? in the real world?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/20/2015 10:45 am

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.

Just as rfmxguy, I'm having difficulties to visualize and "see" how that would be possible.
How can you possibly build a dynamo that delivers more electricity then what the EMdrive needs?
Friction and heat grow exponential with speed.
From what I can find, the best dynamo's have an efficiency of 72%.. It puzzles me how you can achieve over-unity devices with that?

Although I lack the skills to actually calculate the results, my feeling is that the over-unity calculations result in a COE violation due to an oversimplification of the used formula(s). Blame my pragmatism, but i don't see any COE violation from my perspective. Maybe there is a violation in the abstract world, on paper, but out there ? in the real world?

The EMDrive or the "Shawyer Effect" is not an energy source.

Have been told SPR have done detailed energy flows, using the Demonstrator EMDrive on the rotary table. They measured that both overall system wide CofM and CofE are conserved.

Did ask for that data to be made public. Will ask again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/20/2015 12:10 pm

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.

Just as rfmxguy, I'm having difficulties to visualize and "see" how that would be possible.
How can you possibly build a dynamo that delivers more electricity then what the EMdrive needs?
Friction and heat grow exponential with speed.
From what I can find, the best dynamo's have an efficiency of 72%.. It puzzles me how you can achieve over-unity devices with that?

Although I lack the skills to actually calculate the results, my feeling is that the over-unity calculations result in a COE violation due to an oversimplification of the used formula(s). Blame my pragmatism, but i don't see any COE violation from my perspective. Maybe there is a violation in the abstract world, on paper, but out there ? in the real world?

Friction doesn't "destroy energy", it transforms energy (e.g. Kinetic energy to heat). It's easier to go back to the frictionless, linear kinetic energy example of an accelerating spacecraft:

1) By assumption, EMDrive spacecraft thrust is constant with power. For constant power, energy input increases linearly with time (by definition, delta_energy = power*delta_time).

2) Since there is no mass depletion (reactionless drive) acceleration is constant (acceleration = thrust/mass) and velocity increases linearly with time (delta_velocity=acceleration*delta_time).

3) Change in kinetic energy (by definition delta_KE = 0.5*mass*delta_velocity ^2) increases as the square of delta_velocity, therefore as the square of delta_time.

Hence the dilemma using classical physics: input energy increases linearly with delta_time and resultant kinetic energy increases as the square of delta_time. Eventually, change in KE will always exceed the energy input to the drive.

Immersing this spacecraft in an atmosphere so that drag (friction) limits the delta_velocity does not solve the dilemma - some of the kinetic energy will be changed into heat, sound, etc. but the books still will not balance.

Folks have tried to invoke general relativity and preferred frames to "fix" this dilemma, but I have not seen any success so far.

I always think it is interesting that everyone abhors the idea of a violation of classical conservation of energy, but embraces a violation of conservation of momentum - the very underlying assumption of the EMDrive. (TT, I hear you, I just do not believe there is currently a classical set of equations that support what you say. It seems to me the photon rocket is as far as you can take what you are saying. I could be wrong).

Anyway, sorry I brought it up again.  This was hashed to death several threads back without resolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm now more convinced than ever that the thrust generation is real and that it does violate our classical understanding of conservation of momentum and energy (I suspect something like Dr. White's mutable quantum vacuum is going on). My original point was that the implications, if true, may go far beyond a nifty space drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/20/2015 01:30 pm
Roger told me SPR have confirmed experimentally, using the rotary test rig, that neither CofM nor CofE are violated.

As I see it, in effect, the EMDrive creates an internal larger EM wave momentum gradient toward the big end. The EMDrive moves externally toward the small end or opposite to the internal momentum gradient increasing toward the big end.

As the EMDrive accelerates, Q drops as the EM wave momentum converts into opposite direction EMDrive momentum. This drops stored cavity energy, dropping Q and Force generated. Also causes a replacement amount of energy to flow into the cavity, which restores Force generation.

This is one rare case where I do not believe any details of the experiments are needed to demonstrate why the experiments must have been done wrong.

There is no device that directly measures energy or momentum, they are in general calculated quantities when running experiments. Shawyer incorrectly uses some simple relativistic equations in the em drive theory paper, and he would have to retract most of his conclusions from that paper before me (or anyone with a decent physics background) would believe any claims he makes about momentum conservation. (Look up my posts in old threads if you want details of what is wrong with his paper).

I believe that for the rotational rig, it is possible that momentum was conserved, but only because for a rotational system you need to measure angular momentum, which is just as conserved as regular momentum in standard physics. Either way, the entire reason the em drive is useful is because it appears to break conservation of momentum. This means if it works, it is probably exchanging momentum with dark matter, or something else new to physics. (it could just be an exception to conservation of momentum, but that breaks physics on so fundamental of a level, I doubt many people could even guess at the consequences, so I'll ignore that).

Either the em drive conserves momentum by interacting with some unknown external system, which can't have its momentum determined by experiment since we don't know what it is yet, or the em drive does not do anything interesting. No correctly done experiment can have the conclusion "momentum is conserved, but the em drive works" until we know more about why it works (if it does),

Net positive energy could be demonstrated by an experiment, but with thrusts as low as the experiments to date, various losses would probably dominate. Also you have to be careful to account for all sources of energy. For example, a heat pump can heat a home by more than the energy in the electricity it uses, because it also moves thermal energy from the outside in at the same time. This makes it hard to have an experiment that demonstrates conservation of energy for the em drive, electric power, radiated losses, thermal losses, friction, air resistance, etc all would need to be accounted for.

Your attempt to work around conservation of momentum with the em wave explanation does not work. The drive can temporarily appear to move externally due to em waves internally traveling in the opposite direction, but long before the drive could move one cavity length, the photons would hit the other end with the same momentum (and then reflect reversing the total motion). If you claim the em stored momentum changes due to cavity shape, this still means that they either broke conservation of momentum, transferred it to the something outside the system somehow, or (according to how physics probably works) transferred the momentum to the walls of the cavity. The photons are part of the EM drive system, and the center of energy of the system can't move to the left if they are storing momentum to the right equal to the rest of the system's momentum to the left.

tl;dr Current experiments cannot show an em drive conserving momentum without either an explanation of what the drive interacts with outside itself, or demonstrating that the drive doesn't work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 01:41 pm

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.

Just as rfmxguy, I'm having difficulties to visualize and "see" how that would be possible.
How can you possibly build a dynamo that delivers more electricity then what the EMdrive needs?
Friction and heat grow exponential with speed.
From what I can find, the best dynamo's have an efficiency of 72%.. It puzzles me how you can achieve over-unity devices with that?

Although I lack the skills to actually calculate the results, my feeling is that the over-unity calculations result in a COE violation due to an oversimplification of the used formula(s). Blame my pragmatism, but i don't see any COE violation from my perspective. Maybe there is a violation in the abstract world, on paper, but out there ? in the real world?

Friction doesn't "destroy energy", it transforms energy (e.g. Kinetic energy to heat). It's easier to go back to the frictionless, linear kinetic energy example of an accelerating spacecraft:

1) By assumption, EMDrive spacecraft thrust is constant with power. For constant power, energy input increases linearly with time (by definition, delta_energy = power*delta_time).

2) Since there is no mass depletion (reactionless drive) acceleration is constant (acceleration = thrust/mass) and velocity increases linearly with time (delta_velocity=acceleration*delta_time).

3) Change in kinetic energy (by definition delta_KE = 0.5*mass*delta_velocity ^2) increases as the square of delta_velocity, therefore as the square of time.

Hence the dilemma using classical physics: input energy increases linearly with time and resultant kinetic energy increases as the square of time. Eventually, change in KE will always exceed the energy input to the drive.

Immersing this spacecraft in an atmosphere so that drag (friction) limits the delta_velocity does not solve the dilemma - some of the kinetic energy will be changed into heat, sound, etc. but the books still will not balance.

Folks have tried to invoke general relativity and preferred frames to "fix" this dilemma, but I have not seen any success so far.

I always think it is interesting that everyone abhors the idea of a violation of classical conservation of energy, but embraces a violation of conservation of momentum - the very underlying assumption of the EMDrive. (TT, I hear you, I just do not believe there is currently a classical set of equations that support what you say. It seems to me the photon rocket is as far as you can take what you are saying. I could be wrong).

Anyway, sorry I brought it up again.  This was hashed to death several threads back without resolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm now more convinced than ever that the thrust generation is real and that it does violate our classical understanding of conservation of momentum and energy (I suspect something like Dr. White's mutable quantum vacuum is going on). My original point was that the implications, if true, may go far beyond a nifty space drive.
I think it's fine we talk about this. I've learned much by these talks.

Dr. White and Shawyer, Todd's,  notsosureofit and  the rest of the theories try not to upset the apple cart of physics as we know. The kicker is we know only 4.6% of what it's all made of anyway, the rest is made of Dark energy and Dark Mass and ????.

I like Dr. White's theory of ripping up the QV and making VP... I think he has the right idea but the wrong stuff.

What if it wasn't virtual particles the drive interfaced and reacted with?  What if it's something that has been starring us in the face and I've read nothing of this idea (maybe I missed it somehow in my reading).  What if it's Dark Mass? The particles in whatever form they may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Baryonic_and_nonbaryonic_dark_matter.

If this is case then everyone is happy (well most everyone). If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.

I've said I wasn't going to talk about my favorite idea yet but I think I need to. I Simply  don't have the intense math skills to follow through.  I believe it needs to be looked into and I could use some feedback and some help here. A Gravitational Lens Drive sounds good.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/20/2015 03:22 pm

The classical equations for rotational kinetic energy guarantee that if you assume constant thrust at constant power for the EMDrive, energy out will eventually exceed energy in. You can assume friction will always deplete enough energy to prevent torque from increasing enough to produce energy in excess of the input, but it's an arbitrary assumption and doesn't balance the books.

 I don't want to start up the old CoE/CoM arguments again.  During all the DiY excitement, I just think we need to keep in mind that we are still talking about a device that, if it produces thrust in excess of a photon rocket, currently defies explanation.

Just as rfmxguy, I'm having difficulties to visualize and "see" how that would be possible.
How can you possibly build a dynamo that delivers more electricity then what the EMdrive needs?
Friction and heat grow exponential with speed.
From what I can find, the best dynamo's have an efficiency of 72%.. It puzzles me how you can achieve over-unity devices with that?

Although I lack the skills to actually calculate the results, my feeling is that the over-unity calculations result in a COE violation due to an oversimplification of the used formula(s). Blame my pragmatism, but i don't see any COE violation from my perspective. Maybe there is a violation in the abstract world, on paper, but out there ? in the real world?

Friction doesn't "destroy energy", it transforms energy (e.g. Kinetic energy to heat). It's easier to go back to the frictionless, linear kinetic energy example of an accelerating spacecraft:

1) By assumption, EMDrive spacecraft thrust is constant with power. For constant power, energy input increases linearly with time (by definition, delta_energy = power*delta_time).

2) Since there is no mass depletion (reactionless drive) acceleration is constant (acceleration = thrust/mass) and velocity increases linearly with time (delta_velocity=acceleration*delta_time).

3) Change in kinetic energy (by definition delta_KE = 0.5*mass*delta_velocity ^2) increases as the square of delta_velocity, therefore as the square of time.

Hence the dilemma using classical physics: input energy increases linearly with time and resultant kinetic energy increases as the square of time. Eventually, change in KE will always exceed the energy input to the drive.

Immersing this spacecraft in an atmosphere so that drag (friction) limits the delta_velocity does not solve the dilemma - some of the kinetic energy will be changed into heat, sound, etc. but the books still will not balance.

Folks have tried to invoke general relativity and preferred frames to "fix" this dilemma, but I have not seen any success so far.

I always think it is interesting that everyone abhors the idea of a violation of classical conservation of energy, but embraces a violation of conservation of momentum - the very underlying assumption of the EMDrive. (TT, I hear you, I just do not believe there is currently a classical set of equations that support what you say. It seems to me the photon rocket is as far as you can take what you are saying. I could be wrong).

Anyway, sorry I brought it up again.  This was hashed to death several threads back without resolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm now more convinced than ever that the thrust generation is real and that it does violate our classical understanding of conservation of momentum and energy (I suspect something like Dr. White's mutable quantum vacuum is going on). My original point was that the implications, if true, may go far beyond a nifty space drive.

Plug in relativistic mass increases and show me that you reach over unity before you reach the speed of light.  You don't actually have constant acceleration.  As the energy in the system increases so does its relativistic mass.  More mass means less acceleration.  This isn't an issue in the every day world as we don't have macro objects that go a substantial percentage of c. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 03:22 pm

If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.


Geeze, well there's a lot of leaps of faith for this to happen.

Dark matter, if it exists, appears to have mass, creating gravity, so it bends the path that light follows.  It does not automatically follow that light can change the path of dark matter.  Dark matter would seem to be gravitationally affected but by definition, it is dark matter because it only responds to gravity.

A photon (even a microwave photon) is defined as having zero mass, however, an interesting thought experiment goes like this.

Imagine you have a perfectly reflecting sphere in a vacuum with mass M.

Imagine that inside you have 1 mass of matter (m1) and an equal mass of anti-matter (m2).  The total mass of this system M + m1 + m2.

Now imagine that you bring the matter and antimatter together so that all  the matter and anti-matter is annihilated releasing photons as the energy, which because the sphere is perfectly reflecting is totally contained within the sphere forever.

The question is, is the mass of the system still equal to M + m1 + m2?  It would seem the answer is both yes and no, depending on your preferred framework.

If you choose the side that says the answer is yes, then a frustum in resonance would have a mass gradient that over time is running from one end to the other, at least according to your meep simulations, which could in principle direct dark matter in one direction.

However, the effect would be so small in this case that it probably couldn't be measured with today's technology.  The math on this is non-trivial, but the result would be > 0.  Barely.

But as a conjecture, it should lead to more discussion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/20/2015 03:30 pm
Your attempt to work around conservation of momentum with the em wave explanation does not work. The drive can temporarily appear to move externally due to em waves internally traveling in the opposite direction, but long before the drive could move one cavity length, the photons would hit the other end with the same momentum (and then reflect reversing the total motion). If you claim the em stored momentum changes due to cavity shape, this still means that they either broke conservation of momentum, transferred it to the something outside the system somehow, or (according to how physics probably works) transferred the momentum to the walls of the cavity. The photons are part of the EM drive system, and the center of energy of the system can't move to the left if they are storing momentum to the right equal to the rest of the system's momentum to the left.

tl;dr Current experiments cannot show an em drive conserving momentum without either an explanation of what the drive interacts with outside itself, or demonstrating that the drive doesn't work.

Well Shawyer has started putting opening in his drive, and before that EM waver were leaking from the device.  It could well be that the rotary table tests established that leakage caused the reported momentum, so that the next version was decide to intentionally "leak" (i.e. expel) photons.

BTW the waves hitting one side are not the same as the waves hitting the other.  The bounces causes the light to redshift, meaning less energy is hitting side A than side B.  Think about the implications of the force on the two sides not being the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 03:58 pm

If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.


Geeze, well there's a lot of leaps of faith for this to happen.

Dark matter, if it exists, appears to have mass, creating gravity, so it bends the path that light follows.  It does not automatically follow that light can change the path of dark matter.  Dark matter would seem to be gravitationally affected but by definition, it is dark matter because it only responds to gravity.

A photon (even a microwave photon) is defined as having zero mass, however, an interesting thought experiment goes like this.

Imagine you have a perfectly reflecting sphere in a vacuum with mass M.

Imagine that inside you have 1 mass of matter (m1) and an equal mass of anti-matter (m2).  The total mass of this system M + m1 + m2.

Now imagine that you bring the matter and antimatter together so that all  the matter and anti-matter is annihilated releasing photons as the energy, which because the sphere is perfectly reflecting is totally contained within the sphere forever.

The question is, is the mass of the system still equal to M + m1 + m2?  It would seem the answer is both yes and no, depending on your preferred framework.

If you choose the side that says the answer is yes, then a frustum in resonance would have a mass gradient that over time is running from one end to the other, at least according to your meep simulations, which could in principle direct dark matter in one direction.

However, the effect would be so small in this case that it probably couldn't be measured with today's technology.  The math on this is non-trivial, but the result would be > 0.  Barely.

But as a conjecture, it should lead to more discussion.
The total energy in your ball remains the same E=MC2 does that mean the energy equivalence of the object's rest mass in that ball?

We know a large percentage of matter >80% doesn't interact with anything, even photons, except through gravitational effects or an effect simulating a gravity type effect. So within the frustum resonating high Q mode effect shift or change it's rest mass a couple of billion times a second to another part of the frustum? Small effect? I don't know, wouldn't we need to know what type of particle it is to begin with to characterize the level? Is it baryonic dark matter, or nonbaryonic dark matter, or WIMPs? Or any of those first?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 10/20/2015 04:03 pm

Plug in relativistic mass increases and show me that you reach over unity before you reach the speed of light.  You don't actually have constant acceleration.  As the energy in the system increases so does its relativistic mass.  More mass means less acceleration.  This isn't an issue in the every day world as we don't have macro objects that go a substantial percentage of c.

Two things:

1) Delete the bits you're not responding to. It's a whole lot of noise added to a page that doesn't need it.

2) That only works from an observer's perspective. Whenever someone says the drive loses thrust the faster it it goes, they necessarily throw out relativity and all its observations in lieu of an absolute frame of reference. From an observer's perspective, it gains more mass and needs more energy to accelerate. From the drive's perspective, it's perfectly still and needs exactly as much energy as it always has.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 04:04 pm
Your attempt to work around conservation of momentum with the em wave explanation does not work. The drive can temporarily appear to move externally due to em waves internally traveling in the opposite direction, but long before the drive could move one cavity length, the photons would hit the other end with the same momentum (and then reflect reversing the total motion). If you claim the em stored momentum changes due to cavity shape, this still means that they either broke conservation of momentum, transferred it to the something outside the system somehow, or (according to how physics probably works) transferred the momentum to the walls of the cavity. The photons are part of the EM drive system, and the center of energy of the system can't move to the left if they are storing momentum to the right equal to the rest of the system's momentum to the left.

tl;dr Current experiments cannot show an em drive conserving momentum without either an explanation of what the drive interacts with outside itself, or demonstrating that the drive doesn't work.

Well Shawyer has started putting opening in his drive, and before that EM waver were leaking from the device.  It could well be that the rotary table tests established that leakage caused the reported momentum, so that the next version was decide to intentionally "leak" (i.e. expel) photons.

BTW the waves hitting one side are not the same as the waves hitting the other.  The bounces causes the light to redshift, meaning less energy is hitting side A than side B.  Think about the implications of the force on the two sides not being the same.
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/20/2015 04:12 pm

Plug in relativistic mass increases and show me that you reach over unity before you reach the speed of light.  You don't actually have constant acceleration.  As the energy in the system increases so does its relativistic mass.  More mass means less acceleration.  This isn't an issue in the every day world as we don't have macro objects that go a substantial percentage of c.

It depends on the assumed thrust-to-power ratio, but you generally do not get anywhere near relativistic velocities before you hit the point where change in kinetic energy exceeds input energy.  It's not a difficult development, but it is a pain to type equations in this forum, so I suggest you look at the first part of Appendix A here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

The development shows the crossover delta_velocity is 2/k, where k is the thrust-to-power ratio.  The higher the "efficiency" the quicker you hit this point:
0.4 N/kW gives a crossover delta_velocity of 5000 m/s
0.1 N/kW gives a crossover delta_velocity of 20,000 m/s
0.01 N/kW gives a crossover delta_velocity of 200,000 m/s

To get a crossover velocity of, say 0.1c, the thrust-to-power ratio would have to be down around 7×10^-5 N/kW, which I believe is getting close to a photon rocket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/20/2015 04:29 pm
I read a few space related sites pretty much every day, scanning for 'interesting stuff'.
This one caught my attention today:
Mode control for square microresonator lasers suitable for integration
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mode_control_for_square_microresonator_lasers_suitable_for_integration_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mode_control_for_square_microresonator_lasers_suitable_for_integration_999.html)

In this article they talk about high Q factors and whispering gallery modes, so I thought it might be of some interest...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 04:30 pm

If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.


Geeze, well there's a lot of leaps of faith for this to happen.

Dark matter, if it exists, appears to have mass, creating gravity, so it bends the path that light follows.  It does not automatically follow that light can change the path of dark matter.  Dark matter would seem to be gravitationally affected but by definition, it is dark matter because it only responds to gravity.

A photon (even a microwave photon) is defined as having zero mass, however, an interesting thought experiment goes like this.

Imagine you have a perfectly reflecting sphere in a vacuum with mass M.

Imagine that inside you have 1 mass of matter (m1) and an equal mass of anti-matter (m2).  The total mass of this system M + m1 + m2.

Now imagine that you bring the matter and antimatter together so that all  the matter and anti-matter is annihilated releasing photons as the energy, which because the sphere is perfectly reflecting is totally contained within the sphere forever.

The question is, is the mass of the system still equal to M + m1 + m2?  It would seem the answer is both yes and no, depending on your preferred framework.

If you choose the side that says the answer is yes, then a frustum in resonance would have a mass gradient that over time is running from one end to the other, at least according to your meep simulations, which could in principle direct dark matter in one direction.

However, the effect would be so small in this case that it probably couldn't be measured with today's technology.  The math on this is non-trivial, but the result would be > 0.  Barely.

But as a conjecture, it should lead to more discussion.
The total energy in your ball remains the same E=MC2 does that mean the energy equivalence of the object's rest mass in that ball?

We know a large percentage of matter >80% doesn't interact with anything, even photons, except through gravitational effects or an effect simulating a gravity type effect. So within the frustum resonating high Q mode effect shift or change it's rest mass a couple of billion times a second to another part of the frustum? Small effect? I don't know, wouldn't we need to know what type of particle it is to begin with to characterize the level? Is it baryonic dark matter, or nonbaryonic dark matter, or WIMPs? Or any of those first?

Shell

As I've stated previously, physics isn't my strong suite.  But here are some things to think about in our imaginary sphere.

When we converted the matter and anti-matter to photons, all their mass went to zero because photons have zero mass.

On the otherhand, the total energy of the system didn't change as you point out.

One argument basically goes, since light travels at the speed of light, it experiences no duration and if it had any gravitational component based on mass, each photon would achieve infinite mass in zero time and the universe would collapse immediately.  Further if there were a gravitational component, it could never be local because from the point of view of the photon, it departs its origin and arrives at its destination in zero time and any corresponding gravitation would smeared over the path instantaneously.  So by this definition, you can't move dark matter with photons.

On the other hand E=MC2 implies that there is some equivalence between the energy and the mass, so gravitation is lurking in the equation at some level.  However if this is somehow being harnessed in a frustum, assuming that you have 100 joules per second (assuming 10% efficiency from a microwave oven magnetron) somehow being converted to a mass equivalent, that translates into a mass equivalent of 1.11265e-12 grams which isn't going to generate a very strong gravitational gradient.

It's beyond my pay grade to understand what a 2 ghz moving gradient would actually do, but off hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of acceleration potential for the dark matter thingee.

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.

But hopefully someone better at this than me will accuse me of displaying my ignorance and lead into a better analysis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/20/2015 05:05 pm

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.


see:  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 05:30 pm

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.


see:  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis

If I read this correctly, the Q is a measure of stored energy due to resonance, which is higher than the per unit time input energy?

You seem to have an exemplar of 2,000,000 watts?  Assuming that can be converted over 1 second getting 2,000,000 joules then the mass equivalent goes up to 2.22430e-8 grams?  Assuming of course no energy loss and a charge time of 20,000 seconds where input is 100 watts / second?

Her question:  Could we be unidirecitionally accelerating dark matter to create thrust?

My answer:  If dark matter only responds to gravity, then if the frustum somehow creates a gravitational gradient in resonance, then yes, but, there isn't much mass equivalent in there to accelerate much of anything.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 05:54 pm

If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.



However, the effect would be so small in this case that it probably couldn't be measured with today's technology.  The math on this is non-trivial, but the result would be > 0.  Barely.

But as a conjecture, it should lead to more discussion.
The total energy in your ball remains the same E=MC2 does that mean the energy equivalence of the object's rest mass in that ball?

We know a large percentage of matter >80% doesn't interact with anything, even photons, except through gravitational effects or an effect simulating a gravity type effect. So within the frustum resonating high Q mode effect shift or change it's rest mass a couple of billion times a second to another part of the frustum? Small effect? I don't know, wouldn't we need to know what type of particle it is to begin with to characterize the level? Is it baryonic dark matter, or nonbaryonic dark matter, or WIMPs? Or any of those first?

Shell


It's beyond my pay grade to understand what a 2 ghz moving gradient would actually do, but off hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of acceleration potential for the dark matter thingee.

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.

But hopefully someone better at this than me will accuse me of displaying my ignorance and lead into a better analysis.
I based this on the theory of Dr. White when I postulated this thought. He uses Virtual Particles I thought I'd up that thought to Dark Matter particles. Both can not be observed directly other than the actions they inflict on the outside world of matter. The goal was to think of a way out of the frustum.

I have no pay grade and I'm old so I can be a little crazy, I earned it the hard way. ;D Looking at the observed data (little of it to show something there) and it seems that there is a direct relationship to the Q and the obtained and measured thrusts. That red flag of Q in itself points to the increased energy within the cavity from the modes of a higher Q factor operating on "something" to get out of the cavity, be it virtual particles or Dark Mass particles. If this is true. How? How becomes the big question isn't it? Could it be the ghost modes and extraordinary energies of evanescent decays or a combination?

Shell

Adding to this ...

notsosureofit did the numbers and it was a eye opener for me, and that was the times to accelerate to C and the force of each mode vs frequency for m = 0 to 10, n = 1 to 5, p = 1 to 3  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis

The one thing that struck me is even for a lower frequency the thrust seemed to increase. We all know higher frequencies carry higher energies but this is backwards to what logic says. Maybe what it is showing is the larger cavity can effect more VP or DM simply because of the internal area of a frustum. I thought this would be a interesting thing to test while keeping the frequency the same just by increasing the cavity lengths in my first octagonal designed frustum that would support a greater internal volume. It's still on but delayed after this current test.

Off to the lab this morning... but I'll be back...

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 07:59 pm

If Dark Mass can bend light in a gravitational lens it means that it also can be effected by a similar effect caused within the drive cavity itself. What if this drive acted as a captured lens of photons to accelerate dark matter just like a jet engine? We can pull the dark matter particles into and through the drive and focus them out the back accelerating them and creating thrust.



However, the effect would be so small in this case that it probably couldn't be measured with today's technology.  The math on this is non-trivial, but the result would be > 0.  Barely.

But as a conjecture, it should lead to more discussion.
The total energy in your ball remains the same E=MC2 does that mean the energy equivalence of the object's rest mass in that ball?

We know a large percentage of matter >80% doesn't interact with anything, even photons, except through gravitational effects or an effect simulating a gravity type effect. So within the frustum resonating high Q mode effect shift or change it's rest mass a couple of billion times a second to another part of the frustum? Small effect? I don't know, wouldn't we need to know what type of particle it is to begin with to characterize the level? Is it baryonic dark matter, or nonbaryonic dark matter, or WIMPs? Or any of those first?

Shell


It's beyond my pay grade to understand what a 2 ghz moving gradient would actually do, but off hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of acceleration potential for the dark matter thingee.

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.

But hopefully someone better at this than me will accuse me of displaying my ignorance and lead into a better analysis.
I based this on the theory of Dr. White when I postulated this thought. He uses Virtual Particles I thought I'd up that thought to Dark Matter particles. Both can not be observed directly other than the actions they inflict on the outside world of matter. The goal was to think of a way out of the frustum.

I have no pay grade and I'm old so I can be a little crazy, I earned it the hard way. ;D Looking at the observed data (little of it to show something there) and it seems that there is a direct relationship to the Q and the obtained and measured thrusts. That red flag of Q in itself points to the increased energy within the cavity from the modes of a higher Q factor operating on "something" to get out of the cavity, be it virtual particles or Dark Mass particles. If this is true. How? How becomes the big question isn't it? Could it be the ghost modes and extraordinary energies of evanescent decays or a combination?

Shell

Adding to this ...

notsosureofit did the numbers and it was a eye opener for me, and that was the times to accelerate to C and the force of each mode vs frequency for m = 0 to 10, n = 1 to 5, p = 1 to 3  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis

The one thing that struck me is even for a lower frequency the thrust seemed to increase. We all know higher frequencies carry higher energies but this is backwards to what logic says. Maybe what it is showing is the larger cavity can effect more VP or DM simply because of the internal area of a frustum. I thought this would be a interesting thing to test while keeping the frequency the same just by increasing the cavity lengths in my first octagonal designed frustum that would support a greater internal volume. It's still on but delayed after this current test.

Off to the lab this morning... but I'll be back...

Shell

OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base.

Pretend there is a WIMP of some kind that somehow gets caught up in an electromagnetic field.  Pretend it's the dominant form of dark matter.

Pretend the frustum is just a variant of a Bussard Ram jet, it somehow sucks WIMPs in the front, and accelerates them out the back (without the side benefit of a fusion reaction).  And because it's a WIMP, it zips right through the copper as if it wasn't there.

In such a case, this becomes a Newtonian problem F = MA, where you can measure F, calculate A from the speed at which the resonance fields move down the cone (assuming perfect coupling with the field), and have a gross value for the M.

To characterize the WIMP, you need to know the density per cubic volumn, and now you have the nobel prize for discovering the  WIMP and a means of calculating the mass and density.

If your WIMP has 5 times the mass of regular matter, and is distributed roughly uniformly in our galaxy, if on the average we have between 1 and 1000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, then we would extrapolate a WIMP mass equivalent of between 5 and 5000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.

if you have a frustum of 100 cubic centimers then you have the equivalent of a max mass of 500k hydrogen atoms mass in the frustum.  If you evacuate and refill with each resonance cycle at .2 Ghz, over a frustum length of 10 cm, then your exaust velocity per WIMP is around 15,000 km/second.

So using F = mA, where m in kilograms = 1.67E-12, A = 15,000,000 m/second and F in newtons, your thrust becomes 0.00002505  newtons.

I'm sure I made a dozen math and assumption errors, but it still doesn't strike me as the correct implausible answer.  :)

edit, corrected numerous math errors.  Added assumptions:
mass of H in grams  1.67e-24 g
mass in frustrum  8.35e-21 g
mass evacuated at 200,000,000 evacuations per second   1.67e-12 g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/20/2015 08:13 pm
My answer:  If dark matter only responds to gravity, then if the frustum somehow creates a gravitational gradient in resonance, then yes, but, there isn't much mass equivalent in there to accelerate much of anything.

If the frustum is creating a gravitational gradient, then could it be interacting with the local gravitational field? Something similar to interacting magnetic fields?

Personally, I don't think there is anything that exotic going on, but while we're talking about let's look at the possibilities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 08:30 pm
My answer:  If dark matter only responds to gravity, then if the frustum somehow creates a gravitational gradient in resonance, then yes, but, there isn't much mass equivalent in there to accelerate much of anything.

If the frustum is creating a gravitational gradient, then could it be interacting with the local gravitational field? Something similar to interacting magnetic fields?

Personally, I don't think there is anything that exotic going on, but while we're talking about let's look at the possibilities.

I doubt if it could do a gravitational gradient.  This was a thought experiment to see how you could interact with dark matter, which only seems to respond to gravity.  The maximum gravitational potential if it existed, and it probably doesn't, would be about 1/10,000 of a grain of salt, which seems to be too little to accelerate dark matter show thrust at any meaningful scale.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 08:32 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1437838#msg1437838

OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base.

Pretend there is a WIMP of some kind that somehow gets caught up in an electromagnetic field.  Pretend it's the dominant form of dark matter.

Pretend the frustum is just a variant of a Bussard Ram jet, it somehow sucks WIMPs in the front, and accelerates them out the back (without the side benefit of a fusion reaction).  And because it's a WIMP, it zips right through the copper as if it wasn't there.

In such a case, this becomes a Newtonian problem F = MA, where you can measure F, calculate A from the speed at which the resonance fields move down the cone (assuming perfect coupling with the field), and have a gross value for the M.

To characterize the WIMP, you need to know the density per cubic volumn, and now you have the nobel prize for discovering the  WIMP and a means of calculating the mass and density.

If your WIMP has 5 times the mass of regular matter, and is distributed roughly uniformly in our galaxy, if on the average we have between 1 and 1000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, then we would extrapolate a WIMP mass equivalent of between 5 and 5000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.

if you have a frustum of 100 cubic centimers then you have the equivalent of a max mass of 500k hydrogen atoms mass in the frustum.  If you evacuate and refill with each resonance cycle at .2 Ghz, over a frustum length of 10 cm, then your exaust velocity per WIMP is around 15,000 km/second.

So using F = mA, where m in kilograms = 1.67E-12, A = 15,000,000 m/second and F in newtons, your thrust becomes 0.00002505  newtons.

I'm sure I made a dozen math and assumption errors, but it still doesn't strike me as the correct implausible answer.  :)

edit, corrected numerous math errors.  Added assumptions:
mass of H in grams  1.67e-24 g
mass in frustrum  8.35e-21 g
mass evacuated at 200,000,000 evacuations per second   1.67e-12 g
« Last Edit: Today at 08:17 PM by glennfish »

GF,

Ok only in for a sec, need to check up on curing goodies in the lab. I want to thank you for your time and your thoughts.

25.05 micronewtons. Interesting number. EagleWorks exceeded that number with an  average of 91.1 micronewtons.

Ok back into the lab.

Nice.

shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ayres on 10/20/2015 08:53 pm

Either the em drive conserves momentum by interacting with some unknown external system, which can't have its momentum determined by experiment since we don't know what it is yet, or the em drive does not do anything interesting. No correctly done experiment can have the conclusion "momentum is conserved, but the em drive works" until we know more about why it works (if it does),


Thanks for this great post. I have been around following since thread 1, and you are absolutely correct.

Shawyer trying to explain how it works is purely non-sense using classical + relativism theories. If he said " ok folks, I have no idea whats going on, but I am advancing empirically...'' He would be a lot more credible.

How did he come with this frustum thing ? The first experiment, he had to set accurate measurement system to measure few mN. And all this, probably based on his flawed theory. If EM drive really works, maybe it will be the greatest science accomplishment on a wrong assumption.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 09:49 pm


25.05 micronewtons. Interesting number. EagleWorks exceeded that number with an  average of 91.1 micronewtons.



Well... you could reasonably hypothesize that there are more WIMPs in a gravity well than in open space.

Still have the problem that dark matter isn't supposed to have any electromagnetic interaction.  That's a big problem.

AND

I'm about your age.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/20/2015 10:23 pm


25.05 micronewtons. Interesting number. EagleWorks exceeded that number with an  average of 91.1 micronewtons.



Well... you could reasonably hypothesize that there are more WIMPs in a gravity well than in open space.

Still have the problem that dark matter isn't supposed to have any electromagnetic interaction.  That's a big problem.

AND

I'm about your age.
I would agree in the non-electromagnetic  interactions of dark matter or otherwise we would see the effects in black holes and even in partial accelerators. That said I keep on reading publications like this.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3519.pdf

Back to the lab... BBL

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: lmbfan on 10/20/2015 11:01 pm

OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base.

Pretend there is a WIMP of some kind that somehow gets caught up in an electromagnetic field.  Pretend it's the dominant form of dark matter.

Pretend the frustum is just a variant of a Bussard Ram jet, it somehow sucks WIMPs in the front, and accelerates them out the back (without the side benefit of a fusion reaction).  And because it's a WIMP, it zips right through the copper as if it wasn't there.

In such a case, this becomes a Newtonian problem F = MA, where you can measure F, calculate A from the speed at which the resonance fields move down the cone (assuming perfect coupling with the field), and have a gross value for the M.

To characterize the WIMP, you need to know the density per cubic volumn, and now you have the nobel prize for discovering the  WIMP and a means of calculating the mass and density.

If your WIMP has 5 times the mass of regular matter, and is distributed roughly uniformly in our galaxy, if on the average we have between 1 and 1000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, then we would extrapolate a WIMP mass equivalent of between 5 and 5000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.

if you have a frustum of 100 cubic centimers then you have the equivalent of a max mass of 500k hydrogen atoms mass in the frustum.  If you evacuate and refill with each resonance cycle at .2 Ghz, over a frustum length of 10 cm, then your exaust velocity per WIMP is around 15,000 km/second.

So using F = mA, where m in kilograms = 1.67E-12, A = 15,000,000 m/second and F in newtons, your thrust becomes 0.00002505  newtons.

I'm sure I made a dozen math and assumption errors, but it still doesn't strike me as the correct implausible answer.  :)

edit, corrected numerous math errors.  Added assumptions:
mass of H in grams  1.67e-24 g
mass in frustrum  8.35e-21 g
mass evacuated at 200,000,000 evacuations per second   1.67e-12 g

I'm not sure what you're using for acceleration (15,000 Km/s is a velocity).  If you're using the exhaust velocity formula (F = V(e) * m. or force = exhaust velocity * feed rate) I don't know how you get your feed rate.  Frequency is 2.45 GHz not .2 GHz, right?  I don't know if this all is quite accurate, as I am at least as far outside my knowledge base as you :)

Approaching it from the other end, using the exhaust velocity formula above (go go Wikipedia) and rfmwguy's reported frustum dimensions and anomalous force:

F = V*M (F in N, V in m/s, M in kg/s)
F = 1.77 * 10^-6 N
V = 15,000,000 m/s =  1.5 * 10^7 m/s (not sure quite how you calculated this number, but let's go with it)
M = F/V = 1.18 * 10^-13 kg/s = 1.18* 10^-10 g/s

So over one second, the frustum would have to expel 1.18 * 10^-10 g.

Given the volume of the frustum:

small end diameter = 6.5", large end diameter = 11.01", height = 9" (h=22.86 cm)
avg radius ((6.5+11.01)/2 inches)/2 = 4.315 inches * 2.54 inches/cm = 10.96 cm
cylinder volume = pi * r^2 * h = 3.14*(10.96^2)*22.86 = 8626.9 cm^3

The density of dark matter would have to be:

1.18 * 10^-10 g/8626.9 cm^3 = 1.37 * 10^-14 g/cm^3

This is around 5 orders of magnitude more than the upper bound of 1.4 * 10^−19   g/cm^3 at Earth's orbit.  (from Cornell (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534)) .

Even with the exhaust velocity = c = 3 * 10^8 m/s, there are still 3 orders of magnitude difference between what's needed and how much is there.

So, what does this mean?  Assuming all my reasoning and maths are correct, in order for the EM Drive effect to be driven by dark matter, the frustum would need to somehow scoop up tens of thousands of times it's volume every second in order to expel enough mass to move the frustum at observed rates.

Considering the earth travels around the sun at ~30,000 m/s, is it possible simple orbital velocity could account for this?

EDIT:
Thinking further on the nature of dark matter and how the earth orbits the sun...  If DM exists as a "gas" cloud around the sun, the earth swims through this cloud at quite a clip.  If the EM Drive effect suddenly starts interacting with this cloud, it would be equivalent to sticking an oar in the water from a speed boat.  A really, really fast speed boat.  It would matter very much what time of day the EM Drive was switched on.  At noon or midnight, the drive would be swept sideways, at dusk or dawn it would be pushed up or down.

Unless, of course, a smaller "cloud" is centered on the earth...

My brain is stretched enough for one day.  I'll have to think about this some more.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/20/2015 11:19 pm

OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base.

Pretend there is a WIMP of some kind that somehow gets caught up in an electromagnetic field.  Pretend it's the dominant form of dark matter.

Pretend the frustum is just a variant of a Bussard Ram jet, it somehow sucks WIMPs in the front, and accelerates them out the back (without the side benefit of a fusion reaction).  And because it's a WIMP, it zips right through the copper as if it wasn't there.

In such a case, this becomes a Newtonian problem F = MA, where you can measure F, calculate A from the speed at which the resonance fields move down the cone (assuming perfect coupling with the field), and have a gross value for the M.

To characterize the WIMP, you need to know the density per cubic volumn, and now you have the nobel prize for discovering the  WIMP and a means of calculating the mass and density.

If your WIMP has 5 times the mass of regular matter, and is distributed roughly uniformly in our galaxy, if on the average we have between 1 and 1000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, then we would extrapolate a WIMP mass equivalent of between 5 and 5000 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter.

if you have a frustum of 100 cubic centimers then you have the equivalent of a max mass of 500k hydrogen atoms mass in the frustum.  If you evacuate and refill with each resonance cycle at .2 Ghz, over a frustum length of 10 cm, then your exaust velocity per WIMP is around 15,000 km/second.

So using F = mA, where m in kilograms = 1.67E-12, A = 15,000,000 m/second and F in newtons, your thrust becomes 0.00002505  newtons.

I'm sure I made a dozen math and assumption errors, but it still doesn't strike me as the correct implausible answer.  :)

edit, corrected numerous math errors.  Added assumptions:
mass of H in grams  1.67e-24 g
mass in frustrum  8.35e-21 g
mass evacuated at 200,000,000 evacuations per second   1.67e-12 g

I'm not sure what you're using for acceleration (15,000 Km/s is a velocity).  If you're using the exhaust velocity formula (F = V(e) * m. or force = exhaust velocity * feed rate) I don't know how you get your feed rate.  Frequency is 2.45 GHz not .2 GHz, right?  I don't know if this all is quite accurate, as I am at least as far outside my knowledge base as you :)

Approaching it from the other end, using the exhaust velocity formula above (go go Wikipedia) and rfmwguy's reported frustum dimensions and anomalous force:

F = V*M (F in N, V in m/s, M in kg/s)
F = 1.77 * 10^-6 N
V = 15,000,000 m/s =  1.5 * 10^7 m/s (not sure quite how you calculated this number, but let's go with it)
M = F/V = 1.18 * 10^-13 kg/s = 1.18* 10^-10 g/s

So over one second, the frustum would have to expel 1.18 * 10^-10 g.

Given the volume of the frustum:

small end diameter = 6.5", large end diameter = 11.01", height = 9" (h=22.86 cm)
avg radius ((6.5+11.01)/2 inches)/2 = 4.315 inches * 2.54 inches/cm = 10.96 cm
cylinder volume = pi * r^2 * h = 3.14*(10.96^2)*22.86 = 8626.9 cm^3

The density of dark matter would have to be:

1.18 * 10^-10 g/8626.9 cm^3 = 1.37 * 10^-14 g/cm^3

This is around 5 orders of magnitude more than the upper bound of 1.4 * 10^−19   g/cm^3 at Earth's orbit.  (from Cornell (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534)) .

Even with the exhaust velocity = c = 3 * 10^8 m/s, there are still 3 orders of magnitude difference between what's needed and how much is there.

So, what does this mean?  Assuming all my reasoning and maths are correct, in order for the EM Drive effect to be driven by dark matter, the frustum would need to somehow scoop up tens of thousands of times it's volume every second in order to expel enough mass to move the frustum at observed rates.

Considering the earth travels around the sun at ~30,000 m/s, is it possible simple orbital velocity could account for this?

I started stating "OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base."

Critique away.  I'm not defending here.  I gave my SWAG.   Your turn.  :)

The key takeaway here is that I stated that it scooped up 200,000,000 times its volumn per second (how?  no clue) totally evacuated it's volume every time a resonance went from top to bottom.  I assumed with a 2 ghz frequency, the resonance would go top to bottom 1/200,000,000 times per second.  Why?  It was easy to calculate.

I refuse to defend my #s.  I just wanted to spark a debate and see if Shells was on to something or not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: lmbfan on 10/20/2015 11:37 pm
I started stating "OK, I'm going to step way outside of my knowledge base."

Critique away.  I'm not defending here.  I gave my SWAG.   Your turn.  :)

The key takeaway here is that I stated that it scooped up 200,000,000 times its volumn per second (how?  no clue) totally evacuated it's volume every time a resonance went from top to bottom.  I assumed with a 2 ghz frequency, the resonance would go top to bottom 1/200,000,000 times per second.  Why?  It was easy to calculate.

I refuse to defend my #s.  I just wanted to spark a debate and see if Shells was on to something or not.

Oh sure. :)  I'm spitballing just as much as you are, coming from a similarly unknowledgable base. :P  Electromagnetism is way beyond my pay grade.

I'm actually hoping someone with real expertise steps in soonish.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/20/2015 11:55 pm
Well Shawyer has started putting opening in his drive, and before that EM waver were leaking from the device.  It could well be that the rotary table tests established that leakage caused the reported momentum, so that the next version was decide to intentionally "leak" (i.e. expel) photons.

BTW the waves hitting one side are not the same as the waves hitting the other.  The bounces causes the light to redshift, meaning less energy is hitting side A than side B.  Think about the implications of the force on the two sides not being the same.
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?

Exactly.  I had a post in a previous thread about what would happen if they were photons bouncing between mirrors with one attached to some massive body, so I have considered this redshift thoroughly. The formula to determine the (very small) amount of redshift is derived directly from conservation of momentum. If you put photons in a box, and use a reference frame where the combined system (box + photons) is at rest to start, it will remain at rest.

We already know that photons leaking (or generally being emitted for any reason) will produce a net force. It is called a photon rocket (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket"), and the whole reason anyone cares about the em drive is that it claims to have better thrust per power input than possible with a photon rocket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/21/2015 12:10 am

The potential as I said is >0, but barely.


see:  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis

Nah, the Emdrive is just a neutrino flavor modulator  ;)
They're almost, but not quite, massless. They zip through light years of matter without interaction. Who knows what they do while being forced to flip flavor by a 2.45 GHz EM field?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/21/2015 01:07 am
Quote
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?

Doesn't work with a car, but...

this summer, I took a canoe out onto a 'glass calm' lake, 'threw my weight forward,' and then used my hands on the side to 'stop short.'  The canoe DID move...very slowly.  I was able to repeat this several times without going backward.

Quote
BTW the waves hitting one side are not the same as the waves hitting the other.  The bounces causes the light to redshift, meaning less energy is hitting side A than side B.  Think about the implications of the force on the two sides not being the same.

Take a look at the MEEP simulations from a thread or two ago.  They should a lot of energy slamming into the one end of the frustum without an equal and opposite effect.

Little thing that tends to get overlooked with Maxwell's equations: they're 'time averaged.'  Meaning, that given enough time, and no interfering forces/conditions, they work exactly as predicted.  Something I have been wondering about on and off for a long while now - especially since the MEEP Movies were released - is suppose you could 'load the dice' aka screw that timed average result up big time?  I have been wondering if the EM Drive isn't doing just exactly that - mucking somehow with the 'time averaged' thing that makes CoE fundamental.




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 01:27 am
Quote
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?

Doesn't work with a car, but...

this summer, I took a canoe out onto a 'glass calm' lake, 'threw my weight forward,' and then used my hands on the side to 'stop short.'  The canoe DID move...very slowly.  I was able to repeat this several times without going backward.

Quote
BTW the waves hitting one side are not the same as the waves hitting the other.  The bounces causes the light to redshift, meaning less energy is hitting side A than side B.  Think about the implications of the force on the two sides not being the same.

Take a look at the MEEP simulations from a thread or two ago.  They should a lot of energy slamming into the one end of the frustum without an equal and opposite effect.

Little thing that tends to get overlooked with Maxwell's equations: they're 'time averaged.'  Meaning, that given enough time, and no interfering forces/conditions, they work exactly as predicted.  Something I have been wondering about on and off for a long while now - especially since the MEEP Movies were released - is suppose you could 'load the dice' aka screw that timed average result up big time?  I have been wondering if the EM Drive isn't doing just exactly that - mucking somehow with the 'time averaged' thing that makes CoE fundamental.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 10/21/2015 01:32 am
Mini emdrive thinks they might have space being warped behind the drive.  Not sure if I believe that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/21/2015 02:31 am


Well, isn't that meep graphic very interesting.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Abyss on 10/21/2015 02:39 am
Quote
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?

Doesn't work with a car, but...

this summer, I took a canoe out onto a 'glass calm' lake, 'threw my weight forward,' and then used my hands on the side to 'stop short.'  The canoe DID move...very slowly.  I was able to repeat this several times without going backward.

This kind of movement relies on friction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 03:07 am


Well, isn't that meep graphic very interesting.....
I'm quite curious in what I will see in a real world test.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/21/2015 05:25 am


Well, isn't that meep graphic very interesting.....
I'm quite curious in what I will see in a real world test.

Shell

And I'm quite curious of the missing posters, Eagleworks, Shawyer and the BBC, all floating in the background.

And gravity waves, WIMP's and all sorts of conjecture. Heady stuff for a retired old man like me.

Wasn't it the HAL 9000 that said "Something wonderful is happening."

Bob
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 10:13 am


Well, isn't that meep graphic very interesting.....
I'm quite curious in what I will see in a real world test.

Shell

And I'm quite curious of the missing posters, Eagleworks, Shawyer and the BBC, all floating in the background.

And gravity waves, WIMP's and all sorts of conjecture. Heady stuff for a retired old man like me.

Wasn't it the HAL 9000 that said "Something wonderful is happening."

Bob
"You have been drinking your whiskey from Kentucky!"  :o

It was Dave that said Something wonderful... let me dig.

HAL-9000: What is going to happen?
Dave: Something wonderful.
HAL-9000: I'm afraid.
Dave: Don't be. We'll be together.
HAL-9000: Where will we be?
Dave: Where I am now.

I woke up this morning thinking about how you could detect if the drive was somehow interacting with WIMPs or or something else in the Dark Matter world. Then I remembered a video I saw a while ago by NASA and had to dig to find it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Turning_Black_Holes_into_Dark_Matter_Labs.webm

If somehow and don't ask me how, ii the drives interacting with WIMPs there could be an increased level of Gamma Rays around a drive. I wonder if EagleWorks has tried using a Gamma Ray detector?

Time for another cup of coffee.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/21/2015 11:09 am


If somehow and don't ask me how, ii the drives interacting with WIMPs there could be an increased level of Gamma Rays around a drive. I wonder if EagleWorks has tried using a Gamma Ray detector?



Not unless they shared your theory.  A quick search of the literature shows no evidence of anyone who's used microwaves or virtually any EMF source to generate gamma rays.  It's too unlikely to contemplate.

Amazon & ebay have inexpensive geiger counters.  A few can discriminate gamma rays from other stuff.  Simply put though, if you turn on your frustum and get any ionizing radiation out, then you have a commercial product just for that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 11:13 am


If somehow and don't ask me how, ii the drives interacting with WIMPs there could be an increased level of Gamma Rays around a drive. I wonder if EagleWorks has tried using a Gamma Ray detector?



Not unless they shared your theory.  A quick search of the literature shows no evidence of anyone who's used microwaves or virtually any EMF source to generate gamma rays.  It's too unlikely to contemplate.

Amazon & ebay have inexpensive geiger counters.  A few can discriminate gamma rays from other stuff.  Simply put though, if you turn on your frustum and get any ionizing radiation out, then you have a commercial product just for that.
Very small amount not like you're thinking.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/21/2015 12:15 pm
Just now I read Prunesquallor's note at #451 on the em-drive rocket/overunity problem.

The reason the kinetic energy is quadratic in time is that the thrust does work over increasingly long distances as speed rises.

However, moving to the rest frame of the rocket later in the flight, the kinetic energy added by the emdrive to the rocket must be the same as it was when the rocket was at rest. The idea that the device sits in its rest frame humming away, and does mountains more work because of the (relativistically invisible) speed it is moving at, is itself kind of screwy.

In other words, one can square the circle of CoE by postulating that an emdrive is *NOT* a rocket - it is a device which takes an energy source and converts x% of its power to kinetic energy and 100-x% to heat in its own rest frame in any unit of (proper) time, irrespective of the velocity of the device.

Does anyone know if any of the existing experimental results could distinguish between this hypothesis and one of constant thrust?

This has the advantage of preserving CoE, but I suspect makes Alpha-Centauri a lot more of a trip.

Still a shame about CoM.

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/21/2015 12:36 pm
Little thing that tends to get overlooked with Maxwell's equations: they're 'time averaged.'  Meaning, that given enough time, and no interfering forces/conditions, they work exactly as predicted.  Something I have been wondering about on and off for a long while now - especially since the MEEP Movies were released - is suppose you could 'load the dice' aka screw that timed average result up big time?  I have been wondering if the EM Drive isn't doing just exactly that - mucking somehow with the 'time averaged' thing that makes CoE fundamental.

Maxwell's equations are not time averaged. Physicists generally look at the time average of the solution for EM wave propagation, mostly because the time varying portion is boring. It seems like you think the time varying portion may look like random noise. Actually, it is just a smooth sine or cosine  function that multiplies the amplitudes. This is left off since it is understood that everything oscillates at the driving frequency in a resonator like we are talking about here. The conservation of energy, momentum, and all results of Maxwell's equations do not depend on anything being time averaged.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/21/2015 05:51 pm
Off topic alert - soooo, I deliberately picked up this biz card on a vendor's table recently. Anybody know why?  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 06:02 pm
Off topic alert - soooo, I deliberately picked up this biz card on a vendor's table recently. Anybody know why?  8)
I HAVE NO IDEA.  :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 06:04 pm
Off topic alert - soooo, I deliberately picked up this biz card on a vendor's table recently. Anybody know why?  8)
Thinking of being a little crazy how was the trip the the little shop of copper? Were you going to have them build a frustum for you?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/21/2015 06:10 pm
It's turned cold here and I've had to find all the little air leaks in the shop and seal them off. Would like to insulate, but that's not Drive related and the build budget will not handle it anyway. This afternoon I'm off to finish the rest of the main assembly before I tackle the inverter maggie and waveguide.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/21/2015 06:25 pm
Off topic alert - soooo, I deliberately picked up this biz card on a vendor's table recently. Anybody know why?  8)
Thinking of being a little crazy how was the trip the the little shop of copper? Were you going to have them build a frustum for you?
Should have called ahead, they were closed Sunday. Will try again next Tuesday, and yes, once I do the VNA on the frustum, will aske them to make a very specific sized copper "trash can".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/21/2015 07:41 pm
Quote
Like getting in your car and hitting the window to move?

Doesn't work with a car, but...

this summer, I took a canoe out onto a 'glass calm' lake, 'threw my weight forward,' and then used my hands on the side to 'stop short.'  The canoe DID move...very slowly.  I was able to repeat this several times without going backward.

A more dramatic way to propel a canoe without paddling is to gunnel punt:  Stand up on the small deck at one end and jump up and down.   This is best done with a solidly built Aluminum canoe and requires very good balance.   I have done this and being a Canadian I am of course well practiced in all canoe related activities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/21/2015 07:43 pm
Off topic alert - soooo, I deliberately picked up this biz card on a vendor's table recently. Anybody know why?  8)


Not off-topic: Hot Tubs are definitely resonating cavities, especially with the integrated under water speakers.

I especially like the "It Doesn't Matter Where You Bought It We Can Fix It" - they probably had experience with your Galinstan  power couplers and could have given you a heads up!  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/21/2015 08:33 pm
Mini emdrive thinks they might have space being warped behind the drive.  Not sure if I believe that.

Looked at his charts, I think he is referring to the differential results between the small end towards the mirror vs the big end.  So when small end is towards mirror, I think he is suggesting he is seeing a difference i.e. small end has some sort of effect on the inferometer output.   I may be wrong, first time looking at his data.

B
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/21/2015 11:47 pm
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/21/2015 11:55 pm
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html
2019? We're waaaay ahead of them ;) Wish them luck gathering and storing antimatter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/22/2015 01:30 am
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html
2019? We're waaaay ahead of them ;) Wish them luck gathering and storing antimatter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/22/2015 02:29 am
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html
2019? We're waaaay ahead of them ;) Wish them luck gathering and storing antimatter.
Ya got that right Glenn...talk about hazardous cargo!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/22/2015 03:04 am
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html

Good God. Gullibility must be directly proportional to bank balance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 08:26 am
Using the downloaded EMDView software, I looked at a couple samples of test data that the Mini-Drive Team ran but without a legend it's tough to decipher what they think they are seeing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2015 10:55 am
FTL comms?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28112-quantum-weirdness-proved-real-in-first-loophole-free-experiment/

What's next? NASA releasing a peer reviewed paper showing they have measured EMDrive thrust generation in vacuum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/22/2015 01:15 pm
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html

Good God. Gullibility must be directly proportional to bank balance.

There initial idea isnt that far fetched. If you watch the youtube video in the article. they are side stepping the storage issue by simply sourcing their anti-matter(positrons) from radioactive isotopes that are then guided to a dueterium target to trigger fusion (anti-matter catalyzed); after which they use magnets to channel the fusion products out the back end.

I suspect their next step if they can make all that work would be swap out the radioactive isotope for a linear accelerator and produce the positrons as needed. Not sure you could get one small enough for a cube sat but again you can still leverage positrons for rocket propulsion without worying about storage. Now assuming that goes swimingly the next question is scaling up positron generation and deciding if it makes more sense to generate them outside of the ship and store them as rocket proppellant or just generate them as needed on ship.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 10/22/2015 01:19 pm
On the one hand, I like thw fact that some scientific discoveries are being disclosed to public (Water on Mars for example), while on the other hand I noticed that none of these discoveries are disruptive technologies. Then I guess that only non-disruptive new discoveries are made public. Those that may be deemed to be too disruptive (clean energy, propulsion etc) are not, and they end up being presented as junk science, to that degree that no one ia taking that seriously. I am afraid that EM drive ia going there, so I don't expect to hear the news that it works in vaccuum, even if it does.
Another thought is that in order to improve EM drive to make it really useful, we have to use fancy materials and superconducance, making Diy efforts bleak attempts to prove it works...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: FutureStormtrooper on 10/22/2015 01:26 pm
I suspect their next step if they can make all that work would be swap out the radioactive isotope for a linear accelerator and produce the positrons as needed. Not sure you could get one small enough for a cube sat but again you can still leverage positrons for rocket propulsion without worying about storage. Now assuming that goes swimingly the next question is scaling up positron generation and deciding if it makes more sense to generate them outside of the ship and store them as rocket proppellant or just generate them as needed on ship.

If I recall, there have been some significant advances in the past few years on miniaturizing linear accelerators. So it might be more plausible than you think.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/22/2015 01:32 pm
Using the downloaded EMDView software, I looked at a couple samples of test data that the Mini-Drive Team ran but without a legend it's tough to decipher what they think they are seeing.
Camcorders are a hassle to mess with when running experiments, but I found they really help others understand the measurement conditions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 02:05 pm
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html

Good God. Gullibility must be directly proportional to bank balance.

There initial idea isnt that far fetched. If you watch the youtube video in the article. they are side stepping the storage issue by simply sourcing their anti-matter(positrons) from radioactive isotopes that are then guided to a dueterium target to trigger fusion (anti-matter catalyzed); after which they use magnets to channel the fusion products out the back end.

I suspect their next step if they can make all that work would be swap out the radioactive isotope for a linear accelerator and produce the positrons as needed. Not sure you could get one small enough for a cube sat but again you can still leverage positrons for rocket propulsion without worying about storage. Now assuming that goes swimingly the next question is scaling up positron generation and deciding if it makes more sense to generate them outside of the ship and store them as rocket proppellant or just generate them as needed on ship.
http://www.universetoday.com/106725/are-there-more-grains-of-sand-than-stars/
"Oh, one more thing. Instead of grains of sand, what about atoms? How big is 10 sextillion atoms? How huge would something with that massive quantity of anything be? Pretty gigantic. Well, relatively at least. 10 sextillion of anything does sound like a whole lot.

If you were to make a pile of that many atoms… guess how big it would be. It’d be about…. (gesture big then gesture small) 4 times smaller than a dust mite. Which means, a single grain of sand has more atoms than there are stars in the Universe."

They are creating a very tiny positron e− + e+ → γ + γ Electron–positron annihilation equals something like 511 keV which is .0000819 nanojoules. The positron they are getting from the decay of radioactive isotopes. With enough positrons I guess you could get thrust from the products of annihilation which would be 2 photons traveling in opposite directions. I understand they are directing the positrons into a target for annihilation, but how are they controlling the direction of the energies (photons) after the annihilation? That's my big question.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 02:07 pm
Using the downloaded EMDView software, I looked at a couple samples of test data that the Mini-Drive Team ran but without a legend it's tough to decipher what they think they are seeing.
Camcorders are a hassle to mess with when running experiments, but I found they really help others understand the measurement conditions.
They did video with their first test of the lasers why didn't they do it the second time?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 02:10 pm
I think I'd better start to think about getting some insulation for the shop as the bare metal will be tough to heat. We got our first snow when I woke up.

Off my front deck.

Shell

PS: Still coming down 30 minutes later.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/22/2015 02:50 pm
FTL comms?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28112-quantum-weirdness-proved-real-in-first-loophole-free-experiment/

What's next? NASA releasing a peer reviewed paper showing they have measured EMDrive thrust generation in vacuum?

No. Quantum mechanics non-locality comes with a big asterisk that FTL comms remain impossible. The non-locality of quantum has been known and accepted for a long time. This experiment just provided even stronger confirmation.

On the one hand, I like thw fact that some scientific discoveries are being disclosed to public (Water on Mars for example), while on the other hand I noticed that none of these discoveries are disruptive technologies. Then I guess that only non-disruptive new discoveries are made public. Those that may be deemed to be too disruptive (clean energy, propulsion etc) are not, and they end up being presented as junk science, to that degree that no one ia taking that seriously. I am afraid that EM drive ia going there, so I don't expect to hear the news that it works in vaccuum, even if it does.
Another thought is that in order to improve EM drive to make it really useful, we have to use fancy materials and superconducance, making Diy efforts bleak attempts to prove it works...

Apparently you haven't researched directed energy systems, virtual reality, prosthetics, or Tesla (the car company). Plenty of disruptive tech is being released. There are some black programs out there, and they don't freely share how to make deadly lasers, because we don't want others to have them. There is still plenty of disruptive technology, and I don't think "behind closed doors" there is much more advanced tech than we know about.

The only things I see presented as junk science are those that make extraordinary claims that break all of known physics, but have no matching extraordinary evidence. Saying "we need fancy materials and superconductors for it to work" with no explanation of why is a good way to speed up the classification of something as junk science. (hint: good science involves coming up with a specific hypothesis and then testing it)

For all of the positron stuff, I recognize one of the names working on it, so I think they at least have a good chance of launching a small sat to orbit, though I have my doubts if the propulsion will work. This is all off topic though, and should be moved to another thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/22/2015 03:04 pm
I suspect their next step if they can make all that work would be swap out the radioactive isotope for a linear accelerator and produce the positrons as needed. Not sure you could get one small enough for a cube sat but again you can still leverage positrons for rocket propulsion without worying about storage. Now assuming that goes swimingly the next question is scaling up positron generation and deciding if it makes more sense to generate them outside of the ship and store them as rocket proppellant or just generate them as needed on ship.

If I recall, there have been some significant advances in the past few years on miniaturizing linear accelerators. So it might be more plausible than you think.

actually, that is very recent news

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/particle-accelerators-using-terahertz.html

"A single accelerator module is no more than 1.5 centimetres long and one millimetre thick."

"The proof-of-principle prototype and verified that a single module was able to increase electron energy levels by 7 keV. According to the scientists, this figure could eventually soar up to 10 MeV, over 10 times more than what the best (and largest) modules can do today. The current goal is to produce a compact 20 MeV accelerator. They hope to have that problem solved in two-three years. There is of course the potential to build high energy machines of the scale of SLAC at reduced cost in the future"

". These ultra-compact terahertz accelerators with extremely short electron bunches hold great potential to have a transformative impact for free electron lasers, linear colliders, ultrafast electron diffraction, X-ray science and medical therapy with X-rays and electron beam"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 03:08 pm
FTL comms?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28112-quantum-weirdness-proved-real-in-first-loophole-free-experiment/

What's next? NASA releasing a peer reviewed paper showing they have measured EMDrive thrust generation in vacuum?

Another thought is that in order to improve EM drive to make it really useful, we have to use fancy materials and superconducance, making Diy efforts bleak attempts to prove it works...
(hint: good science involves coming up with a specific hypothesis and then testing it)

For all of the positron stuff, I recognize one of the names working on it, so I think they at least have a good chance of launching a small sat to orbit, though I have my doubts if the propulsion will work. This is all off topic though, and should be moved to another thread.
[/quote]
Good science also means building and testing to the point that you come up with good data to test different hypothesis's, this is where we are now. It always has been a two way street to discovery.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 10/22/2015 03:19 pm
It's kind of weird here without WarpTech (Todd), DeltaMass and Dr. Rodal. What I suspect is one thing, but what I do know, is they are greatly missed and God's speed in whatever you all are doing.

Shell

I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...

It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).

As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...

Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...

are those suspicions based on what people were talking a few pages ago, regarding USA security?

am I at risk of being dragged to Guantanamo simply for reading this thread???  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 03:43 pm
It's kind of weird here without WarpTech (Todd), DeltaMass and Dr. Rodal. What I suspect is one thing, but what I do know, is they are greatly missed and God's speed in whatever you all are doing.

Shell

I was thinking the same thing here, Shell...

It shows how much weight they all carry to steer and lead a topic as this one. Sad to say, but you only realize what they mean and how important they are to keep this topic going, once they're "gone". (not for real ofc).

As for speculations...Most of us know there is a white elephant in the room... I'm quite sure we have similar ideas about their disappearance(s)...

Anyway, I'm very glad Paul March pops up from time to time now, to give you DIY builders some guidelines.
Gives some extra food for the brain...and to ponder about...

are those suspicions based on what people were talking a few pages ago, regarding USA security?

am I at risk of being dragged to Guantanamo simply for reading this thread???  ;D
Heck, with me building this drive I'm heading there first. That's ok, because it's cold and snowing here, at least it's warm and sunny there. 
I've got to head out to the lab to make sure my silver epoxy is ok I used yesterday... brrrr
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/22/2015 03:51 pm
I just wanted to say Go Shells! And also, isn't it safe to assume something is going on over at NASA with regards to EmDrive.   Yep, I think there is some kind of effect because Paul March would not likely show up and try to help DIY builders if it negation of that fact were true.  No, I'm thinking that they did find something interesting and no matter what; the DIY builders should keep trying.  Heck, we could even use some new builders here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 10/22/2015 04:11 pm
Using the downloaded EMDView software, I looked at a couple samples of test data that the Mini-Drive Team ran but without a legend it's tough to decipher what they think they are seeing.

Yes, confusing.  I think he may be referring to these two different data sets, as the difference is in the orientation of the small end relative to the mirror.  SBU means small end then big end, from left to right.  BSU means big end then small end from left to right, from what I have deciphered from his website.

That said, the difference in that data sets I think he is referring to are attached.  One is a SBU orientation (top attachment), which seems to have no effect on the interferometer output, while the BSU shows an effect on the interferometer data output (bottom attachment).  Not claiming any conclusions, just trying to understand what this individual is observing and how..... 




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 04:49 pm
Using the downloaded EMDView software, I looked at a couple samples of test data that the Mini-Drive Team ran but without a legend it's tough to decipher what they think they are seeing.

Yes, confusing.  I think he may be referring to these two different data sets, as the difference is in the orientation of the small end relative to the mirror.  SBU means small end then big end, from left to right.  BSU means big end then small end from left to right, from what I have deciphered from his website.

That said, the difference in that data sets I think he is referring to are attached.  One is a SBU orientation (top attachment), which seems to have no effect on the interferometer output, while the BSU shows an effect on the interferometer data output (bottom attachment).  Not claiming any conclusions, just trying to understand what this individual is observing and how.....

Thanks for digging through it too, I find it intriguing.

In for a bit, heating up the lab, the epoxy is setting very slow.

It's interesting that BE vs SE sees such a difference in the interferometer data. If they have resonance in the frustum they would be generating modes, could it be possible that that mode generation radiated heat signature would deform the mirror producing this effect? If I were them I'd insert a IR blocking lens behind the frustum, if that doesn't change anything  then maybe we should suggest that they vary the distance to the mirror in a series of tests to see how the effect decreases with distance.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 05:56 pm
I'm so going to price out insulation today for the lab. brrrr

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/22/2015 06:21 pm
My answer:  If dark matter only responds to gravity, then if the frustum somehow creates a gravitational gradient in resonance, then yes, but, there isn't much mass equivalent in there to accelerate much of anything.

If the frustum is creating a gravitational gradient, then could it be interacting with the local gravitational field? Something similar to interacting magnetic fields?

Personally, I don't think there is anything that exotic going on, but while we're talking about let's look at the possibilities.

Folks, we covered this to death in previous threads.  Please do a little searching.  :)  There's a lot of great stuff.

The gravity drive implications in particular are facinating and we dove very deeply into them (to paraphrase, the theory was that a gravity gradient is being created in the Frustum within the very narrow RF band created by the magnetron, and that's what creates thrust- no CoM violation at all).  Doc Rodal, WarpTech, and others contributed mightily at the time.  Warptech's comments at the time, which I found compelling were: "...we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves." and "That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum."

The theory was further expanded by EW's observing something similar (go find it on your own from early March to May 2015).  I will say that it was that perfectly innocuous gravity drive discussion we were having about a month earlier where Warp-Drive chimed in with his comment that unintentionally touched off all the "NASA DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE BY ACCIDENT" headlines around the world.  And now you know why EW doesn't post about their testing any more...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/22/2015 06:38 pm
I will say that it was that perfectly innocuous gravity drive discussion we were having about a month earlier where Warp-Drive chimed in with his comment that unintentionally touched off all the "NASA DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE BY ACCIDENT" headlines around the world.  And now you know why EW doesn't post about their testing any more...

That's why we can't have nice things.  ;D

But yes, over-enthusiasm can be harmful too.

As a side comment: I would love if we didn't engage in feeding the conspirationist mindset either, by talking about nonsense like 'suppressed technology' or some such.

We should be aware that the Emdrive is still fringe enough for most people, for additionally covering it with one more layer of dis-respectability and doubt.

Let others talk about conspiracies in their own media and channels, but please, not here.

By the way: I think talking about legit export laws and regulations like ITAR is very on-topic, because that's not a conspiracy but a well documented public regulation, and one very possibly impacting the Emdrive in the near future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 07:28 pm
My answer:  If dark matter only responds to gravity, then if the frustum somehow creates a gravitational gradient in resonance, then yes, but, there isn't much mass equivalent in there to accelerate much of anything.

If the frustum is creating a gravitational gradient, then could it be interacting with the local gravitational field? Something similar to interacting magnetic fields?

Personally, I don't think there is anything that exotic going on, but while we're talking about let's look at the possibilities.

Folks, we covered this to death in previous threads.  Please do a little searching.  :)  There's a lot of great stuff.

The gravity drive implications in particular are facinating and we dove very deeply into them (to paraphrase, the theory was that a gravity gradient is being created in the Frustum within the very narrow RF band created by the magnetron, and that's what creates thrust- no CoM violation at all).  Doc Rodal, WarpTech, and others contributed mightily at the time.  Warptech's comments at the time, which I found compelling were: "...we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves." and "That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum."

The theory was further expanded by EW's observing something similar (go find it on your own from early March to May 2015).  I will say that it was that perfectly innocuous gravity drive discussion we were having about a month earlier where Warp-Drive chimed in with his comment that unintentionally touched off all the "NASA DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE BY ACCIDENT" headlines around the world.  And now you know why EW doesn't post about their testing any more...
I've read Todd's papers and just reviewed the pages and pages of thoughts on this blog just within the last week, my third time through it all. It's was a shame to see that great discussion crash like it did.

The only reason I revived it was to get some ideas on how to test for it. I'm still open to thoughts.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: sghill on 10/22/2015 08:31 pm
The only reason I revived it was to get some ideas on how to test for it. I'm still open to thoughts.

Shell

Well why not ask Todd? :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/22/2015 09:26 pm
The only reason I revived it was to get some ideas on how to test for it. I'm still open to thoughts.

Shell

Well why not ask Todd? :)
Ack, never occurred to me. I'll do that. Sometimes I can be sooooo...you know, and ... and a real airhead.
Thanks,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/22/2015 10:08 pm
Is this idea of "gravity bandwidth" supported by theory?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/22/2015 10:56 pm
Antimatter spaceship coming guys. You need to hurry up :)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/positron-dynamics-plans-to-fly.html

Good God. Gullibility must be directly proportional to bank balance.

There initial idea isnt that far fetched. If you watch the youtube video in the article. they are side stepping the storage issue by simply sourcing their anti-matter(positrons) from radioactive isotopes that are then guided to a dueterium target to trigger fusion (anti-matter catalyzed); after which they use magnets to channel the fusion products out the back end.

I suspect their next step if they can make all that work would be swap out the radioactive isotope for a linear accelerator and produce the positrons as needed. Not sure you could get one small enough for a cube sat but again you can still leverage positrons for rocket propulsion without worying about storage. Now assuming that goes swimingly the next question is scaling up positron generation and deciding if it makes more sense to generate them outside of the ship and store them as rocket proppellant or just generate them as needed on ship.
They now "haz" accelerators that you can hold between thumb and fore finger:

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/30927/20151006/particle-accelerator-shrunk-tiny-proportions-new-terahertz-technology.htm

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/22/2015 11:37 pm
They now "haz" accelerators that you can hold between thumb and for finger:

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/30927/20151006/particle-accelerator-shrunk-tiny-proportions-new-terahertz-technology.htm

A press release from one of the institutions:
http://www.desy.de/news/news_search/index_eng.html?openDirectAnchor=883

Quote
This first prototype of a terahertz accelerator was able to increase the energy of the particles by seven kiloelectronvolts (keV).

“This is not a particularly large acceleration, but the experiment demonstrates that the principle does work in practice,” explains co-author Arya Fallahi of CFEL, who did the theoretical calculations. “The theory indicates that we should be able to achieve an accelerating gradient of up to one gigavolt per metre.” This is more than ten times what can be achieved with the best conventional accelerator modules available today. Plasma accelerator technology, which is also at an experimental stage right now, promises to produce even higher accelerations, however it also requires significantly more powerful lasers than those needed for terahertz accelerators.

The physicists underline that terahertz technology is of great interest both with regard to future linear accelerators for use in particle physics, and as a means of building compact X-ray lasers and electron sources for use in materials research, as well as medical applications using X-rays and electron radiation.

The most interesting near-future application of the technology, outside of atom smashers, looks like Free Electron Lasers. I'm not under the impression that high frequency light is going to be workable in a resonator, though.  :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 01:11 am
Is this idea of "gravity bandwidth" supported by theory?
Todd D. was working on a paper... http://emdrive.wiki/Todd_Desiato_(@WarpTech)%27s_Evanescent_Wave_Theory
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 10/23/2015 03:38 am
Shell, a brooder lamp makes a fine spot heater to speed epoxy or prc setup.

Cheep at the hardware store too. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 04:37 am
Shell, a brooder lamp makes a fine spot heater to speed epoxy or prc setup.

Cheep at the hardware store too. :)
Thank goodness I'm not building a tank. I brought it into the house. ;) Good idea, I'll remember it.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tleach on 10/23/2015 06:11 am
The Riker Drive

Here it goes! I'm going all in with my birthday money and doing a self contained EM drive build for under $200 (hopefully)! I'm currently at $180 and I haven't built a test stand yet :-(

Anyway, I'm building the frustum out of an old trombone I got off eBay, hence the Riker Drive moniker, and I'm using an inexpensive, low power (5 watt), 5.8Ghz amplifier that will be battery powered. If I get any thrust, I'll post the parts list (everything was ordered off eBay and Amazon) so that others can replicate.

Here are some pictures so far. Please cut me some slack on the metal working... I didn't take shop in high school and all I have is a drill press, a miter saw and some pliers...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/23/2015 10:27 am
Another DIY build? Sounds like music to my ears... ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 12:09 pm
The Riker Drive

Here it goes! I'm going all in with my birthday money and doing a self contained EM drive build for under $200 (hopefully)! I'm currently at $180 and I haven't built a test stand yet :-(

Anyway, I'm building the frustum out of an old trombone I got off eBay, hence the Riker Drive moniker, and I'm using an inexpensive, low power (5 watt), 5.8Ghz amplifier that will be battery powered. If I get any thrust, I'll post the parts list (everything was ordered off eBay and Amazon) so that others can replicate.

Here are some pictures so far. Please cut me some slack on the metal working... I didn't take shop in high school and all I have is a drill press, a miter saw and some pliers...
For a pair of pliers and a few other simple tools, it's looking good. Welcome to the Crazy Eddie team.

WarpTech (Todd) was saying the an extended frustum in the shape of a horn could produce results.

5.8GHz works out to 2.036" WL or 51.7 mm WL. For a circular waveguide the lowest cutoff frequency is 3.40GHz @ 51.7 mm in Diameter.

I have no idea of the sizes of your horn, never played one, heck, I've never touched one. My mother told me to stay away from those computer-generated gin joints.
 
Good luck on your build, I'll help however I can.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/23/2015 12:18 pm
The Riker Drive

Here it goes! I'm going all in with my birthday money and doing a self contained EM drive build for under $200 (hopefully)! I'm currently at $180 and I haven't built a test stand yet :-(

Anyway, I'm building the frustum out of an old trombone I got off eBay, hence the Riker Drive moniker, and I'm using an inexpensive, low power (5 watt), 5.8Ghz amplifier that will be battery powered. If I get any thrust, I'll post the parts list (everything was ordered off eBay and Amazon) so that others can replicate.

Here are some pictures so far. Please cut me some slack on the metal working... I didn't take shop in high school and all I have is a drill press, a miter saw and some pliers...

You won't need meep, the resonance behavior is already well understood

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/music/trombone.html

err.... at low frequencies  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tleach on 10/23/2015 12:27 pm
5.8GHz works out to 2.036" WL or 51.7 mm WL. For a circular waveguide the lowest cutoff frequency is 3.40GHz @ 51.7 mm in Diameter.

Yeah, my small end is currently more waveguide than frustum... It's approximately 1.1 inches, which the internet says gives me a cutoff frequency of about 6.3 GHz.  I'm planning on trying a series of experiments. With each successive run, I'll shorten the frustum, thus increasing the size of the small end and lowering its cutoff frequency. At least that's the current plan...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 12:27 pm
The Riker Drive

Here it goes! I'm going all in with my birthday money and doing a self contained EM drive build for under $200 (hopefully)! I'm currently at $180 and I haven't built a test stand yet :-(

Anyway, I'm building the frustum out of an old trombone I got off eBay, hence the Riker Drive moniker, and I'm using an inexpensive, low power (5 watt), 5.8Ghz amplifier that will be battery powered. If I get any thrust, I'll post the parts list (everything was ordered off eBay and Amazon) so that others can replicate.

Here are some pictures so far. Please cut me some slack on the metal working... I didn't take shop in high school and all I have is a drill press, a miter saw and some pliers...
With hairballs, foofie dust, dental floss, a scrap beam, water jug, sharp nail, a few scrap parts you can build a cheap beam to measure movement. Video it, weigh it and thrusts can be calculated from the movements time stamped from the video.

This was one of my thoughts when I was going for the lest costly build W/O the horn.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 01:58 pm
Is this idea of "gravity bandwidth" supported by theory?
Todd D. was working on a paper... http://emdrive.wiki/Todd_Desiato_(@WarpTech)%27s_Evanescent_Wave_Theory

Do read the paper, or if you don't want to, go look at all of WarpTech's posts.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47405

The wildly simplified Cliff's notes for the theory are that phase velocity of EM waves can propagate faster than light with no GR violations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Phase_velocities_above_c).  The energy injected into the frustum sets up waves inside it, but the shape of the frustum causes a gradient to setup at one end when the waves are in resonance.  In response to the gradient, the frustum is forced to move. Because energy is still being pumped into the frustum the movement is continuous- we perceive this as thrust. No CoM violations.  No quantum foam or ether needed. 

One of the big questions (at least in my mind) is "Do the waves interact with the environment outside the frustum?"  That creates secondary questions like "How does frustum thickness affect this interaction?"
I've read it, and found it a very interesting theory. DeltaMass and WarpDrive were one of the better things to read on this blog site. I learned so much from their discussions.

It's in my mind too sghill and it's a very big question. Maybe this is where theory simply can't answer what happens and data needs to be gained from tests. Worked long and hard to be able to use 2 different injection methods into the same frustum on the same test bed. One is a dual waveguide that analyzing meep data looks as though it setups the gradient in the small end. The other is the dual modified loops in the small end that forces a TE012 mode and causes a wave and mode action in the large end.

Both modes of operation involve high Qs and different wave and mode actions in the frustum. One should do better than the other, shouldn't it? Even if the results I gain are similar that will tell us something as well.

So instead of me sitting here typing I need to get out to the lab and get it done.

Shell   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2015 02:36 pm
I've read it, and found it a very interesting theory. DeltaMass and WarpDrive were one of the better things to read on this blog site. I learned so much from their discussions.

It's in my mind too sghill and it's a very big question. Maybe this is where theory simply can't answer what happens and data needs to be gained from tests. Worked long and hard to be able to use 2 different injection methods into the same frustum on the same test bed. One is a dual waveguide that analyzing meep data looks as though it setups the gradient in the small end. The other is the dual modified loops in the small end that forces a TE012 mode and causes a wave and mode action in the large end.

Both modes of operation involve high Qs and different wave and mode actions in the frustum. One should do better than the other, shouldn't it? Even if the results I gain are similar that will tell us something as well.

So instead of me sitting here typing I need to get out to the lab and get it done.

Shell

Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 03:24 pm
I've read it, and found it a very interesting theory. DeltaMass and WarpDrive were one of the better things to read on this blog site. I learned so much from their discussions.

It's in my mind too sghill and it's a very big question. Maybe this is where theory simply can't answer what happens and data needs to be gained from tests. Worked long and hard to be able to use 2 different injection methods into the same frustum on the same test bed. One is a dual waveguide that analyzing meep data looks as though it setups the gradient in the small end. The other is the dual modified loops in the small end that forces a TE012 mode and causes a wave and mode action in the large end.

Both modes of operation involve high Qs and different wave and mode actions in the frustum. One should do better than the other, shouldn't it? Even if the results I gain are similar that will tell us something as well.

So instead of me sitting here typing I need to get out to the lab and get it done.

Shell

Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.

Still waiting for your runs on those numbers TT, feeling better?

Shell

Added: Got my coffee warmed up and back to the lab.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqrxW-pEq3Q
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/23/2015 03:28 pm
I'm wondering something.

     If there is some sort of spacial distortion involved in this EM drive design, is it possible that gravity itself, may not be an atomic force in and of itself, but may be an emergent phenomena, from the combination of the Electro-Strong, Electro-Weak and the Electromagnetic forces?  As these three atomic forces seem to be interrelated as it is, (And there seems to be a disagreement as to whether or not gravity should even be considered as an atomic force) it stands to reason that they may somehow interelate in such a way as to produce the effect of gravity.

     If this is what is happening, then the use of the device in question, could be imparting kinetic energy on the system by increasing the effect of gravity on one end of the device, while decreasing the effect on the other end, effectively creating a sort of "gravity slope", this would also have the effect, to a very limited extent, of distorting space/time at each end of the device.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/23/2015 04:02 pm
I'm wondering something.

     If there is some sort of spacial distortion involved in this EM drive design, is it possible that gravity itself, may not be an atomic force in and of itself, but may be an emergent phenomena, from the combination of the Electro-Strong, Electro-Weak and the Electromagnetic forces?  As these three atomic forces seem to be interrelated as it is, (And there seems to be a disagreement as to whether or not gravity should even be considered as an atomic force) it stands to reason that they may somehow interelate in such a way as to produce the effect of gravity.

     If this is what is happening, then the use of the device in question, could be imparting kinetic energy on the system by increasing the effect of gravity on one end of the device, while decreasing the effect on the other end, effectively creating a sort of "gravity slope", this would also have the effect, to a very limited extent, of distorting space/time at each end of the device.

Just a thought.

Gravity in quantum field theory is described as a force, but in general relativity it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. So is gravity an emergent phenomena or a fundamental force? We'll have to wait for the scientists to sort that out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 05:20 pm
Brrrr it's cold in the lab today 5C. I've ordered Reflex-AIR Reflective Insulation White Double Bubble 48-inch hoping to stem the seepage of heat in the lab. It's for these old bones and to help extending the testing into the winter. I know this isn't part of the build and it's about me keeping warm... so sorry ahead of time.

I'll go out later and do some pics for you but I've got to do some running around first. We're getting there.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/23/2015 05:30 pm
Brrrr it's cold in the lab today 5C. I've ordered Reflex-AIR Reflective Insulation White Double Bubble 48-inch hoping to stem the seepage of heat in the lab. It's for these old bones and to help extending the testing into the winter. I know this isn't part of the build and it's about me keeping warm... so sorry ahead of time.

I'll go out later and do some pics for you but I've got to do some running around first. We're getting there.

Shell

Do you have a date in mind for when you expect the first data will come from your build?  Not verification/validation data of setup capabilities, but an actual attempt at measuring thrust.       

I don't really want to check the board regularly and would just like to know when I should stop in for new data.   

Thanks in advance. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 05:43 pm
Brrrr it's cold in the lab today 5C. I've ordered Reflex-AIR Reflective Insulation White Double Bubble 48-inch hoping to stem the seepage of heat in the lab. It's for these old bones and to help extending the testing into the winter. I know this isn't part of the build and it's about me keeping warm... so sorry ahead of time.

I'll go out later and do some pics for you but I've got to do some running around first. We're getting there.

Shell

Do you have a date in mind for when you expect the first data will come from your build?  Not verification/validation data of setup capabilities, but an actual attempt at measuring thrust.       

I don't really want to check the board regularly and would just like to know when I should stop in for new data.   

Thanks in advance.
I have about 35-45 hours of work left but in there I need to do insulation which will be 2 days of work 12-16 hrs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/23/2015 06:13 pm
Brrrr it's cold in the lab today 5C. I've ordered Reflex-AIR Reflective Insulation White Double Bubble 48-inch hoping to stem the seepage of heat in the lab. It's for these old bones and to help extending the testing into the winter. I know this isn't part of the build and it's about me keeping warm... so sorry ahead of time.

I'll go out later and do some pics for you but I've got to do some running around first. We're getting there.

Shell

Do you have a date in mind for when you expect the first data will come from your build?  Not verification/validation data of setup capabilities, but an actual attempt at measuring thrust.       

I don't really want to check the board regularly and would just like to know when I should stop in for new data.   

Thanks in advance.
I have about 35-45 hours of work left but in there I need to do insulation which will be 2 days of work 12-16 hrs.

So, next week then? Cool beans.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/23/2015 06:17 pm
I have about 35-45 hours of work left but in there I need to do insulation which will be 2 days of work 12-16 hrs.

Well now I need to ask you haw many hours on average you work everyday so I can solve for the date to check back. :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 06:24 pm
I have about 35-45 hours of work left but in there I need to do insulation which will be 2 days of work 12-16 hrs.

Well now I need to ask you haw many hours on average you work everyday so I can solve for the date to check back. :P
Check back in 7-10 days or PM me with your email and I'll drop you a line.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/23/2015 06:35 pm
The Riker Drive

Here it goes! I'm going all in with my birthday money and doing a self contained EM drive build for under $200 (hopefully)! I'm currently at $180 and I haven't built a test stand yet :-(

Anyway, I'm building the frustum out of an old trombone I got off eBay, hence the Riker Drive moniker, and I'm using an inexpensive, low power (5 watt), 5.8Ghz amplifier that will be battery powered. If I get any thrust, I'll post the parts list (everything was ordered off eBay and Amazon) so that others can replicate.

Here are some pictures so far. Please cut me some slack on the metal working... I didn't take shop in high school and all I have is a drill press, a miter saw and some pliers...

Some background music may help in your build...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7VsoxT_FUY
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/23/2015 09:47 pm
I read WarpTech's article with interest.  It says that the cavity does not have to be resonant at the frequency of the input signal, but that the shape may have an effect on thrust efficiency.

This suggets some experimentation with shapes other than a simple cone may be informative, and the Riker Drive fits right into that.  I did manage to find this article (http://la.trompette.free.fr/Benade/Trumpet73/Column.htm) about the mathamatical shape of a trombone bell for anyone who want to figure out how it behaves at microwave frequencies.

I have been trying to visualize how a variable-slope cone might be constructed and the only thing I can think of is something involving multiple overlapping leaves.  There was some discussion a few months ago about how the half-angle of the frustrum may be significant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zero123 on 10/23/2015 10:48 pm
The EMDrive or the "Shawyer Effect" is not an energy source.

Have been told SPR have done detailed energy flows, using the Demonstrator EMDrive on the rotary table. They measured that both overall system wide CofM and CofE are conserved.

Did ask for that data to be made public. Will ask again.

And yet, Shawyer's own paper claims that his drive can be used to get an "interstellar probe" to 2/3 c in 10 years using a 200KW generator. This clearly leads to the probe having kinetic energy many orders of magnitude more than what the power source can supply and I already posted the calculations here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1393317#msg1393317. If it's not an energy source, then where does all that energy come from?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/23/2015 10:57 pm
The EMDrive or the "Shawyer Effect" is not an energy source.

Have been told SPR have done detailed energy flows, using the Demonstrator EMDrive on the rotary table. They measured that both overall system wide CofM and CofE are conserved.

Did ask for that data to be made public. Will ask again.

And yet, Shawyer's own paper claims that his drive can be used to get an "interstellar probe" to 2/3 c in 10 years using a 200KW generator. This clearly leads to the probe having kinetic energy many orders of magnitude more than what the power source can supply and I already posted the calculations here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1393317#msg1393317. If it's not an energy source, then where does all that energy come from?
"then where does all that energy come from?"

Better question is where does all that energy go?

Let's say for instance that thrust is gained from the drive and that you're pumping it full of RF energy and you get acceleration. The question arises where are we getting the mass or something that acts like mass from to act on?

It kind of bothers me that what were putting in the cavity has to get out and so far it's not obvious what it is. I've been thinking on this for sometime and it makes my head hurt for what it might mean.

Could Dr. White and the EW team be correct in their paper that we are ripping up the QV in the drive making VPs and shoving them out the back, to be absorbed into the QV again? Fancy idea but, a larger question raises it head. And we think we have seen it in the prorogation time delays from an Interferometry  tests at EW which makes sense now as to the delay. (they should vary the distance to the reflective mirror in back of the drive to see if it changes)

This in itself raises a big question for me. If we are doing just that, making a hole of VPs inside of the cavity, then are we are warping and modifying the QV inside and adding to the outside the drive into the Quantum Vacuum? That's not homogeneous like the QV should be. Now this thing begins to look like something else entirely. CoE, CoM violations are peanuts now. Because that negative space within the cavity pushing Virtual Particles and virtual mass outside creates a bump in the QV behind the cavity.   

This action could set the limit of speed regardless of the relative speed to any object within or without of our reference frame as the speed is now set by the interactions to the QV itself. The CoM and Coe are preserved as it will take energies on the orders of what zero123 caculated https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1393317#msg1393317

Enough to warp my little brain. And I'm just throwing stuff out for discussion.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/24/2015 12:24 am
Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.

Introductory Electromagnetism is enough to show that an EM drive produces no net thrust under classical physics. If you claim to have used it to show otherwise, you have done your math wrong.

You can look up my previous posts if you want more details of what is wrong with Shawyer's paper.

Cullen's equation 15 is for a constant area waveguide, it is not clear that it applies to a tapered resonator.

Assuming it does apply, this just means that momentum is transferred to the walls of the cavity as the wave propagates.

If I feel like doing some multi-variable calculus this weekend, I might calculate out exactly where the momentum is as a function of time as an exercise. If someone can point me to an equation for the fields in one of the resonance modes people are using, that would help (and make it more likely for me to bother doing the calculations).

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/24/2015 12:45 am
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/24/2015 02:26 am
Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.

Introductory Electromagnetism is enough to show that an EM drive produces no net thrust under classical physics. If you claim to have used it to show otherwise, you have done your math wrong.

You can look up my previous posts if you want more details of what is wrong with Shawyer's paper.

Cullen's equation 15 is for a constant area waveguide, it is not clear that it applies to a tapered resonator.

Assuming it does apply, this just means that momentum is transferred to the walls of the cavity as the wave propagates.

If I feel like doing some multi-variable calculus this weekend, I might calculate out exactly where the momentum is as a function of time as an exercise. If someone can point me to an equation for the fields in one of the resonance modes people are using, that would help (and make it more likely for me to bother doing the calculations).

So how to explain the reality that the EMDrive does generate Force?

In an EMDrive with spherical end plates, there is no side wall radiation pressure generated as the spherical EM waves are at a right angle to the side walls. They in effect slide along them.

Shawyer has shown the end plate radiation pressure / bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force.

So if not the end plate bounce Force nor the virtually zero side wall Force, that only leaves the momentum gradient as the source of the external Force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 02:30 am
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Did an interesting one before I have a late diner.

Same data set with waveguides and flat plates in second animation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 10/24/2015 02:36 am
Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.

Introductory Electromagnetism is enough to show that an EM drive produces no net thrust under classical physics. If you claim to have used it to show otherwise, you have done your math wrong.

You can look up my previous posts if you want more details of what is wrong with Shawyer's paper.

Cullen's equation 15 is for a constant area waveguide, it is not clear that it applies to a tapered resonator.

Assuming it does apply, this just means that momentum is transferred to the walls of the cavity as the wave propagates.

If I feel like doing some multi-variable calculus this weekend, I might calculate out exactly where the momentum is as a function of time as an exercise. If someone can point me to an equation for the fields in one of the resonance modes people are using, that would help (and make it more likely for me to bother doing the calculations).

So how to explain the reality that the EMDrive does generate Force?

In an EMDrive with spherical end plates, there is no side wall radiation pressure generated as the spherical EM waves are at a right angle to the side walls. They in effect slide along them.

Shawyer has shown the end plate radiation pressure / bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force.

So if not the end plate bounce Force nor the virtually zero side wall Force, that only leaves the momentum gradient as the source of the external Force.

I am not trying to be combative, just curious. In which one of shawyers papers did he show/prove that the "end plate radiation pressure/bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/24/2015 02:40 am
Classic microwave 101 equations and physics predicts the variance in guide wavelength and variance in radiance pressure bounce Force at each end of a tapered waveguide. The maths and experimental data is very solid here.

Problem is almost all classic physicists refuse to accept that EM wave momentum varies in proportion to diameter variance driven guide wavelength alteration inside a waveguide, despite Cullen in 1951 proving that is the reality. It is really hard for a physicists to accept that both group velocity and guide wavelength inside a waveguide are different (group velocity slower and guide wavelength longer) to that experienced external to the waveguide. Many seem to think that EM waves just bounce around inside the waveguide as if they are laser beams and undergo no changes in either group velocity, guide wavelength nor EM wave momentum. The reality is about as far from that view as possible.

The reality is inside an EMDrive a momentum gradient is formed with higher EM wave momentum toward the big end and smaller EM wave momentum toward the small end.

Problem is our classical understanding of our physical world is hard pressed to understand / accept what happens to the external frustum when an EM wave momentum gradient is formed inside a tapered waveguide.

What happens inside a EMDrive is called the "Shawyer Effect" and it is totally inside existing physics. In fact applying Cullen's equation 15 and microwave physics 101 predicts the formation of the momentum gradient.

Introductory Electromagnetism is enough to show that an EM drive produces no net thrust under classical physics. If you claim to have used it to show otherwise, you have done your math wrong.

You can look up my previous posts if you want more details of what is wrong with Shawyer's paper.

Cullen's equation 15 is for a constant area waveguide, it is not clear that it applies to a tapered resonator.

Assuming it does apply, this just means that momentum is transferred to the walls of the cavity as the wave propagates.

If I feel like doing some multi-variable calculus this weekend, I might calculate out exactly where the momentum is as a function of time as an exercise. If someone can point me to an equation for the fields in one of the resonance modes people are using, that would help (and make it more likely for me to bother doing the calculations).

So how to explain the reality that the EMDrive does generate Force?

In an EMDrive with spherical end plates, there is no side wall radiation pressure generated as the spherical EM waves are at a right angle to the side walls. They in effect slide along them.

Shawyer has shown the end plate radiation pressure / bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force.

So if not the end plate bounce Force nor the virtually zero side wall Force, that only leaves the momentum gradient as the source of the external Force.

I am not trying to be combative, just curious. In which one of shawyers papers did he show/prove that the "end plate radiation pressure/bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/24/2015 07:16 am
So how to explain the reality that the EMDrive does generate Force?

In an EMDrive with spherical end plates, there is no side wall radiation pressure generated as the spherical EM waves are at a right angle to the side walls. They in effect slide along them.

Shawyer has shown the end plate radiation pressure / bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force.

So if not the end plate bounce Force nor the virtually zero side wall Force, that only leaves the momentum gradient as the source of the external Force.

I am not trying to be combative, just curious. In which one of shawyers papers did he show/prove that the "end plate radiation pressure/bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force"

Traveller, you are stating that the EM drive generates thrust as a fact. The experiments so far are not conclusive. If it does generate thrust, it is not from anything in current physics.

You can't claim that the EM waves slide along the side without transferring momentum. Even if the propagation direction is parallel to the wall, the waves will be interacting with the electrons in the metal.

The picture you posted is entirely nonsense. it claims the vg changes and this changes the momentum total in the system. I don't believe group velocity is actually directly related to EM wave momentum in general. Also, even if the momentum in the fields is different at the ends of the waveguide, it only could happen through momentum exchange with the waveguide walls.

Edit: looking at the picture again, I feel I need to mention that the last line where you add up the momentum is also completely wrong. (besides the fact you didn't change the variable name when you changed the values to be the "at end plate" values, normally you would add a subscript or something). To show conservation of momentum you need to add the values of all momentum in the system at the same time, so immediately after reflection, you have  pw - p1 - p2 = 1.6 - 0.9 + 0.1 = 0.8 != 0 which the system started at, so no momentum conservation.

(Note how I use -p1 to represent the value after reflection, rather than redefining p1 to be -0.9, this is how most physicists use variables.) I am trying to keep an open mind about the EM drive, and I hope that this helps you actually use correct physics in the future so that if you find that the emdrive produces a real force, people will believe you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 10/24/2015 01:26 pm
Did an interesting one before I have a late diner.

Same data set with waveguides and flat plates in second animation.
thnx for the animations , Shell..
It kinda confirms the vague idea i had on how hyper sensitive these resonance patterns are to geometrical changes.
I wish we could understand how this force is generated as I do believe there must be more optimized shapes that gives optimal force generation. I suspect that the form of the cavity is a main contributor to building the most efficient EMdrive.
Trying a quadzillion shapes is one approach, but I wished there was a more systematic approach...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 01:40 pm
Did an interesting one before I have a late diner.

Same data set with waveguides and flat plates in second animation.
thnx for the animations , Shell..
It kinda confirms the vague idea i had on how hyper sensitive these resonance patterns are to geometrical changes.
I wish we could understand how this force is generated as I do believe there must be more optimized shaped that gives optimal force generation. I suspect that the form of the cavity is a main contributor to building the most efficient EMdrive.
Trying a quadzillion shapes is one approach, but I wished there was a more systematic approach...
The only thing i could build in this current test was a sliding tune chamber to test different modes and different RF insertion methods. I hope it is good enough and can provide clear data to build the next generation.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 02:13 pm
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Spherical plates aero! Nice work. I've been looking at the images this morning trying to glean what they are so different than the other ones we ran and it dawned on me it's the injection methods. To truly do a side by side please do a run with the dual waveguides for which this cavity was designed for. Dipoles will want to force a TM mode and we need a TE mode.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/24/2015 05:13 pm
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Spherical plates aero! Nice work. I've been looking at the images this morning trying to glean what they are so different than the other ones we ran and it dawned on me it's the injection methods. To truly do a side by side please do a run with the dual waveguides for which this cavity was designed for. Dipoles will want to force a TM mode and we need a TE mode.

Shell
The excitation of a TE-Mode using dipoles(or monopole like antennas) is possible for sure.  ::)

@Aero can you tell a little more detailed explanation(or a sketch) for the positions and orientations of the dipoles please?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/24/2015 06:27 pm
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Spherical plates aero! Nice work. I've been looking at the images this morning trying to glean what they are so different than the other ones we ran and it dawned on me it's the injection methods. To truly do a side by side please do a run with the dual waveguides for which this cavity was designed for. Dipoles will want to force a TM mode and we need a TE mode.

Shell
I was wondering if the spherical end plates in the run that Aero did are placed concave or convex in relation to the large base and whether there might be any significance in the wave reflections depending on the orientation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tleach on 10/24/2015 06:44 pm
No thrust yet, but I'm having a blast! This is way more fun than doing the stuff I'm supposed to be doing!  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/24/2015 06:45 pm
I finished up a project that was interrupted some time ago. One of Shell's Crazy-Eddie models with the flat ends replaced with spherical ends. Here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing)

It's named the CE2 model so I guess that is the one with duel dipole antennas sort of close to the big end. There doesn't seem to be a flat end model uploaded for comparison but maybe someone would like to make some movies so we could watch the behavior of the fields in a cavity with spherical ends anyway.
Spherical plates aero! Nice work. I've been looking at the images this morning trying to glean what they are so different than the other ones we ran and it dawned on me it's the injection methods. To truly do a side by side please do a run with the dual waveguides for which this cavity was designed for. Dipoles will want to force a TM mode and we need a TE mode.

Shell
I was wondering if the spherical end plates in the run that Aero did are placed concave or convex in relation to the large base and whether there might be any significance in the wave reflections depending on the orientation?
As a first order approximation the dimensions of the cavity itself (eigen resonance frequencies) is the most interesting value. A second question is, how good is the coupling of the antenna for the predicted mode. And yes for the mode coupling the position and orientation of the antenna(s) inside the resonator is of interest. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 10/24/2015 07:09 pm
No thrust yet, but I'm having a blast! This is way more fun than doing the stuff I'm supposed to be doing!  ;D

Seems like cutting off the tuning slide might come back to haunt you - though following that to it's natural conclusion, I guess you'd stick the wave guide with a stub antenna down the mouth piece and call it good.  Wonder what microwave resonance frequency that would require...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tleach on 10/24/2015 07:21 pm
Seems like cutting off the tuning slide might come back to haunt you - though following that to it's natural conclusion, I guess you'd stick the wave guide with a stub antenna down the mouth piece and call it good.  Wonder what microwave resonance frequency that would require...

Good point! I didn't even think about doing that!

I guess it has to do with the question of whether or not the small diameter of the frustum needs to be larger than the cutoff frequency for the microwave source. Unless I'm mistaken, it has been larger in all of the experiments to date that have produced thrust. I was curious about this transition between waveguide and frustum and so I'm intending on cutting down the horn several more times and transitioning the diameter of the small end of the drive through that cutoff frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/24/2015 07:46 pm
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/24/2015 08:39 pm
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 08:44 pm
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930
We need to confirm it with aero. I didn't know he had done a curved endplate. The mode generation is different as is the wave patterns.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 08:46 pm
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
That will teach me reading from the bottom of the thread up. Got my wifi working in the lab but signal strength is weak. Need to set up a amp.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/24/2015 10:40 pm
I promised a few pictures of the build and got some time to download.

The first is of the silver epoxy that has been secured around the edges on the outside and inside. The second is the redesigned lower weight tunable micrometer from the SEM that is about 1/5th of the weight of the old one which was hard to turn and way too heavy. The quartz rod is attached and parallel to the axis.

After a little diner I'm heading back out and secure the tunable micrometer assy to the bottom of the frustum, then tomorrow attach the top small plate to the quartz rod in the cavity.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/25/2015 01:36 am
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930

Well ... not really. The cavity was nearly the same, the CE2 model (spherical ends attached) was 0.0004 meters shorter (length) than the CE3A model (wave guide model). The run time was 64 cycles, maybe for both. Frequency was 2.47 GHz, which was the same but in general, the RF excitation source was totally different as you can see from the images.

I made the run just to look at the effect of the spherical ends because I had invested the time and effort to make the model and thought it would be "interesting."  That's without any thought of doing any detailed analysis of it. Maybe a little analysis is warranted but it will mean recording some of the data. But do we have any "Citizen Scientists" working on a spherical end model?

And Shell - I am getting very close to having CE3A running with spherical ends, named it "CE-SpeWG" for a mouthful. Oh well, I recognize it ...

aero
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 01:59 am
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930

Well ... not really. The cavity was nearly the same, the CE2 model (spherical ends attached) was 0.0004 meters shorter (length) than the CE3A model (wave guide model). The run time was 64 cycles, maybe for both. Frequency was 2.47 GHz, which was the same but in general, the RF excitation source was totally different as you can see from the images.

I made the run just to look at the effect of the spherical ends because I had invested the time and effort to make the model and thought it would be "interesting."  That's without any thought of doing any detailed analysis of it. Maybe a little analysis is warranted but it will mean recording some of the data. But do we have any "Citizen Scientists" working on a spherical end model?

And Shell - I am getting very close to having CE3A running with spherical ends, named it "CE-SpeWG" for a mouthful. Oh well, I recognize it ...

aero

This is what Roger and I worked on. Big end is big to increase the Df. Small end is well above 2.45ghz cutoff to give some construction margin and breathing room. Designed to use active variable Rf freq tuning based on lowest VSWR or reflected power.

BTW Roger uses TE 013 cutoff wavelength as 0.82 × small end diameter. His calculated loaded / measurable Q for this frustum design was 88,000.

Df could be pushed to around 0.95 by reduction of the small end diameter but at a risk that TE013 resonance could be lost if the real world small end cutoff wavelength was above resonance. So for this 1st design Roger encouraged me to play it safe, lose a bit of Force generation and accept the lower Df that comes with increased small end cutoff headroom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/25/2015 02:17 am
No thrust yet, but I'm having a blast! This is way more fun than doing the stuff I'm supposed to be doing!  ;D

Definitely has a steam punk look to it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 03:01 am
So how to explain the reality that the EMDrive does generate Force?

In an EMDrive with spherical end plates, there is no side wall radiation pressure generated as the spherical EM waves are at a right angle to the side walls. They in effect slide along them.

Shawyer has shown the end plate radiation pressure / bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force.

So if not the end plate bounce Force nor the virtually zero side wall Force, that only leaves the momentum gradient as the source of the external Force.

I am not trying to be combative, just curious. In which one of shawyers papers did he show/prove that the "end plate radiation pressure/bounce Force is NOT what generates the external Force"

Traveller, you are stating that the EM drive generates thrust as a fact. The experiments so far are not conclusive. If it does generate thrust, it is not from anything in current physics.

You can't claim that the EM waves slide along the side without transferring momentum. Even if the propagation direction is parallel to the wall, the waves will be interacting with the electrons in the metal.

The picture you posted is entirely nonsense. it claims the vg changes and this changes the momentum total in the system. I don't believe group velocity is actually directly related to EM wave momentum in general. Also, even if the momentum in the fields is different at the ends of the waveguide, it only could happen through momentum exchange with the waveguide walls.

Edit: looking at the picture again, I feel I need to mention that the last line where you add up the momentum is also completely wrong. (besides the fact you didn't change the variable name when you changed the values to be the "at end plate" values, normally you would add a subscript or something). To show conservation of momentum you need to add the values of all momentum in the system at the same time, so immediately after reflection, you have  pw - p1 - p2 = 1.6 - 0.9 + 0.1 = 0.8 != 0 which the system started at, so no momentum conservation.

(Note how I use -p1 to represent the value after reflection, rather than redefining p1 to be -0.9, this is how most physicists use variables.) I am trying to keep an open mind about the EM drive, and I hope that this helps you actually use correct physics in the future so that if you find that the emdrive produces a real force, people will believe you.

There have been at least 8 EMDrive varients built by 5 labs in 4 countries that have all reported Force generation.

Radiation pressure has a cosine factor to deal with the angle between the reflecting surface and the EM wave. Applying the attached equation would result in ZERO radiation pressure being generated by the passing EM wave in the special case frustum with spherical end caps and spherical EM waves acting as if they originated from the point of the frustum vertex.

Group velocity inside a waveguide is just the flip side of the guide wavelength inside a waveguide. As the guide wavelength increases as the diameter drops, the group velocity drops. Likewise as the guide wavelength decreases as the diameter increases, the group velocity increases. All standard waveguide 101 physics.

Link this to Cullen 15 and it is shown the radiation pressure exerted by an EM wave is related to it's energy, bounce angle and external wavelength / internal guide wavelength.

I really find it difficult to understand why one would choose to deny these realities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/25/2015 03:30 am
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930

Well ... not really. The cavity was nearly the same, the CE2 model (spherical ends attached) was 0.0004 meters shorter (length) than the CE3A model (wave guide model). The run time was 64 cycles, maybe for both. Frequency was 2.47 GHz, which was the same but in general, the RF excitation source was totally different as you can see from the images.

I made the run just to look at the effect of the spherical ends because I had invested the time and effort to make the model and thought it would be "interesting."  That's without any thought of doing any detailed analysis of it. Maybe a little analysis is warranted but it will mean recording some of the data. But do we have any "Citizen Scientists" working on a spherical end model?

And Shell - I am getting very close to having CE3A running with spherical ends, named it "CE-SpeWG" for a mouthful. Oh well, I recognize it ...

aero
I was wondering on your runs if 1) both small and large end is spherical 2) are the spherical ends set as opposing concave surface to focus the wave reflection to each end or 3) are the surfaces convex to try and increase the sidewall scattering. That would be helpful to me in understanding the MEEP images being generated.

Sorry if its is obvious, I'm just a layman trying to understand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 03:43 am
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930

Well ... not really. The cavity was nearly the same, the CE2 model (spherical ends attached) was 0.0004 meters shorter (length) than the CE3A model (wave guide model). The run time was 64 cycles, maybe for both. Frequency was 2.47 GHz, which was the same but in general, the RF excitation source was totally different as you can see from the images.

I made the run just to look at the effect of the spherical ends because I had invested the time and effort to make the model and thought it would be "interesting."  That's without any thought of doing any detailed analysis of it. Maybe a little analysis is warranted but it will mean recording some of the data. But do we have any "Citizen Scientists" working on a spherical end model?

And Shell - I am getting very close to having CE3A running with spherical ends, named it "CE-SpeWG" for a mouthful. Oh well, I recognize it ...

aero
I was wondering on your runs if 1) both small and large end is spherical 2) are the spherical ends set as opposing concave surface to focus the wave reflection to each end or 3) are the surfaces convex to try and increase the sidewall scattering. That would be helpful to me in understanding the MEEP images being generated.

Sorry if its is obvious, I'm just a layman trying to understand.

Standard spherical model is small end convex and big end concave. Both at radius from the side wall vertex point.

Idea is to cause the standing resonant EM wave to have a matching spherical shape, so end plate bounces have no phase distortion across the entire wave front area and there are no / very little radiation pressure generated on the side walls of the frustum.

This frustum design is VERY different to one with flat end plates. It will be very interesting to see what MEEP finds, especially just above and below small end cutoff wavelength.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/25/2015 03:57 am
Hopefully these images will shed some light on questions, re. the cavity and dipoles.

It looks like the dipole z dimension is so close to the center as to make no difference. Must have quit before I checked resonance and set the z coordinate of the antennae.
Thanks for posting this pics. That will help to interpret your last field simulation!
Were the general conditions the same for the run with the flat end plates?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438930#msg1438930

Well ... not really. The cavity was nearly the same, the CE2 model (spherical ends attached) was 0.0004 meters shorter (length) than the CE3A model (wave guide model). The run time was 64 cycles, maybe for both. Frequency was 2.47 GHz, which was the same but in general, the RF excitation source was totally different as you can see from the images.

I made the run just to look at the effect of the spherical ends because I had invested the time and effort to make the model and thought it would be "interesting."  That's without any thought of doing any detailed analysis of it. Maybe a little analysis is warranted but it will mean recording some of the data. But do we have any "Citizen Scientists" working on a spherical end model?

And Shell - I am getting very close to having CE3A running with spherical ends, named it "CE-SpeWG" for a mouthful. Oh well, I recognize it ...

aero
I was wondering on your runs if 1) both small and large end is spherical 2) are the spherical ends set as opposing concave surface to focus the wave reflection to each end or 3) are the surfaces convex to try and increase the sidewall scattering. That would be helpful to me in understanding the MEEP images being generated.

Sorry if its is obvious, I'm just a layman trying to understand.

Standard spherical model is small end convex and big end concave. Both at radius from the side wall vertex point.

Idea is to cause the standing resonant EM wave to have a matching spherical shape, so end plate bounces have no phase distortion across the entire wave front area and there are no / very little radiation pressure generated on the side walls of the frustum.

This frustum design is VERY different to one with flat end plates. It will be very interesting to see what MEEP finds, especially just above and below small end cutoff wavelength.

Thank You TT! I appreciate the response.

And I also thank you for posting the x-ray of your operation. You are exactly right that men need to be very aware and get regular tests. The majority of us will develop some prostate issue as we age, I'm just sorry that you had to get such a bad case.

I also want to thank you keeping on this forum. You took a lot of flack from other scientists, which is understandable I guess. Yet you continued to contribute and you did so honorably and without rancor.

Following this forum has been one of my great pleasures for the last 6 months. I don't have the chops to contribute that most folks have. But building what understanding that I can makes me feel like some small part of the endeavor, even if it is vicarious.

Thanks to you and all the others that continue to push the frontiers of knowledge.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/25/2015 04:15 am
Quote
I was wondering on your runs if 1) both small and large end is spherical 2) are the spherical ends set as opposing concave surface to focus the wave reflection to each end or 3) are the surfaces convex to try and increase the sidewall scattering. That would be helpful to me in understanding the MEEP images being generated.

I did my best to follow standard practice as TT explained it above. Although the image is only two dimension, the cavity is in fact modelled in three dimensions, so you are looking along the y coordinate axis at an x,z slice of the frustum. The small end is convex from the inside (microwave energy side) and the large end is concave from the microwave point of view.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/25/2015 04:28 am
Quote
I was wondering on your runs if 1) both small and large end is spherical 2) are the spherical ends set as opposing concave surface to focus the wave reflection to each end or 3) are the surfaces convex to try and increase the sidewall scattering. That would be helpful to me in understanding the MEEP images being generated.

I did my best to follow standard practice as TT explained it above. Although the image is only two dimension, the cavity is in fact modelled in three dimensions, so you are looking along the y coordinate axis at an x,z slice of the frustum. The small end is convex from the inside (microwave energy side) and the large end is concave from the microwave point of view.
THANKS!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/25/2015 07:02 am
Traveller, you are stating that the EM drive generates thrust as a fact. The experiments so far are not conclusive. If it does generate thrust, it is not from anything in current physics...
Sorrry, but can you explain me what in the last test report of RFMWGUY allow you to say that his experiment is not conclusive ?
The observed sudden change in displacement velocity correlated with magnetron activation cannot be explained by thermal lift consideration taking into account time constant and direction of change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 09:09 am
Traveller, you are stating that the EM drive generates thrust as a fact. The experiments so far are not conclusive. If it does generate thrust, it is not from anything in current physics...
Sorrry, but can you explain me what in the last test report of RFMWGUY allow you to say that his experiment is not conclusive ?
The observed sudden change in displacement velocity correlated with magnetron activation cannot be explained by thermal lift consideration taking into account time constant and direction of change.

Dave's results should be added to these existing 8, which then makes 9 positive EMDrive Force generation results from 9 devices, built in 4 countries and by 6 groups.

If we further added Iulian's test results & Paul's South African science fair gold metal & university scholarship winning results, the total climbs to 11 positive test results, in 6 countries by 8 groups.

I'm sure Shell will shortly make that 12 positive test results in 6 countries by 9 experimental groups.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 10:46 am
Least we forget why we are here and what our goal is:

Wanderers:
https://youtu.be/Q6goNzXrmFs

For me, the smiling eyes at the end, is always a major goosebump moment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 12:50 pm
Least we forget why we are here and what our goal is:

Wanderers:
https://youtu.be/Q6goNzXrmFs

For me, the smiling eyes at the end, is always a major goosebump moment.
Yes, Goosebumps and tears. Thank you
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 01:24 pm
Least we forget why we are here and what our goal is:

Wanderers:
https://youtu.be/Q6goNzXrmFs

For me, the smiling eyes at the end, is always a major goosebump moment.
Yes, Goosebumps and tears. Thank you

At 0.4N/kW, the solar system is ours to explore and colonise using acceptable crewed transit times.

At 4.0N/kW, transit times & $/kg rates drop so low that human colonies exist & thrive all over the solar system. Many home world airlines have expanded to become spacelines with regular scheduled point to point transits, competing for cargo/pax business.

Our time restrained to our home world of Earth will shortly be over.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/25/2015 01:35 pm
There have been at least 8 EMDrive varients built by 5 labs in 4 countries that have all reported Force generation.

Radiation pressure has a cosine factor to deal with the angle between the reflecting surface and the EM wave. Applying the attached equation would result in ZERO radiation pressure being generated by the passing EM wave in the special case frustum with spherical end caps and spherical EM waves acting as if they originated from the point of the frustum vertex.

Group velocity inside a waveguide is just the flip side of the guide wavelength inside a waveguide. As the guide wavelength increases as the diameter drops, the group velocity drops. Likewise as the guide wavelength decreases as the diameter increases, the group velocity increases. All standard waveguide 101 physics.

Link this to Cullen 15 and it is shown the radiation pressure exerted by an EM wave is related to it's energy, bounce angle and external wavelength / internal guide wavelength.

I really find it difficult to understand why one would choose to deny these realities.

The most respected labs that have performed this experiment have yielded almost no thrust. NASA Eagleworks had their published measurements too close to the noise floor for their results to be very conclusive. What I heard of Tajmar's results was basically that while he couldn't eliminate the possibility of an effect, he couldn't confirm it either. Also, I don't count Shawyer's results unless he retracts the emdrive paper, because his physics in that paper is too blatantly wrong for me to think is capable of running a valid experiment.

Your claim of zero force on the side walls is wrong for several reasons. First off , the electric field parallel to a conductor surface, and the magnetic field perpendicular to that surface are both zero. This means that the side EM fields will be different from a free space wave propagating from the vertex. Also, A free space wave wouldn't be perfectly spherical anyway (I've seen proof that no perfect spherical solution exists, but that may have depended on an assumption about how the wave was generated), Generally dipole radiation isn't symmetric in all directions.

What this means is that there is a force on the side walls, and you can't just hand wave it away by claiming that the wave propagates parallel to the side walls, since the wave is not simply expanding outward spherically.

Please read this site (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) which has the full form of the fields for various resonating modes, and demonstrates that the total force on the cavity walls sums to 0. At the end it includes the generic proof of 0 net force on the walls for any resonating mode in any shape cavity you decide to invent.

I am not saying that the group velocity doesn't change, but I am saying that you can't assume cylindrical waveguide equations apply exactly to this system. See the site I linked before, which shows the EM field equations for the emdrive, these are not simple formulas. Any correct calculation will show that if the momentum in the EM fields changes, it is only from transferring that momentum to the side walls.

I would love it if the emdrive works, especially because it would mean we learn something about fundamental physics we didn't know before. In order to get to that point we need to actually use the physics we have correctly. So until it has been proven or disproven, keep doing experiments, and trying out new theories, but please accept that classical EM theory does not allow for a functioning EM drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 10/25/2015 01:59 pm
I promised a few pictures of the build and got some time to download.
Shell -
Looks like there may be some surface imperfections from handling.  Did you think about polishing out scratches in the frustrum pieces?  Not sure what impact it would have (good or bad), but since you striving to do as good as you can with this build, I think it is at least worth making a conscious decision and documenting details like these for those who may wish to replicate your setup in high fidelity if a breakthrough happens to occur.  ;D

 Also - do you have any coatings on the copper (e.g. leftover flux, antioxidizing protection, fingerprint oils).  I don't recall seeing any discussion of surface finishes, but suspect that there may be some dielectric effects that become more significant as the wavelength shrinks. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/25/2015 02:05 pm
Have any of the DIYers considered a rotary test rig like this one? It is just two planks, one elevated off the ground and the other hanging from the other by a piece of fishing line. It is sensitive enough that you can set it in motion by blowing gently. The fishing line will get twisted up after a few rotations, but if you can get a few rotations out of this using an em-drive you're already in very good shape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 10/25/2015 02:11 pm
I would love it if the emdrive works, especially because it would mean we learn something about fundamental physics we didn't know before. In order to get to that point we need to actually use the physics we have correctly. So until it has been proven or disproven, keep doing experiments, and trying out new theories, but please accept that classical EM theory does not allow for a functioning EM drive.

A good reminder. Keep experimenting and keep your physics real.

What I like about the EM drive is that citizen scientists can do the experiments. No CERN and LHC required.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 02:12 pm
The most respected labs that have performed this experiment have yielded almost no thrust.

Your reference to those null EMDrive results tests?

As to the claim the NASA Eagleworks test data being just outside the noise, clearly you have not studied their actual results, sample attached, which shows a very clear and strong Force generation signal. How you can look at the actual data and claim this clear and solid Force generation signal measurement is just outside their noise is hard to understand.

As for the side wall radiation pressure, point a solar sail edge on at the Sun. You expect to see radiation pressure generated from EM waves sliding by the reflective surface?

Please note the EM wave radiation pressure equation, attached, has a angle of incident element which causes the radiation pressure (bounce Force) to reduce from max to zero as the angle of incidence of the EM wave to the reflective surface changes from 90 deg to 0 deg.

In the example given, what do you believe is the incident/bounce angle at the side wall of the spherical EM wave if it is not 0 deg?

As to the math analysis, what I suspect is those who set out to model the Shawyer Effect had a bias to prove it couldn't work and created math models that do not accurately represent the reality of what is happening inside a EMDrive as their knowledge of microwave waveguide physics seems to be very limited. Have never seen in any of these "It can't work" analysis any mention of guide wavelength changing and EM wave momentum changing as diameter changes nor any mention of Cullen 15. Thus these math models seem to apparently be based on a lack of microwave 101 physics. So of course they show no net external Force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 02:19 pm
Have any of the DIYers considered a rotary test rig like this one? It is just two planks, one elevated off the ground and the other hanging from the other by a piece of fishing line. It is sensitive enough that you can set it in motion by blowing gently. The fishing line will get twisted up after a few rotations, but if you can get a few rotations out of this using an em-drive you're already in very good shape.

In my opinion it will be very unstable.

I use a magnetic thrust bearing supporting the mass of the rotary table and 2 very low start torque bearing to provide additional support.

Totally cordless and battery powered. Can rotate until there is no more energy in the lithium ion batteries.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 02:32 pm
I promised a few pictures of the build and got some time to download.
Shell -
Looks like there may be some surface imperfections from handling.  Did you think about polishing out scratches in the frustrum pieces?  Not sure what impact it would have (good or bad), but since you striving to do as good as you can with this build, I think it is at least worth making a conscious decision and documenting details like these for those who may wish to replicate your setup in high fidelity if a breakthrough happens to occur.  ;D

 Also - do you have any coatings on the copper (e.g. leftover flux, antioxidizing protection, fingerprint oils).  I don't recall seeing any discussion of surface finishes, but suspect that there may be some dielectric effects that become more significant as the wavelength shrinks.
It needs to be stressed and it's a good point.

Sure you will get finger prints and tiny scratches from working with the copper. Any defects can impact the operations of the drive. If you'll look at the series of pictures I posted you'll see I've made sure that the area is cleaned and then the copper is cleaned and polished after every time I work on it, but this time I was having to wait because there was silver epoxy on a seam I didn't want to disturb. It will get cleaned today after the epoxy has set up.

The surfaces that are critical to operation, waveguides and endplates after cleaning to remove any slight defects, oils or other soultions, then get electroplated with a silver metal finish. This works very well if you know what your doing and take your time to prepare the surface.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 02:38 pm
Have any of the DIYers considered a rotary test rig like this one? It is just two planks, one elevated off the ground and the other hanging from the other by a piece of fishing line. It is sensitive enough that you can set it in motion by blowing gently. The fishing line will get twisted up after a few rotations, but if you can get a few rotations out of this using an em-drive you're already in very good shape.

In my opinion it will be very unstable.

I use a magnetic thrust bearing supporting the mass of the rotary table and 2 very low start torque bearing to provide additional support.

Totally cordless and battery powered. Can rotate until there is no more energy in the lithium ion batteries.
TT he has no money to do that level. I just had an idea that can help him get a near frictionless surface to rotate on. In the hardware stores you'll find a heavy graphite pencil used for marking wood prior to cutting. The graphite is thick and strong so instead of a magnetic bearing let him use the graphite pencil as a bearing on a small piece of metal point down. It's a very good surface to spin on.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2015 03:17 pm
Have any of the DIYers considered a rotary test rig like this one? It is just two planks, one elevated off the ground and the other hanging from the other by a piece of fishing line. It is sensitive enough that you can set it in motion by blowing gently. The fishing line will get twisted up after a few rotations, but if you can get a few rotations out of this using an em-drive you're already in very good shape.

In my opinion it will be very unstable.

I use a magnetic thrust bearing supporting the mass of the rotary table and 2 very low start torque bearing to provide additional support.

Totally cordless and battery powered. Can rotate until there is no more energy in the lithium ion batteries.
TT he has no money to do that level. I just had an idea that can help him get a near frictionless surface to rotate on. In the hardware stores you'll find a heavy graphite pencil used for marking wood prior to cutting. The graphite is thick and strong so instead of a magnetic bearing let him use the graphite pencil as a bearing on a small piece of metal point down. It's a very good surface to spin on.

Shell


Mulletron built something like the fishing line rotary system

Might be good if you are there Mulletron to comment about your results with that system?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cee on 10/25/2015 04:18 pm
Like the rotary concept TT. How will you calibrate the rotary force ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/25/2015 05:19 pm
The most respected labs that have performed this experiment have yielded almost no thrust.

Your reference to those null EMDrive results tests?

As to the claim the NASA Eagleworks test data being just outside the noise, clearly you have not studied their actual results, sample attached, which shows a very clear and strong Force generation signal. How you can look at the actual data and claim this clear and solid Force generation signal measurement is just outside their noise is hard to understand.

You can see the noise on the plot. And there are other possible effects that could have contributed to the signal. Also, I said almost no thrust, not no thrust. A significantly larger signal would be required to call this conclusive data. I don't want to go into all of the possibilities here because this has been discussed before, and I don't have the information or time required to do so.

As for the side wall radiation pressure, point a solar sail edge on at the Sun. You expect to see radiation pressure generated from EM waves sliding by the reflective surface?

Please note the EM wave radiation pressure equation, attached, has a angle of incident element which causes the radiation pressure (bounce Force) to reduce from max to zero as the angle of incidence of the EM wave to the reflective surface changes from 90 deg to 0 deg.

In the example given, what do you believe is the incident/bounce angle at the side wall of the spherical EM wave if it is not 0 deg?

Yes, there would be a force. Depending on the incoming polarization, part of the wavefront would be deflected in a mechanism similar to diffraction. If I have time later it might be fun to try to calculate the exact value of this force. (Note that the solar wind includes charged particles, so normally solar sails work with more than radiation pressure)

Electromagnetism is weird and non-intuitive, which is why you have to be careful whether specific results apply to your situation. An ideal (infinitely thin, perfectly conductive) wire still can act as an antenna and has a characteristic cross section area for the amount of passing radiation it captures.

As to the math analysis, what I suspect is those who set out to model the Shawyer Effect had a bias to prove it couldn't work and created math models that do not accurately represent the reality of what is happening inside a EMDrive as their knowledge of microwave waveguide physics seems to be very limited. Have never seen in any of these "It can't work" analysis any mention of guide wavelength changing and EM wave momentum changing as diameter changes nor any mention of Cullen 15. Thus these math models seem to apparently be based on a lack of microwave 101 physics. So of course they show no net external Force.

They did not create any models. They used Maxwell's equations which have been around for about 100 years. If you want to contest their analysis, please point to a specific equation they have incorrect.

There is no need to refer to the guide wavelength in these proofs. They calculate the momentum and energy in the fields directly with the Poynting vector, which is directly proportional to the momentum per unit volume stored in the field. Since the fields vary with location in the resonator, this accounts for any changes in the EM wave momentum. The proof at the end is for ANY cavity shape, many of which you would have trouble defining a guide wavelength for. Guide wavelength is a useful value that simplifies the analysis and description of constant shape waveguides, but is not necessary to prove anything.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/25/2015 05:35 pm
Like the rotary concept TT. How will you calibrate the rotary force ?
TT diagram shows a Raspberry board on the turntable. One way would be to connect a micro accelerometer to the raspberry board and transmit the data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/25/2015 06:02 pm
In my opinion it will be very unstable.
I attached a propeller to it and made the rig spin a bit. A video is attached. It at least looks stable. It does wobble like you'd expect if you poke it right, though.

I'm sure a magnetic bearing or that graphite-on-metal bearing would be better, but actually building something roughly emdrive-like is beyond me either way -- just hoping to throw an idea out there for people who can do that sort of thing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/25/2015 07:01 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. Last pic is screenshot of another can with Phase overlay.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 07:39 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. I'll take some data and give you the Q in a few minutes.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Glad to help!

You think the Q could be low because of???? Where are you inserting the maggie in the frustum? You have other points to check?

Nice Slaughtering.  :o ;D Don't you hate soldering to a heavy heat sink?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/25/2015 07:55 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. I'll take some data and give you the Q in a few minutes.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Glad to help!

You think the Q could be low because of???? Where are you inserting the maggie in the frustum? You have other points to check?

Nice Slaughtering.  :o ;D Don't you hate soldering to a heavy heat sink?

I have my trusty BMF soldering iron...no worries. Think lower Q is almost all attributed to mesh sides as opposed to solid copper. Now that I know these dimensions give a great resonance and thermal lift is going to be there anyway, Phase II testing will probably be done with a new solid copper frustum. Bucyrus, here I come.

Edit - lower Q might also relate to the 50 ohm mismatch to magnetron radome. I was pleased to see 1.8:1 vswr overall, but it is not as good as a monopole or loop tuned for 2.4 GHz.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 08:43 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. I'll take some data and give you the Q in a few minutes.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Glad to help!

You think the Q could be low because of???? Where are you inserting the maggie in the frustum? You have other points to check?

Nice Slaughtering.  :o ;D Don't you hate soldering to a heavy heat sink?

I have my trusty BMF soldering iron...no worries. Think lower Q is almost all attributed to mesh sides as opposed to solid copper. Now that I know these dimensions give a great resonance and thermal lift is going to be there anyway, Phase II testing will probably be done with a new solid copper frustum. Bucyrus, here I come.

Edit - lower Q might also relate to the 50 ohm mismatch to magnetron radome. I was pleased to see 1.8:1 vswr overall, but it is not as good as a monopole or loop tuned for 2.4 GHz.
I have a propane blowtorch I use but I guess somethings are left to the big girls.  ;D

I read somewhere on the net, gwad it was months ago, I'll see if I can find it again where someone replaced the radome with a antenna arrangement. I'll have to find it again.

If you're exciting a TM mode then much is in the walls If I remember correctly, but today the brain is fried. Need football.... lol
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 09:12 pm
Just about ready to put all the parts together....
Pics and Centerfolds (clean centerfolds)
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/EM%20thruster%20016_zpsdj5mg8vf.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/25/2015 11:52 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. I'll take some data and give you the Q in a few minutes.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Glad to help!

You think the Q could be low because of???? Where are you inserting the maggie in the frustum? You have other points to check?

Nice Slaughtering.  :o ;D Don't you hate soldering to a heavy heat sink?

I have my trusty BMF soldering iron...no worries. Think lower Q is almost all attributed to mesh sides as opposed to solid copper. Now that I know these dimensions give a great resonance and thermal lift is going to be there anyway, Phase II testing will probably be done with a new solid copper frustum. Bucyrus, here I come.

Edit - lower Q might also relate to the 50 ohm mismatch to magnetron radome. I was pleased to see 1.8:1 vswr overall, but it is not as good as a monopole or loop tuned for 2.4 GHz.


Interesting. It seems Q factor was really low with the copper wire mesh, which could explain the low thrust.

It now seems evident copper mesh wasn't the best option after all.

But if you got evidence of anomalous thrust even in those conditions, I wonder what a certifiably high Q frustum would do with your same setup...

Best of luck!

 

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/25/2015 11:54 pm
Just about ready to put all the parts together....
Pics and Centerfolds (clean centerfolds)
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/EM%20thruster%20016_zpsdj5mg8vf.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

That is one helluva job there Shell. I'm very impressed.

Congratulations.  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/25/2015 11:57 pm
Interesting.

http://www.s-team.sk/pdf/coax_launch_2450_eia78.pdf

Also interesting. (rfmwguy)
http://www.google.com/patents/EP0225308A2?cl=en
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/26/2015 12:18 am
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. Last pic is screenshot of another can with Phase overlay.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88

Nice work Dave. Good to see the SPR inspired spreadsheet's dimensional data got your frustum's resonance into the maggies output freq range.

Now replace the lossy sides with solid polished copper and see if that increases your loaded Q.

Please remember Rogers advise to run these scans as slow as you can so to give the frustum enough time to properly fill the cavity (at least 10x the expected cavity time constant dwell time at each freq step) or the reported loaded Q value may be lower and the VSWR higher than reality.

It might also be interesting to see the result if the antenna is mounted on the frustum side wall as Iulian did. You could try quite a few mounting sites and record any changes to resonance and VSWR.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 12:37 am
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. I'll take some data and give you the Q in a few minutes.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88
Glad to help!

You think the Q could be low because of???? Where are you inserting the maggie in the frustum? You have other points to check?

Nice Slaughtering.  :o ;D Don't you hate soldering to a heavy heat sink?

I have my trusty BMF soldering iron...no worries. Think lower Q is almost all attributed to mesh sides as opposed to solid copper. Now that I know these dimensions give a great resonance and thermal lift is going to be there anyway, Phase II testing will probably be done with a new solid copper frustum. Bucyrus, here I come.

Edit - lower Q might also relate to the 50 ohm mismatch to magnetron radome. I was pleased to see 1.8:1 vswr overall, but it is not as good as a monopole or loop tuned for 2.4 GHz.


Interesting. It seems Q factor was really low with the copper wire mesh, which could explain the low thrust.

It now seems evident copper mesh wasn't the best option after all.

But if you got evidence of anomalous thrust even in those conditions, I wonder what a certifiably high Q frustum would do with your same setup...

Best of luck!
Thanks. Yes, the mesh worked, but didn't hinder thermal lift like I thought. Certainly not worth lower Q. Already am planning on solid copper for phase II. That alone should gain some force increase.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 12:42 am
NSF-1701 Update - Thanks to Shell, I received the defective magnetron, took the connector off and soldered an SMA pigtail to it. Works great! Also attached very first VNA return loss scan. Note it centers right up where it is supposed to. Last pic is screenshot of another can with Phase overlay.

Center frequency = 2.432 GHz with 11.6dB return loss
Q per Yang method = 821
Q per Nasa method = 437

My Qr factor = 1.88

Nice work Dave. Good to see the SPR inspired spreadsheet's dimensional data got your frustum's resonance into the maggies output freq range.

Now replace the lossy sides with solid polished copper and see if that increases your loaded Q.

Please remember Rogers advise to run these scans as slow as you can so to give the frustum enough time to properly fill the cavity (at least 10x the expected cavity time constant dwell time at each freq step) or the reported loaded Q value may be lower and the VSWR higher than reality.

It might also be interesting to see the result if the antenna is mounted on the frustum side wall as Iulian did. You could try quite a few mounting sites and record any changes to resonance and VSWR.
That's right Phil, the spreadsheet was spot-on at resonance predictions. Congrats on creating that useful builder tool. Yes, solid copper for phase II is the plan.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/26/2015 12:57 am
That's right Phil, the spreadsheet was spot-on at resonance predictions. Congrats on creating that useful builder tool. Yes, solid copper for phase II is the plan.

Not my work alone. Roger laid a trail of bread crumbs for me to follow and helped in comparing the spreadsheet predictions as against the in house SPR EMDrive design tool predictions.

Your VNA resonance freq data adds more credibility yet again to the predictions the spreadsheet makes.

You, Shell and I are older engineers who like to know what we are building has a even or better chance of working as desired.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 01:51 am
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 01:58 am
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 02:13 am
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
I know, you're a sharp guy.

Maybe it's simpler to just to throw a heater in it and profile the thermal component?
Or...
Added: I've thought of adding a reflective heat barrier at the top and fill the cavity with
Added: http://www.radiantguard.com/collections/reflective-insulation/products/reflective-insulation-double-bubble-white-rgwii48x125
I'll have enough of this left over to do a circle to set in the very top.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0054/6682/products/scrubber_in_pipe_cut.jpg?v=1399309566
I could cool it down easy enough
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/26/2015 07:08 am
Perhaps it makes more sense to create a bad vacuum (e.g. one tenth of atmospheric pressure) with a simple and cheap pump in an enclosure with the test article in it? We just want to increase SNR considerably, right? I don't think that a hard vacuum is needed. We just want to get rid of most of the buoyancy for now. My 2 cents ;) .

Edit: Actually, it should easily be possible to create a pretty hard vacuum the cheap way:

1) 3D-print a metallic enclosure with cooling channels for liquid nitrogen in the walls, perhaps even just the bottom/floor of the enclosure.
2) Put an automated, complete test article in it (sorta like a space probe)
3) Shut the enclosure and fill it with pure CO2, so that all other gases are pushed out of the enclosure
4) Seal the enclosure and start pumping liquid nitrogen through the wall channels. The CO2 freezes out, until there's only solid dry ice left (maybe best only on bottom/floor of enclosure)
5) You got vacuum  8)

What do you guys think about this method?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/26/2015 07:55 am
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/26/2015 08:03 am
Perhaps it makes more sense to create a bad vacuum (e.g. one tenth of atmospheric pressure) with a simple and cheap pump in an enclosure with the test article in it? We just want to increase SNR considerably, right? I don't think that a hard vacuum is needed. We just want to get rid of most of the buoyancy for now. My 2 cents ;) .

Edit: Actually, it should easily be possible to create a pretty hard vacuum the cheap way:

1) 3D-print a metallic enclosure with cooling channels for liquid nitrogen in the walls, perhaps even just the bottom/floor of the enclosure.
2) Put an automated, complete test article in it (sorta like a space probe)
3) Shut the enclosure and fill it with pure CO2, so that all other gases are pushed out of the enclosure
4) Seal the enclosure and start pumping liquid nitrogen through the wall channels. The CO2 freezes out, until there's only solid dry ice left (maybe best only on bottom/floor of enclosure)
5) You got vacuum  8)

What do you guys think about this method?

Or you can increase the EMDrive generated Force so it is very much larger than the buoyancy Force as Roger did with his 2002 Experimental EMDrive.

The buoyancy Force level and effects are very clear in his measurement data. The Force ramps are due to mechanical tuning at each end of the Frustum. This was the last frustum with flat end plates and using a dielectric.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 10/26/2015 08:49 am
A number of our DIYers do have an own setup or are in the process of building it. I proposed this ad-hoc method to have a way to create a very good testing vacuum without any expensive vacuum pumps. This method does not really have anything to do with Mr. Shawyer's or anyone else's device. I'm just going by the principle that what's not there cannot influence the measurements. Why compensate for something, if there is a way to get rid of that something altogether? What plagues EM-drive research is really having to account for a number of annoying effects that hide the mostly miniscule effects. And I still find it worrysome that almost no experiments were performed under vacuum conditions. BTW, if Mr. Shawyer's device is as powerful as you state, I think we would all appreciate a public demonstration with multi-Newton performance anytime soon. As far as I can see, it's just talk talk talk about how wonderful Mr. Shawyer's device is. It's PowerPoint level credibility. That's why I esteem our DIYers so highly on this forum - they actually show their stuff. Quite the opposite of PowerPoint level 'discussions'.

Best regards
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/26/2015 09:30 am
A number of our DIYers do have an own setup or are in the process of building it. I proposed this ad-hoc method to have a way to create a very good testing vacuum without any expensive vacuum pumps. This method does not really have anything to do with Mr. Shawyer's or anyone else's device. I'm just going by the principle that what's not there cannot influence the measurements. Why compensate for something, if there is a way to get rid of that something altogether? What plagues EM-drive research is really having to account for a number of annoying effects that hide the mostly miniscule effects. And I still find it worrysome that almost no experiments were performed under vacuum conditions. BTW, if Mr. Shawyer's device is as powerful as you state, I think we would all appreciate a public demonstration with multi-Newton performance anytime soon. As far as I can see, it's just talk talk talk about how wonderful Mr. Shawyer's device is. It's PowerPoint level credibility. That's why I esteem our DIYers so highly on this forum - they actually show their stuff. Quite the opposite of PowerPoint level 'discussions'.

Best regards

I only post what Roger has publicly shared. Beside the data SPR has shared, there is more data as attached.

Maybe email Prof Yang or Dr. White or Dr. Tamar and ask them to help the DIYers. So far I see 2 EMDrive builder professionals helping the DIY community and one is now under the "Cone Of Silence". Do you wish our last source of real build information to "go black" as well?

Roger runs SPR which is in business to sell licenses and consulting services in regard to the IP they developed. It could be easy for the SPR board & shareholders to order a "Cone of Silence" for Roger as well.

What Roger has provided is a trail of bread crumbs to enable DIY builders to engage the thinking process as they work to recreate the recipe Roger abd SPR has developed. Recipes can be tricky and finicky stuff, with the end result requiring following the recipe, using the indicated ingrediances, blending they as required and maybe varied baking methods. The skill of the chef and kitchen staff also factor highly into the process.

So far a few of us have baked crude but successful EMDrive cakes. As our build skill levels grow and our appreciation of the kitchen tools required and complexity of the recipe and bake process developers, I have no doubt we will see the Force levels measured by SPR and others.

It is good to see Paul partly emerge from his "Cone of Silence" and feed the DIY community with some solid advice based on his extensive personal experience

Bottom line is Roger is under no obligation to share his IP for free. That he has chosen to share a few bread crumbs says heaps about his desire to see others start and engage the journey he has taken.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/26/2015 10:29 am
Use of heatpipe integrated in balance arms to get reduced temperature and more symmetric convection effects.
(http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/849249EMThrustTest4.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 10/26/2015 11:27 am
A few pages back the conversation bounced around Dark Matter.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are invented to explain the facts that various astronomical bodies have the wrong velocity and/or acceleration. So far they are completely undetectable.

In the spirit of Occam's Razor, I would suggest that a nicely parsimonious 'explanation' for these phenomena would simply be that Momentum is not conserved in the way we expect under certain circumstances, and that the undetectable stuff really isn't there.

I don't think I've seen this idea put like this before, and obviously occurs here because thoughts of breaking CoM are central to the EM Drive discussion.

Of course, 'explanation' is in quotes because the immediate step is to start figuring out exactly where momentum might not be conserved. But it makes a change from looking for 'floobie dust'.

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 12:22 pm
A few pages back the conversation bounced around Dark Matter.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are invented to explain the facts that various astronomical bodies have the wrong velocity and/or acceleration. So far they are completely undetectable.

In the spirit of Occam's Razor, I would suggest that a nicely parsimonious 'explanation' for these phenomena would simply be that Momentum is not conserved in the way we expect under certain circumstances, and that the undetectable stuff really isn't there.

I don't think I've seen this idea put like this before, and obviously occurs here because thoughts of breaking CoM are central to the EM Drive discussion.

Of course, 'explanation' is in quotes because the immediate step is to start figuring out exactly where momentum might not be conserved. But it makes a change from looking for 'floobie dust'.

R.
Very nice hypothesis! It had not occured to me that CoM and Dark Matter could be intertwined in an unusual way. You're right, Dark Matter is a mathematical hypothesis with as much evidence as ghosts (happy halloween).

CoM and CoE are fundamental tenants of classical physics, formatted long before the first radio transmission was made. I do believe CoM/CoE is a valid concept, but something else is at play here. What it is, I don't know.

Partical physisists should be able to answer this question, but they cannot despite the billions of research dollars. Virtual particles...interesting stuff: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 12:33 pm
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.
I just love The Engineeringtoolbox.com. It's one of the top links on my computer. Remember when your desk and a close wall was covered in reference materials?

I was up later than I should have been playing around with the idea of wrapping the frustum in copper shavings (https://img0.etsystatic.com/071/0/10584305/il_570xN.811587268_phyr.jpg)

That lead me to conclude it
1. Would be a pain to do.
2. Add weight
3. Effect any IR videos looking for mode generation
4. Give me maybe 30-60 seconds of run time with out thermal convection issues as the copper absorbed the heat from the frustum.
5. Wrap the frustum in copper shavings creating a 2-3 inch layer all around and over the top add a reflective insulating lightweight blanket. Now I have extended run times.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mtsAAOxyVLNS6U32/s-l500.jpg)

6. Thinking I'll forgo the wrapping of the frustum in copper shavings for now and simply wrap it in reflective insulating lightweight foil that reflects back +95% of the thermal heat from the frustum.  NASA would love this. ;) http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gold-1-590x330.jpg

Would love to have input on these ideas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 10/26/2015 01:39 pm
Perhaps it makes more sense to create a bad vacuum (e.g. one tenth of atmospheric pressure) with a simple and cheap pump in an enclosure with the test article in it? We just want to increase SNR considerably, right? I don't think that a hard vacuum is needed. We just want to get rid of most of the buoyancy for now. My 2 cents ;) .

Edit: Actually, it should easily be possible to create a pretty hard vacuum the cheap way:

1) 3D-print a metallic enclosure with cooling channels for liquid nitrogen in the walls, perhaps even just the bottom/floor of the enclosure.
2) Put an automated, complete test article in it (sorta like a space probe)
3) Shut the enclosure and fill it with pure CO2, so that all other gases are pushed out of the enclosure
4) Seal the enclosure and start pumping liquid nitrogen through the wall channels. The CO2 freezes out, until there's only solid dry ice left (maybe best only on bottom/floor of enclosure)
5) You got vacuum  8)

What do you guys think about this method?

Its been linked a million times. Please read this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

If µN forces are being measured, a UHV environment is required. That means no porous materials (3d printed metal is bad).


That having been said, the NIST Antoine parameters for CO2 vapor pressure suggest that under ideal conditions, one could reach 0.17 µTorr by freezing CO2. However, commercially available CO2 contains nitrogen and other trace impurities. These aren't problems in the lab most of the time because 99.999% pure gas is just fine for most applications. That 0.001% N2, H2, etc. will limit the vacuum obtainable from freezing CO2 to about 7.9 mT. If one were to fill a chamber with grade 5 CO2, pump it down to 100 mT with a standard oil pump, and then froze the CO2 with a 78K N2 trap, one would then obtain a 1.2 µTorr pressure under otherwise ideal circumstances.

An elaborate chamber with coolant channels is not required. All that would be likely required would be a big dip trap in the bottom, constantly submerged in liquid nitrogen to act as a "getter" for trace CO2. Still, I don't think it would work because a key assumption is that there is no source of additional gas in the chamber. Inevitably, small leaks in gaskets and other seals combined with outgassing of volatiles such as nitrogen from anything inside the chamber will degrade the vacuum over time, and it may take days for the CO2 to completely freeze in the trap. Not to mention that filling a chamber with stray microwaves and IR radiation will heat up the frozen gas in the trap and degrade the vacuum.

Bottom line: Not a bad idea on the surface, but probably impractical. A turbopump or oil diffusion pump is going to be the least expensive part of a proper UHV chamber, so if anyone plans to get some serious measurements of small forces the traditional route is the way to go. All metal apparatus, µTorr vacuum via rough pump/oil diffusion pump, hot cathode ion gauge to properly measure actual vacuum, thermal bakeout prior to experimental runs.

It seems NASA uses a realistically small vacuum chamber of about 2m in length, 1m in radius. That's got to be commercially available.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 10/26/2015 01:43 pm
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.

6. Thinking I'll forgo the wrapping of the frustum in copper shavings for now and simply wrap it in reflective insulating lightweight foil that reflects back +95% of the thermal heat from the frustum.  NASA would love this. ;) http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gold-1-590x330.jpg

Would love to have input on these ideas.

IR reflective duct tape might work, too - high temp env specs (so it can work in adverse HVAC environments).  Used in a radiant heating project.

For example - only good to 149 C, but still ...
http://www.venturetape.com/pdfs/datasheets/1581A%20-%20TDS.pdf

Might be easier to work with than bubble-wrap IR insulation - which certainly doesn't seem like it would take high contact heat all that well - I understand the IR reflective bubble wrap is a great heat transfer system with contact.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 01:54 pm
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.
I just love The Engineeringtoolbox.com. It's one of the top links on my computer. Remember when your desk and a close wall was covered in reference materials?

I was up later than I should have been playing around with the idea of wrapping the frustum in copper shavings (https://img0.etsystatic.com/071/0/10584305/il_570xN.811587268_phyr.jpg)

That lead me to conclude it
1. Would be a pain to do.
2. Add weight
3. Effect any IR videos looking for mode generation
4. Give me maybe 30-60 seconds of run time with out thermal convection issues as the copper absorbed the heat from the frustum.
5. Wrap the frustum in copper shavings creating a 2-3 inch layer all around and over the top add a reflective insulating lightweight blanket. Now I have extended run times.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mtsAAOxyVLNS6U32/s-l500.jpg)

6. Thinking I'll forgo the wrapping of the frustum in copper shavings for now and simply wrap it in reflective insulating lightweight foil that reflects back +95% of the thermal heat from the frustum.  NASA would love this. ;) http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gold-1-590x330.jpg

Would love to have input on these ideas.
Well now...double coffee can, inner and outer walls. Inner wall covers magnetron. Fill area between inner and outer walls with copper shavings. I might have to steal borrow this idea myself  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 02:22 pm
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.

6. Thinking I'll forgo the wrapping of the frustum in copper shavings for now and simply wrap it in reflective insulating lightweight foil that reflects back +95% of the thermal heat from the frustum.  NASA would love this. ;) http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gold-1-590x330.jpg

Would love to have input on these ideas.

IR reflective duct tape might work, too - high temp env specs (so it can work in adverse HVAC environments).  Used in a radiant heating project.

For example - only good to 149 C, but still ...
http://www.venturetape.com/pdfs/datasheets/1581A%20-%20TDS.pdf

Might be easier to work with than bubble-wrap IR insulation - which certainly doesn't seem like it would take high contact heat all that well - I understand the IR reflective bubble wrap is a great heat transfer system with contact.
Yes it can be if the metalized side touches the frustum copper walls. This morning I'm  waiting for the lab to heat up. Found my chicken wire to make a cage for around the frustum (trying to keep it from touching the frustum and cover it with foil double bubble wrap (I'm scheduled for delivery today of the double bubble foil insulating wrap I ordered to put on the walls of the shop).

So, I'm going to make a cavity, wrap it up, put in a light bulb inside instead of the frustum and monitor the heat. If I get it all done today I'll post the results.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 02:23 pm
Well now...double coffee can, inner and outer walls. Inner wall covers magnetron. Fill area between inner and outer walls with copper shavings. I might have to steal borrow this idea myself  ::)


https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2 (https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2)

20 bucks, not bad.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 02:39 pm
Well now...double coffee can, inner and outer walls. Inner wall covers magnetron. Fill area between inner and outer walls with copper shavings. I might have to steal borrow this idea myself  ::)


https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2 (https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2)

20 bucks, not bad.
Try these guys: http://www.recycle.net/specs/gr050109.html?affilid=100029

Google "copper turnings".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 02:48 pm
Well now...double coffee can, inner and outer walls. Inner wall covers magnetron. Fill area between inner and outer walls with copper shavings. I might have to steal borrow this idea myself  ::)


https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2 (https://www.etsy.com/listing/242690941/bright-shiny-copper-high-quality-very?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=copper%20shavings&ref=sr_gallery_2)

20 bucks, not bad.
Try these guys: http://www.recycle.net/specs/gr050109.html?affilid=100029

Google "copper turnings".
But they may contain oils and cutting fluids. A pound of shavings is a lot and according to the website I listed "These copper strands/ shreds/ shavings are oil-free, dry, clean, light, bright, and shiny. "
Shiny is good.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 03:02 pm
Out to the lab...

Today I'm going to bond the sections of the cavity together using PC7 epoxy. This stuff is great, used it on a crack in the bottom of the hot tub.  I had tried to fix this crack (cracks are bad for hot tubs) using about everything else I could find and nothing worked. PC7 sealed it up and is a hard as a rock and has lasted for over a year.

Also going to work on the chicken wire cage for the frustum to contain the thermal heating effect.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/26/2015 03:41 pm
It is appropriate to be concerned about the force effects of heating .

It is also appropriate to be concerned about reproducibility of the heat compensation system so that other Citizen Scientists can follow in your footsteps.

When using a balance beam, seemingly one of the more simple methods to measure any effect in air, it seems that there have been proposed three general approaches:

1) Minimize system heating in the design and attempt to remove residual heat effects, post processing.
2) Capture the heat that is not removed by design, and attempt to remove residual effects post processing.
3) Balance the heat effect with an equal and opposite source, removing residual effects post processing.

So no matter what approach is used, residual effects will be removed by post processing.

Of the above, 3) has been proposed but gained no traction. Why is that? A Google search on "common mode error rejection in physical systems" will return more information than can be absorbed, but a lot of good guidance, too.

The common mode error compensation technique proposed previously is:

Make two, not just one, frustum, near identical.
Mount two frustums on opposite sides of the balance beam pivot.
Run the system normally and remove residual effects by post processing.

Questions.
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum?
b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand?
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources?

But the $64 question is, "How difficult would it be for others to accurately duplicate this system and use the same post processing techniques developed by predecessor DYI'ers?"

It is important to step back out of the weeds for a moment and look at the overall objective. It is not simply to make a device for the fun of it and see if there is an effect.

IMO, the objective of the efforts pulled together on this forum is to determine if there is in fact a REPRODUCIBLE EM Drive effect and then try to explain it. So using a reproducible system is crucial to that objective.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/26/2015 04:04 pm
Out to the lab...

Today I'm going to bond the sections of the cavity together using PC7 epoxy. This stuff is great, used it on a crack in the bottom of the hot tub.  I had tried to fix this crack (cracks are bad for hot tubs) using about everything else I could find and nothing worked. PC7 sealed it up and is a hard as a rock and has lasted for over a year.

Also going to work on the chicken wire cage for the frustum to contain the thermal heating effect.

Shell

If the air leakage is allowed to escape the frustum to the room, you reduce net internal buoyancy, but you create thrust from the escaping air, and in your design it will be directional out of the small end, reducing any EM thrust created.

If you cap the tuning chamber itself, during testing the air displacement from inside the frustum to the tuning chamber may occur. But if that air displacement cannot escape the tuning chamber any net internal buoyancy created from air heating should remain constant within the overall device. But you still will get some thrust, until the pressure within the tuning chamber pressure equals the exiting pressure from the frustum.

Maybe a possible answer would be slightly pressurizing the tuning chamber over the ambient pressure prior to testing. That might also help stabilize the ceramic plate when tuning to reduce micro-vibrations that might occur from escaping gas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 04:14 pm
It is appropriate to be concerned about the force effects of heating .

It is also appropriate to be concerned about reproducibility of the heat compensation system so that other Citizen Scientists can follow in your footsteps.

When using a balance beam, seemingly one of the more simple methods to measure any effect in air, it seems that there have been proposed three general approaches:

1) Minimize system heating in the design and attempt to remove residual heat effects, post processing.
2) Capture the heat that is not removed by design, and attempt to remove residual effects post processing.
3) Balance the heat effect with an equal and opposite source, removing residual effects post processing.

So no matter what approach is used, residual effects will be removed by post processing.

Of the above, 3) has been proposed but gained no traction. Why is that? A Google search on "common mode error rejection in physical systems" will return more information than can be absorbed, but a lot of good guidance, too.

The common mode error compensation technique proposed previously is:

Make two, not just one, frustum, near identical.
Mount two frustums on opposite sides of the balance beam pivot.
Run the system normally and remove residual effects by post processing.

Questions.
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum?
b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand?
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources?

But the $64 question is, "How difficult would it be for others to accurately duplicate this system and use the same post processing techniques developed by predecessor DYI'ers?"

It is important to step back out of the weeds for a moment and look at the overall objective. It is not simply to make a device for the fun of it and see if there is an effect.

IMO, the objective of the efforts pulled together on this forum is to determine if there is in fact a REPRODUCIBLE EM Drive effect and then try to explain it. So using a reproducible system is crucial to that objective.
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum? Several hundred $$ plus time.
b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand? Not hard at all
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources? Are you suggesting 2 separate, powered magnetrons? If so, add some more $$ for a power supply, plus a controller to make them fire at the exact same time. Even with that, an imbalance will occur as air masses several feet apart are not identical, meaning there will still be residual thermals with one end versus the other. While its a good idea in theory, practical experience tell me that one could not guaranteed each side would heat and lift identically.

My take is ambient air perturbations are best left to only one source, the primary frustum. Delta displacement versus mag on/off times is extractable as has been demonstrated with earlier flight tests. As long as we're not in a vacuum, rotary or fulcrum is what we have to deal with in home lab testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/26/2015 05:23 pm
Thoughts??? I'm considering on putting a top cap to deflect hot air 900 away from the frustum. The beryllium gasket seal between the ceramic top plate and tuning chamber will leak hot air.
Forcing hot air horizontally will eventually find an edge and rise. But..if it could be cooled enough before edge was reached...hmmmm
This WEB page gives formula to make estimate of the air velocity in the center of a convective flow : http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html)

The study of the sensitivity of the formula to its parameters can help to chose a design which reduces the velocity of the convective flow.
I just love The Engineeringtoolbox.com. It's one of the top links on my computer. Remember when your desk and a close wall was covered in reference materials?

I was up later than I should have been playing around with the idea of wrapping the frustum in copper shavings

That lead me to conclude it
1. Would be a pain to do.
2. Add weight
3. Effect any IR videos looking for mode generation
4. Give me maybe 30-60 seconds of run time with out thermal convection issues as the copper absorbed the heat from the frustum.
5. Wrap the frustum in copper shavings creating a 2-3 inch layer all around and over the top add a reflective insulating lightweight blanket. Now I have extended run times.


6. Thinking I'll forgo the wrapping of the frustum in copper shavings for now and simply wrap it in reflective insulating lightweight foil that reflects back +95% of the thermal heat from the frustum.  NASA would love this. ;) http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gold-1-590x330.jpg

Would love to have input on these ideas.

Dumb question that may save you some time.

Keeping in mind that there are at least three sources of thermal "lift"
1. convective air flow, hot air rising on the walls
2. buoyancy, hot air inside weighs less than colder air outside
3. evacuating air, expanding air evacuates through any openings

Would it not be easier to set up a control run and a test run?

In the control run you totally whack your antenna (dielectric?) position internally so that your resonance is as close to zero as practicable, and measure in detail.

In the test run, you position your antenna (dielectric?) internally so that your resonance is as high as you can make it, and measure in detail.

Then subtract control data from test data and hope that you can carefully replicate everything else between the two runs.  Your only variable being (if you're really good), antenna position and resonance.

This assumes that the resonance discussions I've been seeing are related to whatever it is to be measured.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/26/2015 06:01 pm
Another thought for you Shell. Haven't you talked about how cold your shop is now? Why not allow the test equipment get as cold as possible in the shop before testing so that the thermal gradient between the room and the heating frustum under load is as large as possible?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/26/2015 06:13 pm
It is appropriate to be concerned about the force effects of heating .

It is also appropriate to be concerned about reproducibility of the heat compensation system so that other Citizen Scientists can follow in your footsteps.

When using a balance beam, seemingly one of the more simple methods to measure any effect in air, it seems that there have been proposed three general approaches:

1) Minimize system heating in the design and attempt to remove residual heat effects, post processing.
2) Capture the heat that is not removed by design, and attempt to remove residual effects post processing.
3) Balance the heat effect with an equal and opposite source, removing residual effects post processing.

So no matter what approach is used, residual effects will be removed by post processing.

Of the above, 3) has been proposed but gained no traction. Why is that? A Google search on "common mode error rejection in physical systems" will return more information than can be absorbed, but a lot of good guidance, too.

The common mode error compensation technique proposed previously is:

Make two, not just one, frustum, near identical.
Mount two frustums on opposite sides of the balance beam pivot.
Run the system normally and remove residual effects by post processing.

Questions.
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum?
b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand?
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources?

But the $64 question is, "How difficult would it be for others to accurately duplicate this system and use the same post processing techniques developed by predecessor DYI'ers?"

It is important to step back out of the weeds for a moment and look at the overall objective. It is not simply to make a device for the fun of it and see if there is an effect.

IMO, the objective of the efforts pulled together on this forum is to determine if there is in fact a REPRODUCIBLE EM Drive effect and then try to explain it. So using a reproducible system is crucial to that objective.
Thanks for responding to the issue.
Quote
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum? Several hundred $$ plus time.
Why? Mulletron quoted about $50 for a bare copper frustum. Based on past experience I estimate that having one-off made by a professional spinner would cost about your "several hundred $$," but the second and any subsequent ones would be only somewhat more costly than the materials. Time spent is a trade between this and other heat compensating methods.
Quote
[/b]b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand? Not hard at all
As I expect also.
Quote
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources? Are you suggesting 2 separate, powered magnetrons? If so, add some more $$ for a power supply, plus a controller to make them fire at the exact same time. Even with that, an imbalance will occur as air masses several feet apart are not identical, meaning there will still be residual thermals with one end versus the other. While its a good idea in theory, practical experience tell me that one could not guaranteed each side would heat and lift identically.
That is an option but wouldn't it also be workable to distribute the RF signal from a single magnetron to both frustums? That eliminates a lot of hassle and cost.
Quote

My take is ambient air perturbations are best left to only one source, the primary frustum. Delta displacement versus mag on/off times is extractable as has been demonstrated with earlier flight tests. As long as we're not in a vacuum, rotary or fulcrum is what we have to deal with in home lab testing.

No matter what one does, post processing of the data will not go away. Our whole effort at reducing thermal effects is not simply to have reduced thermal effects, but rather to have a higher signal to noise ratio. Common mode error correction is a proven technique to drive noise down, and does in certain cases (electronics), totally eliminate or reduce the noise to undetectable levels. It works well in non-electrical systems, too.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 06:32 pm
Dumb question that may save you some time.
No dumb questions
Keeping in mind that there are at least three sources of thermal "lift"
1. convective air flow, hot air rising on the walls
2. buoyancy, hot air inside weighs less than colder air outside
3. evacuating air, expanding air evacuates through any openings

 Your are very correct in there are three sources of thermal excluding the wires feeding the frustum.

IF I do this correctly by encapsulation of the device in the wire cage and thermal shield I should have only one profile that will directly effect the thermal thrust and that will be the buoyancy of the thermal encasement itself.  That profile if done right and keeps the hot air in. It should not be as chaotic as the thermally rising currents and I can profile it to a greater degree of accuracy. I calculated I should after looses in the Maggie to waveguide to RG142 coax to the frustum about 100 watts RF power inside of the frustum, that gives me (napkin calculation) about .1 BTU/sec to work through.



Would it not be easier to set up a control run and a test run?

In the control run you totally whack your antenna (dielectric?) position internally so that your resonance is as close to zero as practicable, and measure in detail.

In the test run, you position your antenna (dielectric?) internally so that your resonance is as high as you can make it, and measure in detail.

Then subtract control data from test data and hope that you can carefully replicate everything else between the two runs.  Your only variable being (if you're really good), antenna position and resonance.

This assumes that the resonance discussions I've been seeing are related to whatever it is to be measured.

Sure, profiling is the key to picking the best way to gain data but now I get to pick which way will give me cleaner data with some chicken wire and a piece of insulation. I think it's a good investment,. What do you think?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 06:35 pm
Another thought for you Shell. Haven't you talked about how cold your shop is now? Why not allow the test equipment get as cold as possible in the shop before testing so that the thermal gradient between the room and the heating frustum under load is as large as possible?
Not a great idea for these old bones. Isn't cold air denser?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jmossman on 10/26/2015 06:38 pm
It is appropriate to be concerned about the force effects of heating .
...
3) Balance the heat effect with an equal and opposite source, removing residual effects post processing.
...
Of the above, 3) has been proposed but gained no traction. Why is that? A Google search on "common mode error rejection in physical systems" will return more information than can be absorbed, but a lot of good guidance, too.

The common mode error compensation technique proposed previously is:

Make two, not just one, frustum, near identical.
Mount two frustums on opposite sides of the balance beam pivot.
Run the system normally and remove residual effects by post processing.
...
a) How expensive is it to make a second, near identical frustum? Several hundred $$ plus time.
b) How hard is it to make and mount the second frustum safely on the test stand? Not hard at all
c) How difficult will it be to take meaningful data with two 2 EM Drive effect sources? Are you suggesting 2 separate, powered magnetrons? If so, add some more $$ for a power supply, plus a controller to make them fire at the exact same time. Even with that, an imbalance will occur as air masses several feet apart are not identical, meaning there will still be residual thermals with one end versus the other. While its a good idea in theory, practical experience tell me that one could not guaranteed each side would heat and lift identically.

My take is ambient air perturbations are best left to only one source, the primary frustum. Delta displacement versus mag on/off times is extractable as has been demonstrated with earlier flight tests. As long as we're not in a vacuum, rotary or fulcrum is what we have to deal with in home lab testing.

The simplest option to help reduce thermal effects is to run a frustum/magnetron in two different configurations that are rotated by 180 degrees.  (i.e.  run#1-10: small end-up,  run#11-20: big end-up)

If a higher Q (i.e. solid frustum vs mesh frustum) significantly increases the Signal-to-Noise-Ratio (SNR), the added complexity of a 2nd frustum/magnetron may not be needed.

However, out of the various options that seem within the grasp of a DIY effort, I would agree with Aero that at least partial common-mode rejection seems like the simplest option to further reduce thermal effects (after the dual 180 degree rotations runs have been completed).  Even if the thermal forces are not 100% equal, I suspect that an identical magnetron/heatsink will have very similar thermal effects once it has reach a stabilized temperature.  Common-mode rejection in a system design is rarely expected to be perfect, but reducing the thermal effect on the balance beam movement would seem like a worthwhile effort.

My engineer "gut" feeling is that the key would be matching temperatures of the 2 independent magnetron/heatsink, rather than the ~kv power supply and simultaneous on/off.  It's likely a heat radiating phenomenon causing the lift, and could likely be well matched with a point heat source inside the magnetron controlled by a PID control loop tying the temperature to the "working" magnetron. (i.e. built-in magnetron heating element is probably what needs to be accurately controlled in the 2nd dummy frustum/magnetron setup).

EDIT:  Using a PID control loop to match temperature would also work well to provide a "control" run without adding the complexity of a 2nd dummy frustum/magnetron. (aka Seeshell's Glennfish's suggestion)

i.e.  1) measure temperature of magnetron/heatsink during a "powered run", 2) perform a "dummy run" using the same setup but using a PID control loop to control the magnetron heating element to attempt mimicing the thermal signature from a "powered run"

EDIT2:  Whoops, need to give Glennfish proper credit for the recent "control run" repost.  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/26/2015 07:12 pm
A couple of points.

Thermal is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in my test lab (hope he gets cold). It's not going to go away even in vacuum where it becomes a 1800 pound gorilla.

I've come to the conclusion selecting and controlling the thermal profile where I can negate several aspects of it for short periods by profiling just one. Getting a clean linear thermal inclined line is going to be easier to map out any thrust effects by using a what is essentially a hot air thermal insulated balloon. I'll eliminate the chaotic bubbling off a Maggie thermal chimney like rfmwguy had to work with. Simply by taking all the heat and putting it into one effect not several.

This is simply going to take some testing, note a candle outputs about 40 watts of heat.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/26/2015 08:23 pm

...

Dumb question that may save you some time.

Keeping in mind that there are at least three sources of thermal "lift"
1. convective air flow, hot air rising on the walls
2. buoyancy, hot air inside weighs less than colder air outside
3. evacuating air, expanding air evacuates through any openings

Would it not be easier to set up a control run and a test run?

In the control run you totally whack your antenna (dielectric?) position internally so that your resonance is as close to zero as practicable, and measure in detail.

In the test run, you position your antenna (dielectric?) internally so that your resonance is as high as you can make it, and measure in detail.

Then subtract control data from test data and hope that you can carefully replicate everything else between the two runs.  Your only variable being (if you're really good), antenna position and resonance.

This assumes that the resonance discussions I've been seeing are related to whatever it is to be measured.

I don't believe there is any fool-proof way of nulling out thermal effects.   You can drill holes so the hot air escapes horizontally but you still have hot air accumulating in the fustrum and providing lift.   In over a year of being a spectator to this em-drive pursuit I have only seen small forces that are almost indistuinguishable from thermal effects.   So my position has always been that experimenters should characterize thermal effects at some point in their data collection so that a comparison can be made.   So far I haven't seen anyone do this.   Maybe it seems too pessimistic to do a null experiment where only heat is applied to the fustrum, but that is what we call Science.   If you don't do any counter experiments you will never know if the effect you are observing is from something more mundane.

You can follow breadcrumbs but look at where that got Hansel and Gretel.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/26/2015 08:59 pm
A couple of points.

Thermal is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in my test lab (hope he gets cold). It's not going to go away even in vacuum where it becomes a 1800 pound gorilla.

I've come to the conclusion selecting and controlling the thermal profile where I can negate several aspects of it for short periods by profiling just one. Getting a clean linear thermal inclined line is going to be easier to map out any thrust effects by using a what is essentially a hot air thermal insulated balloon. I'll eliminate the chaotic bubbling off a Maggie thermal chimney like rfmwguy had to work with. Simply by taking all the heat and putting it into one effect not several.

This is simply going to take some testing, note a candle outputs about 40 watts of heat.

I thought you had planned to use an antenna in your frustum with coax to the magnetron at the pivot point? That alone will remove most of the thermal effects that rfmwguy saw.

So do I understand that you intend to bag the frustum and the end of the balance beam with insulation so that heat won't conduct through the sides of the bag? I guess it would then be logical to run a pressure release tube back to the pivot and let the expanding air jet out to the side. That should reduce ballooning leaving only temperature change inside the constant volume balloon to deal with. And of course air currents in your lab which now have the bag to blow around.

I guess your bag will be about what, 0.3 m3. Thermal capacity of air, and the ideal gas law are well understood. Does someone want to calculate the bag air temperature and density profile as a function of Watts of drive power delivered to the frustum? That will tell us how long it will be before the bag melts.

Then you can watch your lift due to buoyancy to know when your bag will melt.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/26/2015 09:01 pm
Another thought for you Shell. Haven't you talked about how cold your shop is now? Why not allow the test equipment get as cold as possible in the shop before testing so that the thermal gradient between the room and the heating frustum under load is as large as possible?
Not a great idea for these old bones. Isn't cold air denser?

Yes, it is in general. But gas escaping past your seal on the small end will be producing thrust counter to the     thrust vector of the drive itself. If a cold room dissipates heat from all that copper surface area faster...

I guess the question of the seal sticks most in my mind. What internal temperature rise will be enough to cause the seal to leak and will you be generating that much heat?/   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/26/2015 09:08 pm

Sure, profiling is the key to picking the best way to gain data but now I get to pick which way will give me cleaner data with some chicken wire and a piece of insulation. I think it's a good investment,. What do you think?

Shell

Chicken wire is a nice faraday cage on a good day.  When my brother was doing his thesis, a faraday cage saved his life.  I like chicken wire since that day.

The insulation I think only deals with convection.  I ran a hot-air balloon simulation a while back (I'll try to find and post the spreadsheet), and I would roughly characterize the effects as

1.  Hot air balloon - 60%
2.  Convection - 30%
3.  Air leaks - 10%  (could go either direction)

Lots depends on the geometry, that strange epoxy you've fallen for, and how uniform the heating is throughout the frustum, and things I'm horribly unqualified to imagine.

I guess my concern is, when you turn it on at normal atmospheric pressure, it will absolutely positively rise like a banshee on Halloween for many reasons having nothing to do with what you're looking for whether pointed up or down.  The banshee index (new technical term Bi) will vary depending on how you point the gizmo, and someone who knows how to calculate surface areas of truncated cones could probably calculate that.

I am a very lazy person.  IMHO, being lazy keeps you from working harder than you should.

I can't imagine all the ways heat can mess things up, but I know how to subtract two data sets, especially in the case where you can repeat either a 100 times if you need to.  :) 

I could imagine a good engineer spending months compensating for all the thermal thingees and still miss one or two or thirty.

If, on the other hand, you say "Let There Be HEAT", and you get that clearly characterized, then when you say, "Let There Be HEAT AND Lift", well, IMHO, you could generate a mind blowing data set if there was something after the "AND".

Surely there's a few turns of the knob that could totally destroy your ideal resonance?  :)  That would be a simple control/test experiment and would answer the question, "Does Resonance Impact the Observed Thrust in an non-vacuum environment?"  If there's no difference, you toss me over the bridge for wasting your time.  If there is, then you have to replicate both conditions many many times, and then be beaten repeatedly at Reddit for sins against Jackson, Chapter 8.

Anyway, my free advice.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/26/2015 10:29 pm
These are great discussion on thermal problems, which I lived with. I did get a thermal camera attachment and plan to static-fire NSF-1701 and observe the heating patterns soon. I fully expect the majority to be directly off the magnetron itself (based on my IR spot temp measurements) The double core, copper shaving filled "heat trap" I was musing about might just work long enough to reduce the large lift transitions I saw and Glenn had to disect (to do the mag on/off comparisons).

Thermal migration (conduction) through an inner wall, thru shavings and to the outer wall then the air itself will be much slower than the magnetron frame being exposed to the air directly. Will be fun to experiment with.

p.s. For those not following earlier threads, Shell's copper shavings are insulation for an inner and outer can that surrounds the magnetron. Think of it as a muffler, only its a heat sink that delays the 170 deg C heat from hitting the surrounding ambient air. - Crazy? Yep, but don't tell anyone  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/26/2015 10:30 pm
Perhaps it makes more sense to create a bad vacuum (e.g. one tenth of atmospheric pressure) with a simple and cheap pump in an enclosure with the test article in it? We just want to increase SNR considerably, right? I don't think that a hard vacuum is needed. We just want to get rid of most of the buoyancy for now. My 2 cents ;) .

Edit: Actually, it should easily be possible to create a pretty hard vacuum the cheap way:

1) 3D-print a metallic enclosure with cooling channels for liquid nitrogen in the walls, perhaps even just the bottom/floor of the enclosure.
2) Put an automated, complete test article in it (sorta like a space probe)
3) Shut the enclosure and fill it with pure CO2, so that all other gases are pushed out of the enclosure
4) Seal the enclosure and start pumping liquid nitrogen through the wall channels. The CO2 freezes out, until there's only solid dry ice left (maybe best only on bottom/floor of enclosure)
5) You got vacuum  8)

What do you guys think about this method?

I suspect that even at LN2 temperatures, CO2 will sublime before a very good vacuum is attained.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/26/2015 10:34 pm
Shell,

After my most recent post, I had another thought for you to consider.

If you run a pressure relief line from the bag to the pivot point, what is to prevent you from making that pressure relief line, say 4" diameter sewage line, then make another in parallel as a cool air feed line. Use a computer cooling fan to blow cool air into the bag through the one pipe which forces the warm air to escape via the other pipe.

Done carefully and with a small fan, the fan turbulence should settle out as the cooling air transits the inlet pipe reaching laminar flow conditions at the bag. The cool air picks up the heat and exits out the other pipe at the pivot. That way there should be little concern about pressure in the bag, leaks from the bag, and buoyancy is much reduced.

And to reduce turbulence even more, configure the fan to draw air out of the tube/bag/tube and blow it sideways at the pivot, that is, in any direction except up and down. You could even turn your fan around to see which direction of air flow you prefer. Or maybe you could draw the air through the bag horizontally and perpendicular to the beam and forgo pipes to the pivot point.

Point is, now that you have encapsulated the heat source there are several things you can do to cool your frustum without introducing a lot of extra thermal or turbulence noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/26/2015 11:13 pm

...

Dumb question that may save you some time.

Keeping in mind that there are at least three sources of thermal "lift"
1. convective air flow, hot air rising on the walls
2. buoyancy, hot air inside weighs less than colder air outside
3. evacuating air, expanding air evacuates through any openings

Would it not be easier to set up a control run and a test run?

In the control run you totally whack your antenna (dielectric?) position internally so that your resonance is as close to zero as practicable, and measure in detail.

In the test run, you position your antenna (dielectric?) internally so that your resonance is as high as you can make it, and measure in detail.

Then subtract control data from test data and hope that you can carefully replicate everything else between the two runs.  Your only variable being (if you're really good), antenna position and resonance.

This assumes that the resonance discussions I've been seeing are related to whatever it is to be measured.

I don't believe there is any fool-proof way of nulling out thermal effects.   You can drill holes so the hot air escapes horizontally but you still have hot air accumulating in the fustrum and providing lift.   In over a year of being a spectator to this em-drive pursuit I have only seen small forces that are almost indistuinguishable from thermal effects.   So my position has always been that experimenters should characterize thermal effects at some point in their data collection so that a comparison can be made.   So far I haven't seen anyone do this.   Maybe it seems too pessimistic to do a null experiment where only heat is applied to the fustrum, but that is what we call Science.   If you don't do any counter experiments you will never know if the effect you are observing is from something more mundane.

You can follow breadcrumbs but look at where that got Hansel and Gretel.

I agree.  If there is a way to fire up all the heat-generating components, but guarantee that thrust is not generated (short antenna??, detune frustum??), measure the pure thermal effects and then subtract this signal from a (presumably) thrust-producing configuration, it should prove informative.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 10/26/2015 11:21 pm
Esteemed DIYers:

I was thinking and some probably dumb idea came to me: maybe trying to get rid of buoyancy is not worth the effort?

You see, this frustum is and wants to behave like a hot air copper balloon.

It will never rise on its own because it's too heavy, but it still stubbornly tries to push any balance upwards, regardless of what you do, because it will be filled with hot air from the maggie's very function.

And any dynamic cooling you do would most likely make the noise level on the forces worse.

While at the same time, buoyancy is a tamed beast, because you know where it wants to go every time: upwards.

So you simply measure the strength of the upwards force in function of the temperature, and you subtract that from  your other experiments.

Because you will try to prove it pushes downwards, rightwards, leftwards, backwards, etc, in every angle. That is, you want to prove the thrust of the device is vectorial.

Proving vectorial thrust would indeed make things much more interesting, because less things can explain that, and the methods to disprove these additional effects can take you beyond the chore of simply proving it isn't thermal buoyancy in action.

For example, for disproving a thermal rocket effect by heated gas ejection, you could use a smoke test, for showing that the convection currents around the device don't make a rocket-like effect. Or the contrary, that they are indeed making such an effect, therefore falsifying the anomalous vectorial thrust hypothesis.

Which would also be progress, regardless of our crushed hopes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 12:56 am
A couple of points.

Thermal is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in my test lab (hope he gets cold). It's not going to go away even in vacuum where it becomes a 1800 pound gorilla.

I've come to the conclusion selecting and controlling the thermal profile where I can negate several aspects of it for short periods by profiling just one. Getting a clean linear thermal inclined line is going to be easier to map out any thrust effects by using a what is essentially a hot air thermal insulated balloon. I'll eliminate the chaotic bubbling off a Maggie thermal chimney like rfmwguy had to work with. Simply by taking all the heat and putting it into one effect not several.

This is simply going to take some testing, note a candle outputs about 40 watts of heat.

I thought you had planned to use an antenna in your frustum with coax to the magnetron at the pivot point? That alone will remove most of the thermal effects that rfmwguy saw.

So do I understand that you intend to bag the frustum and the end of the balance beam with insulation so that heat won't conduct through the sides of the bag? I guess it would then be logical to run a pressure release tube back to the pivot and let the expanding air jet out to the side. That should reduce ballooning leaving only temperature change inside the constant volume balloon to deal with. And of course air currents in your lab which now have the bag to blow around.

I guess your bag will be about what, 0.3 m3. Thermal capacity of air, and the ideal gas law are well understood. Does someone want to calculate the bag air temperature and density profile as a function of Watts of drive power delivered to the frustum? That will tell us how long it will be before the bag melts.

Then you can watch your lift due to buoyancy to know when your bag will melt.  :-\
What a day, TV took a big you know what and just got that fixed. Went out to pick up a few things and my truck died (some digital sensor) and is now in the mechanics and because of that the day was shot. Finally got a ride home, thank goodness I like cars (have a few) so I'm not with out wheels.

So sorry ppl no new pics from the Crazy Eddie Lab. Tomorrow is another day and I'll start early.

Still reading all the fine comments by everyone on the thermal problem and I've decided to profile the dickens out of it with active heat (light bulb ~100 watts) and active without thermal shielding and with shielding. And of course flip the frustum 180.

Aero, yes the magnetron is away from the frustum and I'm just running the microwaves down a Coax to the frustum, the only heat will be from the microwaves actions heating the frustum which will be about 100 watts. I'll need to do real world testing to make sure the math works out as to the 100 watts.

Interesting idea on the cooling tubes aero, I kind of like it.
 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 01:08 am

Sure, profiling is the key to picking the best way to gain data but now I get to pick which way will give me cleaner data with some chicken wire and a piece of insulation. I think it's a good investment,. What do you think?

Shell

Chicken wire is a nice faraday cage on a good day.  When my brother was doing his thesis, a faraday cage saved his life.  I like chicken wire since that day.

The insulation I think only deals with convection.  I ran a hot-air balloon simulation a while back (I'll try to find and post the spreadsheet), and I would roughly characterize the effects as

1.  Hot air balloon - 60%
2.  Convection - 30%
3.  Air leaks - 10%  (could go either direction)

Lots depends on the geometry, that strange epoxy you've fallen for, and how uniform the heating is throughout the frustum, and things I'm horribly unqualified to imagine.

I guess my concern is, when you turn it on at normal atmospheric pressure, it will absolutely positively rise like a banshee on Halloween for many reasons having nothing to do with what you're looking for whether pointed up or down.  The banshee index (new technical term Bi) will vary depending on how you point the gizmo, and someone who knows how to calculate surface areas of truncated cones could probably calculate that.

I am a very lazy person.  IMHO, being lazy keeps you from working harder than you should.

I can't imagine all the ways heat can mess things up, but I know how to subtract two data sets, especially in the case where you can repeat either a 100 times if you need to.  :) 

I could imagine a good engineer spending months compensating for all the thermal thingees and still miss one or two or thirty.

If, on the other hand, you say "Let There Be HEAT", and you get that clearly characterized, then when you say, "Let There Be HEAT AND Lift", well, IMHO, you could generate a mind blowing data set if there was something after the "AND".

Surely there's a few turns of the knob that could totally destroy your ideal resonance?  :)  That would be a simple control/test experiment and would answer the question, "Does Resonance Impact the Observed Thrust in an non-vacuum environment?"  If there's no difference, you toss me over the bridge for wasting your time.  If there is, then you have to replicate both conditions many many times, and then be beaten repeatedly at Reddit for sins against Jackson, Chapter 8.

Anyway, my free advice.  :)
Your free advise is priceless, thank you.

On the tuning. I  picked up a couple of reversable DC motors that can drive the micrometer on the bottom after I attach it to it. I can allow me to sweep through peak resonate modes while monitoring the thrust levels, this can tell me a lot, like does max thrust occur at center frequency or just a little off, or does it vary when mixing two or more modes together?

There will be heat but the less of a issue I can make of it the better for detailing out the effects I just mentioned.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/27/2015 01:50 am
Characterizing the thermal characteristics of the frustum with a heat source (light bulb), both upside down and right side up, looks like a really good idea. The scientists at CERN have been doing a lot of work to characterize ordinary Proton-Proton collision products at the Large Hadron Collider at the new, 13 TeV collision energies. When they've characterized the ordinary results, they can easily see the extraordinary ones.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2015 02:27 am
I agree.  If there is a way to fire up all the heat-generating components, but guarantee that thrust is not generated (short antenna??, detune frustum??), measure the pure thermal effects and then subtract this signal from a (presumably) thrust-producing configuration, it should prove informative.

Problem is as the freq moves from that of frustum resonance, the VSWR climbs and Rf starts being reflected back to the Rf gen and not absorbed by the frustum. Can't see a way to get the Rf inside the frustum without the Rf freq being at frustum resonance.

Still believe the best way to deal with the thermal effects of buoyancy is to mount the frustum horizontal as EW did and I plan to do plus working to increase the Force generated for a fixed amount of heat.

From this data it looks like Roger's Experimental EMDrive generated about 200uN of buoyancy for 14mN of Force at 850Ws Rf. You can also see his sealed enclosure and the simple scale setup he used way back in 2002.

To me this suggest the approx amounts of buoyancy that may need to be dealt with and more importantly a guide to the Force generation that may be possible with a flat end plate design with no electronic freq tracking but with mechanical tuning at each end plus waveguide impedance matching to get a really good VSWR. Or close to what Shell is building.

It might also be helpful to look at the schematic of the setup he build and how he dealt with the heat buildup.

Roger passed this info on to us TO USE as I believe he feels it is the most appropriate info at our stage of DIY build. His only reason to do so was to again lay a trail of beard crumbs that if followed will eventually lead to most of us being able to make DIY EMDrives with 10mN level Force generation (lower Q flat end plate 750W maggie units or higher Q spherical end plate 100W solid state Rf amp units) or about where he was from 2002 to around 2009.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/27/2015 03:30 am
I agree.  If there is a way to fire up all the heat-generating components, but guarantee that thrust is not generated (short antenna??, detune frustum??), measure the pure thermal effects and then subtract this signal from a (presumably) thrust-producing configuration, it should prove informative.

Problem is as the freq moves from that of frustum resonance, the VSWR climbs and Rf starts being reflected back to the Rf gen and not absorbed by the frustum. Can't see a way to get the Rf inside the frustum without the Rf freq being at frustum resonance.

Still believe the best way to deal with the thermal effects of buoyancy is to mount the frustum horizontal as EW did and I plan to do plus working to increase the Force generated for a fixed amount of heat.

From this data it looks like Roger's Experimental EMDrive generated about 200uN of buoyancy for 14mN of Force at 850Ws Rf. You can also see his sealed enclosure and the simple scale setup he used way back in 2002.

To me this suggest the approx amounts of buoyancy that may need to be dealt with and more importantly a guide to the Force generation that may be possible with a flat end plate design with no electronic freq tracking but with mechanical tuning at each end plus waveguide impedance matching to get a really good VSWR. Or close to what Shell is building.

It might also be helpful to look at the schematic of the setup he build and how he dealt with the heat buildup.

Roger passed this info on to us TO USE as I believe he feels it is the most appropriate info at our stage of DIY build. His only reason to do so was to again lay a trail of beard crumbs that if followed will eventually lead to most of us being able to make DIY EMDrives with 10mN level Force generation (lower Q flat end plate 750W maggie units or higher Q spherical end plate 100W solid state Rf amp units) or about where he was from 2002 to around 2009.

Thanks for the PDF explanations between the pictures.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 10/27/2015 03:44 am
p
A couple of points.

Thermal is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in my test lab (hope he gets cold). It's not going to go away even in vacuum where it becomes a 1800 pound gorilla.

I've come to the conclusion selecting and controlling the thermal profile where I can negate several aspects of it for short periods by profiling just one. Getting a clean linear thermal inclined line is going to be easier to map out any thrust effects by using a what is essentially a hot air thermal insulated balloon. I'll eliminate the chaotic bubbling off a Maggie thermal chimney like rfmwguy had to work with. Simply by taking all the heat and putting it into one effect not several.

This is simply going to take some testing, note a candle outputs about 40 watts of heat.

I thought you had planned to use an antenna in your frustum with coax to the magnetron at the pivot point? That alone will remove most of the thermal effects that rfmwguy saw.

So do I understand that you intend to bag the frustum and the end of the balance beam with insulation so that heat won't conduct through the sides of the bag? I guess it would then be logical to run a pressure release tube back to the pivot and let the expanding air jet out to the side. That should reduce ballooning leaving only temperature change inside the constant volume balloon to deal with. And of course air currents in your lab which now have the bag to blow around.

I guess your bag will be about what, 0.3 m3. Thermal capacity of air, and the ideal gas law are well understood. Does someone want to calculate the bag air temperature and density profile as a function of Watts of drive power delivered to the frustum? That will tell us how long it will be before the bag melts.

Then you can watch your lift due to buoyancy to know when your bag will melt.  :-\
What a day, TV took a big you know what and just got that fixed. Went out to pick up a few things and my truck died (some digital sensor) and is now in the mechanics and because of that the day was shot. Finally got a ride home, thank goodness I like cars (have a few) so I'm not with out wheels.

So sorry ppl no new pics from the Crazy Eddie Lab. Tomorrow is another day and I'll start early.

Still reading all the fine comments by everyone on the thermal problem and I've decided to profile the dickens out of it with active heat (light bulb ~100 watts) and active without thermal shielding and with shielding. And of course flip the frustum 180.

Aero, yes the magnetron is away from the frustum and I'm just running the microwaves down a Coax to the frustum, the only heat will be from the microwaves actions heating the frustum which will be about 100 watts. I'll need to do real world testing to make sure the math works out as to the 100 watts.

Interesting idea on the cooling tubes aero, I kind of like it.

I really, really liked the original idea of having a "relief line" to the beam pivot.  Pumping in cooling air seemed like it might introduce vibrations. 

However,  a passive line may have a resonance introduced as cooler air forces its way back to the fustrum via the relief line.

So maybe having a cooling stream pumped to the fustrum and introducing a positive pressure and hopefully consistent signal might be the best approach after all.  Hm...

This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 11:54 am
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!

The cooling hose only connects to the fulcrum beam and the fan isn't attached to the beam but sits on the base of the testing stand. Done correctly this would have little or no impact on the movement of the beam and remove most of the thermal balloon effects.
http://masterduct.com.tempdomain.com/SearchProducts/SearchResults/tabid/116/CategoryID/22/List/1/Level/a/ProductID/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
I think it is something that just might work... what do you think?

Shell

Added: Sorry this is such a crude drawing and I'm sure there are mods that need to be considered, air insertion points and attachments to the beam and materials. I was simply excited.

One more thing... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tripp-Lite-Portable-Cooling-Unit-or-Air-Conditioner-3-4-kW-120-Volt-60-Hz-12K-BTU-SRCOOL12K/203796126

Oops another: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Speedi-Products-3-in-x-20-ft-Standard-White-Vinyl-Flexible-Hose-EX-SVH-03/202907361
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 12:39 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!

The cooling hose only connects to the fulcrum beam and the fan isn't attached to the beam but sits on the base of the testing stand. Done correctly this would have little or no impact on the movement of the beam and remove most of the thermal balloon effects.
http://masterduct.com.tempdomain.com/SearchProducts/SearchResults/tabid/116/CategoryID/22/List/1/Level/a/ProductID/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
I think it is something that just might work... what do you think?

Shell

Added: Sorry this is such a crude drawing and I'm sure there are mods that need to be considered, air insertion points and attachments to the beam and materials. I was simply excited.

One more thing... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tripp-Lite-Portable-Cooling-Unit-or-Air-Conditioner-3-4-kW-120-Volt-60-Hz-12K-BTU-SRCOOL12K/203796126

Well, there is that old HVAC law that relates input temperature to output temperature and calculates airflow required to achieve X BTU of cooling or heating.

How many BTU of heat are you producing?  What degree of temperature reduction is required?  Is the airflow directed at convection, lift, outgassing, all?   

Methinks active cooling adds complexity and additional error sources.  You will STILL  have to characterize the thermal effects because active cooling can't get all of them.

If you still have to characterize thermal, your life is simpler if you don't bother with active cooling.

I like simple.  Fewer parts to break or calibrate.

In my minds eye, you have two data sets derived from say, 100 - 10second runs per data set.

Data set one is with the frustum in bad resonance mode.   You get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Data set two is with the frustum in good resonance mode, and again, you get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Now you have a comparison that can be made.  If the two curves differ outside the range of their respective error bars, then something needs to be explained.  If the only change is the position of a dialectric and its impact on resonance, then either its position and the corresponding change on the center of mass has to be reviewed, or, resonance creates more heat than no resonance, or it's vacuum chamber time.   That would definitely call for an independent replication in any case.

If you add a fan and vent tubes and intentional air flow, all critiques will focus on the magnetic character of the fan, the stability of airflow (you need a second set of data to prove the airflow is constant at all times), you need a third set of data to monitor the temperature at multiple locations in the system, you need to verify that there were no vertical or horizontal breaches in your duct-work before and after each run, etc. etc. etc.  You could easily spend most of your of time defending your air conditioner whether you got positive or negative results.

Simplicity, young weedhopper, simplicity.

Still thinking about horizontal vs. vertical ... if you have a vertical design, you're close to first light.  If you have to go horizontal, all kinds of new issues enter the mix.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 12:53 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!

The cooling hose only connects to the fulcrum beam and the fan isn't attached to the beam but sits on the base of the testing stand. Done correctly this would have little or no impact on the movement of the beam and remove most of the thermal balloon effects.
http://masterduct.com.tempdomain.com/SearchProducts/SearchResults/tabid/116/CategoryID/22/List/1/Level/a/ProductID/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
I think it is something that just might work... what do you think?

Shell

Added: Sorry this is such a crude drawing and I'm sure there are mods that need to be considered, air insertion points and attachments to the beam and materials. I was simply excited.

One more thing... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tripp-Lite-Portable-Cooling-Unit-or-Air-Conditioner-3-4-kW-120-Volt-60-Hz-12K-BTU-SRCOOL12K/203796126

Well, there is that old HVAC law that relates input temperature to output temperature and calculates airflow required to achieve X BTU of cooling or heating.

How many BTU of heat are you producing?  What degree of temperature reduction is required?  Is the airflow directed at convection, lift, outgassing, all?   

Methinks active cooling adds complexity and additional error sources.  You will STILL  have to characterize the thermal effects because active cooling can't get all of them.

If you still have to characterize thermal, your life is simpler if you don't bother with active cooling.

I like simple.  Fewer parts to break or calibrate.

In my minds eye, you have two data sets derived from say, 100 - 10second runs per data set.

Data set one is with the frustum in bad resonance mode.   You get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Data set two is with the frustum in good resonance mode, and again, you get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Now you have a comparison that can be made.  If the two curves differ outside the range of their respective error bars, then something needs to be explained.  If the only change is the position of a dialectric and its impact on resonance, then either its position and the corresponding change on the center of mass has to be reviewed, or, resonance creates more heat than no resonance, or it's vacuum chamber time.   That would definitely call for an independent replication in any case.

If you add a fan and vent tubes and intentional air flow, all critiques will focus on the magnetic character of the fan, the stability of airflow (you need a second set of data to prove the airflow is constant at all times), you need a third set of data to monitor the temperature at multiple locations in the system, you need to verify that there were no vertical or horizontal breaches in your duct-work before and after each run, etc. etc. etc.  You could easily most of your of time defending your air conditioner whether you got positive or negative results.

Simplicity, young weedhopper, simplicity.

Still thinking about horizontal vs. vertical ... if you have a vertical design, you're close to first light.  If you have to go horizontal, all kinds of new issues enter the mix.

You're right Glen. The more complex the easier it is to break or introduce error. Looking to dissipate around 100-200 watts this time, which is about .1 BTU/Sec or 341 BTU/hr. Not a great deal. And in this first light test I'll not be doing it.

I have designs that ramp input power into the drive into the KW ranges and we should consider something like this.


I'm planning a extended 100% high power duty cycle run in the future and (added cat on keyboard, she thought I was finished typing and should pay attention to her) need to consider some form of cooling.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 01:11 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!

The cooling hose only connects to the fulcrum beam and the fan isn't attached to the beam but sits on the base of the testing stand. Done correctly this would have little or no impact on the movement of the beam and remove most of the thermal balloon effects.
http://masterduct.com.tempdomain.com/SearchProducts/SearchResults/tabid/116/CategoryID/22/List/1/Level/a/ProductID/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
I think it is something that just might work... what do you think?

Shell

Added: Sorry this is such a crude drawing and I'm sure there are mods that need to be considered, air insertion points and attachments to the beam and materials. I was simply excited.

One more thing... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tripp-Lite-Portable-Cooling-Unit-or-Air-Conditioner-3-4-kW-120-Volt-60-Hz-12K-BTU-SRCOOL12K/203796126

Well, there is that old HVAC law that relates input temperature to output temperature and calculates airflow required to achieve X BTU of cooling or heating.

How many BTU of heat are you producing?  What degree of temperature reduction is required?  Is the airflow directed at convection, lift, outgassing, all?   

Methinks active cooling adds complexity and additional error sources.  You will STILL  have to characterize the thermal effects because active cooling can't get all of them.

If you still have to characterize thermal, your life is simpler if you don't bother with active cooling.

I like simple.  Fewer parts to break or calibrate.

In my minds eye, you have two data sets derived from say, 100 - 10second runs per data set.

Data set one is with the frustum in bad resonance mode.   You get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Data set two is with the frustum in good resonance mode, and again, you get a set of lift curves and come up with a range of "normal" lift curves with error bars around sample points.

Now you have a comparison that can be made.  If the two curves differ outside the range of their respective error bars, then something needs to be explained.  If the only change is the position of a dialectric and its impact on resonance, then either its position and the corresponding change on the center of mass has to be reviewed, or, resonance creates more heat than no resonance, or it's vacuum chamber time.   That would definitely call for an independent replication in any case.

If you add a fan and vent tubes and intentional air flow, all critiques will focus on the magnetic character of the fan, the stability of airflow (you need a second set of data to prove the airflow is constant at all times), you need a third set of data to monitor the temperature at multiple locations in the system, you need to verify that there were no vertical or horizontal breaches in your duct-work before and after each run, etc. etc. etc.  You could easily most of your of time defending your air conditioner whether you got positive or negative results.

Simplicity, young weedhopper, simplicity.

Still thinking about horizontal vs. vertical ... if you have a vertical design, you're close to first light.  If you have to go horizontal, all kinds of new issues enter the mix.

You're right Glen. The more complex the easier it is to break or introduce error. Looking to dissipate around 100-200 watts this time, which is about .1 BTU/Sec or 341 BTU/hr. Not a great deal. And in this first light test I'll not be doing it.

I have designs that ramp input power into the drive into the KW ranges and we should consider something like this.


I'm planning a extended 100% high power duty cycle run in the future and (added cat on keyboard, she thought I was finished typing and should pay attention to her) need to consider some form of cooling.

341 BTU at 100 watts.  Basically a tungsten light bulb's worth of heat that has to vanish.   That's a lot.  :)

Attached is a spreadsheet to think about.  It's a "random" test generator.  Remember Tajmar reported oxidation over his runs reducing Q.  You don't want to do 100 runs in resonance and 100 runs in no resonance.  Everyone will point to oxidation effects if you do that.  In fact, you can make a case that oxidation by itself will generate measurable thrust.  (one of my earliest posts).

The attached spreadsheet gives you a way to randomize the trials.  Hit the f9 key to recalculate until you're pretty close to 100 samples of each.  Record the data (copy paste values, you can't save it, it regenerates every time the spreadsheet changes), and run accordingly, then, if you did generate those data sets, and there's something there, you can assert that oxidation was controled for, and perhaps your curves will drift in a conjoint set permitting the measurement of oxidation effects over time and the subtraction of those effects in the final analysis.

Such an approach would honor the standard of "random trials" which would be good stat stuff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 01:23 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633




341 BTU at 100 watts.  Basically a tungsten light bulb's worth of heat that has to vanish.   That's a lot.  :)

Attached is a spreadsheet to think about.  It's a "random" test generator.  Remember Tajmar reported oxidation over his runs reducing Q.  You don't want to do 100 runs in resonance and 100 runs in no resonance.  Everyone will point to oxidation effects if you do that.  In fact, you can make a case that oxidation by itself will generate measurable thrust.  (one of my earliest posts).

The attached spreadsheet gives you a way to randomize the trials.  Hit the f9 key to recalculate until you're pretty close to 100 samples of each.  Record the data (copy paste values, you can't save it, it regenerates every time the spreadsheet changes), and run accordingly, then, if you did generate those data sets, and there's something there, you can assert that oxidation was controled for, and perhaps your curves will drift in a conjoint set permitting the measurement of oxidation effects over time and the subtraction of those effects in the final analysis.

Such an approach would honor the standard of "random trials" which would be good stat stuff.
Thanks!
I'm coating the frustum in silver which Tajmar didn't do, had more funds I would do a gold flash over that but silver oxide is still conductive. I didn't miss Tajmar's comment or forget your's, I took that info and made use of it. Thanks again!

Did you notice I built my Faraday cage bigger than needed? In a future test I'm considering doing a good horizontal test, not spinning around but force directed at the other end of the arm horizontally, to late for me to change this one but I did my cage big enough.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 01:31 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633




341 BTU at 100 watts.  Basically a tungsten light bulb's worth of heat that has to vanish.   That's a lot.  :)

Attached is a spreadsheet to think about.  It's a "random" test generator.  Remember Tajmar reported oxidation over his runs reducing Q.  You don't want to do 100 runs in resonance and 100 runs in no resonance.  Everyone will point to oxidation effects if you do that.  In fact, you can make a case that oxidation by itself will generate measurable thrust.  (one of my earliest posts).

The attached spreadsheet gives you a way to randomize the trials.  Hit the f9 key to recalculate until you're pretty close to 100 samples of each.  Record the data (copy paste values, you can't save it, it regenerates every time the spreadsheet changes), and run accordingly, then, if you did generate those data sets, and there's something there, you can assert that oxidation was controled for, and perhaps your curves will drift in a conjoint set permitting the measurement of oxidation effects over time and the subtraction of those effects in the final analysis.

Such an approach would honor the standard of "random trials" which would be good stat stuff.
Thanks!
I'm coating the frustum in silver which Tajmar didn't do, had more funds I would do a gold flash over that but silver oxide is still conductive. I didn't miss Tajmar's comment or forget your's, I took that info and made use of it. Thanks again!

Did you notice I built my Faraday cage bigger than needed? In a future test I'm considering doing a good horizontal test, not spinning around but force directed at the other end of the arm horizontally, to late for me to change this one but I did my cage big enough.   

IMHO controling for oxidation is good, and I'm sure when you look in any 19th century mirror, you know that your coating will oxidize.   :)  But you're right, silver oxide should behave better than copper oxide, although it's not as pretty after a century or two.

One other stupid thought, is there any way at all to measure the Q value at the beginning and end of each run, or during the run?  That data in itself could be quite useful, especially if the hypothesis relates Q to lift.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 01:51 pm
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633




341 BTU at 100 watts.  Basically a tungsten light bulb's worth of heat that has to vanish.   That's a lot.  :)

Attached is a spreadsheet to think about.  It's a "random" test generator.  Remember Tajmar reported oxidation over his runs reducing Q.  You don't want to do 100 runs in resonance and 100 runs in no resonance.  Everyone will point to oxidation effects if you do that.  In fact, you can make a case that oxidation by itself will generate measurable thrust.  (one of my earliest posts).

The attached spreadsheet gives you a way to randomize the trials.  Hit the f9 key to recalculate until you're pretty close to 100 samples of each.  Record the data (copy paste values, you can't save it, it regenerates every time the spreadsheet changes), and run accordingly, then, if you did generate those data sets, and there's something there, you can assert that oxidation was controled for, and perhaps your curves will drift in a conjoint set permitting the measurement of oxidation effects over time and the subtraction of those effects in the final analysis.

Such an approach would honor the standard of "random trials" which would be good stat stuff.
Thanks!
I'm coating the frustum in silver which Tajmar didn't do, had more funds I would do a gold flash over that but silver oxide is still conductive. I didn't miss Tajmar's comment or forget your's, I took that info and made use of it. Thanks again!

Did you notice I built my Faraday cage bigger than needed? In a future test I'm considering doing a good horizontal test, not spinning around but force directed at the other end of the arm horizontally, to late for me to change this one but I did my cage big enough.   

IMHO controling for oxidation is good, and I'm sure when you look in any 19th century mirror, you know that your coating will oxidize.   :)  But you're right, silver oxide should behave better than copper oxide, although it's not as pretty after a century or two.

One other stupid thought, is there any way at all to measure the Q value at the beginning and end of each run, or during the run?  That data in itself could be quite useful, especially if the hypothesis relates Q to lift.
Got me there, a girl likes shiny things. ;)

Actively monitor Q would be better and having datalogging of Q vs thrusts would be one of my goals. Group ideas? I have some but there are not as good as some of the Microwave cavity geeks here.

Last night I was trolling Ebay and Amazon and a couple other places for a digital scale that was cheap that I could do just that. Didn't find much but it's on my list to dig more.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 01:55 pm
Now you have a comparison that can be made.  If the two curves differ outside the range of their respective error bars, then something needs to be explained.  If the only change is the position of a dialectric and its impact on resonance, then either its position and the corresponding change on the center of mass has to be reviewed, or, resonance creates more heat than no resonance , or it's vacuum chamber time.   That would definitely call for an independent replication in any case.

Resonance does create more heat than no resonance though.  This is very well known and nothing new; it has to do with impedance, power factor, etc.  The short of it is that in the real world, all resonant systems will reach a maximum stored energy where they dissipate energy at the same rate they take energy in, because no system is perfectly resonant in the sense of zero losses.  At resonance, more energy is delivered to the system than if it were off resonance.  Hence more power is dissipated and therefore the system gets hotter.   

So unfortunately, characterizing thermal lift by screwing around with resonance won't work, because thermal lift is itself intimately tied in with resonance.  Change resonance, change thermal lift.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 02:27 pm
Now you have a comparison that can be made.  If the two curves differ outside the range of their respective error bars, then something needs to be explained.  If the only change is the position of a dialectric and its impact on resonance, then either its position and the corresponding change on the center of mass has to be reviewed, or, resonance creates more heat than no resonance , or it's vacuum chamber time.   That would definitely call for an independent replication in any case.

Resonance does create more heat than no resonance though.  This is very well known and nothing new; it has to do with impedance, power factor, etc.  The short of it is that in the real world, all resonant systems will reach a maximum stored energy where they dissipate energy at the same rate they take energy in, because no system is perfectly resonant in the sense of zero losses.  At resonance, more energy is delivered to the system than if it were off resonance.  Hence more power is dissipated and therefore the system gets hotter.   

So unfortunately, characterizing thermal lift by screwing around with resonance won't work, because thermal lift is itself intimately tied in with resonance.  Change resonance, change thermal lift.   

Now that's a bummer.

It would therefore seem to me that runs would therefore have to be done pointing the gizmo so thrust was the opposite direction of the lift.  You would not have a measurement of actual "anti-lift" but if the thrust overwhealmed the additional thermal, then you still might see something.

Is there a means of calculating the thermal delta with and without resonance? 

Alternatively ... flipping to the horizontal mode ...

There has to be some clean way outside of a vacuum chamber...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 03:07 pm
Now that's a bummer.

It would therefore seem to me that runs would therefore have to be done pointing the gizmo so thrust was the opposite direction of the lift.  You would not have a measurement of actual "anti-lift" but if the thrust overwhealmed the additional thermal, then you still might see something.

Is there a means of calculating the thermal delta with and without resonance? 

Alternatively ... flipping to the horizontal mode ...

There has to be some clean way outside of a vacuum chamber...

Quote
Is there a means of calculating the thermal delta with and without resonance?

Yes, the equations are basic undergraduate electronics and some slightly more complicated heat transfer.  Getting accurate quantities for the variables isn't easy however, and validating the accuracy would require experimental runs regardless, so this procedure doesn't really save any work. 

Quote
Alternatively ... flipping to the horizontal mode ...

Probably the best bet (in conjunction with the following).

Quote
There has to be some clean way outside of a vacuum chamber...

There is.  Enclose the whole thing in a hermetically sealed chamber (eliminates hot air jets) of high rigidity (minimizes buoyancy) with high heat capacity (minimizes convection off chamber walls) and high heat transfer coefficient (minimizes anisotropy of convection off of chamber walls).

Ideally use some form of mixing within the chamber to ensure relatively even heat transfer across the inner surface of the chamber.  This further improves the uniformity of convection off the chamber walls.  With uniform convection off the chamber walls, thrust can be determined by flipping the orientation (up to down) of the chamber and emdrive with it.  This uses the same technique which was (incorrectly) applied to Iulian's up/down data.  A properly sealed chamber of this type has only thermal convection effects that are orientation independent, something that a frustum never will.

Other posters have already advised for this design, and didn't Shawyer even use it?  That may be one of the few things he actually got right. 

In general, "normalizing" thermal effects won't work.  There are many uncontrolled factors that feed into convection force: ambient pressure, humidity, ambient temperature (since it affects viscosity and subsequently Reynolds number), even things like surface roughness come into play by way of Reynolds number.  Trying to normalize that out will always be suspect unless fairly rigorous controls are in place, probably above what a DIY could employ.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/27/2015 03:29 pm
I think bagging and venting is a reasonable idea. You will want to take a lesson from wind tunnel design and reverse the fan to draw the warm air out. That will eliminate fan induced air turbulence from the system and you can measure the air temperature easily in the exit tube. (as well as inlet).

And since warm air wants to rise, perhaps the exit should be the top pipe so that the rising warm air naturally exits instead of reversing flow direction to the bottom before exiting. This again reduces air turbulence.

Drawing the air out instead of forcing it in should keep the insulation drawn up snugly to the chicken wire structure and so maintain the balloon volume. Air jetting from the frustum gaps into the bag shouldn't cause detectable effects as doing so would violate the same COM law that we have discussed forever.

The hot air inside the frustum itself will cause a lift force but the only way to eliminate that is to eliminate the air, or to create a perfectly rigid, perfectly sealed frustum and neither of those are likely.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/27/2015 03:42 pm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0px866l2gl50jd/2015-10-27%2012.31.45.jpg?dl=0

Finally have a uhv chamber available for the forseeable future.

If someone could post the picture for me, that would be great !

This chamber could handle a 20" diameter remote system, etc, there are some feedthrus available as well....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/27/2015 03:43 pm
While we're thinking about it folks, something that has not been addressed is the ambient conditions of Shell's lab.

As I understand it, the lab is at about 8,400 feet elevation so the atmosphere won't be anything like sea level conditions. I think the air at that elevation is commonly quite dry and I know that lift will be quite reduced from those at sea level. So while Shell is not using a vacuum chamber, the elevation of her lab does take her a step in that direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 03:45 pm


There is.  Enclose the whole thing in a hermetically sealed chamber (eliminates hot air jets) of high rigidity (minimizes buoyancy) with high heat capacity (minimizes convection off chamber walls) and high heat transfer coefficient (minimizes anisotropy of convection off of chamber walls).

Ideally use some form of mixing within the chamber to ensure relatively even heat transfer across the inner surface of the chamber.  This further improves the uniformity of convection off the chamber walls.  With uniform convection off the chamber walls, thrust can be determined by flipping the orientation (up to down) of the chamber and emdrive with it.  This uses the same technique which was (incorrectly) applied to Iulian's up/down data.  A properly sealed chamber of this type has only thermal convection effects that are orientation independent, something that a frustum never will.

I see the advantages of a hermetically sealed chamber, however, running power into the chamber would require extreme care to retain the seal.  At that point, you've essentially built a vacuum chamber except you don't require the 14 psi survival for the chamber.  This is a high cost for the DIY community.

Greg Egan posted some calculations in John Baez' blog about the predicted convective thrust.  Expanding on that, if all cumulative thermal effects can be a-prior modeled and calculated, at least to within a specific order of magnitude, then what a DIY can do is establish a hypothetical floor for the minimum required thrust to be observable.  i.e. if Egan's calculation stated that 28 watts will generate 127 micro-newtons of convective thrust, if the observed were 1,270 micro-newtons then a closer look would be warranted?

Absent the costs of doing hermetic seal / aka wimpy vacuum chamber, you could take an alternative approach.

Does the following approach stick to the wall or dribble down like a 3 month old pizza?
I suggested earlier a 2 sample group, no-resonance, resonance.  You promptly pointed out that thermal changes so that's not sufficient.  Change it to 4 groups, up resonance, down resonance, up no resonance, down no resonance.  If the error bars in the up-down don't overlap with resonance, but do overlap with no resonance, would that not in principle be the start of an experimental design with some teeth?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 10/27/2015 03:46 pm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0px866l2gl50jd/2015-10-27%2012.31.45.jpg?dl=0

Finally have a uhv chamber available for the forseeable future.

If someone could post the picture for me, that would be great !

This chamber could handle a 20" diameter remote system, etc, there are some feedthrus available as well....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 04:20 pm
While we're thinking about it folks, something that has not been addressed is the ambient conditions of Shell's lab.

As I understand it, the lab is at about 8,400 feet elevation so the atmosphere won't be anything like sea level conditions. I think the air at that elevation is commonly quite dry and I know that lift will be quite reduced from those at sea level. So while Shell is not using a vacuum chamber, the elevation of her lab does take her a step in that direction.
Low O2 content as well.

Looks like my insulation is going to be late for the lab, it was coming from TX but now IN.. sigh.  This weekend looks to be a good time to install.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 04:35 pm
I see the advantages of a hermetically sealed chamber, however, running power into the chamber would require extreme care to retain the seal.  At that point, you've essentially built a vacuum chamber except you don't require the 14 psi survival for the chamber.  This is a high cost for the DIY community.

I see what you're thinking, but it really isn't the case.  A sealed chamber, and a vacuum rated sealed chamber are orders of magnitude different beasties in the cost and effort they take.  I've made perfectly valid hermetically sealed chambers with a 3D printer, acetone to cure the surface and plumbers silicone to seal gaps for wiring.  These would have been useless as vacuum chambers, but they worked fine with the pressure differentials I needed them to.  Making something airtight is only an issue with significant pressure differentials.  The slight pressure differential that would arise from air heating (with a high heat capacity and conductive chamber) over a short run wouldn't require anything special.       

Quote
Greg Egan posted some calculations in John Baez' blog about the predicted convective thrust.  Expanding on that, if all cumulative thermal effects can be a-prior modeled and calculated, at least to within a specific order of magnitude, then what a DIY can do is establish a hypothetical floor for the minimum required thrust to be observable.  i.e. if Egan's calculation stated that 28 watts will generate 127 micro-newtons of convective thrust, if the observed were 1,270 micro-newtons then a closer look would be warranted?

Yeah, but now the workload has shifted from designing a low systematics experimental rig to designing a high thrust emdrive.  You have to choose which one you think is harder/more likely.  I'd go with the rig myself.

Quote
Absent the costs of doing hermetic seal / aka wimpy vacuum chamber, you could take an alternative approach.

Does the following approach stick to the wall or dribble down like a 3 month old pizza?
I suggested earlier a 2 sample group, no-resonance, resonance.  You promptly pointed out that thermal changes so that's not sufficient.  Change it to 4 groups, up resonance, down resonance, up no resonance, down no resonance.  If the error bars in the up-down don't overlap with resonance, but do overlap with no resonance, would that not in principle be the start of an experimental design with some teeth?

That's a clever idea, but I don't think it's valid because convective force is both orientation dependent and power input dependent (ie. resonance dependent), so I would expect that (up, resonance) is different from (down, resonance) in a way which itself differs from the difference between (up, no resonance) and (down, no resonance).

Trust me though that with reasonable pressure differentials, air-tight seals aren't as hard as you'd think they'd be.  You can quantify that pressure differential with basic thermo and heat transfer equations.  If it's only a few kPa, hermetically sealing isn't a big issue.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/27/2015 05:15 pm
My money is on simplicity and Uncle Glenn for extracting deltas out of thermal lift during mag on to mag off cycles ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 05:19 pm
I see the advantages of a hermetically sealed chamber, however, running power into the chamber would require extreme care to retain the seal.  At that point, you've essentially built a vacuum chamber except you don't require the 14 psi survival for the chamber.  This is a high cost for the DIY community.

I see what you're thinking, but it really isn't the case.  A sealed chamber, and a vacuum rated sealed chamber are orders of magnitude different beasties in the cost and effort they take.  I've made perfectly valid hermetically sealed chambers with a 3D printer, acetone to cure the surface and plumbers silicone to seal gaps for wiring.  Making something airtight is only an issue with significant pressure differentials.  The slight pressure differential that would arise from air heating (with a high heat capacity and conductive chamber) over a short run wouldn't require anything special.       

Quote
Greg Egan posted some calculations in John Baez' blog about the predicted convective thrust.  Expanding on that, if all cumulative thermal effects can be a-prior modeled and calculated, at least to within a specific order of magnitude, then what a DIY can do is establish a hypothetical floor for the minimum required thrust to be observable.  i.e. if Egan's calculation stated that 28 watts will generate 127 micro-newtons of convective thrust, if the observed were 1,270 micro-newtons then a closer look would be warranted?

Yeah, but now the workload has shifted from designing a low systematics experimental rig to designing a high thrust emdrive.  You have to choose which one you think is harder/more likely.  I'd go with the rig myself.

Quote
Absent the costs of doing hermetic seal / aka wimpy vacuum chamber, you could take an alternative approach.

Does the following approach stick to the wall or dribble down like a 3 month old pizza?
I suggested earlier a 2 sample group, no-resonance, resonance.  You promptly pointed out that thermal changes so that's not sufficient.  Change it to 4 groups, up resonance, down resonance, up no resonance, down no resonance.  If the error bars in the up-down don't overlap with resonance, but do overlap with no resonance, would that not in principle be the start of an experimental design with some teeth?

That's a clever idea, but I don't think it's valid because convective force is both orientation dependent and power input dependent (ie. resonance dependent), so I would expect that (up, resonance) is different from (down, resonance) in a way which itself differs from the difference between (up, no resonance) and (down, no resonance).

Trust me though that with reasonable pressure differentials, air-tight seals aren't as hard as you'd think they'd be.  You can quantify that pressure differential with basic thermo and heat transfer equations.  If it's only a few kPa, hermetically sealing isn't a big issue.


I agree that asymetries could kill you, but assuming the asymetric effects are small, I just finished a simulation of what it could look like.

Attached is a spreadsheet.  I can't upload excel macros to this site so to see it work, you'll have to include the VBA in Sheet2 and load that into the VBA code for the Button.

Here's the question I asked myself.

Assume thermal lift is a #, i.e. 300 units of something.
Assume the device lift is a #, i.e. 30 units of something.
Assume the variability is a #, i.e. 10% of the corresponding unit

Over 200 runs, randomly selecting resonance, no resonance, up, down, what would data look like, and how easy would it be to see a signal?

You can vary any of the fields in Yellow, Thermal Lift, thrust, variability to see whether you could detect a signal through the noise.  Won't work unless you know how to add the VBA in sheet 2 to the button. (Hint: Developer tools, right click on button, NEW, I think)

It looks to me, your asymetry issue asside, and that can be added to the simulation, that it should be possible to detect a signal for thrust at 10% of the thermal value, if you can keep your noise variability at +- 10 %.  At +-15% it gets iffy. At +- 25% it gets really iff, and above that, it's indistiguishable from random.

Hence, I contend that a clean signal, good measurement, and lots of replications should be able to find a signal without investing in a hermetic chamber.

You're good at busting my bubble so I await your next effort.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 05:26 pm
p.s. if the no resonance thermal is less thant the resonance, then the signal to noise level improves rather than degrades.

I'll upload a spreadsheet in a bit that allows you to insert asymetries as well.

edit:  Spreadsheet now includes ability to set thermal lift for no resonance, up thermal asymetry, down thermal asymetry.

Load the same macro as before.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 05:55 pm

I don't really use excel that much, I use Matlab for stuff like this.  I won't have the time to try out your program until later. 

If I understand you correctly, if you assume negligible asymmetry, you end up with:

thermal lift= X +/- (variability)*X
device lift= Y +/- (variability)*Y

which is just a rephrasing of:
Quote
Assume thermal lift is a #, i.e. 300 units of something.
Assume the device lift is a #, i.e. 30 units of something.
Assume the variability is a #, i.e. 10% of the corresponding unit

In that case, then why bother with resonance vs. no resonance?  The "Iulian method" would work just fine since we (incorrectly) assumed no asymmetry.

If we include asymmetry, which we must given that the emdrive is fundamentally asymmetric, and employ your up/down and resonance/no resonance method, the model becomes (before adding in variability):

Xres,up = thermal lift with resonance, up orientation
Xres,down = thermal lift with resonance, down orientation
Xno res,up = thermal lift with no resonance, up orientation
Xno res,down =thermal lift with no resonance, down orientation
Y = device lift

So you have 4 measured data sets based on the experimenter's control of (resonance, up)....(no resonance, down).
where

(resonance, up) = Xres,up + Y
...
(no resonance, down) = Xno res,down + Y

Is there a way to uniquely solve for 5 variables from 4 data sets?  Unfortunately not.

In general, without assuming away asymmetry, you can't pull out a thrust signal.   

So:
Quote
Hence, I contend that a clean signal, good measurement, and lots of replications should be able to find a signal without investing in a hermetic chamber
only works if we assume negligible asymmetry (so you're right in your specific case, but not in general). 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 06:30 pm

I don't really use excel that much, I use Matlab for stuff like this.  I won't have the time to try out your program until later. 

If I understand you correctly, if you assume negligible asymmetry, you end up with:

thermal lift= X +/- (variability)*X
device lift= Y +/- (variability)*Y

which is just a rephrasing of:
Quote
Assume thermal lift is a #, i.e. 300 units of something.
Assume the device lift is a #, i.e. 30 units of something.
Assume the variability is a #, i.e. 10% of the corresponding unit

In that case, then why bother with resonance vs. no resonance?  The "Iulian method" would work just fine since we (incorrectly) assumed no asymmetry.

If we include asymmetry, which we must given that the emdrive is fundamentally asymmetric, and employ your up/down and resonance/no resonance method, the model becomes (before adding in variability):

Xres,up = thermal lift with resonance, up orientation
Xres,down = thermal lift with resonance, down orientation
Xno res,up = thermal lift with no resonance, up orientation
Xno res,down =thermal lift with no resonance, down orientation
Y = device lift

So you have 4 measured data sets based on the experimenters control of (resonance, up)....(no resonance, down).
where

(resonance, up) = Xres,up + Y
...
(no resonance, down) = Xno res,down + Y

Is there a way to uniquely solve for 5 variables from 4 data sets?  Unfortunately not.

So in general, without assuming away asymmetry, you ca't pull out a thrust signal.   

So
Quote
Hence, I contend that a clean signal, good measurement, and lots of replications should be able to find a signal without investing in a hermetic chamber
only works if we assume negligible asymmetry (so you're right in your specific case, but not in general).

Now you done tossed something onto the table that I hadn't thought of.

I would assume that your Y is zero without resonance, but it may not be, so I have to add in a non-resonant value for Y.

Asymmetry was in the latest simulator upload.

As for why bother to include the no-resonance?  Well, there are a lot of folks here who believe it's a meaningful thing to have, so I'd include those tests just to be politically correct.

In any event, it looks to me like it is possible to see a signal as small as 1/10th the thermal, in spite of all the above, provided the noise can be kept low.

Edit:  Now has the following input values
1.  Thermal Lift Resonance
2.  Thermal Lift No Resonance
3.  Asymmetric lift UP
4.  Asymmetric Lift DOWN
5.  Device Lift Resonance
6.  Device Lift No-Resonance
7.  Variability from perfect value (%)

Still looks like unless some of the values are really whacked, See-Shells could See-Shomething if her signal is clean, and the thrust is > 10% of the thermal effects. 

VBA has to be manually added to the button from Sheet 2.  No changes in VBA

edit:
If this simulation is even vaguely close to reality, even Beagleworks should have been able to see a signal with enough trials....

edit:

no downloads?  Think I'll spend the next two days memorizing Endymion. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/27/2015 07:51 pm
{snip}
As for why bother to include the no-resonance?  Well, there are a lot of folks here who believe it's a meaningful thing to have, so I'd include those tests just to be politically correct.
{snip}

One of the things we have to demonstrate experimentally is that the EM Drive effect is dependant on frequency, we have been assuming it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 08:36 pm
Now you done tossed something onto the table that I hadn't thought of.

I would assume that your Y is zero without resonance, but it may not be, so I have to add in a non-resonant value for Y.


Good point, a non-resonant value for Y should definitely be included.


Quote
In any event, it looks to me like it is possible to see a signal as small as 1/10th the thermal, in spite of all the above, provided the noise can be kept low.

When you say "see" a signal, do you mean you calculate a number for Y from repeated measurements of (resonance, up), (resonance,down), ..., (no resonance, down)?  If so, how?  You have 4 equations and 6 unknowns (with non-resonant value of Y).  I don't see how you could uniquely determine what the value of either Y is. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 08:56 pm
Now you done tossed something onto the table that I hadn't thought of.

I would assume that your Y is zero without resonance, but it may not be, so I have to add in a non-resonant value for Y.


Good point, a non-resonant value for Y should definitely be included.


Quote
In any event, it looks to me like it is possible to see a signal as small as 1/10th the thermal, in spite of all the above, provided the noise can be kept low.

When you say "see" a signal, do you mean you calculate a number for Y from repeated measurements of (resonance, up), (resonance,down), ..., (no resonance, down)?  If so, how?  You have 4 equations and 6 unknowns (with non-resonant value of Y).  I don't see how you could uniquely determine what the value of either Y is.

Captain, I'm more of a statistician than a metrologist.   I would be happy if one could conclude Y is non zero.

As to what the value of Y is?  If the signals were anything like the model, you could estimate it, if the data were as clean as I simulate it.

Reality will impose it's ugly truth and things will drift from oxidation, inconsistent timings, aging capacitors, sticky scales, experimentor dropping something, all the plagues of engineering implementations.  All those nasties that drift into post-hoc = unacceptable analysis.

I think at this stage, it's perhaps enough to say, "If Y > 10% of the thermal value, and the noise level is around 10%, then if there is a non-zero Y, it might be obvious in the data, provided the other unknowns are not too large to override the signal"

As for actually solving for Y?  Let's see, we have 7 variables, and no knowns.   I don't recall any mathematical way to solve that one.  Maybe after 3 or 4 scotch on the rocks I could solve it, but you'd have to have 5 or 6 to agree.

I think the best we can do is say, in a DIY framework, you picks your assumptions and run with them.  If you're lucky, the data says you weren't wasting your time.  The simulation says, it's possible  (<> likely) that a careful experimenter could get an interesting result absent a vacuum chamber or hermetically sealed chamber.

The up side is, there are enough folks reading this that one of them will look at your analysis and say, "I have a 3D printer.  I can build a hermetically sealed chamber!"  Until then, the community has to work with the DIY folks who've revealed themselves.

My simple goal is to demonstrate that with what's on the table today, it's possible to create an interesting result.

The simulation says that if you pick "plausible" values for these 7 variables, a signal could be visible.  It does not say that I picked "plausible" values. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/27/2015 09:07 pm

When you say "see" a signal, do you mean you calculate a number for Y from repeated measurements of (resonance, up), (resonance,down), ..., (no resonance, down)?  If so, how?  You have 4 equations and 6 unknowns (with non-resonant value of Y).  I don't see how you could uniquely determine what the value of either Y is.

The UP thermal and the DOWN thermal should be the (Up thermal + up asymmetry) and the (Down thermal + down asymmetry).  Even though there are 4 variables there, the physical manifestation should be the sum, hence two variables?

Yes?  No?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/27/2015 09:14 pm

...

IMHO controling for oxidation is good, and I'm sure when you look in any 19th century mirror, you know that your coating will oxidize.   :)  But you're right, silver oxide should behave better than copper oxide, although it's not as pretty after a century or two.

One other stupid thought, is there any way at all to measure the Q value at the beginning and end of each run, or during the run?  That data in itself could be quite useful, especially if the hypothesis relates Q to lift.

Silver does not oxidize easily.   Silver tarnish happens because silver undergoes a chemical reaction with sulfur-containing substances in the air.    It doesn't affect the surface conductivity at DC; which is why some swiches have Silver contacts.   As long as there is no Sulfur around, especially H2S, the Silver will not tarnish.   if it is Fine Silver (99.99% pure) it can be heated to its melting point and will be white when it has cooled down.   The problem with Silver plating is getting good adhesion.   I have done some Silver plating, using Silver Cyanide solutions.    When first applied the Silver plating is soft and easily smeared off.   After rinsing and allowing it to dry for a few hours the Silver plating hardens and adheres.   I have never used the plating brushes.  I suspect the quality is not as good and that plating over it with Gold would not produce a good result.   It also may not be Fine Silver that is being plated so the electrical benefit may not be there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 10/27/2015 09:40 pm
Captain, I'm more of a statistician than a metrologist.   I would be happy if one could conclude Y is non zero.

As to what the value of Y is?  If the signals were anything like the model, you could estimate it, if the data were as clean as I simulate it.

...

I think at this stage, it's perhaps enough to say, "If Y > 10% of the thermal value, and the noise level is around 10%, then if there is a non-zero Y, it might be obvious in the data, provided the other unknowns are not too large to override the signal"

As for actually solving for Y?  Let's see, we have 7 variables, and no knowns.   I don't recall any mathematical way to solve that one.  Maybe after 3 or 4 scotch on the rocks I could solve it, but you'd have to have 5 or 6 to agree.

I think the best we can do is say, in a DIY framework, you picks your assumptions and run with them.  If you're lucky, the data says you weren't wasting your time.  The simulation says, it's possible  (<> likely) that a careful experimenter could get an interesting result absent a vacuum chamber or hermetically sealed chamber.

The up side is, there are enough folks reading this that one of them will look at your analysis and say, "I have a 3D printer.  I can build a hermetically sealed chamber!"  Until then, the community has to work with the DIY folks who've revealed themselves.

My simple goal is to demonstrate that with what's on the table today, it's possible to create an interesting result.

The simulation says that if you pick "plausible" values for these 7 variables, a signal could be visible.  It does not say that I picked "plausible" values.

I was actually being a bit rhetorical when I asked about solving for Y when you have 5 unknowns and only the 4 equations, because it's not doable.  No method in math, or statistics, or anything else that makes it possible.  The corollary of that is also that it is impossible to even determine if Y is non-zero.  To know anything about Y, you have to do the math and analysis on some of the other variables I gave in this (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439744#msg1439744) post, but then we're back to my original complaint about mathematically characterizing thermal lift:

Quote
Yes, the equations are basic undergraduate electronics and some slightly more complicated heat transfer.  Getting accurate quantities for the variables isn't easy however, and validating the accuracy would require experimental runs regardless, so this procedure doesn't really save any work. 


The UP thermal and the DOWN thermal should be the (Up thermal + up asymmetry) and the (Down thermal + down asymmetry).  Even though there are 4 variables there, the physical manifestation should be the sum, hence two variables?

Yes?  No?

Right, there are two variables, UP thermal and DOWN thermal.  But in your model with choosing resonance, there is UP, RESONANCE thermal and DOWN, RESONANCE therma etc.  Still 4 unknowns for every combination of orientations and resonance, plus the fifth unknown for device thrust. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2015 11:21 pm
Shell,

I'm back home and recovering nicely from the extended robot entry wound site infection. SHould restart the rad treatment soon.

Did your requested resonance data.

As you can see achieving TE012 resonance will probably not happen as you will need to inject Rf around 2.3gHz. However from the resonance mode map I did, there should be a lot of lengths that will give you resonance at the freq output range of the maggie

Based on 90% of your 750Ws getting into the frustum and using a conservative unloaded Q of 10,000, the Force generation potential is, assuming you can get a narrow band of Rf from the maggie that fits inside the frustum's 250kHz bandwidth, around 30mNs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2015 11:32 pm
A comment on the thermal lift.

If the Rf is not inside the frustum bandwidth, most of it will be reflected back toward the Rf generator. If there is a circulator and reflected Rf load in pace the reflected energy will thermalise there. If not it will heat up the magnetron.

Which means there can be 3 sources for heat to be radiated.

1) if operating at resonance, outer surface radiation from the frustum side walls and end plates.

2) the magnetron heat radiators.

3) if used, the reflected Rf heat radiator.

I would note that Roger appears to have used a circulator and external reflected heat radiator with all the EMDrives. Can be seen here in his schematic of the Experimental EMDrive.

Using a circulator and reflected heat radiator ensures the experimenter will know where any reflected / non resonance energy will turn into heat and can design to handle it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/28/2015 12:27 am
Given the thermal lift issues, some form of horizontal (rotary) test may be preferable.

The thermal lift would affect vertical movement, not horizontal.

Would multiple DIY repeats of Shawyers rotary test be of value in determining if the EN Drive is 'real?'
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/28/2015 12:47 am

I was actually being a bit rhetorical when I asked about solving for Y when you have 5 unknowns and only the 4 equations, because it's not doable.  No method in math, or statistics, or anything else that makes it possible.  The corollary of that is also that it is impossible to even determine if Y is non-zero.  To know anything about Y, you have to do the math and analysis on some of the other variables I gave in this (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439744#msg1439744) post, but then we're back to my original complaint about mathematically characterizing thermal lift:


Thinking.  Gut feel is I don't agree, but I need to "sleep" on this to figure out why.  :)

Gut says, finding a difference statistically is necessary and sufficient.

Your argument is it's not sufficient.

I think I agree that it's not sufficent, but I think finding what I propose is the 1st half, necessary.

More tomorrow.  I do better dreaming problems.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 01:57 am
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/28/2015 02:13 am
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM

Nope.  John Baez has some incredibly powerful critiques.   This barely makes the chinese fortune cookie level.

There are many very good reasons to claim EM drives can't work.   

There are probably MORE good reasons to claim this group should never be admitted to high school.

On the otherhand, they could be commended for taking a swat at this.

IMHO.  And I'm being nice.   Sorry.

Can't wait to see CK's comments on Reddit.  He was all over this paper chomping for a chance to read it.  I see dry heaves in his future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 02:25 am
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM

Nope.  John Baez has some incredibly powerful critiques.   This barely makes the chinese fortune cookie level.

There are many very good reasons to claim EM drives can't work.   

There are probably MORE good reasons to claim this group should never be admitted to high school.

On the otherhand, they could be commended for taking a swat at this.

IMHO.  And I'm being nice.   Sorry.

Can't wait to see CK's comments on Reddit.  He was all over this paper chomping for a chance to read it.  I see dry heaves in his future.
Nice compass? Sorry I'm sure he tried, no bad data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 02:29 am
Spent most of the day waiting for my truck. Lost another one. So tomorrow no interruptions! Work need to get done.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 10/28/2015 02:58 am
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!

The cooling hose only connects to the fulcrum beam and the fan isn't attached to the beam but sits on the base of the testing stand. Done correctly this would have little or no impact on the movement of the beam and remove most of the thermal balloon effects.
http://masterduct.com.tempdomain.com/SearchProducts/SearchResults/tabid/116/CategoryID/22/List/1/Level/a/ProductID/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
I think it is something that just might work... what do you think?

Shell

Added: Sorry this is such a crude drawing and I'm sure there are mods that need to be considered, air insertion points and attachments to the beam and materials. I was simply excited.

One more thing... http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tripp-Lite-Portable-Cooling-Unit-or-Air-Conditioner-3-4-kW-120-Volt-60-Hz-12K-BTU-SRCOOL12K/203796126

Oops another: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Speedi-Products-3-in-x-20-ft-Standard-White-Vinyl-Flexible-Hose-EX-SVH-03/202907361

I really like this.  I think areo's suggestionto use the fan to draw away hot air is also very good.  If you use that approach do you need an input hose or can you use some sort of diffuser attached to the insulated chamber (bag)???

That said, rmfwguy and glennfish have a very valid point about simplicity.  This suggests a staged approach with the simplest configuration first followed by more advanced thermal controls. 

Whichever approach taken, we now have options for thermal controls and that is great!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 03:17 am
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633
This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here!  :D "

Yep he does, aero is one sharp man. It's called a controlled micro environment. Add a a flex cooling line and a fan... bingo!


I really like this.  I think areo's suggestionto use the fan to draw away hot air is also very good.  If you use that approach do you need an input hose or can you use some sort of diffuser attached to the insulated chamber (bag)???

That said, rmfwguy and glennfish have a very valid point about simplicity.  This suggests a staged approach with the simplest configuration first followed by more advanced thermal controls. 

Whichever approach taken, we now have options for thermal controls and that is great!

Simple first, a big KISS to start it off with.

Shell

Keep It Simple Stupid.... of course. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/28/2015 03:53 am
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM

Nope.  John Baez has some incredibly powerful critiques.   This barely makes the chinese fortune cookie level.

There are many very good reasons to claim EM drives can't work.   

There are probably MORE good reasons to claim this group should never be admitted to high school.

On the otherhand, they could be commended for taking a swat at this.

IMHO.  And I'm being nice.   Sorry.

Can't wait to see CK's comments on Reddit.  He was all over this paper chomping for a chance to read it.  I see dry heaves in his future.

Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/28/2015 04:40 am
"Part of the healing process is sharing with other people who care."  - Jerry Cantrell

TT, your sharing is a gift. Not just to Shell, but to all who believe in knowledge.

I hope your knowledge and gentle prodding helps others grow and succeed in their tasks.

And I hope your sharing helps you heal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 04:47 am
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM

Nope.  John Baez has some incredibly powerful critiques.   This barely makes the chinese fortune cookie level.

There are many very good reasons to claim EM drives can't work.   

There are probably MORE good reasons to claim this group should never be admitted to high school.

On the otherhand, they could be commended for taking a swat at this.

IMHO.  And I'm being nice.   Sorry.

Can't wait to see CK's comments on Reddit.  He was all over this paper chomping for a chance to read it.  I see dry heaves in his future.

Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.
One thing strikes me in this test and even reading the paper. And this is as a builder first.

I would have liked to see them use Mumetal, (http://Mumetal,) Nikel Permalloy, Magnetic shielding foil to shield the DUT from magnetic forces. It would have been a good investment.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/28/2015 04:48 am
Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.

As far as I can tell, the experiment is just measuring the Lorentz force on a device with a current running through it due to the Earth's magnetic field. They point out in the Appendix that due to different grounding points in the null and resonating cavity tests, the Lorentz force may not have been correctly accounted for in the Eagleworks experiment. This just adds one more possible explanation of experimental error that could be the real cause for the small thrust measured by Eagleworks.

This is a paper explaining why the emdrive thrust is just an error in the experiment design. It could use a bit more rigor in parts, but its point is to demonstrate that a significant source of error exists, not to precisely measure the magnitude, which would require them to have access to the original experiment equipment.

To reiterate, this paper claims (reasonably) that the measured thrust is an experimental error, and suggests an incorrect calibration of the Lorentz force effect on the setup as the cause of the error.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/28/2015 05:45 am

...

Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.

There was a lot of discussion on earlier threads about the accuracy of the NASA labs correction for the magnetic damper induced force.  The conclusion, I think was that we didn't have enough information on their experimental methods to be able to quantify this inaccuracy.   The authors of this paper have done a very good job looking into this, despite being hampered by the same lack of inside information.  Their experimental method is good and the paper is very well written.   This is just the sort of experimentation people should be doing.   Too bad we have to be taught this by high school students.  har har 

When NASA started testing in a vacuum they reduced the error thrust due to magnetic effects a lot.   Sadly the anomalous force was also reduced a lot.  That was when everything started looking like a thermal effect instead.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 12:33 pm
Attached is a paper just released by reddit user potomac_neuron who suggests emdrive effects are lorentz force induced. A video of the torsion balance test stand is included.

https://youtu.be/UsOee729YBM

Nope.  John Baez has some incredibly powerful critiques.   This barely makes the chinese fortune cookie level.

There are many very good reasons to claim EM drives can't work.   

There are probably MORE good reasons to claim this group should never be admitted to high school.

On the otherhand, they could be commended for taking a swat at this.

IMHO.  And I'm being nice.   Sorry.

Can't wait to see CK's comments on Reddit.  He was all over this paper chomping for a chance to read it.  I see dry heaves in his future.
Nice compass? Sorry I'm sure he tried, no bad data.
As my memory fades, I recall studying the Lorentz force with DC power supply wires months ago and followed the discussions here on NSF. You are right shell, this is a compass which tries to align with the earth's poles and presents a VERY small force, as they reported a dozen or so micronewtons.

Whether or not this past discussion contributed to my decision to do vertical, not horizontal (torsion or rotary) testing, I can't honestly say, but whatever the current turns out to be, it should be included in rotary/torsion error calculations. I even took the time to twist my DC supply wires together so as not to present a straight path (even though I am not using torsion/rotary - a horizontal lorentz force would be overcome by the 2 knife edge balance points anyway).

I too commend them for taking a swipe at it WITH THEIR HANDS, not just their mouths, as so many want to do. Their next step should be to evaluate this setup with a balance beam/vertical setup in all compass directions IMO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 04:28 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 04:48 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think before they can publish an effective paper they need to exclude any other magnetic fields. Low cost to do so.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mumetal-Nikel-Permalloy-Magnetic-shielding-foil-Sheet-Mu-metal-0-1T-30-45cm-/171173026902?hash=item27dab51c56:m:mgbC7M_nDkiqkt7vr_R66rQ

Added: Look at the data sets they provided to see how it can cancel out other fields....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/28/2015 05:03 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?


visual

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Regla_mano_derecha_Laplace.svg/375px-Regla_mano_derecha_Laplace.svg.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/28/2015 05:27 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 05:43 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?


visual

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Regla_mano_derecha_Laplace.svg/375px-Regla_mano_derecha_Laplace.svg.png)
I must be having a bad day Uncle Glenn...the F force is perpendicular to the current carrying wire. So I am also assuming this is also perpendicular to the earth's magnetic field, or pointing up? If so, this would be lift?

Trying to understand why the F force is shown as up in this right-hand rule pic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 05:43 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 05:51 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
Hmmm, trying to visualize if the vertical component is up or down. In my test setup, the frustum was on the east end of an east-west balance beam. The twisted supply wires extended from midpoint to the frustum, about 3.5 feet total. This would give an upwards force?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 10/28/2015 06:01 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell

Gravity is dependent on location as well. I wonder if there is any relationship between thrust and the local magnetic field or gravity?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 06:04 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue (Airplane 1980) but what gives a vertical force to a common compass, which I can only imagine as a horizontal force? Help me shell...  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 06:07 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell

Gravity is dependent on location as well. I wonder if there is any relationship between thrust and the local magnetic field or gravity?
Its where I'm having trouble as well. Gravity is a non-polarized vertical force, perpendicular to magnetic lines of force. Any vertical component of magnetism makes no sense to me without a gravity interaction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 10/28/2015 06:53 pm
Its where I'm having trouble as well. Gravity is a non-polarized vertical force, perpendicular to magnetic lines of force. Any vertical component of magnetism makes no sense to me without a gravity interaction.

This is only my second post in this discussion, but I'll see if maybe I can help you visual this.  Remember that they're called electromagnetic fields.  The magnetic field given off by a standard magnet does not exist in a two dimensional plane.  It is easy to think of it in that manner, but in reality it emanates in all directions from the north and south poles of the magnet, forming essentially two spheres that meet in the middle of the magnet.  After all, the magnet exists in three dimensional space and it exerts its magnetic force equally in all directions around both its poles.

Let's say we have two rectangular prism shaped magnets.  The south pole of one is placed near the north pole of the other.  No matter what direction the first magnet approaches from, it is attracted to the second magnet.  This is because both magnets are generating their magnet fields in all directions of three dimensional space and not only within a two dimensional plane.

The Earth's magnetic field is all around us and also occupies three dimensional space.  However, we tend to think of the Earth as being more two dimensional because we see such a small portion of its spherical surface that it appears flat, even though we know this not to be the case.  The only time we really think about the Earth's magnetic field is when we make use of a compass, however, the motion of any compass we use is constrained to a two-dimensional plane, this reinforces the notion of the two dimensionality of the Earth's magnetic field.  In reality, the North pole isn't only North of you, in the direction a compass points though, at least not it terms of its location relative to you in three dimensional space.  Think about your position relative to the north pole in terms of an x, y vector that travels through the earth's center, and I think you'll understand why there could potentially be a vertical component to this lorentz force.

On a related note, I've been following the discussion since the third discussion thread, through I completely missed the fourth one.  It's really quite fascinating.  I'm just finishing up a degree in Industrial Design myself, so I can't claim to be any sort of Engineer or anything like that, but I am good with 3D design software, though most of my student liscenses are just about to run out and I'm fairly good at prototyping.  I also have some experience with 3D printing.  I've also pre-ordered a Peachy Printer, which is a really cool $100 3D Printer.

It floats liquid resin on top of salt water and cures it with a laser.  The cool thing about it is that the build area can be customized.  The developers have finished with the testing phases and are starting to ramp up production.  They're going to start shipping out in December, so I'll be getting mine sometime around then, at the earliest.  Given that I can print any build size I want with the Peachy Printer, I might be able to print some Hermetically sealed chambers for some of the DIYers on the site.  Of course, that all is months away at this point, but just thought I'd offer my services.  Of course, people could also order a Peachy Printer for themselves, seeing as how it's only $100, and then print up a chamber on their own.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/28/2015 06:54 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue (Airplane 1980) but what gives a vertical force to a common compass, which I can only imagine as a horizontal force? Help me shell...  :o
The field for all intents slices parallel to the surface of the earth N>S. If you pointed a compass point to the sky (up) and released it it would want to move and position itself to point north and south in a horizontal plane to the earth.  If your at the North Pole it becomes different and you have a vertical component.

Not sure where he is getting a vertical force from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
In real materials the Lorentz force is inadequate to describe the behavior of charged particles, both in principle and as a matter of computation. The charged particles in a material medium both respond to the E and B fields and generate these fields. Complex transport equations must be solved to determine the time and spatial response of charges, for example, the Boltzmann equation or the Fokker–Planck equation or the Navier–Stokes equations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Charged-particle-drifts.svg

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SlightPace on 10/28/2015 07:02 pm
Resonance does create more heat than no resonance though.  This is very well known and nothing new; it has to do with impedance, power factor, etc.  The short of it is that in the real world, all resonant systems will reach a maximum stored energy where they dissipate energy at the same rate they take energy in, because no system is perfectly resonant in the sense of zero losses.  At resonance, more energy is delivered to the system than if it were off resonance.  Hence more power is dissipated and therefore the system gets hotter.   

So unfortunately, characterizing thermal lift by screwing around with resonance won't work, because thermal lift is itself intimately tied in with resonance.  Change resonance, change thermal lift.   

How much energy can you store in copper frustum of this size with reasonable Q? And how quickly will it reach steady-state? I'm sure when the system is loaded, the heat produced would be the same in resonating and non-resonating cavity, considering the same power is injected.
I don't see how the system would get hotter in resonance assuming the measurement period is long enough.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: not_a_physicist on 10/28/2015 08:11 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
Hmmm, trying to visualize if the vertical component is up or down. In my test setup, the frustum was on the east end of an east-west balance beam. The twisted supply wires extended from midpoint to the frustum, about 3.5 feet total. This would give an upwards force?
I'm not qualified to do anything besides wiggle the compass on my desk around and tell you what it does, but for what it's worth I don't see how an east-west balance beam would be pushed up or down either.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 08:13 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue (Airplane 1980) but what gives a vertical force to a common compass, which I can only imagine as a horizontal force? Help me shell...  :o
The field for all intents slices parallel to the surface of the earth N>S. If you pointed a compass point to the sky (up) and released it it would want to move and position itself to point north and south in a horizontal plane to the earth.  If your at the North Pole it becomes different and you have a vertical component.

Not sure where he is getting a vertical force from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
In real materials the Lorentz force is inadequate to describe the behavior of charged particles, both in principle and as a matter of computation. The charged particles in a material medium both respond to the E and B fields and generate these fields. Complex transport equations must be solved to determine the time and spatial response of charges, for example, the Boltzmann equation or the Fokker–Planck equation or the Navier–Stokes equations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Charged-particle-drifts.svg
I can't either...just thought it was my bad. So a vertical run of power supply wires could only have a horizontal force component. This was my assumption from day one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 08:16 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
Hmmm, trying to visualize if the vertical component is up or down. In my test setup, the frustum was on the east end of an east-west balance beam. The twisted supply wires extended from midpoint to the frustum, about 3.5 feet total. This would give an upwards force?
I'm not qualified to do anything besides wiggle the compass on my desk around and tell you what it does, but for what it's worth I don't see how an east-west balance beam would be pushed up or down either.
I think you are correct and the only thing I can think of is he was referring to vertical supply wires, not horizontal supply wires like mine is.

Thanks to you and shell, I'm going to continue to believe a Lorentz force with horizontal wiring and vertical deflection has close to near Zero Lorentz force applied.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 08:21 pm
Its where I'm having trouble as well. Gravity is a non-polarized vertical force, perpendicular to magnetic lines of force. Any vertical component of magnetism makes no sense to me without a gravity interaction.

This is only my second post in this discussion, but I'll see if maybe I can help you visual this.  Remember that they're called electromagnetic fields.  The magnetic field given off by a standard magnet does not exist in a two dimensional plane.  It is easy to think of it in that manner, but in reality it emanates in all directions from the north and south poles of the magnet, forming essentially two spheres that meet in the middle of the magnet.  After all, the magnet exists in three dimensional space and it exerts its magnetic force equally in all directions around both its poles.

Let's say we have two rectangular prism shaped magnets.  The south pole of one is placed near the north pole of the other.  No matter what direction the first magnet approaches from, it is attracted to the second magnet.  This is because both magnets are generating their magnet fields in all directions of three dimensional space and not only within a two dimensional plane.

The Earth's magnetic field is all around us and also occupies three dimensional space.  However, we tend to think of the Earth as being more two dimensional because we see such a small portion of its spherical surface that it appears flat, even though we know this not to be the case.  The only time we really think about the Earth's magnetic field is when we make use of a compass, however, the motion of any compass we use is constrained to a two-dimensional plane, this reinforces the notion of the two dimensionality of the Earth's magnetic field.  In reality, the North pole isn't only North of you, in the direction a compass points though, at least not it terms of its location relative to you in three dimensional space.  Think about your position relative to the north pole in terms of an x, y vector that travels through the earth's center, and I think you'll understand why there could potentially be a vertical component to this lorentz force.

On a related note, I've been following the discussion since the third discussion thread, through I completely missed the fourth one.  It's really quite fascinating.  I'm just finishing up a degree in Industrial Design myself, so I can't claim to be any sort of Engineer or anything like that, but I am good with 3D design software, though most of my student liscenses are just about to run out and I'm fairly good at prototyping.  I also have some experience with 3D printing.  I've also pre-ordered a Peachy Printer, which is a really cool $100 3D Printer.

It floats liquid resin on top of salt water and cures it with a laser.  The cool thing about it is that the build area can be customized.  The developers have finished with the testing phases and are starting to ramp up production.  They're going to start shipping out in December, so I'll be getting mine sometime around then, at the earliest.  Given that I can print any build size I want with the Peachy Printer, I might be able to print some Hermetically sealed chambers for some of the DIYers on the site.  Of course, that all is months away at this point, but just thought I'd offer my services.  Of course, people could also order a Peachy Printer for themselves, seeing as how it's only $100, and then print up a chamber on their own.
Welcome to your 2nd post! Think I've gotten the Lorentz force issue put to bed. Regarding modeling, I have a thought for you. The Frustums vary a bit is size, by mine is 10.2 inches height by 11.01 large diameter and 6.25 small diameter. Is your system capable of this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/28/2015 08:35 pm
Let me try to clarify the Lorentz force since there is a lot of confusion.

The Lorentz force is in a direction mutually perpendicular to the Magnetic field and the velocity of Electric charges. (There is a vector cross product of velocity and magnetic field in the force equation).

This means that an east-west current carrying wire in a region of the earth with horizontal magnetic field will experience a purely vertical force.

Also, don't think about how a compass behaves when talking about the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force is a description of the force on a moving electric charge in a magnetic field. A compass is a magnetic dipole, which you treat differently. (I don't want to detail that here since it would probably add to the confusion, but here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets) is the Wikipedia description of the force on a magnet in a magnetic field.)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 10/28/2015 09:05 pm
The Frustums vary a bit is size, by mine is 10.2 inches height by 11.01 large diameter and 6.25 small diameter. Is your system capable of this?

As I said previously, the Peachy Printer works by floating liquid resin over salt water.  I did forget to mention how it raised the level of the resin, previously though.  It does this by adding drops of salt water from a secondary container to the build area and passing each drop through a conductive area.  The salt water completes the circuit momentarily and the system knows that a drop of water has passed by.

So, essentially, it works by having two containers of salt water, one higher than the other.  One is your build area, which the liquid resin floats on top of and the laser then cures.  The second is higher than that, and the water drips from that to fill the build area and raise the level of the water in the build area.  You can make the size of these containers whatever you want.  So, yes, the Peachy Printer can handle the size of your Frustum, as long as I have two containers large enough for the water.

Here's a link to the Peachy Printer website (http://www.peachyprinter.com/).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rq3 on 10/28/2015 09:31 pm
OK, so Potomac Neuron wrote me back at reddit and I'm having trouble digesting this visual. Perhaps someone here can. He said that the lorentz force will have a vertical component, like a Compass Needle mounted vertically.

I'm at a bit of a duh moment I cannot visualize. Anything to this?
I think it is this: If you have a compass on its side such that N points towards the sky and W points north, then it will rotate itself such that N points north and W points towards the ground. That rotation is on the axis that could make a balance beam tilt, so we would describe the force it's producing as having a vertical component.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#/media/File:Geodynamo_Between_Reversals.gif)
The earths field isn't as simple as a bar magnet with a piece of paper over it and iron fillings scattered on it.
Shell
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue (Airplane 1980) but what gives a vertical force to a common compass, which I can only imagine as a horizontal force? Help me shell...  :o

The Earth looks like a huge bar magnet. At a gross level (there are local variations), the magnetic field is parallel to the Earth's surface at the equator, and vertical to the Earth's surface at the poles. Which is why a magnetic compass is useless for polar navigation. The needle wants to point at the center of the Earth.

This effect is known as magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. High quality compasses (for example, those used in aircraft), are specifically designed for use in particular areas. One buys a compass for northern or southern hemisphere use, and sometimes based upon the latitude of intended use. The higher the latitude, the greater the dip, and the compass is designed to compensate (to a point, no magnetic compass will work at the Earth's poles to indicate direction. At the North Pole, north is down).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 10/28/2015 09:58 pm

...

The Earth looks like a huge bar magnet. At a gross level (there are local variations), the magnetic field is parallel to the Earth's surface at the equator, and vertical to the Earth's surface at the poles. Which is why a magnetic compass is useless for polar navigation. The needle wants to point at the center of the Earth.

This effect is known as magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. High quality compasses (for example, those used in aircraft), are specifically designed for use in particular areas. One buys a compass for northern or southern hemisphere use, and sometimes based upon the latitude of intended use. The higher the latitude, the greater the dip, and the compass is designed to compensate (to a point, no magnetic compass will work at the Earth's poles to indicate direction. At the North Pole, north is down).

I don't think the geomagnetic field is a strong influence in em-drive measurement error.   The paper recently talked about was concerned with the powerful NIB magnets used to dampen the balance.   The Earth's magnetic field has a field strength of 5X10-5 Tesla.   The force on a current carrying length of wire due to an external magnetic field that is aligned at right angles to it is:
F = BIL,  where I = current in Amps (assume 10 Amps), L = length in meters (assume .01 Meters)
so the resultant force woukd be F = 5X10-5 X 10 X .001  = 5 microNewton.

This is just a rough estimate and on the high side by maybe a factor of 10 but it does give us an idea of how small the effect of the geomagnetic field would be.

And shielding with mumetal will not work.    The magnetic field generated by a current carrying wire just goes into the mumetal where it meets any external magnetic field.   Mumetal shielding only works when the item being shielded, like a Gaussmeter's Hall effect probe, has very small currents flowing through it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 10:15 pm

...

The Earth looks like a huge bar magnet. At a gross level (there are local variations), the magnetic field is parallel to the Earth's surface at the equator, and vertical to the Earth's surface at the poles. Which is why a magnetic compass is useless for polar navigation. The needle wants to point at the center of the Earth.

This effect is known as magnetic dip, or magnetic inclination. High quality compasses (for example, those used in aircraft), are specifically designed for use in particular areas. One buys a compass for northern or southern hemisphere use, and sometimes based upon the latitude of intended use. The higher the latitude, the greater the dip, and the compass is designed to compensate (to a point, no magnetic compass will work at the Earth's poles to indicate direction. At the North Pole, north is down).

I don't think the geomagnetic field is a strong influence in em-drive measurement error.   The paper recently talked about was concerned with the powerful NIB magnets used to dampen the balance.   The Earth's magnetic field has a field strength of 5X10-5 Tesla.   The force on a current carrying length of wire due to an external magnetic field that is aligned at right angles to it is:
F = BIL,  where I = current in Amps (assume 10 Amps), L = length in meters (assume .01 Meters)
so the resultant force woukd be F = 5X10-5 X 10 X .001  = 5 microNewton.

This is just a rough estimate and on the high side by maybe a factor of 10 but it does give us an idea of how small the effect of the geomagnetic field would be.

And shielding with mumetal will not work.    The magnetic field generated by a current carrying wire just goes into the mumetal where it meets any external magnetic field.   Mumetal shielding only works when the item being shielded, like a Gaussmeter's Hall effect probe, has very small currents flowing through it.
So really, we should only be concerned about lorentz force if our emdrive effects were below about 10 micronewtons? I think I came to this conclusion months ago, but I've slept since then :)

"We will post our article tomorrow that has the potential to conclude this discussion" - potomac_neuron on reddit.

I really think the author believed this would end the emdrive discussions/testing. I'll let others decide if that's the case. As for me, its off to phase II.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/28/2015 11:12 pm
Resonance does create more heat than no resonance though.  This is very well known and nothing new; it has to do with impedance, power factor, etc.  The short of it is that in the real world, all resonant systems will reach a maximum stored energy where they dissipate energy at the same rate they take energy in, because no system is perfectly resonant in the sense of zero losses.  At resonance, more energy is delivered to the system than if it were off resonance.  Hence more power is dissipated and therefore the system gets hotter.   

So unfortunately, characterizing thermal lift by screwing around with resonance won't work, because thermal lift is itself intimately tied in with resonance.  Change resonance, change thermal lift.   

How much energy can you store in copper frustum of this size with reasonable Q? And how quickly will it reach steady-state? I'm sure when the system is loaded, the heat produced would be the same in resonating and non-resonating cavity, considering the same power is injected.
I don't see how the system would get hotter in resonance assuming the measurement period is long enough.

A microwave cavity doesn't work like that. If the Rf energy is not at the cavities resonance freq, it will not enter the cavity and will be reflected back to the Rf generator.

To protect the Rf gen from the heating effect of the non resonant reflected energy a circulator is placed between the Rf generator and the resonant load which causes the reflected Rf energy to be directed into a heat sink and thermalised. This is standard microwave built tech.

What this means is the frustum will only heat up if the applied Rf energy is at a freq that is inside the frustums resonant bandwidth.

Microwaves, resonant cavities, circulators and even waveguides work in strange ways. Some call it microwave black magic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/29/2015 12:11 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 12:35 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.
Cubesat has a dimensional problem, meaning a 40 cm w x h limit. Most of our stuff is larger. I've read a little about smallsat but don't have enough info. Cubesat does have 40 cm lengths, so if someone comes up with a working model like the Aachen team, it might work.

Still think its too early to plan for space launch, but one can dream big.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/29/2015 12:41 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 12:50 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )
Problem with cubesat is serious power supply for frustum probably cannot fit into dimensions, not to mention the frustum itself. A 40 cm square drives resonant freq up, driving rf source power down. Tried to imagine an inflatable frustum but had a brain tilt.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/29/2015 01:02 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )
Problem with cubesat is serious power supply for frustum probably cannot fit into dimensions, not to mention the frustum itself. A 40 cm square drives resonant freq up, driving rf source power down. Tried to imagine an inflatable frustum but had a brain tilt.

Geeze guys, time to innovate.  :D  You've already done things folks have scoffed at, maybe Eagleworks could get you some  extra space.

Wow, I must have struck a nerve ;D 

Then my work is done.

For today.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/29/2015 01:23 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

Your URL did not wok for me. Can you check it?
You

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/29/2015 01:33 am
A basic 1U cubesat is 10 cm X 10 cm X 10 cm. The popular 3U cubesat is 30 cm X 10 cm X 10 cm. Microprocessor and memory boards exist able fit into these container sizes. Solar panels that fold out are also available. A space grade 6U CubeSat SIDE Solar Panel at the Beginning of Life at 80°C produces 16.10 W (more at lower temperatures).
http://www.clyde-space.com/cubesat_shop/solar_panels (http://www.clyde-space.com/cubesat_shop/solar_panels)

To take a 40 cm square drive the satellite would have to be made_to_measure (4 X 4 X 1 = 16U).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/29/2015 04:35 am
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.
Cubesat has a dimensional problem, meaning a 40 cm w x h limit. Most of our stuff is larger. I've read a little about smallsat but don't have enough info. Cubesat does have 40 cm lengths, so if someone comes up with a working model like the Aachen team, it might work.

Still think its too early to plan for space launch, but one can dream big.

I've been thinking a lot about a CubeSat and it would be the ideal test, but wouldn't be easy. But maybe you could design a frustum to resonate at Ka band frequencies so that you could downsize it as well as use an off-the-shelf transmitter. Also putting two of them in opposing directions (as someone brought up on an earlier thread) would be the best way to demonstrate thrust. I'd imagine after pumping even just 5 W at resonance into two opposing frustums you'd be able to measure a significant spin eventually. (an hour or so?)

I wouldn't expect to be able to fit a higher power transmitter on a 6u with all other components, plus powering it via solar panels along with rotation measurement, omnidirectional for comms, charging batteries may or may not be feasible.

Unfortunately thermal cycling will be significant and a Cubesat has little ability to control its temperature range compared to larger spacecraft. And I'd guess that the same temperature change would cause a larger change in resonant frequency for a smaller frustum, but thats just a gut feeling.

But I think its possible

My next questions would be:
How long would it take to create an obvious rotation with 5 W injected into dual opposing frustums? (and what rotation could be deemed proof of concept?)
Can a 5 W Ka band transmitter and two smaller frustums fit on a 6u Cubesat with all other necessary components?
Will the transmitter have the frequency range necessary to power the frustum at the temperature extremes?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: chavv on 10/29/2015 05:14 am
Months ago, maybe in topic-thread 3, the idea of Cubesat was discussed and someone explained that instabilities/unknown environment on these small orbits are too big - quick calculations returned perturbations nearly on scale of N/Kw. Adding the inability to control directly environment or make any changes once the satelite is launched.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2015 05:16 am
My next questions would be:
How long would it take to create an obvious rotation with 5 W injected into dual opposing frustums? (and what rotation could be deemed proof of concept?)
Can a 5 W Ka band transmitter and two smaller frustums fit on a 6u Cubesat with all other necessary components?
Will the transmitter have the frequency range necessary to power the frustum at the temperature extremes?

Assuming an unloaded Q of 50,000, Df of 0.9 and spherical end plates, 5Ws should generate around 1.5mNs per frustum. Can't share the Rf gen as each frustum will need independent freq tracking. For 2 frustums this project will need 2 duplicate Rf gens and freq tracking.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/29/2015 05:26 am
To detect rotation just add cameras to the top and side of the cubesat. We can watch the stars move and use that to calculate the speed of rotation. Small accelerometers are also available.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2015 05:55 am
To detect rotation just add cameras to the top and side of the cubesat. We can watch the stars move and use that to calculate the speed of rotation. Small accelerometers are also available.

Would need a standard cubesat 3 axis mag torquer to obtain stability before firing up the EMDrives. My youngest son was involved in a multi uni project to design a 2U cubesat. He worked on the command and control system which was in 1 cube that supported additional experiments in the other cube. I got a really good idea how to put a cubesat together and how to control it's orientation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2015 06:48 am
Resonance claims.

On the net is a paper claiming to be an accurate analysis of the EMDrive. As we all know to get Force generation, you must have resonance. So one of the 1st steps in designing an EMDrive is to be able to correctly model what is happening inside the EMDrive so as to be able to calculate the resonance freq.

The attached image is of the frustum design that was modeled for resonance. It has spherical end caps, has a end plate separation of 7.5cm with a big end diameter of 3.52cm and small end diameter of 0.88cm. The small end plate has a radius of 2.5cm and the big end plate has a radius of 10cm. Both radii from the vertex of the frustum. Cone angle is 20 deg.

So this is a small frustum, being 7.5cm along the side wall, 3.52cm across the big end and a very tiny 0.88cm across the small end.

Using my spreadsheet, the small end cutoff frequencies, below which useful resonance is not possible are listed below:

TE11 19.96GHz
TM01 26.08 GHz
TE21 33.12 GHz
TE01 41.55 GHz
TM11 41.55 GHz
TE31 45.36 GHz
TM21 55.69 GHz
TE12 57.81 GHz

Yet the paper author claims he calculates frustum resonance of:

TM mode 4.12 GHz, 6.13 GHz, 7.83 GHz
TE mode 7.438 GHz, 9.359 GHz, 11.10GHz

All of which are well below the 0.88cm small end diameter cutoff frequency.

Roger gave me a simple rule of thumb when dealing with small end cutoff freq in TE01 mode. Cutoff freq = c / (diameter in mtrs * 0.82).

I suspect the author may not fully understand microwave physics and what happens to a EM wave travelling inside a tapered waveguide frustum of variable diameter, that increases the guide wavelength from that external nor how to calculate the cutoff frequency of the small end of his frustum design.

Point being if he can't correctly predict frustum resonance nor the small end cutoff freq, the rest of his model and calculations must be questioned.

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

BTW here is Greg Egan's web site:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/index.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2015 07:20 am
The most respected labs that have performed this experiment have yielded almost no thrust.

Who are these "Most Respected Labs"? Where is there data, frustum dimensions, excitation modes, VNA resonance freq scans. Force measurement rig designs? I know of no failed EMDrive tests. Such data needs to be analysed as building and testing an EMDrive is not like baking a simple cake recipe. Get one step wrong and there will be no thrust.

So PLEASE SHARE the null data. We might just be able to work out where they went wrong and prevent other builders from making the same mistake.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/29/2015 10:07 am
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2015 10:55 am
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cl33250 on 10/29/2015 11:46 am
To detect rotation just add cameras to the top and side of the cubesat. We can watch the stars move and use that to calculate the speed of rotation. Small accelerometers are also available.

Would need a standard cubesat 3 axis mag torquer to obtain stability before firing up the EMDrives. My youngest son was involved in a multi uni project to design a 2U cubesat. He worked on the command and control system which was in 1 cube that supported additional experiments in the other cube. I got a really good idea how to put a cubesat together and how to control it's orientation.
If it ever comes to this, for simplicity, why not put reflectors on the cubesat and track rotation externally from the ground/ISS.  This simplifies the design and lowers weight--it really doesn't matter whether the satellite is stabilized-accelerations can be tracked externally.  No need to worry about worry about failed control systems/reaction wheels/accelerometers/cameras.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/29/2015 12:23 pm
The most respected labs that have performed this experiment have yielded almost no thrust.

Who are these "Most Respected Labs"? Where is there data, frustum dimensions, excitation modes, VNA resonance freq scans. Force measurement rig designs? I know of no failed EMDrive tests. Such data needs to be analysed as building and testing an EMDrive is not like baking a simple cake recipe. Get one step wrong and there will be no thrust.

So PLEASE SHARE the null data. We might just be able to work out where they went wrong and prevent other builders from making the same mistake.

The only labs I know of that are reasonably respected are Eagleworks, which had very small thrust measurements, enough that that recent paper about the Lorentz force errors actually is significant on that scale. Combined with other potential error sources, their experiment isn't a solid confirmation of the emdrive.

Tajmar is the only other respected scientist I know of working on this. I believve his paper explicitly said that it could neither confirm nor deny the thrust as a real effect.

I am not saying there is no effect, but there isn't a confirmation either way. Unless you know of a respected lab that has measured thrust large enough to be free of any chance of experimental error. I think that would come up more often if there was one, but I could have missed it.

Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

According to your logic, no resonances could exist at all in a cone shaped cavity. That is an incorrect claim, easily testable by experiment. If you really think a cone couldn't have resonances, and want to run that experiment, I should be able to modify Greg's results easily enough for a cone shape. Also if you give me a specific case of one of the emdrives that you have designed before with spherical ends, I can rerun his equations for that case so you can see the results.

Please don't try to use intuition to argue against math. Electromagnetism is weird and non-intuitive. If you think there is anything wrong with any of the equations on that page, please point out exactly where you think the math goes wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/29/2015 01:11 pm
It would appear Egan used c in decameters/sec rather than cm/sec in his frequency calculation.

Very quick check so please verify.

Second look, still quick, so maybe c is ok.  Wavenumbers are reasonable ? but the frequencies don't make sense.  I'll have to find some time to look deeper. (didn't Rodal look at this some time ago ?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/29/2015 01:36 pm
It would appear Egan used c in decameters/sec rather than cm/sec in his frequency calculation.

Very quick check so please verify.

Good question.

ω = k*c and f = ω / (2*pi) 

For the first TM mode:

f =  0.861947 cm^-1 * 3e10 cm/s / (2*pi) = 4.11549377 gigahertz

The units are all OK. (ω is a frequency in radians per second instead of cycles per second, which he uses in the equations to reduce how many factors of 2*pi are floating around.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/29/2015 02:42 pm
My next questions would be:
How long would it take to create an obvious rotation with 5 W injected into dual opposing frustums? (and what rotation could be deemed proof of concept?)
Can a 5 W Ka band transmitter and two smaller frustums fit on a 6u Cubesat with all other necessary components?
Will the transmitter have the frequency range necessary to power the frustum at the temperature extremes?

Assuming an unloaded Q of 50,000, Df of 0.9 and spherical end plates, 5Ws should generate around 1.5mNs per frustum. Can't share the Rf gen as each frustum will need independent freq tracking. For 2 frustums this project will need 2 duplicate Rf gens and freq tracking.

Thanks for the calculation. I was assuming the frustums would have a waveguide in between and share the same resonant frequency, but on second thought I agree, the frustums could not be identical enough to have identical resonance with a Q that high.

I suppose you could still induce a significant rotation if you had only one frustum away from the cg.

Months ago, maybe in topic-thread 3, the idea of Cubesat was discussed and someone explained that instabilities/unknown environment on these small orbits are too big - quick calculations returned perturbations nearly on scale of N/Kw. Adding the inability to control directly environment or make any changes once the satelite is launched.

I don't agree. You can model the drag in LEO quite well, it'll be on the order of mN (for a CubeSat) but you would just need to prove your frustum is spinning you in direction that drag wouldn't be able to do. As TT mentioned, you can compensate for perturbations with reaction wheels and magnetorquers to desaturate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 10/29/2015 02:52 pm

According to your logic, no resonances could exist at all in a cone shaped cavity. That is an incorrect claim, easily testable by experiment. ...

I think you missed the key work efficiently in TT's post. Yes of course you can get any shape to resonate, but to resonate with high quality and low losses we want to minimize the evanescent decay. When wave bounces off an opening because its wavelength is too large to fit, some energy will still propagate into the opening and decay exponentially.
I believe what he and Shawyer are getting at is we should have each side of the resonator be above the cutoff, not that we have to. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Devilstower on 10/29/2015 02:55 pm
The small size of the cubesats is why I'm creating a frustum that is made from a series of nesting rings — think collapsible camping cup. 

However, I wasn't able to find a microwave source that, based on TT's spreadsheet, would give me the resonance I wanted at a scale that fit a "cheap" cubesat, so I'm building with the usual magnetron and at a size similar to most DIY runs. I'm just considering this a x2 scale of the final design.

Mostly, I'm just concentrating on not boiling my eyeballs. I'm a writer and geologist. My usual engineering limits involve slicing up plywood to make small boats. I think the last time I soldered something, it was a kit from, Tandy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 10/29/2015 03:14 pm
The small size of the cubesats is why I'm creating a frustrum that is made from a series of nesting rings — think collapsible camping cup. 

However, I wasn't able to find a microwave source that, based on TT's spreadsheet, would give me the resonance I wanted at a scale that fit a "cheap" cubesat, so I'm building with the usual magnetron and at a size similar to most DIY runs. I'm just considering this a x2 scale of the final design.

Mostly, I'm just concentrating on not boiling my eyeballs. I'm a writer and geologist. My usual engineering limits involve slicing up plywood to make small boats. I think the last time I soldered something, it was a kit from, Tandy.

ah heck, granted the fractional megabuck required for the cubesat stuff, plus the free launch, why not leave out the microwave source and just transmit from an earth location.  See if you can talk someone in NORAD into doing a radar lock while the cubesat is over the horizon.  Better still, see if NORAD will tell you their transmitter frequency in advance so you can design your frustum.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 03:35 pm

According to your logic, no resonances could exist at all in a cone shaped cavity. That is an incorrect claim, easily testable by experiment. ...

I think you missed the key work efficiently in TT's post. Yes of course you can get any shape to resonate, but to resonate with high quality and low losses we want to minimize the evanescent decay. When wave bounces off an opening because its wavelength is too large to fit, some energy will still propagate into the opening and decay exponentially.
I believe what he and Shawyer are getting at is we should have each side of the resonator be above the cutoff, not that we have to.
Cavity resonance is typically measured using S21 and/or S11. Center freqs are a good general indicator on S21, but higher power cavities need the S11 to make sure the most power is in the can as opposed to reflecting back towards the source.

Its a bit of application issue where resonance occurs and how important it is IMHO. If its a receive filter, return loss or S11 is far less important that S21 through line measurements. Where the 3dB points usually are are all thats needed to find the center. Wacky rf engineers like myself want to tune for minumum insertion loss for receiver applications and to heck with return loss or 3dB points.  With receiver noise floors, including preamps, any fractional dB improvement is golden. Yes, I'm a receiver geek, meds have not fixed that yet  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 03:58 pm
The small size of the cubesats is why I'm creating a frustrum that is made from a series of nesting rings — think collapsible camping cup. 

However, I wasn't able to find a microwave source that, based on TT's spreadsheet, would give me the resonance I wanted at a scale that fit a "cheap" cubesat, so I'm building with the usual magnetron and at a size similar to most DIY runs. I'm just considering this a x2 scale of the final design.

Mostly, I'm just concentrating on not boiling my eyeballs. I'm a writer and geologist. My usual engineering limits involve slicing up plywood to make small boats. I think the last time I soldered something, it was a kit from, Tandy.

ah heck, granted the fractional megabuck required for the cubesat stuff, plus the free launch, why not leave out the microwave source and just transmit from an earth location.  See if you can talk someone in NORAD into doing a radar lock while the cubesat is over the horizon.  Better still, see if NORAD will tell you their transmitter frequency in advance so you can design your frustum.  :)
Wow, thats a long run of coax or waveguide  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/29/2015 05:14 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 06:18 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/29/2015 08:15 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.
The problem is most time this kind of math/formulas is right(leads to useful results). If the EM-Drive effect is real, the formulas have to be expanded to explain the known standard physics/results as well as the EM-Drive effect. Thats the basic problem we have since thread 1. :-\

EDIT: rfmwguy i saw your measurement videos and i am really trying to believe in this effect, but if its its real, however, it has to be calculable anyway, and it have to satisfy the description above.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfcavity on 10/29/2015 08:19 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.

Who, traveller? He,s trying to integrate by parts over different sized cylindrical cavities but that doesn't work as it totally ignores the boundary that exists in the decreasing direction which doesn't exist in a cylinder. That's one problem, but there are probably more. I'm on a phone in Cambridge and I'm catching a flight in the morning to Asia so I can't show the math right now but I can try later.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 08:24 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.

Who, traveller? He,s trying to integrate by parts over different sized cylindrical cavities but that doesn't work as it totally ignores the boundary that exists in the decreasing direction which doesn't exist in a cylinder. That's one problem, but there are probably more. I'm on a phone in Cambridge and I'm catching a flight in the morning to Asia so I can't show the math right now but I can try later.
Safe travels...fly Cathay Pacific whenever you get the chance ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/29/2015 08:31 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.
In for a second then out again.... busy.

Aero and I were working on an extended frustum for the Yang-Shell 6o model. Remember that one? To throw this out there into the pot to speak here is an meep run of that cavity. While not perfect it does show some structure even when it's obvious there is little "bounce" as you call it from the endplates, the cavity still can resonate and even thought he Q is lower it still shows a ok Q.

Shell

Now back to work...

Added remember we are dealing with a 3D cavity that can resonate in all directions X Y and Z the sidewalls reflect as well as the endplates.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 08:33 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.
The problem is most time this kind of math/formulas is right(leads to useful results). If the EM-Drive effect is real, the formulas have to be expanded to explain the known standard physics/results as well as the EM-Drive effect. Thats the basic problem we have since thread 1. :-\
Think thats why I temporarily gave up on the theory end of things as nothing I read or already knew made any sense when trying to apply it to emdrive. So to avoid brain tilt, thought I would build one and see. Now thats done and I might get more dramatic results in Phase II (if that happens) I might stick my toe back into the theory world. I'll then try again to look for anything that references kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation. Seem to recall I drew a big fat zero as no one, including me, would have ever thought to look for it.

One avenue I wanted to explore someday is geosyncronous sats. The ones that transmit downlinks at fairly high power. What is their station-keepin needs, etc.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/29/2015 09:07 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

Please, show what part of his work is wrong - He never went beyond theory in his scientific method and gave up after the math exercise.
The problem is most time this kind of math/formulas is right(leads to useful results). If the EM-Drive effect is real, the formulas have to be expanded to explain the known standard physics/results as well as the EM-Drive effect. Thats the basic problem we have since thread 1. :-\
Think thats why I temporarily gave up on the theory end of things as nothing I read or already knew made any sense when trying to apply it to emdrive. So to avoid brain tilt, thought I would build one and see. Now thats done and I might get more dramatic results in Phase II (if that happens) I might stick my toe back into the theory world. I'll then try again to look for anything that references kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation. Seem to recall I drew a big fat zero as no one, including me, would have ever thought to look for it.

One avenue I wanted to explore someday is geosyncronous sats. The ones that transmit downlinks at fairly high power. What is their station-keepin needs, etc.
Please dont give up, i am looking forward to your (and SheShell's) next results!
I hope sometimes we can explain this effect with the math(More conclusive than the present tries.).
That's possibly the way to the stars. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 10:30 pm
FYI: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueEmDrive/

"Please note: This sub is for POLITE and CIVIL informal discussion of the EmDrive.

RULES:

If you're asserting something as fact (as opposed to speculation or opinion) be prepared to back it up with specifics. No arguments/excuses about who has 'burden of proof' will be permitted. This is an informal discussion, not a scientific journal, so the normal "common sense" rules of informal debate apply.

Trolling is not permitted."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/29/2015 10:52 pm


Please dont give up, i am looking forward to your (and SheShell's) next results!
I hope sometimes we can explain this effect with the math(More conclusive than the present tries.).
That's possibly the way to the stars. :)
Nope, not quitting right now. I figured whatever emdrive effect I measured is about 2.4x of my noise floor and I did my best to account for all system noise. Altho I have a high confidence factor, I am also a realist and realize 177 micronewtons will not get us to the stars anytime soon. So, my Phase II design (on same test bed) will shoot for 17.5 millinewtons. When this happens, its back to the books to work on theory. Don't think my humble home lab could get higher performance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/30/2015 01:45 am
Think thats why I temporarily gave up on the theory end of things as nothing I read or already knew made any sense when trying to apply it to emdrive. So to avoid brain tilt, thought I would build one and see. Now thats done and I might get more dramatic results in Phase II (if that happens) I might stick my toe back into the theory world. I'll then try again to look for anything that references kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation. Seem to recall I drew a big fat zero as no one, including me, would have ever thought to look for it.

One avenue I wanted to explore someday is geosyncronous sats. The ones that transmit downlinks at fairly high power. What is their station-keepin needs, etc.

Not getting exactly why you are interested in geostationary, but to answer your question (kinda) the station keeping requirements are relatively low, both from a thrust level and total impulse, but quite strict - to keep your sat from intruding on anyone else's slot (Russians don't seem to feel this applies to them). Modern geosats use electric propulsion thrusters, so one might think that EMDrive thrusters would be applicable, but because the lifetime impulse is so low, the sats don't use a lot of propellant, so a "propellant less" thruster might not be that advantageous.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/30/2015 11:57 am
Think thats why I temporarily gave up on the theory end of things as nothing I read or already knew made any sense when trying to apply it to emdrive. So to avoid brain tilt, thought I would build one and see. Now thats done and I might get more dramatic results in Phase II (if that happens) I might stick my toe back into the theory world. I'll then try again to look for anything that references kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation. Seem to recall I drew a big fat zero as no one, including me, would have ever thought to look for it.

One avenue I wanted to explore someday is geosyncronous sats. The ones that transmit downlinks at fairly high power. What is their station-keepin needs, etc.

Not getting exactly why you are interested in geostationary, but to answer your question (kinda) the station keeping requirements are relatively low, both from a thrust level and total impulse, but quite strict - to keep your sat from intruding on anyone else's slot (Russians don't seem to feel this applies to them). Modern geosats use electric propulsion thrusters, so one might think that EMDrive thrusters would be applicable, but because the lifetime impulse is so low, the sats don't use a lot of propellant, so a "propellant less" thruster might not be that advantageous.
Interesting...has anyone ever studied the "drift" or stationkeeping requirements over months or years? For example, for steady state believers it would seem no stationkeeping would be required at all. If there is, what is the cause and in which vector does the satellite want to "drift"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/30/2015 12:18 pm
Interesting...has anyone ever studied the "drift" or stationkeeping requirements over months or years? For example, for steady state believers it would seem no stationkeeping would be required at all. If there is, what is the cause and in which vector does the satellite want to "drift"?

What do you mean by "steady state believers"?

Geostationary satellites have to deal with pressure from the solar wind, drift due to inexact placement (not perfect altitude/not perfectly circular, etc.), and effects from lunar gravity. They don't have to deal with the residual atmospheric drag and earth oblateness effects that LEO satellites do, but the effect from the moon should be stronger. I haven't done any work to characterize the needs, but I am fairly confident things like direction would depend on the initial conditions and strength of the solar cycle too sensitively to predict accurately.

Usually satellites are designed with full control in all rotational and linear directions, generally in a configuration that allows some redundancy. That way there is no need to know the exact requirements in advance.

Edit: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_orbit#Background_.26_Reasons_for_Selecting_a_Frozen_Orbit), 40-50 m/s per year is required to account for gravitational perturbations to the orbit (solar and lunar gravity effects) Presumably, depending on the total drift allowed, there could be ways to optimize propellant use and an individual satellite may need more or less.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/30/2015 02:04 pm
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

Your URL did not wok for me. Can you check it?
You

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )

It's a shortcut to a facebook photo gallery, so if you're not on FB it might not work.  Here's my page for LCROSS at NASA Ames: http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/bios/NG_stagmer.htm
I'm also @VAXHeadroom on Twitter.
I have this project in mind for our current spaceflight electronics designs.  We can output KW for a few minutes per orbit in a Cubesat form factor.  More details once we can publicly announce our avionics.
A 6u Cubesat is 100x225x300mm.  A 12u is 200x225x300mm. the 300 extends to about 365 if you go with the Planetary Systems deployer.  They also have a 27u deployer, but we haven't really investigated that yet.  This means you'd be limited to a 200mm(~8") diameter without an expandable frustrum.  I love the 'collapsible camping cup' idea :)
Thrust can be measured in the Rf Doppler shift - I know from LCROSS that changes in velocity as small as mm/sec can be measured - we measured the shift when the Centaur upper stage was heated up in flight and outgassed water it had soaked up while sitting on the pad in FL.
These size satellites can have down to arcsecond pointing capability, so control is not a problem.  Yes, we're talking about a $1M mission, but I have potential research funding sources if this ever gets out of the 'noise' :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/30/2015 04:04 pm
This is why most people are afraid to build EMDrives:
https://www.facebook.com/stagefreaks/videos/863975723671117/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 10/30/2015 04:09 pm
Interesting...has anyone ever studied the "drift" or stationkeeping requirements over months or years? For example, for steady state believers it would seem no stationkeeping would be required at all. If there is, what is the cause and in which vector does the satellite want to "drift"?

What do you mean by "steady state believers"?

Geostationary satellites have to deal with pressure from the solar wind, drift due to inexact placement (not perfect altitude/not perfectly circular, etc.), and effects from lunar gravity. They don't have to deal with the residual atmospheric drag and earth oblateness effects that LEO satellites do, but the effect from the moon should be stronger. I haven't done any work to characterize the needs, but I am fairly confident things like direction would depend on the initial conditions and strength of the solar cycle too sensitively to predict accurately.

Usually satellites are designed with full control in all rotational and linear directions, generally in a configuration that allows some redundancy. That way there is no need to know the exact requirements in advance.

Edit: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_orbit#Background_.26_Reasons_for_Selecting_a_Frozen_Orbit), 40-50 m/s per year is required to account for gravitational perturbations to the orbit (solar and lunar gravity effects) Presumably, depending on the total drift allowed, there could be ways to optimize propellant use and an individual satellite may need more or less.
Immutable vacuum.

So, all the analysis was done with assumptions of gravity and solar wind? What about effects from the Pioneer Anomaly? Sounds to me like station-keeping is a matter of correction, not cause. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/30/2015 07:18 pm
Immutable vacuum.

So, all the analysis was done with assumptions of gravity and solar wind? What about effects from the Pioneer Anomaly? Sounds to me like station-keeping is a matter of correction, not cause. Am I wrong?
I  think that the Pionner anomaly is an effect several order of magnitude lower than the perturbations experienced by a geostationary satellite.
One important perturbation is due to the oblatness of the earth which induces an inclination versus time of the equatorial orbit of the satellite.

Today when a satellite reachs its end of life (equipment failure or shortage of power delivered by solar arrays or more probably : no more propelant available to maintain the orbital position), it has to use its last propelant reserve to reach a so called "cemetery orbit" to avoid any risk of disastrous collision with an other geostationary satellites.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/30/2015 08:04 pm
Interesting...has anyone ever studied the "drift" or stationkeeping requirements over months or years? For example, for steady state believers it would seem no stationkeeping would be required at all. If there is, what is the cause and in which vector does the satellite want to "drift"?

What do you mean by "steady state believers"?

Geostationary satellites have to deal with pressure from the solar wind, drift due to inexact placement (not perfect altitude/not perfectly circular, etc.), and effects from lunar gravity. They don't have to deal with the residual atmospheric drag and earth oblateness effects that LEO satellites do, but the effect from the moon should be stronger. I haven't done any work to characterize the needs, but I am fairly confident things like direction would depend on the initial conditions and strength of the solar cycle too sensitively to predict accurately.

Usually satellites are designed with full control in all rotational and linear directions, generally in a configuration that allows some redundancy. That way there is no need to know the exact requirements in advance.

Edit: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_orbit#Background_.26_Reasons_for_Selecting_a_Frozen_Orbit), 40-50 m/s per year is required to account for gravitational perturbations to the orbit (solar and lunar gravity effects) Presumably, depending on the total drift allowed, there could be ways to optimize propellant use and an individual satellite may need more or less.
Immutable vacuum.

So, all the analysis was done with assumptions of gravity and solar wind? What about effects from the Pioneer Anomaly? Sounds to me like station-keeping is a matter of correction, not cause. Am I wrong?

All the major perturbing effects can be modeled quite accurately, so the spacecraft designers have a pretty good idea how much propellant they will need over the satellite's lifetime. These are all forces that perturb the satellite from the desired orbit position, so you can't solve it just by accurate initial conditions.

Generally, ground tracking will be keeping track of the satellite's position and velocity, so the mission planners will be able to predict when they will exceed specified limits. Then they will command the appropriate correction maneuver.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/30/2015 10:07 pm


Please dont give up, i am looking forward to your (and SheShell's) next results!
I hope sometimes we can explain this effect with the math(More conclusive than the present tries.).
That's possibly the way to the stars. :)
Nope, not quitting right now. I figured whatever emdrive effect I measured is about 2.4x of my noise floor and I did my best to account for all system noise. Altho I have a high confidence factor, I am also a realist and realize 177 micronewtons will not get us to the stars anytime soon. So, my Phase II design (on same test bed) will shoot for 17.5 millinewtons. When this happens, its back to the books to work on theory. Don't think my humble home lab could get higher performance.
Glad to read that. I am also realistic and, you know, my "way to the stars" -statement was a little metaphorically ::) but it may be (or even not) one of the first steps to realize this dream. However, all of us can learn something more about physics this way in this forum. :) So its a win-win situation even if it doesn't work, or works only with tiny effectivity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/30/2015 10:55 pm
Hey Dave,

Ran your numbers again to find what mode NSF-1701 resonated in. Based on the published dimensions as below

Big end 0.2791m
Small end 0.1588m
Length 0.2591m

I got the closest match for 2.45GHz in TE114 as attached (frustum length was a 1.3mm too short for an exact match at 2.45GHz). Then used Excel goal seek to fine tune the freq and got 2.46GHz which is close enough to what your VNA reported. Of course length variations will alter the resonance a bit.

Data attached.

I'm fairly happy we now have a tool that can both predict frustum resonance and the resonant mode excited.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/30/2015 11:04 pm
I think folks should focus on their builds and producing results that can be reproduced rather than focusing on magnetic force interactions.

Next step may be a CubeSat that can be tested near the edges of magnetic interactions in a vacuum and micro-gravity conditions.

Maybe some of you ought to start talking to the Planetary Society.

Your URL did not wok for me. Can you check it?
You

They're using 'toysat' builders and have not had good success.  If I build it, you've got a chance it might actually work once it gets to space.  To do that, we'd need a unit that has a max diameter of 20cm (for it to fit into a 12u cubesat).
(Yes, I build satellites for a living... http://tinyurl.com/lcross-is-go )

It's a shortcut to a facebook photo gallery, so if you're not on FB it might not work.  Here's my page for LCROSS at NASA Ames: http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/bios/NG_stagmer.htm
I'm also @VAXHeadroom on Twitter.
I have this project in mind for our current spaceflight electronics designs.  We can output KW for a few minutes per orbit in a Cubesat form factor.  More details once we can publicly announce our avionics.
A 6u Cubesat is 100x225x300mm.  A 12u is 200x225x300mm. the 300 extends to about 365 if you go with the Planetary Systems deployer.  They also have a 27u deployer, but we haven't really investigated that yet.  This means you'd be limited to a 200mm(~8") diameter without an expandable frustrum.  I love the 'collapsible camping cup' idea :)
Thrust can be measured in the Rf Doppler shift - I know from LCROSS that changes in velocity as small as mm/sec can be measured - we measured the shift when the Centaur upper stage was heated up in flight and outgassed water it had soaked up while sitting on the pad in FL.
These size satellites can have down to arcsecond pointing capability, so control is not a problem.  Yes, we're talking about a $1M mission, but I have potential research funding sources if this ever gets out of the 'noise' :)

How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/30/2015 11:19 pm
Of course resonances can exist in a tapered cavity that have lower frequencies than the size of the smallest end. The energy would just exist within the largest part effectively shortening the cavity. Greg even shows this in a plot.

This is similar to how partially loaded cavities work, which is a common way to back out permitivitty of materials.

If the EM wave can't reach the end plate, as the diameter is well below cutoff, how will the EM wave be able of efficiently propogate to bounce off an end plate it can't reach?

Or do you ignore Roger's advise to ALWAYS operate the small end ABOVE cutoff?

The small end of the cavity is 8.8mm in dia, the big end is 35.2mm in dia and the end plate separation is 75mm.  You really believe that cavity will resonate at 4.1GHz despite the small end cutoff being 40GHz and the big end cutoff being 10GHz.

Even disallowing that both ends are claimed to be happily operating WELL below cutoff, to achieve resonance some whole number of 1/2 waves at the effective overall guide wavelength need to fit between the end plates.

There is no way what can happen.

His resonance model is rubbish.

Waves don't bounce in a cavity. It's a resonance that has math different from physical bouncing. Bouncing is a way to explain to people without math, but the analogy does not hold 100% and is not perfect.

By the way, the method you use to calculate cut off uses cut offs derived from cylinder cavities. In textbooks, these cutoff equations are derived exactly the same way as Greg derives for the tapered cavity. So if he is wrong, by rule, you are also wrong.

However, checking his work, he is right. I trained in EM. Rodal also says he is right. Please, show what part of his work is wrong, instead of writing paragraphs.

No they don't bounce. They get absorbed by the end plate and reemitted.

If you are EM trained then please explain to me how a 8.8mm diameter waveguide can propagate a 4.12GHz EM wave? In fact neither can the big end at 3.52mm diameter propagate that EM wave. So both ends of the proposed Egan cavity are well below cutoff and can NOT propagate a 4.12GHz EM wave, yet he claims resonance.

You may wish to believe the EMDrive is a work of fiction, so be it, but this paper will not support your belief.

BTW please show me where Egan is EM trained or experienced? All I can find is he holds a BS in Maths and is a sifi writer and programmer. What amazes me is despite Egan having apparently no microwave training nor experience, so many EMDrive deniers jumped on this paper and totally ignored his apparent lack of credibility in the black arts of microwave waveguide physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/30/2015 11:28 pm

According to your logic, no resonances could exist at all in a cone shaped cavity. That is an incorrect claim, easily testable by experiment. ...

I think you missed the key work efficiently in TT's post. Yes of course you can get any shape to resonate, but to resonate with high quality and low losses we want to minimize the evanescent decay. When wave bounces off an opening because its wavelength is too large to fit, some energy will still propagate into the opening and decay exponentially.
I believe what he and Shawyer are getting at is we should have each side of the resonator be above the cutoff, not that we have to.

Correct.

The only way to achieve a high Q is to ensure the small end operates above cutoff. If your end plates are spherical this also encourages the EM waves to form matching spherical wave fronts, which reduces significantly bounce phase distortion and also reduces side wall radiation pressure to almost nothing.

Getting a EMDrive to work well is like following a somewhat complex baking recipe. Make a major mistake or omission and there is not Force generated, make minor mistakes and you may get some small Force generated or maybe not. Do everything right and the Force will be significant.

I firmly believe that a specific Force of 1N/kW is achieve in DIY EMDrive builds as long as Roger's bread crumb trail is followed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/30/2015 11:42 pm
I'm getting excited as I can see, in regard to my health issues, the light at the end of the tunnel.

The delay has probably been overall, a good thing, as I have redesigned my EMDrive, rotary test table and data monitoring / recording system quite a few times. I also understand how and why the EMDrive works a whole lot better than before the prostate cancer issue took me off line as a DIY builder.

My goal now is to be able to publish my results before Eagleworks publishes theirs.

Just to be very clear about my intentions here, which I have stated before, I will do the independent tester program and then start commercial sales of fully operation total EMDrive systems. Each system will be furnished will full test data from many test runs on the rotary test rig.

I believe there are a very significant number of universities, gov labs, commercial companies and individuals which would welcome being able to test and evaluate a known working high fidelity EMDrive in their lab.

Anyone wishing my assistance to design and build a custom EMDrive will be able to engage that process.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/31/2015 12:36 am
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 01:06 am
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

Quick analysis suggest the 20cm big end limitation reduces the Df ( F = (2 Df unloadedQ P) / c ) quite a bit. But working on that limitation I get a highly optimised small end of 14.95cm and length of 15.07cm (mode TE011 @ 2.45GHz), with spherical end plates, using a 20% solid state amp conversion efficiency to Rf and 1kW power input could deliver, at a conservative unloaded Q of 50,000 (25,000 as measured loaded Q) around 40mN, generating say 4mm/sec acceleration with a 10kg mass.

If a higher unloaded Q of say 100,000, 50,000 as measured, can be achieved, the acceleration climbs to 8mm/sec.

If we can find or afford a higher efficiency Rf amp, the output Rf power would climb as so would the Force generated.

So say 40mN doable and maybe 100mN as the top end.  Note the frustum length is 15cm, so the frustum mass is reduced from your 35cm allowance. This may help to drop the 10kg mass and so increase the acceleration.

Biggest issue I see is sourcing a low mass and highly efficient min 200W solid state Rf amp AND dealing with the 800Ws of waste heat. Maybe better to go for a lower output power Rf amp that can run 24/7, instead of doing short bursts of acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 01:17 am
This is why most people are afraid to build EMDrives:
https://www.facebook.com/stagefreaks/videos/863975723671117/

Oh. My. God. Now I'm in tears... good grief rfmwguy I've not laughed that hard in a very long time.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 01:29 am
This is why most people are afraid to build EMDrives:
https://www.facebook.com/stagefreaks/videos/863975723671117/

Oh. My. God. Now I'm in tears... good grief rfmwguy I've not laughed that hard in a very long time.

Shell

Ditto. Roger that.

That video is a classic and in reality every engineer has done similar stupid stuff, learning very quickly what burnt flesh smells like and what electric shocks feel like. Part of the engineers "Rite of passage".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/31/2015 01:38 am
Quote
Biggest issue I see is sourcing a low mass and highly efficient min 200W solid state Rf amp AND dealing with the 800Ws of waste heat. Maybe better to go for a lower output power Rf amp that can run 24/7, instead of doing short bursts of acceleration.

Suggestion from the peanut gallery:

use the waste heat to generate electricity.  (thermocouples?)   Won't get anywhere near unity, but might offset the power bill some.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:08 am
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

While this amp is a bit big, the data is still interesting:

http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/61/13%20KW%20S%20Band%20GaN%20Power%20Amplifier1.pdf

100us long 1.2kW S band Rf pulses every 1ms should get your cubesat moving very well. Pwr supply load is 400Ws.

With a unloaded frustum Q of 100,000 and 1.3kWs of Rf, Force generation could be around 0.5N or 500mN (at 10kg mass that is 50mm/sec of acceleration) for 100us duration, repeating every 1ms.

100us pulse duration should be fine as the frustum fill time, being TC = (unloaded Q / (2 Pi Freq) sec x 5, is 32us. So plenty of time to fill the frustum, obtain a good resonant standing wave and achieve stable Force generation.

Don't get too hung up on the pulse lengths. In Roger's latest patent application, he excites the frustum for only 20% of 1 TC. Or in this case an excitation pulse of 1.3us.

In the 3rd attachment what is exciting is the Force generation area under the power applied time period versus the Force generation area under the power not applied time period.

Another bread crumb trail to happily follow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/31/2015 04:02 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/31/2015 04:17 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

As the EM Drive does not use fuel it does not have a Delta-V limit. It is limited by sun light and the lifetime of the components. For deep space missions sunlight can be replaced by electricity from a nuclear source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/31/2015 04:34 am
As the EM Drive does not use fuel it does not have a Delta-V limit. It is limited by sun light and the lifetime of the components. For deep space missions sunlight can be replaced by electricity from a nuclear source.
You right, but I was more thinking to a comparison in term of thrust performance between the different concepts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 10/31/2015 04:34 am
As the EM Drive does not use fuel it does not have a Delta-V limit. It is limited by sun light and the lifetime of the components. For deep space missions sunlight can be replaced by electricity from a nuclear source.

If it actually works, which has yet to be definitively proven at this point.  There is a lot of evidence that makes it seem likely that something is happening.  However, Shawyers is the only one that seems to have generated significant thrust, as he hasn't published any papers detailing the specs of his drive.  EagleWorks perhaps has recently generated a decent amount of thrust, but they have not yet released those numbers.  All other publically released released numbers are rather small.  They suggest that something may be happening, but may also be due to thermal effects or other artifacts.  We simply don't know yet.  And if it is working, we still don't know why it works.

Although, I did just read an article today about a scientist that published a paper to a site were scientists can upload papers to get them peer reviewed by other scientists claiming that he may have found evidence of the existence other dimensions in the cosmic background radiation.  So, the idea that the EmDrive might somehow be tapping into other dimensions might not be all that far fetched, if they do actually exist.  His paper states that that is only one possible explanation for his findings, and for some of the signatures he found existing phenomena were more likely.  Still, kind of cool.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 04:41 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

BIT-3 thrust is rated at 1.2mN thrust. To match that a properly designed EMDrive and resonance freq tracking system, operating around 2.45GHz, would need say 3Ws of Rf. At 20% Pwr to Rf efficiency that is a power supply load of 15Ws.

By using higher freq Rf, the size and mass of the EMDrive could be reduced quite a lot, without impacting mN Force generation. In fact the Force generation could improve around 50% because the smaller size would allow a more optimal big to small end diam ratio, generating a higher Df and higher mN generation per the same amount of Rf watts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 04:50 am
However, Shawyers is the only one that seems to have generated significant thrust, as he hasn't published any papers detailing the specs of his drive.

This is the current EMDrive score board, which doesn't include Iulian's, Dave's nor Paul's positive results.

So far the published record Force generation is held by the Chinese researchers at 720mN.

Roger has released more than ample data to allow replication of his early 2002 - 2009 work. His bread crumbs are there. Just waiting for eager minds to follow them and learn how to bake the "Shawyer Effect" cake.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/31/2015 04:56 am
How to get rid of buoyancy ?

1- In fact we don't need a vacuum chamber around the EMDrive cavity to avoid buoyency effect. It is sufficient to establish the vaccuum inside the cavity and to use a radio transparent quartz waveguide window at the interface with the magnetron.
Of course this would require à strong enought cavity design to resist to external atmospheric pression !

2- An other possibility to study could be to fill the whole RF cavity with a dielectric similar o the PTFE used in the GORE RF coaxial cables.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 05:02 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

Any idea what the BIT-3 thruster, complete and ready to fly package costs to buy retail?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/31/2015 05:12 am
No they don't bounce. They get absorbed by the end plate and reemitted.

If you are EM trained then please explain to me how a 8.8mm diameter waveguide can propagate a 4.12GHz EM wave? In fact neither can the big end at 3.52mm diameter propagate that EM wave. So both ends of the proposed Egan cavity are well below cutoff and can NOT propagate a 4.12GHz EM wave, yet he claims resonance.

...

BTW please show me where Egan is EM trained or experienced? All I can find is he holds a BS in Maths and is a sifi writer and programmer. What amazes me is despite Egan having apparently no microwave training nor experience, so many EMDrive deniers jumped on this paper and totally ignored his apparent lack of credibility in the black arts of microwave waveguide physics.

Absorbed and reemitted is exactly what happens when you do something like shine UV light on a fluorescent material. This is noticeably different from what happens when you shine light on a metallic surface (mirror). A more technically accurate answer for RF waves in a metallic cavity discusses induced currents and charge distributions on the surface of the conductor.

Since you continue to insist on using equations derived to solve a different problem than a truncated spherical cone, rather than exact results such as those given be Egan, I'll do an approximate calculation to help demonstrate that Egan's results are reasonable. I will calculate the cutoff of a cylindrical waveguide with a radius that matches the large end of the cavity Egan did his calculations for. I do not know where you got 0.00352 m as the diameter of the large end since that is smaller than the diameter you stated for his small end. Just using the straight cross section, the radius is 0.1 m * sin(20 degrees) = 0.0342 m. Using the TE11 mode for a cylindrical waveguide, you have a cutoff of 3e8 / (2*pi*0.0342 / 1.841) = 2.57 GHz. This is mostly meaningless, but does indicate that 4.12 GHz isn't an unreasonable frequency for this cavity size.

Knowledge of Maxwell's equations, the boundary conditions for EM fields in the presence of a conductor and a degree in Math is plenty of background for calculating the resonance modes. I have taken advanced courses in Electrodynamics and can find nothing wrong with the methods he used. I will ask you again to state where his math is wrong if you wish to disagree with his results.


According to your logic, no resonances could exist at all in a cone shaped cavity. That is an incorrect claim, easily testable by experiment. ...

I think you missed the key work efficiently in TT's post. Yes of course you can get any shape to resonate, but to resonate with high quality and low losses we want to minimize the evanescent decay. When wave bounces off an opening because its wavelength is too large to fit, some energy will still propagate into the opening and decay exponentially.
I believe what he and Shawyer are getting at is we should have each side of the resonator be above the cutoff, not that we have to.

Correct.

The only way to achieve a high Q is to ensure the small end operates above cutoff. If your end plates are spherical this also encourages the EM waves to form matching spherical wave fronts, which reduces significantly bounce phase distortion and also reduces side wall radiation pressure to almost nothing.

Q values for the modes on Egan's page are calculated near the bottom of his page. It only makes sense to talk about Q values for real conductors with finite conductivity. His calculations assume a perfectly shaped cavity driven by the perfect frequency, but show the maximum value you could expect to obtain using a copper cavity for each mode. Still, all of these modes have reasonably large theoretical Q values.

When discussing the resonance for a perfect conductor, it does not make sense to claim that energy is lost to evanescent decay. You may see an decay effect with little field strength near the small end, but all energy is reflected perfectly.

Your description of how you picture the waves propagating in the cavity is irrelevant, since it has no solid basis. Egan calculated the exact equations that describe the fields inside the cavity based on Maxwell's equations, and these show that your description is inaccurate. They also show that there is significant force on the side walls. This is how electromagnetism works. If you think these results are wrong, you need to find a mistake in Greg Egan's math, or you need to do your own full derivation starting with Maxwell's equations, and then compare to find why his result differs from yours. (Greg Egan actually starts with the wave equation, which is easily derived from Maxwell's equations, so it doesn't make a difference)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 10/31/2015 05:31 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

Any idea what the BIT-3 thruster, complete and ready to fly package costs to buy retail?
The iodine thruster should very price competitive versus state of the art argon thruster as it does not require to accomodate on board the satellite a high pression tank to store the propelant. The accomodation of such a tank on a small satellite can be a burden (mass, security aspects, testing ...).
Argon has still the advantage over iodine, having a very low chemical activity, to produce minimal erosion where the plume is in contact with the thruster or satellite structure.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 05:44 am
...

My big end diameter was 35.2mm and the small end diameter was 8.8mm with end plate spacing of 75mm. See attached.

TE11 cutoff for the big end is 4.99GHz and for the small end is 19.96GHz.

Your TE11 cutoff equation is incorrect as you used the diameter and not the radius. For TE11 mode cutoff it is (1.841183781341 * c) / (2 * Pi * radius). http://www.rfwireless-world.com/calculators/circular-waveguide-cutoff-frequency-calculator.html and as attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 06:01 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

Any idea what the BIT-3 thruster, complete and ready to fly package costs to buy retail?
The iodine thruster should very price competitive versus state of the art argon thruster as it does not require to accomodate on board the satellite a high pression tank to store the propelant. The accomodation of such a tank on a small satellite can be a burden (mass, security aspects, testing ...).
Argon has still the advantage over iodine, having a very low chemical activity, to produce minimal erosion where the plume is in contact with the thruster or satellite structure.

My interest in the BIT-3 thruster price point was serious as I'm setting up to move into commercial EMDrive production. If there is sufficient commercial interest, it would be possible to produce a 2mN EMDrive that would fit in a 1U cubesat form factor and draw around 15Ws of power.

So any feedback on the price point of 2mN thrust equivalent ion drives would be of genuine interest.

Design spreadsheet confirms it should be possible to build a X band EMDrive frustum that would fit inside a 10x10x10cm 1U cubesat module and generate 2mN of continual thrust using 15Ws or less of power. Might even be able to electronically vector the thrust angle and provide 2 axis directional control.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 11:29 am
Pesentation of a Iodine Ion Thruster for CubeSat with its main performances. Comparison with EMDrive or Woodward thruster would be instructive.

Any idea what the BIT-3 thruster, complete and ready to fly package costs to buy retail?
The iodine thruster should very price competitive versus state of the art argon thruster as it does not require to accomodate on board the satellite a high pression tank to store the propelant. The accomodation of such a tank on a small satellite can be a burden (mass, security aspects, testing ...).
Argon has still the advantage over iodine, having a very low chemical activity, to produce minimal erosion where the plume is in contact with the thruster or satellite structure.

My interest in the BIT-3 thruster price point was serious as I'm setting up to move into commercial EMDrive production. If there is sufficient commercial interest, it would be possible to produce a 2mN EMDrive that would fit in a 1U cubesat form factor and draw around 15Ws of power.

So any feedback on the price point of 2mN thrust equivalent ion drives would be of genuine interest.

Design spreadsheet confirms it should be possible to build a X band EMDrive frustum that would fit inside a 10x10x10cm 1U cubesat module and generate 2mN of continual thrust using 15Ws or less of power. Might even be able to electronically vector the thrust angle and provide 2 axis directional control.
Sure, a phased array would do it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/31/2015 11:44 am
Your TE11 cutoff equation is incorrect as you used the diameter and not the radius.

Greg Egan is giving the angle of the cone in spherical coordinates. Note that both walls in this diagram (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/CavityShape.gif) are labelled with the angle, which is measured from the z axis. The full angle between opposite walls would be 40 degrees. Your numbers for the diameters are off by roughly a factor of 2. Again, approximation methods such as this don't matter anyway if you can calculate the exact solution as Greg Egan did. It just confirms his answers are reasonable order of magnitude.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/31/2015 12:16 pm
Quote
Biggest issue I see is sourcing a low mass and highly efficient min 200W solid state Rf amp AND dealing with the 800Ws of waste heat. Maybe better to go for a lower output power Rf amp that can run 24/7, instead of doing short bursts of acceleration.

Suggestion from the peanut gallery:

use the waste heat to generate electricity.  (thermocouples?)   Won't get anywhere near unity, but might offset the power bill some.

It works, but the efficiency is so low it's not worth the mass penalty.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/31/2015 12:35 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

I'm not sure where you are going here, mm/s is a velocity, not an acceleration.

I have made my concerns about an amateur space test known previously.  In my opinion, the disturbing orbital forces, thermal and EM effects on a satellite this small may not be appreciably smaller than the effects folks are trying to eliminate in the lab.

What would you conclude from a cubesat test that doesn't give detectable results?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/31/2015 12:48 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

I'm not sure where you are going here, mm/s is a velocity, not an acceleration.

I have made my concerns about an amateur space test known previously.  In my opinion, the disturbing orbital forces, thermal and EM effects on a satellite this small may not be appreciably smaller than the effects folks are trying to eliminate in the lab.

What would you conclude from a cubesat test that doesn't give detectable results?
I have made my credentials known, I'm not an amateur, and this would not be an amateur test.  The change of velocity resulting from thrust causes the ground to see a Doppler shift in the rf carrier, detectable down to a deltaV of single digit mm/s.  This change needs to occur in a pretty short period of time (minutes) to insure a significant signal to noise ratio in the rf shift (if it happens too slowly it can look like thermal drift of the S-Band amplifier).  This means all the hard part (large, expensive) of the test and measurement equipment is on the ground.  A second means of measurement is using NASA Goddard's laser measurement system - all we really have to do for that is provide a retro-reflector on the spacecraft.  They can do both position and velocity measurements out to the moon (they do this for LRO all the time), but I'll have to find out what their measurement and resolution limits are...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 12:49 pm
Vax,

A X band 1U EMDrive thruster delivering 2mN of thrust for 12W draw is doable. Depending on the power available the Rf Watts can go up as would the thrust.

Do you need constant or short term thrust?
What is the desired mN thrust?
What is the mass budget for the thruster?
How much power can you supply to meet the thrust requirements?
Potentially the thrust may be able to be vectored +-10 deg in 2 axis. Is this helpful?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/31/2015 12:59 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

Quick analysis suggest the 20cm big end limitation reduces the Df ( F = (2 Df unloadedQ P) / c ) quite a bit. But working on that limitation I get a highly optimised small end of 14.95cm and length of 15.07cm (mode TE011 @ 2.45GHz), with spherical end plates, using a 20% solid state amp conversion efficiency to Rf and 1kW power input could deliver, at a conservative unloaded Q of 50,000 (25,000 as measured loaded Q) around 40mN, generating say 4mm/sec acceleration with a 10kg mass.


Let's get our physics right. 40 mN acting on a 10 kg object would generate an acceleration of 4 mm per second per second. So assuming 1) you could hold spacecraft attitude, and 2) other forces on the satellite are much less than 40 mN your velocity would change (for example) 4 mm per second if you could hold 1 kW for one second. Is that detectable?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/31/2015 01:23 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

Quick analysis suggest the 20cm big end limitation reduces the Df ( F = (2 Df unloadedQ P) / c ) quite a bit. But working on that limitation I get a highly optimised small end of 14.95cm and length of 15.07cm (mode TE011 @ 2.45GHz), with spherical end plates, using a 20% solid state amp conversion efficiency to Rf and 1kW power input could deliver, at a conservative unloaded Q of 50,000 (25,000 as measured loaded Q) around 40mN, generating say 4mm/sec acceleration with a 10kg mass.


Let's get our physics right. 40 mN acting on a 10 kg object would generate an acceleration of 4 mm per second per second. So assuming 1) you could hold spacecraft attitude, and 2) other forces on the satellite are much less than 40 mN your velocity would change (for example) 4 mm per second if you could hold 1 kW for one second. Is that detectable?

These systems can hold an attitude of less than 1 deg.

dV of 10mm/s over 30 minutes is detectable, so 4mm/s/s accel is WAY above the noise floor.

Vax,

A X band 1U EMDrive thruster delivering 2mN of thrust for 12W draw is doable. Depending on the power available the Rf Watts can go up as would the thrust.

Do you need constant or short term thrust?
What is the desired mN thrust?
What is the mass budget for the thruster?
How much power can you supply to meet the thrust requirements?
Potentially the thrust may be able to be vectored +-10 deg in 2 axis. Is this helpful?

Available on-orbit average power is ~50W, and short duration power draw can be up to about 1KW. We haven't worked the heat dissipation designs yet.   Constant power by the avionics is about 15W, so a constant 35W can be available to the payload, but as I said it can be provided in short bursts of up to a KW.
I can see both low power constant thrust and burst high thrust being extremely useful.  That fact that you could throttle the thrust with this design is a HUGE advantage - one not possible on anything at the moment, and one I'd not thought of before!.
As noted above 10mN of thrust is probably the minimum we'd want to target as a maximum to insure a deterministic test.  Being able to turn it down for long duration tests would also be a great test.
Mass can be probably 3Kg including the amplifier.  Remember the amplifier doesn't need the aluminum heatsink you see on most systems :)  We do have to get the heat out somehow, but with the new GaN components they get really efficient and until you get to 100s of W of rf power it's not going to be much of a concern.
I'm not sure thrust vectoring is useful for the first test, but in the long term definitely!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/31/2015 01:58 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

I'm not sure where you are going here, mm/s is a velocity, not an acceleration.

I have made my concerns about an amateur space test known previously.  In my opinion, the disturbing orbital forces, thermal and EM effects on a satellite this small may not be appreciably smaller than the effects folks are trying to eliminate in the lab.

What would you conclude from a cubesat test that doesn't give detectable results?
I have made my credentials known, I'm not an amateur, and this would not be an amateur test.  The change of velocity resulting from thrust causes the ground to see a Doppler shift in the rf carrier, detectable down to a deltaV of single digit mm/s.  This change needs to occur in a pretty short period of time (minutes) to insure a significant signal to noise ratio in the rf shift (if it happens too slowly it can look like thermal drift of the S-Band amplifier).  This means all the hard part (large, expensive) of the test and measurement equipment is on the ground.  A second means of measurement is using NASA Goddard's laser measurement system - all we really have to do for that is provide a retro-reflector on the spacecraft.  They can do both position and velocity measurements out to the moon (they do this for LRO all the time), but I'll have to find out what their measurement and resolution limits are...

Regarding disturbing forces, I calculate that the atmospheric drag that could be experienced by a satellite at 300 km altitude to be around 2 mN/m^2. (Assumes F10.7=150, Kp=5, Cd=2.2). At 400 km it would be down to 0.3 mN/m^2. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:09 pm
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 10/31/2015 02:25 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

I'm not sure where you are going here, mm/s is a velocity, not an acceleration.

I have made my concerns about an amateur space test known previously.  In my opinion, the disturbing orbital forces, thermal and EM effects on a satellite this small may not be appreciably smaller than the effects folks are trying to eliminate in the lab.

What would you conclude from a cubesat test that doesn't give detectable results?
I have made my credentials known, I'm not an amateur, and this would not be an amateur test.  The change of velocity resulting from thrust causes the ground to see a Doppler shift in the rf carrier, detectable down to a deltaV of single digit mm/s.  This change needs to occur in a pretty short period of time (minutes) to insure a significant signal to noise ratio in the rf shift (if it happens too slowly it can look like thermal drift of the S-Band amplifier).  This means all the hard part (large, expensive) of the test and measurement equipment is on the ground.  A second means of measurement is using NASA Goddard's laser measurement system - all we really have to do for that is provide a retro-reflector on the spacecraft.  They can do both position and velocity measurements out to the moon (they do this for LRO all the time), but I'll have to find out what their measurement and resolution limits are...

Regarding disturbing forces, I calculate that the atmospheric drag that could be experienced by a satellite at 300 km altitude to be around 2 mN/m^2. (Assumes F10.7=150, Kp=5, Cd=2.2). At 400 km it would be down to 0.3 mN/m^2.

Those numbers look reasonable to me at first glance :)
This would be only about 0.5m^2 for the solar panels and generally they would be body mounted and kept normal to the sun, so they do contribute to the drag for part of the orbit.  The satellite body for a 6u or 12u is 30cmx37cm so only about 0.1m^2 in cross section... (caution: ascii art follows :) )

___ ___ ___ _ ___ ___ ___ <-- solar arrays
                    | |
                    | |    <-- satellite body     ^
                    | |                                     | sun vector

we do have a solar array drive available, and if we use it, then the bottom of the satellite can stay pointed at the Earth and the body rotates about the vertical axis (in the drawing) once per orbit.  Gives us slightly higher power and provides constant earth pointing...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/31/2015 03:13 pm
...
How much Force do you need a cubesat EMDrive to deliver? Knowing the Force desired then the needed Rf watts can be calculated. Your job to deliver those Rf watts and ensure there is enough primary power available. Can design to many dimensions knowing the Rf drive freq, which will need to real time track lowest VSWR or lowest reflected power to achieve and hold resonance. I assume it needs to fit inside 1 cube being 100mmx100mmx100mm?
To fit in a 12u cubesat, large dia can be up to 20cm with length up to 36cm.  To accelerate a 10Kg cubesat at 10mm/s would take...what... 100mN?  I'm guessing on the math here - too late at night - I'm probably off by some powers of 10...  We can give you a KW for several minutes once per orbit, only limit is how hot the batteries get and how far we discharge them.  More than a 20% depth of discharge will limit their life, but this is probably a limited life test anyway (not a multi-year mission) so we can maybe run them harder and/or pack in more batteries to give us more instantaneous power...

I'm not sure where you are going here, mm/s is a velocity, not an acceleration.

I have made my concerns about an amateur space test known previously.  In my opinion, the disturbing orbital forces, thermal and EM effects on a satellite this small may not be appreciably smaller than the effects folks are trying to eliminate in the lab.

What would you conclude from a cubesat test that doesn't give detectable results?
I have made my credentials known, I'm not an amateur, and this would not be an amateur test.  The change of velocity resulting from thrust causes the ground to see a Doppler shift in the rf carrier, detectable down to a deltaV of single digit mm/s.  This change needs to occur in a pretty short period of time (minutes) to insure a significant signal to noise ratio in the rf shift (if it happens too slowly it can look like thermal drift of the S-Band amplifier).  This means all the hard part (large, expensive) of the test and measurement equipment is on the ground.  A second means of measurement is using NASA Goddard's laser measurement system - all we really have to do for that is provide a retro-reflector on the spacecraft.  They can do both position and velocity measurements out to the moon (they do this for LRO all the time), but I'll have to find out what their measurement and resolution limits are...

Regarding disturbing forces, I calculate that the atmospheric drag that could be experienced by a satellite at 300 km altitude to be around 2 mN/m^2. (Assumes F10.7=150, Kp=5, Cd=2.2). At 400 km it would be down to 0.3 mN/m^2.

Those numbers look reasonable to me at first glance :)
This would be only about 0.5m^2 for the solar panels and generally they would be body mounted and kept normal to the sun, so they do contribute to the drag for part of the orbit.  The satellite body for a 6u or 12u is 30cmx37cm so only about 0.1m^2 in cross section... (caution: ascii art follows :) )

___ ___ ___ _ ___ ___ ___ <-- solar arrays
                    | |
                    | |    <-- satellite body     ^
                    | |                                     | sun vector

we do have a solar array drive available, and if we use it, then the bottom of the satellite can stay pointed at the Earth and the body rotates about the vertical axis (in the drawing) once per orbit.  Gives us slightly higher power and provides constant earth pointing...

So the frontal area can vary from 0.1 to 0.6 m^2?  So in the lower orbit, the drag could vary from 0.2 to 1.2 mN. We would want to establish that this is a good order of magnitude or two below the expected thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 03:21 pm
Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.

As far as I can tell, the experiment is just measuring the Lorentz force on a device with a current running through it due to the Earth's magnetic field. They point out in the Appendix that due to different grounding points in the null and resonating cavity tests, the Lorentz force may not have been correctly accounted for in the Eagleworks experiment. This just adds one more possible explanation of experimental error that could be the real cause for the small thrust measured by Eagleworks.

This is a paper explaining why the emdrive thrust is just an error in the experiment design. It could use a bit more rigor in parts, but its point is to demonstrate that a significant source of error exists, not to precisely measure the magnitude, which would require them to have access to the original experiment equipment.

To reiterate, this paper claims (reasonably) that the measured thrust is an experimental error, and suggests an incorrect calibration of the Lorentz force effect on the setup as the cause of the error.

All:

I wish I could show you all the pictures I've taken on how we saluted and mitigated the issues raised by our EW Lab's Blue-Ribbon PhD panel and now Potomac-Neuron's paper, on the possible Lorentz force interactions.  That being the Lorentz Interactions with the dc currents on the EW torque pendulum (TP) with the stray magnetic fields from the torque pendulum's first generation open-face magnetic damper and the Earth's geomagnetic field, but I can't due to the restrictive NASA press release rules now applied to the EW Lab.   

However since I still can't show you this supporting data until the EW Lab gets our next peer-reviewed lab paper published, I will tell you that we first built and installed a 2nd generation, closed face magnetic damper that reduced the stray magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber by at least an order of magnitude and any Lorentz force interactions it could produce.  I also changed up the torque pendulum's grounding wire scheme and single point ground location to minimize ground loop current interactions with the remaining stray magnetic fields and unbalanced dc currents from the RF amplifier when its turned on.  This reduced the Lorentz force interaction to less than 2 micro-Newton (uN) for the dummy load test.  Finally we rebuilt the copper frustum test article so that it is now fully integrated with the RF VCO, PLL, 100W RF amp, dual directional coupler, 3-stub tuner and connecting coax cables, then mounted this integrated test article at the opposite end of the torque pendulum, as far away as possible from the 2nd generation magnetic damper where only the required counterbalance weights now reside.  Current null testing with both the 50 ohm dummy load and with the integrated test article rotated 90 degrees with respect to the TP sensitive axis now show less than one uN of Lorentz forces on the TP due to dc magnetic interactions with the local environment even when drawing the maximum RF amp dc current of 12 amps. 

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 10/31/2015 03:32 pm

...
And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Excelsior!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 10/31/2015 03:56 pm

...
And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Excelsior!
High quality indeed! Good things are to come.  I can feel it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 04:00 pm
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.

Traveler:

We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs.  (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.)  Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? 

I'm curious...

Best, Paul March 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 10/31/2015 04:08 pm


All:

I wish I could show you all the pictures I've taken ... but I can't due to the restrictive NASA press release rules now applied to the EW Lab.   

However since I still can't show you this supporting data ... 

...

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Thank you so much for this very informative non-report.  I REALLY hope no one gets cross-wise with you.

It's heartening to hear that suspense remains and has not, yet, been quenched.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 10/31/2015 04:48 pm
Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Paul,

That's wonderful news!  I am super excited for you.

I do have a question, however.  This is going to take a while to ask, so bare with me for a moment.

I started following this topic back during thread 2.  Then sort of missed out on threads three and four.  During thread 2, someone posted a paper published in the 1950's by A. L. Cullen who was studying the behavior of microwaves bouncing around within closed metal containers.  He did this with containers of a constant profile, rather than ones of a varying profile such as those used in an EmDrive.  However, he ran into the issue of the containers heating up and generating thermal lift.  He solved this by placing a ring reflector on each end of his containers, as shown in fig. 12 on page 8 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6D63p0L8odxWkxmVHlHS3ROdDQ/view?usp=sharing) in his paper.  The microwaves continued to bounce around within the container, but the issue of thermal lift was no longer a problem.

My question is this: In order to solve the thermal lift issue, why hasn't anyone attempted using ring reflectors on the ends of their EmDrives, as Cullen showed that was a viable solution, to this exact issue, without a need to use a vacuum chamber in the 1950's?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/31/2015 05:43 pm
Great Paul !

100microN, 80W, TM212, should only need Q ~ 12,000 to stay within "No new physics required"

Do you have a Q measurement you can share ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 05:44 pm
Doesn't anyone here have any reply at all to the substance of this paper?  Just throwing out insults without providing any justification for the insults isn't very persuasive.


All:


And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March
Paul,

That's not only good news, but it is great news. Beautiful engineering work by your team, simply beautiful. I like the way you're systematically dialing out the other factors other then the anomalous thrust.  Far better than I could do in my DTI. That said I can try to raise the anomalous thrust further out of the noise and prove that increased thrust gain is possible and add to the pool of data which I'm happy to do.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pm
100microN, 80W, TM212, should only need Q ~ 12,000 to stay within "No new physics required"

Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.

Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Thank you.

Also, I am glad you are making progress on eliminating sources of error.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 06:43 pm
Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Paul,

That's wonderful news!  I am super excited for you.

I do have a question, however.  This is going to take a while to ask, so bare with me for a moment.

I started following this topic back during thread 2.  Then sort of missed out on threads three and four.  During thread 2, someone posted a paper published in the 1950's by A. L. Cullen who was studying the behavior of microwaves bouncing around within closed metal containers.  He did this with containers of a constant profile, rather than ones of a varying profile such as those used in an EmDrive.  However, he ran into the issue of the containers heating up and generating thermal lift.  He solved this by placing a ring reflector on each end of his containers, as shown in fig. 12 on page 8 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6D63p0L8odxWkxmVHlHS3ROdDQ/view?usp=sharing) in his paper.  The microwaves continued to bounce around within the container, but the issue of thermal lift was no longer a problem.

My question is this: In order to solve the thermal lift issue, why hasn't anyone attempted using ring reflectors on the ends of their EmDrives, as Cullen showed that was a viable solution, to this exact issue, without a need to use a vacuum chamber in the 1950's?

Corelock:

I believe that RFMWGuy tried a form of Cullen's porous reflector solution to mitigate the frustum thermal lift issue in-air when he built his frustum out of copper screen mesh.  That solution mitigated some of the thermal lift in-air problems, at the price of a low Q-factor if memory serves.  Dependent on the desired E&M resonant mode (TE or TM) to be excited, since TM modes require radial currents in the end-caps and longitudinal currents in the frustum walls, while the TE modes require circular currents in the end caps and side walls of the frustum, one should at least use the copper mesh with enough electrically bonded radial and longitudinal copper rods on the frustum walls for the TM modes and circular copper hoops on the end-caps and the frustum's slanted walls to minimize Q-factor losses while still allowing sufficient air to pass through needed to provide frustum cooling. 

Best, Paul M.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/31/2015 06:46 pm


Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.



Glad to see we agree in principle.  Where is your calculation of  3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 06:53 pm
Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable).

Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect). I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/31/2015 07:01 pm


Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.



Glad to see we agree in principle.  Where is your calculation of  3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?

That is just the efficiency of a photon rocket. I don't feel like typing Greek letters, so the derivation is here. (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/force-exerted-by-a-laser-beam.178450/) (Note that calculation is for a mirror, so it has double the result.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 07:07 pm
100microN, 80W, TM212, should only need Q ~ 12,000 to stay within "No new physics required"

Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.

Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Thank you.

Also, I am glad you are making progress on eliminating sources of error.

Notsosureofit:

The integrated copper frustum test article's -3dB loaded Q-factor for the 80W / ~100uN test runs or 1.25 uN/W was 7,100.  That is 1.25 uN/W / 3.33 nano-Newton (nN) / Watt = ~375.4 times as much thrust as a 100% efficient E&M rocket can produce.

 Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure stress tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 07:37 pm
100microN, 80W, TM212, should only need Q ~ 12,000 to stay within "No new physics required"

Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.

Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Thank you.

Also, I am glad you are making progress on eliminating sources of error.

Notsosureofit:

The integrated copper frustum test article's -3dB loaded Q-factor for the 80W / ~100uN test runs or 1.25 uN/W was 7,100.  That is 1.25 uN/W / 3.33 nano-Newton (nN) / Watt = ~375.4 times as much thrust as a 100% efficient E&M rocket can produce.

 Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
If anyone feels like beating their head on the desk and run through this chapter to prove that Paul is right, be my guest. To save you knots, I'll give you a clue it's not there. https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n253/mode/2up

So, there seems to be a hole, for something we don't quite understand...yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/31/2015 07:38 pm
Notsosureofit:

The integrated copper frustum test article's -3dB loaded Q-factor for the 80W / ~100uN test runs or 1.25 uN/W was 7,100.  That is 1.25 uN/W / 3.33 nano-Newton (nN) / Watt = ~375.4 times as much thrust as a 100% efficient E&M rocket can produce.


Thanks Paul,  plugging in those numbers I get an unloaded Q of 10,900.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 07:55 pm
Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable).

Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect). I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.


Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.



Glad to see we agree in principle.  Where is your calculation of  3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?

That is just the efficiency of a photon rocket. I don't feel like typing Greek letters, so the derivation is here. (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/force-exerted-by-a-laser-beam.178450/) (Note that calculation is for a mirror, so it has double the result.)
Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable).

Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect). I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.

Flux Capacitor:

I have tried to stay neutral in my support of either Woodward's M-E or White's Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjectures in regards to how CoM is being saluted in these frustum space drives.  I will point out to you though about something you said that the virtual particles not being able to convey momentum, could be in error.  It's true that a single charged virtual particle, most likely an electron or positron due to their low mass, only have a very, very limited lifetime in our universe.  However IF they collide and annihilate with a different virtual charged particle than they were created with, then any E&M field induced accelerations while they ARE in this universe should be carried forward as newly added momentum in the created gamma photon that continues on the creation / annihilation process.  If repeated a sufficient number of times, a momentum wake could be established in the QV, just like the momentum wake created in water by a propeller.  One form of this QVF momentum transfer mechanism is discussed in a Rice University paper by Dr. Paul M. Stevenson, (The Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum), that I pointed to before, see attached.  One could also view this QV momentum transfer mechanism as a higher dimensional interaction such as discussed in Dr. White's Physics Essays paper found here:

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html   

Or the EW group paper found here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf

However all these conjectures require the QV to be mutable and degradable and/or we live in a 5, 6 or even more dimensional universe, which includes Woodward's reliance on Wheeler/Feynman radiations reaction forces, so your mileage may vary... 

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm
Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable).

Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect). I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.


Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.



Glad to see we agree in principle.  Where is your calculation of  3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?

That is just the efficiency of a photon rocket. I don't feel like typing Greek letters, so the derivation is here. (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/force-exerted-by-a-laser-beam.178450/) (Note that calculation is for a mirror, so it has double the result.)
Paul March,

Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.

Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable).

Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect). I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory).

Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.

Flux Capacitor:

I have tried to stay neutral in my support of either Woodward's M-E or White's Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjectures in regards to how CoM is being saluted in these frustum space drives.  I will point out to you though about something you said that the virtual particles not being able to convey momentum, could be in error.  It's true that the a single charged virtual particle, most likely an electron or positron due to their low mass, only have a very, very limited lifetime in our universe.  However IF they collide and annihilate with a different virtual charged particle than they were created with, then any E&M field induced accelerations while they ARE in this universe should be carried forward as newly added momentum in the created gamma photon that continues on the creation / annihilation process.  If repeated a sufficient number of times, a momentum wake could be established in the QV, just like the momentum wake created in water by a propeller.  One form of this QVF momentum transfer mechanism is discussed in a Rice University paper by Dr. Paul M. Stevenson, (The Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum), that I pointed to before, see attached.  One could also view this QV momentum transfer mechanism as a higher dimensional interaction such as discussed in Dr. White's Physics Essays paper found here:

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html   

Or the EW group paper found here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf

However all these conjectures require the QV to be mutable and degradable and/or we live in a 5, 6 or even more dimensional universe, which includes Woodward's reliance on Wheeler/Feynman radiations reaction forces, so your mileage may vary... 

Best, Paul March
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know. Maybe I miss some other specific reasonable facts. ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 08:46 pm
{snip}
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know.

If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:

F = q [ E + (v × B) ]

That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.

But let's just use the more convenient Fleming's left-hand rule for motors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming%27s_left-hand_rule_for_motors), replacing the first part of the equation with the equivalent electrical current flow I:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/LeftHandOutline.png)



I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 09:05 pm
{snip}
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know.

If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:

F = q [ E + (v × B) ]

That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.

I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?
The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and  q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Translation of wikipedia(DE)

pic 1 b)
"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."

pic 1 a) and pic 2
"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 10/31/2015 09:21 pm
...

 Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
If anyone feels like beating their head on the desk and run through this chapter to prove that Paul is right, be my guest. To save you knots, I'll give you a clue it's not there. https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n253/mode/2up

So, there seems to be a hole, for something we don't quite understand...yet.

If you want to work through the proof you should start here. (https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n207/mode/2up) Sections 6.8 and 6.9 cover how to calculate momentum and forces in the presence of electrodynamic fields.

You can then integrate the forces on each wall of the cavity (applying spherical coordinates and using the techniques in chapter 8 like Greg Egan did to determine the fields), you can also save some work by noting that the fields will be sinusoidal in time for any resonating shape, so the momentum transfer to the walls will always average out to 0. Alternatively you can just note the entire theory is grounded in conservation of momentum since CoM is used in the derivation for the momentum stored in the fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 09:47 pm
{snip}
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know.

If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:

F = q [ E + (v × B) ]

That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.

I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?
The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and  q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Translation of wikipedia(DE)

pic 1 b)
"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."

pic 1 a) and pic 2
"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."

Yes, all you've said is true, but you're describing a magnetohydrodynamic generator, not a motor.

Imagine a plasma flowing into a duct. Take two opposite charges in that flow, moving together in the same direction, with the flow, and entering a zone where a magnetic field is applied. Both charges will feel a Lorentz force in the opposite direction, and those forces will separate the charges like in your pictures. They can then be collected though electrodes on the sides of the duct. This is a power source, an MHD generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_generator):

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/MHD_generator_%28En%29.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Lorentz_force_MHD_generator.png)

Now, imagine a ionized gas at rest. Take the same duct and applied magnetic field, but this time, apply an electric field between the electrodes on the sides of the duct. unlike the first example, your opposite charges will flow in opposite directions: the electron will be accelerated towards the positive electrode, while the positron will be accelerated towards the negative electrode, because this time there is an applied E-field. The Lorentz force will accelerate both particles in the same direction. This is an electrical motor, an MHD drive:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Lorentz_force_MHD_accelerator.png)

The difference is when you apply or not an electric field. In an MHD drive, the electric field accelerates the charges in opposite directions, but the magnetic field curves their trajectory and the resulting Lorentz force pushes all charges, whatever their sign, in the same direction. And, through collisions in the gas, momentum is transferred to heavy ions and neutral atoms which are also accelerated (as a side note, magnetohydrodynamic thrusters are way more powerful than ion thrusters, the latter accelerating only one species, positive ions, through an electric field).

Basically it's the same thing as in a classical electric generator or linear motor with copper rotor and stator. Except with MHD your rotor is a working fluid (electrically conductive liquid or gas).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 10:47 pm
Vax,

Have done a prelim search of available X band Rf amp chips. Found a few nice chips to use. Suggest the simplest way to use your high short term power delivery system and achieve a good dynamic effective thrust range is to be able to use pulse width and duty cycle modulation of the Rf stream feeding the frustum.

Should be able to achieve averaged thrust levels from sub mN to around 25mN this way.

Should also be able to build this into a rotary test rig that I can fit into a small 1 torr vac chamber. Is this vac low enough for qualification testing or do you require a lower vac?

We also need to establish a command and control protocol plus lock down a cubesat bus structure so what I build, you can control.

Have done cubesat work for my son's uni cubesat project so I have a basic understanding of the bus, well that was 2 years ago. Will spend the rest of the weekend getting up to speed on the latest cubesat standards.

I'm very confident this is doable:

1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.
2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.
3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.
4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.
5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.
6) total mass under 1kg.
7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.

Comments
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 11:16 pm
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.

Traveler:

We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs.  (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.)  Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? 

I'm curious...

Best, Paul March

Hi Paul,

I'm very confident this is doable:

1) is supplied as a bolt on 1U cubesat propulsion module, with top end thrust, depending on pwr availibility, of around 25mN.

2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.

3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from an integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem that has self protection from thermal over temp.

4) real time frustum resonance tracking via lowest VSWR.

5) each thruster unit will be qualified on a rotary test rig, in a min 1 torr vac chamber.

My business model is to build and supply these 1U form factor X band thrusters to clients who wish to fly them as bolt on propulsion modules for their cubesat projects.

It is good to see you active on the forum again.


Phil Wilson
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 11:31 pm
Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.

That opinion is not shared by either Roger Shawyer nor Prof Yang. Both of who have a very considerable depth of experimental experience and data. Probably exceeding that of Eagleworks.

Just maybe you need to review ALL their experimental data and theories that both claim to show no new physics is needed to explain the "Shawyer Effect".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 11:35 pm
...

 Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
If anyone feels like beating their head on the desk and run through this chapter to prove that Paul is right, be my guest. To save you knots, I'll give you a clue it's not there. https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n253/mode/2up

So, there seems to be a hole, for something we don't quite understand...yet.

If you want to work through the proof you should start here. (https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n207/mode/2up) Sections 6.8 and 6.9 cover how to calculate momentum and forces in the presence of electrodynamic fields.

You can then integrate the forces on each wall of the cavity (applying spherical coordinates and using the techniques in chapter 8 like Greg Egan did to determine the fields), you can also save some work by noting that the fields will be sinusoidal in time for any resonating shape, so the momentum transfer to the walls will always average out to 0. Alternatively you can just note the entire theory is grounded in conservation of momentum since CoM is used in the derivation for the momentum stored in the fields.

Meberbs, I'm going to pass. If I felt a keener edge and could do it like I did 40 years ago I'd go at it. Just too darn rusty. You are right they are grounded in CoM.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 10/31/2015 11:38 pm
.../...
Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Paul, thank you for posting news (within the constraints).

Following one of the aspect of the sensitivity of the experiment to cg shifts (discussed previously before the "black out") : do you still need a slight tilt (wrt strict verticality) of the axis of rotation of the TP's arm to have a stable rest position ? What else could be the cause for this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem that seems to indicate a measurement coupling directly proportional to temperature ?

The dynamic recoil of a part's mass accelerating (relative to fixation on TP's arm) under effect of thermal dilatation could hardly "shift" rest position at levels of 100µN for more than a few seconds. For instance a 1kg part would have to accelerate at 10-4 m/s², after 10s this would be a huge 5mm move. I am under the impression that a horizontal pendulum with strict verticality of axis of rotation (i.e. where there is no change in altitude of the test article when the arm rotates) should be sensitive only to such "dynamic recoils" effects, relatively easy to tame and filter out because proportional to second derivative (wrt time) of temperature.

Also, rules permitting, can you tell us if you have done new tests without dielectric inserts, and if yes if those tests are still yielding no measurable effect as for the previous experimental campaign at EW (Brady report 2014 and later follow-up by you on this forum) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tleach on 10/31/2015 11:43 pm
Wow! Exciting times! TheTraveller is back. Paul March is back. Hooray!

I realize of course that I'm not in the same league as any of you, but here are some pictures of my DIY build progress. 5W at between 5.7-5.9 GHz, self contained and operated via a remote switch. I probably won't be able to get resonance until I shorten it quite a bit.

Right now the Riker Drive's small diameter is about 1.1 inches, large diameter is about 7.5 inches, and length is about 10.5 inches. These measurements will change as I progress through my testing, but can't start that until I build a test stand.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 12:05 am
129,000 euros for a 2 axis 1U cubesat cold gas thruster. AND you still need to buy the N2 cold gas canisters!

For sure can beat that price.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/01/2015 12:38 am
{snip}
I'm very confident this is doable:

1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.
2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.
3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.
4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.
5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.
6) total mass under 1kg.
7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.

Comments

A second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.

v = u + a t so t = Δv / a
F = m a so a = F/m
combining t = Δv * m / F

To give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/s
t = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 12:50 am
{snip}
I'm very confident this is doable:

1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.
2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.
3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.
4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.
5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.
6) total mass under 1kg.
7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.

Comments

A second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.

v = u + a t so t = Δv / a
F = m a so a = F/m
combining t = Δv * m / F

To give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/s
t = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)

25mN is only limited by Rf amp watts and power supply availability.

Can always end stack the standard 25mN 1U modules for higher acceleration rates & built 3 axis arrays for attitude control.

Like space lego. Only they make the sat move.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/01/2015 12:52 am
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 11/01/2015 01:42 am
And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...
Best, Paul March

Reports of spooky movement, and on Halloween no less.

Thank you, Sir, for you and your team's work.

There will likely be debates for years about exactly what's causing this anomaly, but tests like these and papers like yours (and Shell and Dave and and and) only add to the reality that something may very well be happening that we can't (yet) explain by our currently understood science.

Floobie dust? Ghosts? Probably not. But there does seem to be something. Not knowing what or how it works doesn't mean it doesn't. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 11/01/2015 02:26 am
However all these conjectures require the QV to be mutable and degradable and/or we live in a 5, 6 or even more dimensional universe, which includes Woodward's reliance on Wheeler/Feynman radiations reaction forces, so your mileage may vary... 

Best, Paul March

Paul,

You, Dr. Woodard, and Dr. White may find this article (http://www.iflscience.com/space/scientist-claims-there-evidence-other-universes-cosmic-microwave-background) interesting.  It discusses a paper that is up for review on ArXiv that claims to have found evidence of our universe colliding with alternate universes in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.  The actual paper on ArXiv is most likely beyond me, but I'm sure the three of you would be able to make sense of it.  I also imagine, you'd be able to tell if there was any truth to its claims.  Given your statements about the EmDrive possibly requiring us to live in a multi-dimensional universe, if this paper has actually found evidence of the existence of alternate universes, that may actually help to explain how the EmDrive functions.  Thought I'd make you aware of it, as it might be of help to you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 02:42 am
Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdf

Now imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/01/2015 03:52 am
Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdf

Now imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.

What dimensions would a 10.2 GHz fustrum have?   Does the theory or experimental evidence say higher frequencies are better, aside from the smaller size?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:05 am
Interesting 1U CubeSat 10mN hot gas thruster form factor and performance profile:
http://www.busek.com/index_htm_files/70008518B.pdf

Now imagine a X band 10cm dia x 10cm long frustum installed in that 1U form factor.

What dimensions would a 10.2 GHz fustrum have?   Does the theory or experimental evidence say higher frequencies are better, aside from the smaller size?

Is it about resonance, unloaded Q (basically 2x Shawyer method measured loaded Q), Df (Shawyers frustum dimension driven Design Factor) and Rf power level.

Force = (2 Qunloaded Df P) / c

Higher freq means smaller frustums (driven by smaller guide wavelength) and higher potential issue with microwave "Black Magic".

Frustum dimensions are driven by Df, excitation mode and external frequency. For sure the external freq must be able to dynamically track the frustum's centre resonant freq or there will be little Force generated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 04:14 am
.../...
Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

Paul, thank you for posting news (within the constraints).

Following one of the aspect of the sensitivity of the experiment to cg shifts (discussed previously before the "black out") : do you still need a slight tilt (wrt strict verticality) of the axis of rotation of the TP's arm to have a stable rest position ? What else could be the cause for this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem that seems to indicate a measurement coupling directly proportional to temperature ?

The dynamic recoil of a part's mass accelerating (relative to fixation on TP's arm) under effect of thermal dilatation could hardly "shift" rest position at levels of 100µN for more than a few seconds. For instance a 1kg part would have to accelerate at 10-4 m/s², after 10s this would be a huge 5mm move. I am under the impression that a horizontal pendulum with strict verticality of axis of rotation (i.e. where there is no change in altitude of the test article when the arm rotates) should be sensitive only to such "dynamic recoils" effects, relatively easy to tame and filter out because proportional to second derivative (wrt time) of temperature.

Also, rules permitting, can you tell us if you have done new tests without dielectric inserts, and if yes if those tests are still yielding no measurable effect as for the previous experimental campaign at EW (Brady report 2014 and later follow-up by you on this forum) ?


Frobnicat:

I'm already pushing the permissible disclosure envelop I'm working under, but I think I can tell you that yes we are still using the slight down angle on the TP arm to stabilize the zero-force baseline.  As to the origins of the torque pendulum's cg shift induced zero force baseline drift it's simply due to the thermal expansion driven mass movements of the 2.6 kg copper frustum with 2 PE discs in one direction, and the thermally driven expansion of the 6.7 kg aluminum PLL box, RF amplifier, its heat sink and dual directional coupler in the opposite direction because they are now mounted to each other back-to-back with the test article to TP mount in the middle.  And since the ~30% efficient 100W RF amplifier is dumping 70% of its 28Vdc input power as heat into itself and its heat sink, verses the 30% going into the copper frustum via its RF output when optimally Z-matched, the aluminum bits expand more than the copper bits and have more affect on the TP system cg for a given delta T due to it being 2.57 times more massive, thus you get a NET cg induced zero force baseline drift in the aluminum's thermal expansion direction proportional to these NET thermal expansion induced mass movements over time even if we are only talking tens of microns cg mass movements.  Past that, wait for the peer reviewed paper that should be out on the street sometime during the first half of next year.

As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air.  Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:19 am
As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air.  Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

Are the alum frustum internal dimensions the same as the copper one? If not, can you share the alum frustum dimensions plus what mode do you think it was excited in?

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 04:22 am
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.

Traveler:

We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs.  (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.)  Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? 

I'm curious...

Best, Paul March

Hi Paul,

I'm very confident this is doable:

1) is supplied as a bolt on 1U cubesat propulsion module, with top end thrust, depending on pwr availibility, of around 25mN.

2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.

3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from an integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem that has self protection from thermal over temp.

4) real time frustum resonance tracking via lowest VSWR.

5) each thruster unit will be qualified on a rotary test rig, in a min 1 torr vac chamber.

My business model is to build and supply these 1U form factor X band thrusters to clients who wish to fly them as bolt on propulsion modules for their cubesat projects.

It is good to see you active on the forum again.


Phil Wilson

Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/01/2015 04:25 am
I've been offline for a while, is anything new?

Just joking...hello again Paul. Congrats.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/01/2015 04:35 am
{snip}
I'm very confident this is doable:

1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.
2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.
3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.
4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.
5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.
6) total mass under 1kg.
7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.

Comments

A second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.

v = u + a t so t = Δv / a
F = m a so a = F/m
combining t = Δv * m / F

To give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/s
t = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)

25mN is only limited by Rf amp watts and power supply availability.

Can always end stack the standard 25mN 1U modules for higher acceleration rates & built 3 axis arrays for attitude control.

Like space lego. Only they make the sat move.

My grandson is a Lego genius. Perhaps he may be able to build a Lego habitat om Mars before I pass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/01/2015 05:12 am
{snip}
Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.

This 2014 Make: magazine article says about $40,000 to launch a cubesat, presumably a 1U.
http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go (http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go)

The price will be negotiable since NASA may have a bulk buy scheme, can do many of the inspections in house but could require the launch firm to do expensive extra paperwork.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 11/01/2015 08:30 am
{snip}
Phil:

You misunderstood my question though I find your current line of CubeSat propulsion cost analysis of interest as well.  What I was trying to ask is do you or anyone else on this forum know how much the orbital launcher companies charge a customer to insert their CubeSats into low Earth Orbit (LEO)?

Best, Paul M.

This 2014 Make: magazine article says about $40,000 to launch a cubesat, presumably a 1U.
http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go (http://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go)

The price will be negotiable since NASA may have a bulk buy scheme, can do many of the inspections in house but could require the launch firm to do expensive extra paperwork.

www.spaceflight.com (http://www.spaceflight.com) have a full list of prices.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/01/2015 08:38 am
Quote
Meberbs:

"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."

I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure stress tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition.  In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity).
The fact that both the Einstein equations of the gravitational fields and the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism are, according mathematicians, of hyperbolic type, leads necessarily to the existence of radiative solutions for these equations with both retarded and advanced components to be taken into account.
So it is most probable that the idea that a closed system, such as a RF cavity, can have a behavior totally independant from the remaining whole universe, is certainly a chimera and we cannot exclude that a momentum coupling with the whole causal universe, as investigated by James Woodward on both theoretical and experimental aspects for an electrical capacitor, can exist even for a closed RF cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/01/2015 09:57 am
{snip}
At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.
The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.
And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.

If I'm complete wrong please let me know.

If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:

F = q [ E + (v × B) ]

That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.

I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?

The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and  q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Translation of wikipedia(DE)

pic 1 b)
"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."

pic 1 a) and pic 2
"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."

Yes, all you've said is true, but you're describing a magnetohydrodynamic generator, not a motor.

Imagine a plasma flowing into a duct. Take two opposite charges in that flow, moving together in the same direction, with the flow, and entering a zone where a magnetic field is applied. Both charges will feel a Lorentz force in the opposite direction, and those forces will separate the charges like in your pictures. They can then be collected though electrodes on the sides of the duct. This is a power source, an MHD generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_generator):

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/MHD_generator_%28En%29.png)
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Lorentz_force_MHD_generator.png)

Now, imagine a ionized gas at rest. Take the same duct and applied magnetic field, but this time, apply an electric field between the electrodes on the sides of the duct. unlike the first example, your opposite charges will flow in opposite directions: the electron will be accelerated towards the positive electrode, while the positron will be accelerated towards the negative electrode, because this time there is an applied E-field. The Lorentz force will accelerate both particles in the same direction. This is an electrical motor, an MHD drive:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Lorentz_force_MHD_accelerator.png)

The difference is when you apply or not an electric field. In an MHD drive, the electric field accelerates the charges in opposite directions, but the magnetic field curves their trajectory and the resulting Lorentz force pushes all charges, whatever their sign, in the same direction. And, through collisions in the gas, momentum is transferred to heavy ions and neutral atoms which are also accelerated (as a side note, magnetohydrodynamic thrusters are way more powerful than ion thrusters, the latter accelerating only one species, positive ions, through an electric field).

Basically it's the same thing as in a classical electric generator or linear motor with copper rotor and stator. Except with MHD your rotor is a working fluid (electrically conductive liquid or gas).

Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/01/2015 11:01 am
Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.

The movement triggered on the particles accelerated by the Lorentz force does combine and changes the direction of the resulting force. This is not a simple problem.

When I look at TM212 mode in the frustum I see the resulting Lorentz forces are mainly centrifugal for both charges in each "lobe", whatever the directions of the fields. This is because the charges being opposite, they flow in opposite direction along the E-field, but the Lorentz force acts on them oppositely too, so it pushes them in the same direction. After a cycle (since this is AC, not DC) the E-field is reversed, but the B-field is also reversed, and the left-hand rule shows the direction of the force is conserved, always centrifugal.

(http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ptdeboer/ham/tn/tn07fig3.png)

Doest that mean the particles being centrifugally accelerated would interact with the slant lateral walls and thus are deflected from small end to big end, like in a rocket nozzle? I don't know if I'm right on this scheme.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/01/2015 11:52 am

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...




Notsosureofit:

--- Quote from: ThinkerX on 12/27/2014 12:56 AM ---Another blog post from Professor McCulloch.  He links to a paper he just published describing how he believes the EM drive is a manifestation of his theory:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

--- End quote ---

Certainly close enough to be interesting.  I would have liked to see simplified Eq. 6 filled out to include the effect of the cavity modes.

Notsosureofit:
Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

Also: Schwebel, S. L. INT J THEOR PHYS , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61-74, 1972, "Interaction theory of the electromagnetic field"


Star One:
If you wanted to build a vehicle using this technology would there be a preferred shape to use?

Rodal:

--- Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/27/2014 12:41 PM ---Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling.  Found at least one ref. this AM.

mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf

"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."

That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation.  The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.

I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.

Edit:  Looking for,


    Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98.
    Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387.
    Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843.
    Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

--- End quote ---

I found this this paper that Sachs wrote under sponsorship from the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab in Trieste in July 1966 while on leave from B.U., "To be submitted to Nuovo Cimento"

"ON FACTORIZATION OF EINSTEIN'S FORMALISM INTO A PAIR OF QUATERNION FIELD EQUATIONS"

http://streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/66/081.pdf


--- Quote from: M. Sachs ---it might be remarked that the quaternion form of the metrical field equations lends itself in a natural way to a unification between the inertial and gravitational manifestations of interacting matter. This is because of the basic expression of the matter fields themselves in terms of the same spinor and quaternion variables.

--- End quote ---

Mendel Sachs has a website:

http://mendelsachs.com/


In his website he has posted several of his articles.  For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf

In that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention  Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:



--- Quote from: Sachs ---I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.

--- End quote ---
(Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!

There are many other interesting references, for example this one on Dirac's Quantum Negative Energy Problem:

http://mendelsachs.com/publication/view/the-quantum-negative-energy-problem-revisited/
Notsosureofit:
Yes, thanks.  This is great stuff and will require a lot of reading.  (not to mention the brain-busting)
But do look back at that expression in the AM reference, it looks (to me w/o justification) like it could be the "doppler frame" expression.

Edit:  Found the AM paper online, (on the Beardon site, of all places!  I have NO idea what this would have to do w/ free energy.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/Symmetry_in_Electrodynamics.pdf

 See p.24, the three-current density
--------------------------------------------------

Still haven't gotten back to these (from when I was a NASA Fellow under S. Schwebel)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/01/2015 12:16 pm
Question: Will this pair of particles be deflected in the same direction even when the B(and E) field change the direction, or change the deflection angle with the magnetic field?
My though was that the field inside the cavity act like a ion trap.
As far as I know the Nasa reported no thrust without the dielectric insert, moreover the idea was that the dielectric acts like a mirror for the particles.

The movement triggered on the particles accelerated by the Lorentz force does combine and changes the direction of the resulting force. This is not a simple problem.

When I look at TM212 mode in the frustum I see the resulting Lorentz forces are mainly centrifugal for both charges in each "lobe", whatever the directions of the fields. This is because the charges being opposite, they flow in opposite direction along the E-field, but the Lorentz force acts on them oppositely too, so it pushes them in the same direction. After a cycle (since this is AC, not DC) the E-field is reversed, but the B-field is also reversed, and the left-hand rule shows the direction of the force is conserved, always centrifugal.

(http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ptdeboer/ham/tn/tn07fig3.png)

Doest that mean the particles being centrifugally accelerated would interact with the slant lateral walls and thus are deflected from small end to big end, like in a rocket nozzle? I don't know if I'm right on this scheme.

The lifetime of virtual particle pairs is extremely short (hence the 'virtual' aspect), so I highly doubt that any of them ever have the time to come even close to the nozzle matter, before they disappear again. But still, they do exist for that extremely short time as 'real' particle pairs, made up from quantum mechanically borrowed energy (Heisenberg). If it were possible to actually impart those particle pairs with a unidirectional impulse while they exist.. what would happen to the impulse that they gained by being accelerated via appropriately crossed (and dynamically changing) electric and magnetic fields, right at the moment when the borrowed energy is returned to the quantum vacuum?

One could argue, that these virtual particle pairs, popping up everywhere in spacetime, are a subset of the superset of what comprises what we call the 'spacetime continuum'. I think that those again vanishing particle pairs, that gained a bit of momentum in a QV thruster during their 'real lifetime', simply take their newly gained momentum with them into the 'virtuality' that is the quantum vacuum. If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vaccum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated. In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration. A body in front of the thruster nozzle would then feel a repulsive force coming from the nozzle, caused by the spacetime volume that's being moved by the thruster. Since matter is embedded in spacetime, the moving spacetime would then act like a volume of water that's flowing down a river, as seen by the embedded matter.

I personally tend to see Earth's gravity as spacetime moving towards all matter and taking all embedded matter with it, squisshing all of us against the surface of this wonderful world in consequence. I'm very thrilled to read about the coming results from EagleWorks.
8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/01/2015 01:33 pm
Not sure but I think the file below is already known nevertheless it's of interest for the last discussion...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/01/2015 02:14 pm

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...

My God : Thread 2 has 208 pages !  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 02:26 pm
Brilliance from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3qzwqu/eli5_what_is_the_em_drive_and_what_is_the_current/cwkann5

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke

"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." - Mark Twain

"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics" - H. Bauer

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer

One more late add:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 02:50 pm
Snip...

The lifetime of virtual particle pairs is extremely short (hence the 'virtual' aspect), so I highly doubt that any of them ever have the time to come even close to the nozzle matter, before they disappear again. But still, they do exist for that extremely short time as 'real' particle pairs, made up from quantum mechanically borrowed energy (Heisenberg). If it were possible to actually impart those particle pairs with a unidirectional impulse while they exist.. what would happen to the impulse that they gained by being accelerated via appropriately crossed (and dynamically changing) electric and magnetic fields, right at the moment when the borrowed energy is returned to the quantum vacuum?

One could argue, that these virtual particle pairs, popping up everywhere in spacetime, are a subset of the superset of what comprises what we call the 'spacetime continuum'. I think that those again vanishing particle pairs, that gained a bit of momentum in a QV thruster during their 'real lifetime', simply take their newly gained momentum with them into the 'virtuality' that is the quantum vacuum. If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated. In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration. A body in front of the thruster nozzle would then feel a repulsive force coming from the nozzle, caused by the spacetime volume that's being moved by the thruster. Since matter is embedded in spacetime, the moving spacetime would then act like a volume of water that's flowing down a river, as seen by the embedded matter.

I personally tend to see Earth's gravity as spacetime moving towards all matter and taking all embedded matter with it, squisshing all of us against the surface of this wonderful world in consequence. I'm very thrilled to read about the coming results from EagleWorks.
8)
[/quote]

CW:

"If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated.  In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration."

Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...

BTW, IF QV spacetime flow is the root cause of the phenomenon we call gravity generated by mass, IMO there has to be at least one more spatial dimension beyond our normally perceived 3D universe to provide this QV gravity flow a "drain" back into the universal QV reservoir.  If you read the EW Lab's Bohr atom paper over at the NASA NTRS file server that I pointed to last night, you will note the 1/r^4 force dependency with distance of the Casimir force.  If you delve deeper into why this is so, you will find that this 1/r^4 force dependency requires an n+1 spatial dimension system or a 5d+time (6D) universe.   

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2015 03:00 pm

@Mezzenile,

Probably time to recall from Thread 2...

My God : Thread 2 has 208 pages !  :)
My God "It's Full of Stars".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/01/2015 03:04 pm
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.

I understand your complaint since the definition of what counts as new physics changes as we learn more, but it is also useful to have a term to refer to discoveries that change our understanding of the universe, even though the universe has always worked that way.

As an example of what I consider new physics: the original theory on neutrinos indicated that they should be massless. When neutrino oscillations were discovered, that was new physics, since the theory had to be modified to give neutrinos mass in order to explain the observed phenomena. This was new physics at the time. Now, there are ongoing experiments to determine the actual mass of neutrinos. I would not consider the results of those experiments to be new physics since it is just determining a known parameter to greater accuracy. (Unless those results demonstrate an inconsistency, such as the masses not matching with the expected mass differences, and then we need more modifications to the theory to explain them.)

Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.

That opinion is not shared by either Roger Shawyer nor Prof Yang. Both of who have a very considerable depth of experimental experience and data. Probably exceeding that of Eagleworks.

Just maybe you need to review ALL their experimental data and theories that both claim to show no new physics is needed to explain the "Shawyer Effect".

As I said above, new physics is about theory. The discussion of whether the emdrive is new physics is separate from whether or not it works. While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence.

Assuming the emdrive does work, no details of experiments are required to determine whether or not it is new physics. It just has to be considered whether or not the currently accepted theories would need to be modified to account for it. Me, Eagleworks, Greg Egan, and others all have the background to determine what Maxwell's equations and current electrodynamic theory predicts to happen in an emdrive, and we have the same conclusion that it does not fit within current theory. Various explanations have been proposed, mostly ones that imply the emdrive is not actually a closed system, since it interacts with something such as the quantum vacuum. Every one of these theories that I have seen would be new physics, since they would change our current understanding of physics.

You cite Shawyer as a source with more experience than any of the other people I have mentioned. Even if that is true for experiments, I have posted on here before about the significant errors in his emdrive theory paper. Unless the issues I pointed out in his paper are resolved, Shawyer is not a good source for explanations of existing theory. From what I remember of Yang's paper it referenced Shawyer's hypothesis and stated his claims, but was focused on experiment, not theory.

This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity)
....

Electromagnetism has been well incorporated into quantum mechanics, but general relativity and quantum have not been unified into a single accepted theory, although multiple theories attempt to do this. Most results unifying general relativity and electromagnetism are therefore part of what I consider new physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/01/2015 03:11 pm
Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 03:39 pm
You cite Shawyer as a source with more experience than any of the other people I have mentioned. Even if that is true for experiments, I have posted on here before about the significant errors in his emdrive theory paper. Unless the issues I pointed out in his paper are resolved, Shawyer is not a good source for explanations of existing theory. From what I remember of Yang's paper it referenced Shawyer's hypothesis and stated his claims, but was focused on experiment, not theory.

Prof Yang developed a classical electrodynamics model of the EMDrive that predicted around the same Force levels as Shawyers theory predicted and both models predicted close to the measured Force levels.

Her 2013 peer reviewed paper predicts and graphs the Forces generated on all the surfaces and shows a net Force being generated.

Maybe have a read of her 5 peer reviewed papers?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401423#msg1401423

Like Shawyer, Prof Yang claims no new physics are needed to explain the EMDrive / Shawyer Effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 03:42 pm
Posted by: meberbs
« on: Today at 03:04 PM »

"While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence."

Meberbs:

I'm game. What will it take on the experimentation side of this question to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the the observed thrust like effect is real and engineer-able?  Just more thrust of say XX milli-Newton from say the EW lab, or perhaps just replication of our current EW lab's ~100 micro-Newton (uN) results in an independent lab like Glenn Research Center??  Or will it take a demonstration flight of an emdrive powered XX U-CubeSat where it raises its orbit by some predetermined number of km that can be explained in no other way???  And please do remember that someone has to pay for all these efforts...

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 03:43 pm
Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?

Distortion in the exciting EM wave may introduce phase distortions that may make forming the resonant standing wave difficult.

It is one of many possible effects I intend to checkout.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/01/2015 03:58 pm
Paul, since you said the amp is 30% efficient, I assume it is class A.

Would more distortion from a more efficient amp be allowable? Could you roll your own class C or D amp to reduce the about of waste heat generated?

LasJayhawk:

Our RF amplifier is an EMPower Model 1165 unit that claims to be a Class-AB RF amplifier.  Their data sheet can be found here:  http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdf 

Dependent on how its Smith chart tuning is set up for our system, its been my experience to see efficiency numbers at 1937 MHz vary from ~25% up to ~35%.

As to rolling our own RF amplifier design and build, given enough resources that is possible, but only after the powers that be are willing to fund this development, and that won't happen until science folks like meberbs and NASA management consider the emdrive as a real functional thruster that can be invested in, no matter what the real physics behind it may end up being.   

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:11 pm
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust for a given unit power by three orders of magnitude above current thrust levels, and drives a solid state flying machine.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2015 04:16 pm
Still working getting in the insulation in my shop, slow going by yourself as I had to move most of the test stand and other junk in the shop by myself, my help bailed. lol

It's going to take me a little longer to get'er done but what else could I be doing, other then finishing off my drive??? sigh

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/01/2015 04:25 pm
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/01/2015 04:32 pm
This "negative result" concerning the possibility for the formalism of classical Maxwell equations to predict the net thrust generated by a RF cavity is no more relevant when we consider the incorporation of this formalism in the general relativity context (switch of classical partial derivative to covariant derivative, taking into account of the variable metric tensor, incorporation of the electromagnetic contribution to the energy-momentum tensor, apparition of non-linearity in this generalized formalism and of a coupling between electromagnetism and  gravity)
....

Electromagnetism has been well incorporated into quantum mechanics, but general relativity and quantum have not been unified into a single accepted theory, although multiple theories attempt to do this. Most results unifying general relativity and electromagnetism are therefore part of what I consider new physics.
I am afraid that your rationale may conduct you to consider that even the General Relativity has to be considered as new physics. After all one of its major prediction : the existence of gravitational waves has not yet been directly confirmed  by measurements.

I dont't know if you accept the conclusions of James Woodward experiments, but all his theoretical analysis are based on the assumption of the validity of General Relativity  and on an approximate and partial solution to its gravitational radiation aspect which is a very difficult mathematical problem by itself.

In the final formulation of General Relativity, Einstein noticed a nontrivial connection between Maxwell’s electrodynamics and his theory of gravity.  He saw that by solving Maxwell’s equations in a gravitational field, not only does the electromagnetic field generate gravity, which is certainly believable from the mass-energy relation, but gravity can enhance a background electromagnetic field given the proper conditions.  This duality was one of the key features of physics that led Einstein and his followers to propose that there is a Grand Unified Theory of all the forces.

Relativity and Maxwell equations have already an experience of fruitfull cooperation : Maxwell equations played a key role in the birth of relativity in suggesting to Einstein that that there was no absolute rest frame, and that all inertial motion was relative.
Now if you want to observe by direct measurement all  the possible predictions of a theory  to not consider it as New Physics, we will have to wait the detection of Gravitational wave may be via its coupling with electromagnetic waves to convince you.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/01/2015 04:33 pm
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/01/2015 04:45 pm
...

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

There was discussion, on one of the earlier threads, that CG shifts due to heating could account for some of the anomalous thrust that was measured by EW.  I think Dr. Rodal did a very detailed analysis of this.   After the first vacuum tests I made the comment that the response certainly looked more thermal and that the insulating properties of the vacuum made the thermal response more evident and of longer duration.   At that time EW had done a lot to mitigate the error due to Lorentz force.   So we are on the same page as far as sources of measurement error are concerned.

With the Lorentz force effectively minimized, the ability to operate in a good vacuum allows EW to characterize the thermal effects independently.    If I was doing these tests I would apply stick-on mylar heating elements to the hottest part of the fustrum, as determined by the thermal imaging tests.   It's possible the feedline is also heating and pushing on the fustrum so some experimentation may have to be done to closely match the RF heating.    When the heating pads are powered up does this excitation show the same response, but with a different rise time as the RF power tests in a vacuum?   Then maybe apply a power ramp to the heating elements and try to match the rise time of the RF test.   When the best match is obtained, subtract the response from the RF power response and the remainder is actual force caused by this em-drive effect.  Earlier EW was doing the same kind of correction for the Lorentz force error.

I think the EW lab has done an excellent job investigating the em-drive.   I would be one of the last people to say it's a waste of time.    However I don't think you should be afraid of doing tests that could disprove this theory.   We need data from both sides of the fence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/01/2015 05:07 pm

As to rolling our own RF amplifier design and build, given enough resources that is possible, but only after the powers that be are willing to fund this development, and that won't happen until science folks like meberbs and NASA management consider the emdrive as a real functional thruster that can be invested in, no matter what the real physics behind it may end up being.   

Best, Paul M.

Sounds to me like you need some advice on how to steal lollipops from babies.

OK, let's say you need some money to finish this properly.  Let's pretend I can get someone to write you a check for whatever that # is.

Here's how the game works.

1st we get a conditional letter of intent from someone in NASA, NRO, USAF, to your prospective funder to conditionally purchase 10 test articles for whatever purposes they want, each guaranteed to produce > 100 microNewtons of thrust in LEO or an LEO simulator of their choice, for a minimum of 1 hour.  The price of each test article equals the $ amount of the money you need.  Standard Seed ROI request.

The condition is that when you are ready, and before you run out of money, the results are independently vetted by a committee of five reputable physicists, ideally with John Baez as the selector for the participants, and that this vetting fulfills the conditions to issue a purchase order, provided the committee concurs that real thrust higher than that expected from a photonic drive is happening and no propellent is outgassing from the system.  If the committee findings are negative, the investor walks, everything cancels.

If you pass, then your management works with the TTP folks to transfer any and all EW IP to your funder on a 3 year exclusive basis, and then place it in the public domain at the end of three years.  The letter of intent reverts to a live purchase order.

There are variations on this theme, but this is roughly how it would work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/01/2015 05:14 pm
(...)

CW:

"If, as argued above, the new particle pair momentum gained, gets merged back into spacetime or quantum vacuum as a superset, it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself. Space gaining unidirectional momentum would then be equivalent to spacetime having gotten accelerated.  In this picture, space itself would start to move away from the QV-thruster 'nozzle', while the QV-thruster would experience the opposite acceleration."

Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...

BTW, IF QV spacetime flow is the root cause of the phenomenon we call gravity generated by mass, IMO there has to be at least one more spatial dimension beyond our normally perceived 3D universe to provide this QV gravity flow a "drain" back into the universal QV reservoir.  If you read the EW Lab's Bohr atom paper over at the NASA NTRS file server that I pointed to last night, you will note the 1/r^4 force dependency with distance of the Casimir force.  If you delve deeper into why this is so, you will find that this 1/r^4 force dependency requires an n+1 spatial dimension system or a 5d+time (6D) universe.   

Best, Paul M.

If I remember correctly, the higher dimensions are 'hidden' from our human everyday observations and only begin to affect objects as of sub-micron distances. Interestingly, the things 'living' in this region are the 'real' physical particles. If spacetime or quantum vacuum were a 6D-entity, then I think this would imply that particles themselves could be 6D (or ?D), too.

Were 'mass' just a measure of how much spacetime (or a subset hereof) flows into a ?D object per unit of 'time', one might argue that each known particle type with its distinct 'mass' could be interpreted as having a different 'spacetime aperture' through which spacetime can flow (wherever to in this 6D spacetime). I think that in this case, there should exist a sort of 'Kirchhoff's current law' for spacetime-flows: The sum of all spacetime influx and outflow must be 0 at all times ;) .

If gravity were actually an emergent spacetime flow phenomenon, caused by spacetime apertures into the higher spacetime dimensions through particles with 'mass', then this strange phenomenon that we call spatial expansion might be at least partially connected to this. In a 6D world, I can at least imagine that e.g. a ?D subset of spacetime-flow, that enters the 'parent' 6D spacetime structure through mass apertures into the 6D realm, could randomly pop up again literally anywhere in 4D space and be not even close to the particle mass aperture, through which it left our 4D space in the first place. This might at least give an idea how it can be even possible for 'space' to seemingly 'increase' in between astronomical objects. As long as there is considerably more empty spacetime than matter in the universe, then mass apertures sucking away spacetime into the 6D world and the spacetime appearing at a random location in 4D again could perhaps be a theoretical mechanism for apparent spatial expansion: It's just volumes of previously eaten up space, randomly reappearing elsewhere ;) .
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 11/01/2015 05:14 pm
Questions for all and any.

For those that ponder that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for reported thrust in prior EM Drive experiments or that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for some percentage of total thrust.

Why does there seem to be so much of a difference between reported thrust levels with experiments conducted in a vacuum vs. in our normal atmosphere?

Do some think there is some higher tuning required to get equivalent thrust results in a vacuum vs. our normal atmosphere which still needs to take place?

I'm asking because I thought that "Virtual Particles" are created and disappear in about the same quantities in both a vacuum and our normal atmosphere.  Am I wrong about this assumption? If not then why does it appear/seem that past results of EM Drive build experiments in a vacuum, have lower thrust results?

Can current thrust estimates being used for EM Drive builds in our normal atmosphere be applied to those EM Drive builds tested in a vacuum or does one need to modify the calculations even when using the very same EM Drive build equipment? With or without attributing some or all of the EM Drive thrust to "Virtual Particles".

Don

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2015 06:42 pm
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/01/2015 07:02 pm
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.

You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/01/2015 07:16 pm
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell

Shell,

within what spatial distance do evanescent waves decay again? I'm asking because there might be a connection between higher physical dimensions coming into effect in the sub-micron distance regime, and the evanescent waves decaying very quickly. Evanescent waves carry quite a number of momenta, right? Perhaps they get quickly sucked away into 5D+ spacetime and can serve as a means to sink 4D momentum into 5D+ spacetime.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 11/01/2015 07:27 pm
Wow! Momentum carried away on a plume of distorted space time... As a candidate for a completely invisible exhaust, it has a lot going for it! CW, if I'm right and that was your spot, thank you.

It does appear from a quick search that gravitational waves do carry momentum.

Does the approximate scale work? Would a plume capable of carrying off 1N of thrust be monstrously huge or undetectably small?

Does the relation P = E/c still apply? If it does, we may still be stuck....

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2015 08:09 pm
In for a second.

Looking at all of these ideas speculating about VP generation. You know it may be right to consider it maybe a little differently. If we cause virtual partial (hate that word with virtual... particle, it's not a particle just the fields) to be generated. How are they different in the forces they carry being virtual then the extraordinary spins and momentum of a collapsing evanescent wave? I keep on getting this idea and I've not taken the time to dig further to figure if evanescent waves could have a greater influence in the QV and a QVP. The reason is there are serious things we still haven't figured out in the decay of the evanescent wave functions, they are not the dead vanishing remnants of a decaying wave.

Back to the shop.

Shell

Shell,

within what spatial distance do evanescent waves decay again? I'm asking because there might be a connection between higher physical dimensions coming into effect in the sub-micron distance regime, and the evanescent waves decaying very quickly. Evanescent waves carry quite a number of momenta, right? Perhaps they get quickly sucked away into 5D+ spacetime and can serve as a means to sink 4D momentum into 5D+ spacetime.
Exponentially decaying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field#Evanescent-wave_coupling

In electromagnetics, an evanescent field, or evanescent wave, is an oscillating electric and/or magnetic field which does not propagate as an electromagnetic wave but whose energy is spatially concentrated in the vicinity of the source (oscillating charges and currents). Even when there in fact is an electromagnetic wave produced (e.g. by a transmitting antenna) one can still identify as an evanescent field the component of the electric or magnetic field that cannot be attributed to the propagating wave observed at a distance of many wavelengths (such as the far field of a transmitting antenna).

And

Although all electromagnetic fields are classically governed according to Maxwell's equations, different technologies or problems have certain types of expected solutions, and when the primary solutions involve wave propagation the term "evanescent" is frequently applied to field components or solutions which do not share that property. For instance, the propagation constant of a hollow metal waveguide is a strong function of frequency (a so-called dispersion relation). Below a certain frequency (the cut-off frequency) the propagation constant becomes an imaginary number. A solution to the wave equation having an imaginary wavenumber does not propagate as a wave but falls off exponentially, so the field excited at that lower frequency is considered evanescent. It can also be simply said that propagation is "disallowed" for that frequency. The formal solution to the wave equation can describe modes having an identical form, but the change of the propagation constant from real to imaginary as the frequency drops below the cut-off frequency totally changes the physical nature of the result. One can describe the solution then as a "cut-off mode" or an "evanescent mode";[1] while a different author will just state that no such mode exists. Since the evanescent field corresponding to the mode was computed as a solution to the wave equation, it is often discussed as being an "evanescent wave" even though its properties (such as not carrying energy) are inconsistent with the definition of wave.
<end>

This has and will be a large red flag for a wave that carries no energy. Maybe some should revise the Wikipedia pages to include recent findings, evanescent waves have energy and they can and they do transfer energy in the near fields.

I find some of his writing very interesting in explaining the evanescent conundrum.
http://milesmathis.com/evane.pdf

So to ask someone who would know, how this could all fit. Paul M. Are you still using dielectric blocks in the frustum?

My Bestest....
Shell


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/01/2015 09:37 pm
Paul,

just before you and the complete Eagleworks research went off-radar last May, you mentioned your intend to use a stronger microwave generator (700W iirc).

The result you mentioned recently, of getting an excess of 100µN from 80W, was that done on the old setup or on the earlier mentioned new 700W device?

In that respect, do we have to see the 100µN/80W as the most efficient result obtained from the test range or as the maximum measured value?

I realize it might be on or over the edge of your NDA, so please, if you don't feel comfortable answering , say so. Do not get yourself into trouble...

Arrhhh..curiosity killed the cat...it's going to be a long, long wait to get the final reports out... ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/01/2015 10:35 pm

In the final formulation of General Relativity, Einstein noticed a nontrivial connection between Maxwell’s electrodynamics and his theory of gravity.  He saw that by solving Maxwell’s equations in a gravitational field, not only does the electromagnetic field generate gravity, which is certainly believable from the mass-energy relation, but gravity can enhance a background electromagnetic field given the proper conditions.  This duality was one of the key features of physics that led Einstein and his followers to propose that there is a Grand Unified Theory of all the forces.


Nicely stated.  This is the input thinking of (the rather crude model for) the Notsosureofit Hypotheses.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/01/2015 11:41 pm
Is it possible that the force being generated by the (QV/space time distortion/flooby dust/magic) is not perpendicular to the end plates of the frustrum? Has anyone verified that it isn't off on some vector and we are only measuring a glancing blow?

I would assume that it's perpendicular to the end plates, and I'm often times wrong. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TMEubanks on 11/02/2015 01:08 am
Vax,

Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?

What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?

Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.

It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.

Traveler:

We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs.  (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.)  Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? 

I'm curious...

Best, Paul March

Paul

A 3U cubesat at 3kg in  LEO would cost maybe $50,000 (not including launch costs) . I would suggest doing a 2 EM drive model, with the drives mounted perpendicular to the long axis and also  opposite to each other, so the drives would act to spin the satellite (it is much easier to detect small spins than small accelerations). The arrangement would be something like

   |
   |
   | <
   |
   |
   |
   |
   |
   |
   |
   |
   |
 >|
   |
   |

Where each | represents 2 cm and < vs > represents the direction of thrust.

HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/02/2015 01:54 am
Questions for all and any.

For those that ponder that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for reported thrust in prior EM Drive experiments or that "Virtual Particles" are responsible for some percentage of total thrust.

Why does there seem to be so much of a difference between reported thrust levels with experiments conducted in a vacuum vs. in our normal atmosphere?

Don

I would think it has to do with differing refractive index values between air and a vacuum and the interface between copper/air and copper/vacuum.  Just a gut feeling though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/02/2015 02:11 am
I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.

You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.

Or a cubesat going from earth to lunar orbit with an EMDrive.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: DavidR NASA on 11/02/2015 02:20 am
Well this got interesting again, didn't it!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cej on 11/02/2015 02:51 am
For those of you performing or analyzing DIY experiments, there is software from MIT that might help you quantify the chimney effect by using an ordinary video camera (http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/) instead of Schlieren optics. For best results, the background should be textured and the video should be uncompressed.

One of their papers goes into more detail:
Refraction Wiggles for Measuring Fluid Depth and Velocity from Video (http://people.csail.mit.edu/tfxue/proj/fluidflow/)

The second link also includes source code (Matlab).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 04:51 am
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.

Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.

Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.

To make things interesting lets say each 0-25mN EMDrive 1U CubeSat thruster costs $25,000.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/02/2015 05:22 am
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.

Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.

Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.

Phil

I'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that.  The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but  Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/02/2015 06:23 am

I don't think anyone's going to give up on EM drive critiques and say "well that settles it" without a large number of very well characterized, third party replications, or a build that increases the thrust output for a given input power by three orders of magnitude and powers a solid state flying machine.

So we should ignore the historic data?
Just pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist?

Of course not. I'm only saying that the critics are not going to go away without an overwhelming amount of incontrovertible evidence. I do not count myself as one of them.

You make a very good point. I think sometimes people forget that the mountain of proof on this device is very, very steep indeed. The critics aren't just going to suddenly roll over & be won over, it's going to take a lot of patience & a mound of good experimental data.

Or a cubesat going from earth to lunar orbit with an EMDrive.

Well you need all the good experimental evidence first to persuade someone to pay for it or hope someone who already is convinced to pay for one. Then you have to get it into space, more costs there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 06:32 am
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.

Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.

Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.

Phil

I'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that.  The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but  Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.

That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.

Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.

I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/02/2015 08:15 am
For those of you performing or analyzing DIY experiments, there is software from MIT that might help you quantify the chimney effect by using an ordinary video camera (http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/) instead of Schlieren optics. For best results, the background should be textured and the video should be uncompressed.

One of their papers goes into more detail:
Refraction Wiggles for Measuring Fluid Depth and Velocity from Video (http://people.csail.mit.edu/tfxue/proj/fluidflow/)

The second link also includes source code (Matlab).
I like this idea and it was talked about a month ago. If anyone would be willing I'll setup a camera to take videos of the DUT for post processing.

Shell

added: This could be a useful tool to be able to potentially use in extracting a warping heat pulse, movements on beams and even on the cavity itself. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/02/2015 11:53 am

That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.

Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.

I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.

Nice!  If you can keep the diameter below 22" or so, you can test in my 1 microtorr chamber.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/02/2015 12:07 pm
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.

Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.

Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.

Phil

I'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that.  The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but  Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.

That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.

Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.

I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.

Phil:

Word of advice.  Do NOT run your test articles at 1.0 torr vacuum levels!  That is at the bottom of the Paschen curve where glow discharges are the easiest to strike.  You either run at full atmospheric pressure, or no higher than 1x10^-3 Torr and preferably at 1x10^-4 Torr or lower pressures.  I've blown one two many expensive RF amps, or shorted out the frustum from glow discharges in same when I didn't observe that rule.

Best, Paul M. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/02/2015 12:22 pm
Second that !!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/02/2015 02:16 pm
HOWEVER, to do this in 3 kg and 10 x 10 x 30 cm requires a drive at a (roughly) x10 higher frequency. Do you have any data on such higher frequency drives? I can't see flying this until there is an analogous ground unit with a good indication of anomalous results.

Doable. Would need 2 x 1U form factor EMDrive CubeSat thrusters at each end, with a control/power 1U cube in the middle.

Design I have developed should gen around 2mN thrust per EMDrive CubeSat thruster per 10W of available DC power. Just need to have 2 x I2C bus connectors on the motherboard to control the thrusters and handle the solar cells & power regulation. So not a complex 3U design nor build.

Phil

I'd feel better if you got the rotary rig up and tested that.  The spreadsheet seems to have right(ish) so far, but  Shawyer seemed to be talking about higher power at lower frequencies in his latest paper.

That is the plan but to use the 1U form factor CubeSat thruster version as there is a commercially ready market for that unit. With the smaller size I plan to reduce the rotary test rig diameter and to be able to test it in a small transparent 1 torr vacuum chamber. As the IU CubeSat thruster is totally self contained (frustum, control and monitoring pcb inside the 1U volume) all that I need to furnish to the thruster is a 24 vdc supply and enough dc amps to get the desired thrust plus a small WiFi USB to I2C control board to allow me to control the thruster from my laptop.

Whole test rig, including the 1 torr vac chamber should be very portable.

I like this approach as I can design the single PCB board with on board, Rf amp, variable freq gen doing frustum resonance tracking, VSWR monitor and control micro to do exactly what is needed. Basically a gen 2, go to market, version of the original S band thruster.

Phil:

Word of advice.  Do NOT run your test articles at 1.0 torr vacuum levels!  That is at the bottom of the Pashen curve where glow discharges are the easiest to strike.  You either run at full atmospheric pressure, or no higher than 1x10^-3 Torr and preferably at 1x10^-4 Torr or lower pressures.  I've blown one two many expensive RF amps, or shorted out the frustum from glow discharges in same when I didn't observe that rule.

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

Was aware there is a min spacing issue in designing the pcb with it's onboard 60W Rf amp and support electronics. Thanks for the heads up reference and related spacing equation.

As the thruster will be rated to operate from atmo to full vac, testing at the worst vac will now be part of the test protocol.

If the issue can't be designed around, will need to add an on pcb pressure sensor to disable operation depending on pressure measurement.

Would suspect there are space rated conformal coatings for the pcb that should handle the situation. Will check that out.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/02/2015 03:46 pm
(...)
Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...
(...)
Best, Paul M.

Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/02/2015 04:02 pm
(...)
Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...
(...)
Best, Paul M.

Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
8)
I think that was one of the first questions I asked joining here by using smoke, someone even said to use cassette tapes. I like yours.

I wonder if EW followed through using a laser interferometer in a vacuum setting?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/02/2015 04:48 pm
Yea, Shell, but what about the paper you write explaining your results? Which is easier to explain to a technically oriented audience, a detected acceleration of a few nano-g's, or drifting smoke? I think we have enough drifting smoke on this thread already. JMO  :)

But seriously, can anyone guess what order of magnitude of acceleration might be detected? F=ma, but what would you use for "m?" (In the speculated/estimated test set-up)

For that matter, what would you use for "m" of the drifting smoke?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/02/2015 05:03 pm
Yea, Shell, but what about the paper you write explaining your results? Which is easier to explain to a technically oriented audience, a detected acceleration of a few nano-g's, or drifting smoke? I think we have enough drifting smoke on this thread already. JMO  :)

But seriously, can anyone guess what order of magnitude of acceleration might be detected? F=ma, but what would you use for "m?" (In the speculated/estimated test set-up)

For that matter, what would you use for "m" of the drifting smoke?

You could do both:

1) Show measured thrust graphs in ?N
2) Show a video that illustrates the 'space shift' by drifting smoke behind and in front of the thruster

Result: Minds blown.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/02/2015 06:07 pm
(...)
Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...
(...)
Best, Paul M.

Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
8)
I think that was one of the first questions I asked joining here by using smoke, someone even said to use cassette tapes. I like yours.

I wonder if EW followed through using a laser interferometer in a vacuum setting?

Shell
I'm counting on you to be able to find smoke in Colorado, Shell  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/02/2015 06:19 pm
(...)
Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...
(...)
Best, Paul M.

Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
8)
I think that was one of the first questions I asked joining here by using smoke, someone even said to use cassette tapes. I like yours.

I wonder if EW followed through using a laser interferometer in a vacuum setting?

Shell

Gasp!

1.  Smoke in a vacuum means it isn't a vacuum
2.  Observed directional flow of smoke means there is observed directional flow of smoke.  Doesn't point to cause.

I think there is no disagreement that thrust is observed.  They debate focuses on why.  Smoking will only increase your risk of heart disease, cancer and stroke.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/02/2015 06:40 pm
(...)
Bingo!  If Dr. White is correct in arguing that 4D+ spacetime IS the quantum vacuum and visa versa, and if gravity is an emergent force generated by the forced hydrodynamic flow of the quantum vacuum, then what these EM-Drives are, is a directional "gravity" flow generator powered by E&M fields.  The trick now is to prove this conjecture, which at a minimum will take the final marriage of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity Theory (GRT)...
(...)
Best, Paul M.

Proving this conjecture can be done by experiment alone, I think. Just put a working thruster on a testbench in high vacuum and use accelerometers in front and in the back of the thruster. In front, you should then measure a 'suction effect', and in the back, a repulsion effect from an enclosed device in vacuum. QED.
8)
I think that was one of the first questions I asked joining here by using smoke, someone even said to use cassette tapes. I like yours.

I wonder if EW followed through using a laser interferometer in a vacuum setting?

Shell

Gasp!

1.  Smoke in a vacuum means it isn't a vacuum
2.  Observed directional flow of smoke means there is observed directional flow of smoke.  Doesn't point to cause.

I think there is no disagreement that thrust is observed.  They debate focuses on why.  Smoking will only increase your risk of heart disease, cancer and stroke.

It may end up with multiple interferometer tests by rotating the frustum and measuring not only through the centerline of the frustum but across ends and sides to profile.

I remember where the gentleman on Hackaday https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/26824-juday-white-experiment  measured something with their interferometer. setup and I mentioned they should position the mirror calibrated distances from the frustum to see it they can define and profile the effect.

Back to the contact cement tar-baby effect of hanging up insulation in the shop.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/02/2015 06:56 pm
On the accelerometer space acceleration test idea, Would vacuum really be necessary?

Secured accelerometer isn't going to accelerate by conventional means, after all.

And does the basic idea under test apply to the significant difference in forces detected in air and in vacuum? That is, air filled space accelerated vs. vacuum filled space accelerated? Maybe something to do with the reach of the effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/02/2015 07:56 pm
On the accelerometer space acceleration test idea, Would vacuum really be necessary?

Secured accelerometer isn't going to accelerate by conventional means, after all.

And does the basic idea under test apply to the significant difference in forces detected in air and in vacuum? That is, air filled space accelerated vs. vacuum filled space accelerated? Maybe something to do with the reach of the effect?

Vacuum isn't necessary at all for testing for a possible 'space shift' going on in front and in the back of the drive. I think there should be some detectable air current, if that's what's happening. Falling steam from a liquid nitrogen vessel would do nicely for illustrative purposes and be completely harmless for bystanders to breathe in. Or maybe use ultrasonic for vaporizing water and use that. Probably easier to handle for DIYers ;) .
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/02/2015 08:19 pm
Summation article. Useful for those new posters who don't want to plough back all the way through this thread.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/nasa-eagleworks-has-tested-upgraded.html?m=1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/02/2015 11:54 pm
I really hope Paul doesn't get in trouble.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasa-latest-tests-show-physics-230112770.html

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/03/2015 12:21 am
Summation article. Useful for those new posters who don't want to plough back all the way through this thread.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/nasa-eagleworks-has-tested-upgraded.html?m=1

I'm still waiting for someone to just heat the fustrum and compare the response to that with what is observed when RF is the driving force.    Paraphrasing Djikstra, "Testing proves the presence, not the absence of measurement errors".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/03/2015 12:28 am
I really hope Paul doesn't get in trouble.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasa-latest-tests-show-physics-230112770.html
I would say they are well into peer review or it may already be completed (guessing). Wouldn't worry about the nature of this article. It lacks click-bait, grandiose titles like the first round and appears to be a balanced update only. Thanks for posting it, just some more encouraging news about this emerging technology. Hoping it can be taken seriously by many more out there. The payoff could be significant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/03/2015 12:35 am
Summation article. Useful for those new posters who don't want to plough back all the way through this thread.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/nasa-eagleworks-has-tested-upgraded.html?m=1

I'm still waiting for someone to just heat the fustrum and compare the response to that with what is observed when RF is the driving force.    Paraphrasing Djikstra, "Testing proves the presence, not the absence of measurement errors".
Ambient heating would just cause a rise on horizontal balance beam test stands, the trick would be to simulate a mag on/off condition without actually filling it with MW energy. I suppose a suitable replacement for the frustum could be a round, cylindrical cavity, tuned for resonance but the wrong shape and firing the mag into it.

Whatever the effect is, it is not easily identifiable. Lorentz forces are simply too small to make a difference on a setup like mine. The noise floor is way over the forces potomacneuron reported in his paper, which I thought was very useful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prober on 11/03/2015 01:57 am
Congratts to Chris & NSF

NASA institutes strict press release restrictions on the Eagleworks lab these days, engineer Paul March took to the NASA Spaceflight forum to explain the group’s findings. In essence, by utilizing an improved experimental procedure, the team managed to mitigate some of the errors from prior tests — yet still found signals of unexplained thrust.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasa-latest-tests-show-physics-230112770.html

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/03/2015 03:06 am

...

I'm still waiting for someone to just heat the fustrum and compare the response to that with what is observed when RF is the driving force.    Paraphrasing Djikstra, "Testing proves the presence, not the absence of measurement errors".
Ambient heating would just cause a rise on horizontal balance beam test stands, the trick would be to simulate a mag on/off condition without actually filling it with MW energy. I suppose a suitable replacement for the frustum could be a round, cylindrical cavity, tuned for resonance but the wrong shape and firing the mag into it.

Whatever the effect is, it is not easily identifiable. Lorentz forces are simply too small to make a difference on a setup like mine. The noise floor is way over the forces potomacneuron reported in his paper, which I thought was very useful.

I'm thinking about heating tests that can done in a vacuum chamber.   Thermal camera imaging has shown what part of the fustrum heats up the most.   So apply some mylar heating elements to that surface and run a test with the same power level.   There also might be heating of the feedline from reflected power.   If the response of the system from heating is known it can be subtracted from the test results, just like the Lorentz force error was subtracted out a year ago.   Any heat applied to the fustrum will cause movement that is at present not distinguished from a force produced by RF energy.   When it is quantified the em-drive force will be known to a higher precision.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/03/2015 03:12 am
Quote
I'm thinking about heating tests that can done in a vacuum chamber.   Thermal camera imaging has shown what part of the fustrum heats up the most.   So apply some mylar heating elements to that surface and run a test with the same power level.   There also might be heating of the feedline from reflected power.   If the response of the system from heating is known it can be subtracted from the test results, just like the Lorentz force error was subtracted out a year ago.   Any heat applied to the fustrum will cause movement that is at present not distinguished from a force produced by RF energy.   When it is quantified the em-drive force will be known to a higher precision.

Rotary test in a vacuum chamber.  Thermal effects are unlikely to result in rotary motion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/03/2015 03:30 am
Rotary test in a vacuum chamber.  Thermal effects are unlikely to result in rotary motion.

Ditto
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/03/2015 04:00 am
Rotary test in a vacuum chamber.  Thermal effects are unlikely to result in rotary motion.

Ditto
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 11/03/2015 05:25 am
Yet another article written about recent news on the EmDrive.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/

What I like about those new articles is that when you compare them to the first news about the EmDrive, these new are more calm and less "hype". They are also trying to explain what is currently going on in a language that "normal" readers will understand.

What this means to us? It means that thanks to people like Rfmwguy, Paul March, Dr. Rodal, See-Shell, moderators of the NSF and many others here the EmDrive is starting to get step by step on its credibility.

See-Shells and TTs coming tests may yet push us further. Of course same goes for the NASA EW.

I hope this restores some of your motivation and hope for further testing.

Of course when offical NASA paper is out, there will be a lot of criticism as usual. My advice is, that it is good listen to it as they provide some interesting "mirrior", but I also advice ignore offensive criticism as we see from some people at the reddit forum.

NSF forum is a shining example that a debate and share of knowledge can be civil :). It also means that this little forum can get into the books as one of the places where scientists, engineers and critics pushed forward the technology that may help us reach the stars.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/03/2015 05:55 am
Quote
I'm thinking about heating tests that can done in a vacuum chamber.   Thermal camera imaging has shown what part of the fustrum heats up the most.   So apply some mylar heating elements to that surface and run a test with the same power level.   There also might be heating of the feedline from reflected power.   If the response of the system from heating is known it can be subtracted from the test results, just like the Lorentz force error was subtracted out a year ago.   Any heat applied to the fustrum will cause movement that is at present not distinguished from a force produced by RF energy.   When it is quantified the em-drive force will be known to a higher precision.

Rotary test in a vacuum chamber.  Thermal effects are unlikely to result in rotary motion.

You have my blessing to build a rotary test system and test it in a vacuum.  No one has done that yet.    I'm sure if you built it you would attract the biggest crowds at a Makers Faire.   

I am more interested in Science and finding answers.   Herein lies the crux of my reasoning:   Let's say you have two bells, one made of bronze and the other of Lead.   You will always know from the sound which bell was struck no matter what you hit it with or how hard you hit it.   Each bell has a distinctive sound.   

The same concept applies to the EW test article on their torsion pendulum, or whatever apparatus they are now using.   If momentum is transferred to the fustrum by lightly tapping it, energizing the capacitive thrust calibrator, etc, the graph of it's movement wrt time will have the same shape.   It doesn't matter what caused the increase in momentum, the impulse response will have the same shape.   It will only differ in its peak value, according to the magnitude of the momentum added.   And this phenomena is reversable.  If you hit it from the opposite direction the system response is inverted but otherwise the same.

In real world mechanical systems nothing is purely one thing or the other.  The em-drive being tested by EW in 2014 showed the effects of many different driving functions:  Lorentz force from the powerful NIB damping magnet, thermal effects from air currents, a force from the capacitive force calibrater, and possibly a new mysterious force.   The response to the Lorentz force has the same shape as the response seen for the capacitive force calibration device.   These responses were both underdamped step responses with a relatively fast rise time.   This is the step response of the torque pendulum / fustrum system.   When momentum is imparted to the pendulum this response will be seen.

Earlier Paul March shared the following with us:
...

However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)

...

Best, Paul March

The EW team have recognized there are thermal effects in their data which may be from the change of CG of the fustrum.    These thermal effects are identified by their slow rise time and by the fact they continue climbing after the RF power is switched off.    So it would make sense to measure the response of the pendulum and fustrum as their temperature rises and without an RF input. 

There are two different thermal effects.  At atmospheric pressure heat is shed quickly from the fustrum, amplifier and other metal parts by convective air currents.  In a vacuum no convective cooling occurs so the metal parts get hotter and expand more.   Any attempt to model these effects or to cancel them without taking actual measurements first would just be a wild guess.   A lot of times complex effects cannot be characterized emperically unless measurements are done first.  For example the Wright brothers were the first to build a wind tunnel.   Their early achievements in flight prove the value of this step.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/03/2015 06:04 am
Yet another article written about recent news on the EmDrive.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/

What I like about those new articles is that when you compare them to the first news about the EmDrive, these new are more calm and less "hype". They are also trying to explain what is currently going on in a language that "normal" readers will understand.

What this means to us? It means that thanks to people like Rfmwguy, Paul March, Dr. Rodal, See-Shell, moderators of the NSF and many others here the EmDrive is starting to get step by step on its credibility.

See-Shells and TTs coming tests may yet push us further. Of course same goes for the NASA EW.

I hope this restores some of your motivation and hope for further testing.

Of course when offical NASA paper is out, there will be a lot of criticism as usual. My advice is, that it is good listen to it as they provide some interesting "mirrior", but I also advice ignore offensive criticism as we see from some people at the reddit forum.

NSF forum is a shining example that a debate and share of knowledge can be civil :). It also means that this little forum can get into the books as one of the places where scientists, engineers and critics pushed forward the technology that may help us reach the stars.

Least we forget

None of this would be happening without Roger Shawyer's pioneering work, starting before his 1st EMDrive patent (attached) in 1988, and dedication to survive the shite that was heaped on him personally and his experimental data.

"Off with his head, this is IMPOSSIBLE" was the cry heard far and wide. A cry that still echoes today despite multiple replications, 4 UK patents and positive experimental results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/03/2015 06:24 am
I am hoping these recent articles represent the beginning of a sober headed analysis in the wider public realm, rather than the more sensationalist aspect that has often bedevilled the topic's wider coverage so far.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: mwvp on 11/03/2015 07:09 am
Any/all:

... If it were possible to actually impart those particle pairs with a unidirectional impulse while they exist.. what would happen to the impulse...at the moment when the borrowed energy is returned to the quantum vacuum?
...
...it seems likely that this would lead to spacetime locally gaining momentum itself...accelerated...A body in front of the thruster nozzle would then feel a repulsive force coming from the nozzle, caused by the spacetime volume that's being moved by the thruster. Since matter is embedded in spacetime, the moving spacetime would then act like a volume of water that's flowing down a river, as seen by the embedded matter.
...
BTW, IF QV spacetime flow is the root cause of the phenomenon we call gravity generated by mass, IMO there has to be at least one more spatial dimension beyond our normally perceived 3D universe to provide this QV gravity flow a "drain" back into the universal QV reservoir.

Could the QV plasma frequency/temperature gradient be the spacetime "flow", the result of an increase in space permitivity/permiability? Similar to Hal Puthoff's PV theory. No additional dimensions are required. Although, perhaps the QV energy/temperature could be described as "spin noise" of the "inner dimensions" Sach's refers to in his quaternion theory?

Some interesting papers:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221665621_Fluidic_Electrodynamics_On_parallels_between_electromagnetic_andfluidic_inertia
Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia
Alexandre A. Martins

"Maxwell (1861) was the first to suggest that the magnetic vector potential A, behaves like a moving
medium, playing the velocity of a space flow around a magnetic field line (Siegel, 2002). Thus, a vector
potential circular “velocity” pattern around a solenoid can be seen (compare Figure 1.(a) with Figure 1.(b)
) to be equivalent to the water velocity in Fizeau’s experiment of dragging light (Cook, Fearn and
Millonni, 1995). The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect (1959) is the corresponding effect in electromagnetism
consisting in the production of the phase shift between two electron waves."

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226985601_Ether_drift_experiments_and_electromagnetic_momentum
Ether drift experiments and electromagnetic momentum
G. Spavieri1,a , V. Guerra2,3,b, R. De Abreu2 , and G.T. Gillies4,c

Abstract. Propagation of Aharonov-Bohm matter waves and light waves in moving media is characterized by the interaction electromagnetic momentum. Thus, recent models of light propagation in moving rarefied media justify and call for an optical experiment of the Mascart-Jamin type, capable of testing the modern interpretations of ether drift experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: mwvp on 11/03/2015 09:23 am
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.

Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.

Coincidence?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/03/2015 12:05 pm
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.

Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.

Coincidence?

The fringe science 'community' has reported gravity and time related anomalous effects for decades surrounding things that included high voltage, high frequency, large banks of stacked capacitive plates, Tesla coils and the like.  The fact that the highest reported anomalous thrust signature in an EM drive to date is in a super conducting cavity has also intrigued me.  Do I believe all these things are related? Absolutely.  Any theory of what the EM drive is doing needs to take all this into account (at least enough to throw any irrelevant piece out! :) ).  I think the likelihood that this is an electromagnetic effect is high.  My instinct - and I'm no physicist but I think I have good instincts - is that this will be a simple thing to implement once we figure out the 'secret sauce' (and of course the underlying theory).
As an example of what I mean: how long ago could man have invented an electric generator?  All you need is: insulated copper wire, a magnet (lodestone), and a rotary shaft.  It could have been built in the bronze age!  We just didn't know to form the insulated wire into a coil and rotate the magnet inside it.  Imagine electricity in 5,000BC (I swear I'm going to write this as a Sci Fi novel!).  Anyway I know the EM drive won't be THAT simple, but I believe a time will come in the not too distant future when we'll figure out how to roll this off a factory floor for pennies.  THAT will change the world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/03/2015 12:27 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/03/2015 12:44 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?

There are other results.

Remember Roger gave up using dielectrics in 2003 and all his later devices also had spherical end plates.

Both Roger and Prof Yang have reported experimental data in the 0.4N/kW range.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/03/2015 01:28 pm
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.

Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.

Coincidence?

citations?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/03/2015 02:09 pm
There are other results.

Remember Roger gave up using dielectrics in 2003 and all his later devices also had spherical end plates.

Both Roger and Prof Yang have reported experimental data in the 0.4N/kW range.

I am well aware of Shawyer's and Yang's results, but as long their results have not been replicated, you can not assume that these values are representing a reality.

Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt their results and Shawyer's rotaring table is still one of the most compelling things to "believe" there is indeed a force. But "believing" and getting scientific evidence are 2 different things.

Until so far , the EMdrive replication beaches at 0.00125N/kW on the shores of reality, instead of the claimed 0.4N/kW.
This can mean 2 things:
A) either Shawyer/Yang made some errors that inflated their results.
B) the replications made some errors that deflated the obtained results.

Until that issue has been cleared, it is unwise to take the most optimistic results as guideline.

Be conservative...it can only get better after that.. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/03/2015 02:14 pm
All: I will probably be taking a break from posting in here for a while so that I have more time for things in the rest of my life. I should be back eventually, and will try to get around to any replies then. In a previous reply to TheTraveller, I offered to run Greg Egan's field solutions for a different sized cavity (spherical caps only). That offer still stands, since I would like the excuse to force me to practice using Bessel functions. You might need to PM me to get my attention though.

Posted by: meberbs
« on: Today at 03:04 PM »

"While the experiments to date have not convinced me that the emdrive works, I am open to the possibility, and could be convinced by more and better experimental evidence."

Meberbs:

I'm game. What will it take on the experimentation side of this question to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the the observed thrust like effect is real and engineer-able?  Just more thrust of say XX milli-Newton from say the EW lab, or perhaps just replication of our current EW lab's ~100 micro-Newton (uN) results in an independent lab like Glenn Research Center??  Or will it take a demonstration flight of an emdrive powered XX U-CubeSat where it raises its orbit by some predetermined number of km that can be explained in no other way???  And please do remember that someone has to pay for all these efforts...

Best, Paul M.

There likely isn't a single experiment that could fully convince me, I would need at least one replication by an independent lab unless the results were incredibly dramatic (like building a working hovercraft).

The best way to convince me with minimal need for independent replication is by experiments with a very high signal to noise ratio. This means that an experiment where the signal is at least one, preferably two orders of magnitude above any external forces that need to be accounted for. (This can be accomplished by raising the signal through more power, or by reducing the magnitude of the other forces, such as by running in vacuum to eliminate air flows, or shielding to eliminate external magnetic fields.) The results you have described are promising, but (depending on the details once your paper comes out) I expect to want at least two other labs such as Glenn to replicate the results (with an independent build). I know that all of this will take time, but I can be patient. Even if your current results are not enough to settle it for me, any improvements you make increase the justification for more funding, or for independent verification.

Ideally this would include a force large relative to the mass of the test object so that sensitive measurement equipment is not necessary. This is not necessary though, and I don't want to give a specific minimum force that would satisfy me, since that might be a nearly impossible goal.

I don't believe that a cubesat would be worth the cost of putting in orbit at this point, since there are many ways of testing this on the ground. I would expect a ground test of a fully standalone thruster (power source, generator, etc) to be performed before any cubesat launch. As far as I am aware this is common practice for most new thruster system including ion thrusters which have relatively low thrust.

Prof Yang developed a classical electrodynamics model of the EMDrive that predicted around the same Force levels as Shawyers theory predicted and both models predicted close to the measured Force levels.

Her 2013 peer reviewed paper predicts and graphs the Forces generated on all the surfaces and shows a net Force being generated.

Maybe have a read of her 5 peer reviewed papers?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401423#msg1401423

Like Shawyer, Prof Yang claims no new physics are needed to explain the EMDrive / Shawyer Effect.

Only 2 of those papers were accessible and in English, so I will only comment on those. Of those papers, one stopped the theory roughly at "Radiation pressure exists" with no explanation of how it could produce net thrust on average inside a resonating cavity.

The other one (http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf) has a major issue that I attached to this post. They use logic that says they want one of the forces to be small so they will ignore it. They do not provide any explanation of why it should be possible to design the cavity to make the forces have large or small ratios. (You can go to the paper and see I didn't cut out any explanation that could justify this) Simply ignoring a force such as this means that I can't trust the author of this paper to run an experiment either. With this kind of logic, they could just only consider external effects that produce forces against their expected thrust, and ignore any sources of error that may be causing (or increasing the magnitude of) the observed force.

Normally, an error this blatant is enough for me to not bother with anything else written by that person. This error makes their theory essentially "If I assume A, then I can prove A". If this isn't enough evidence for you, I can provide a more thorough analysis of the issues with the paper when I get back to posting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/03/2015 03:13 pm
mwvp

"The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust"

Flyby

"However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)"

"Until so far , the EMdrive replication beaches at 0.00125N/kW on the shores of reality, instead of the claimed 0.4N/kW."

-----------------------------------

Yes, well the latest reported result agrees very well with the (admittadly simple) dispersion model for TM212 with no free parameters.  The unfortunate consequence is that should that model be correct, the attainable thrust is likely to be limited to less than 0.01N/kW at Q's around 10,000. (<- note added in proof)

That being said, there is considerable room for the examination of other geometries. (and, I suppose, the inclusion of "secret sauces") It would, for example, be of interest to do the exact calculation for the conical cavity with spherical ends. (a daunting task that I don't have the time to pursue at the moment)

http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 03:15 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
I'll re-post what I said on another site.

The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.

Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: tchernik on 11/03/2015 03:31 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
I'll re-post what I said on another site.

The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.

Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.

Shell

Agreed. Despite the growing heap of evidence, the Emdrive is still well within its early speculative phase, trying to prove it actually exists. Yes, I'm aware of all the work done by scientists and DIYers alike, but it's still not an uncontroversial accepted fact.

And because of the way things seem to work at NASA, following the Technical Readiness Levels, EagleWorks people are adhering to the expected R&D method to the letter and doing exactly what they should be doing right now.

Once this is proven to the financing bodies' (e.g. NASA) satisfaction, it will receive further funding.

It's taking longer than we expected, though, but let's notice this is strongly controversial, potentially new physics.

Please notice I say "new physics" in the broadest sense: some phenomenon that wasn't predicted by our models and theories and which was practically stumbled upon. If the existing models can be re-worked to accommodate this new phenomenon (or not) is pending to be settled.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 03:46 pm
mwvp

"The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust"

Flyby

"However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)"

"Until so far , the EMdrive replication beaches at 0.00125N/kW on the shores of reality, instead of the claimed 0.4N/kW."

-----------------------------------

Yes, well the latest reported result agrees very well with the (admittadly simple) dispersion model for TM212 with no free parameters.  The unfortunate consequence is that should that model be correct, the attainable thrust is likely to be limited to less than 0.01N/kW.

That being said, there is considerable room for the examination of other geometries. (and, I suppose, the inclusion of "secret sauces") It would, for example, be of interest to do the exact calculation for the conical cavity with spherical ends. (a daunting task that I don't have the time to pursue at the moment)

http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
Even considering just NASA's last series of tests listed in the Wiki pages (http://Wiki pages) of the two different mode of TM212 and TE012 Force / PowerInput (mN/kW) that change alone in just selections of TxXX mode shows a 7x increase in using TE012,  comparing with others ie: Shawyer's @ TE012 it's significantly higher (~80x) which would worked to .1 N/KW in just using the wiki data if EW had gotten TE012 to work better, it's not easy.

This is why I have pursued the TE012 with a highly symmetrical RF injection, in a tunable, thermally compensating cavity. To pull up the thrust/kW out of the noise generated from the high power thermally observed effects. http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

That said, I've somethings I have to do today and maybe finish with enough time to get the rest of the insulation installed in the shop.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: mwvp on 11/03/2015 03:53 pm
The EM drive frustrum is dispersive for microwaves, has a low-frequency cut-off (bandgap?), and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust

A Peltier thermoelectric cooler can use phonon/electron dispersive semiconductor junction, and is reputed to produce anomalous thrust.

Now a Zener diode semiconductor junction. (with a dispersive bandgap) is reputed to be sensitive to, shall we say, anomalous thrust. Sort of the inverse of the Peltier thruster.

Coincidence?

citations?

WRT anomalous thrust generated by Peltier devices, the website detailing the experiment at http://www.theavalonfoundation.org/docs/peltier.html , which was up when I first referred to it in
reply #308 in thread 3 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380201#msg1380201 is gone.

WRT using zener diodes as a gravity wave transducer, I've been notified I've been censored as off-topic because of complaints. A number of us (CW #896, 'Shells #897, Aero #898, CW #899, rfmwguy, Glenfish through #904) have been discussing "gravity" or hypothetical space-flow detection.

Perhaps it was my flippant and hyperbolic demeanor that got my reference to Cahill and his quantum gravity detection with zener diodes censored, but I thought it would be on-topic, since if it works, it could be useful, in a number of ways, in our context.

Off topic? I think not:

Quote
You have just been sent a personal message by Carl G on NASASpaceFlight.com Forum.
...
This was heavily reported by members as off topic for the thread (and the site). I saved it for you, but we're trying to keep the wacky science to a minimum.

Carl,
Mod.

Again, apologies to the offended; I wasn't trying to hype anyone's extraordinary theory, nor divert attention away from EM Drive research, but to explore the immediate topics of the nature of the vacuum/spacetime and technology to explore it WRT the EM Drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/03/2015 03:57 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
I'll re-post what I said on another site.

The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.

Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.

Shell
By no means was my above comment targeting the engineering capabilities of Eagleworks. I have zero criticism on their approach or method so far...
My only concern is that the assumption of some people, that the EMdrive scales easily might turn out very disappointing.
Until proven  or replicated that 0.4N/kW is achievable i don't think it is wise to project fantasies of cube satellites and others outlandish stuff.

Shawyer and Yang's results still need to be validated first, both in effect (does it exist?) and in numbers (can we get 0.4N/kW?).
If it needs babysteps, sure, fine with me, but very few things in this world scale in a linear fashion. The curve usually tends to flatten once you scale up.
So, if the efficiency on a low power test is already low, it doesn't predict much good for the more powerful version.
What I'm starting to fear is that the effect turns into an interesting scientific case study, but that the real world application turns out far less promising then the flying cars that have been promised by some...
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 04:09 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
I'll re-post what I said on another site.

The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.

Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.

Shell

Agreed. Despite the growing heap of evidence, the Emdrive is still well within its early speculative phase, trying to prove it actually exists. Yes, I'm aware of all the work done by scientists and DIYers alike, but it's still not an uncontroversial accepted fact.

And because of the way things seem to work at NASA, following the Technical Readiness Levels, EagleWorks people are adhering to the expected R&D method to the letter and doing exactly what they should be doing right now.

Once this is proven to the financing bodies' (e.g. NASA) satisfaction, it will receive further funding.

It's taking longer than we expected, though, but let's notice this is strongly controversial, potentially new physics.

Please notice I say "new physics" in the broadest sense: some phenomenon that wasn't predicted by our models and theories and which was practically stumbled upon. If the existing models can be re-worked to accommodate this new phenomenon (or not) is pending to be settled.

And that simple statement "new physics" will stir up the physics community like a stick poking in an ant pile and even now it's polarized sides. I applaud EW and NASA on taking a step back from last year to (as the saying goes) get all their ducks in a row. For 300 years some of our most cherished foundations of calculus and Newton's Laws have remained steadfast. Nobody wants to upset the apple cart, but something (IMHO) weird is happening and truly begs a answer.

This is what I've tried to convey, there really is no bad data in pursuing this abnormality.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2015 04:22 pm
However exciting and tantalizing the news of +100µN/80W may be... when you convert the numbers, it is still "only" 0.00125N/kW... which is still far, far away of the projected 0.4N/kW needed for planetary exploration... and no, I wont even start talking about flying cars... :)

With the info we've got so far - while still remaining skeptic - i think we're getting an increased number of indications that there is indeed a force generated.
But, even IF the effect gets confirmed, it will still need some considerable engineering effort to make something useful out of it.


The results should shift at least with a magnitude of 2 or 3 to be of pragmatic use, like powering (cube) satellites, no?
I'll re-post what I said on another site.

The analytical way in which the EagleWorks team is approaching this is spot on. Keeping the observed abnormality (call it thrust) at an observed level just above the heat errors allows them to fine tune this test. It's foolish to scale it up in power when you have the equipment to still detect levels of thrust. If I had those resources I'd do it the very same way. I believe they took this course is the reason they don't know if the thrust effect will scale in a linear fashion vs the heat or other effects that may impact the tests. Fine tune out the errors and profile them, negate them and then ramp up the power to pull the thrust levels higher at a future date.

Smart engineering tests to control your environment, control your errors and profile them so you can subtract them from the recorded data and or negate them. They are doing it very right IMHO.

Shell
By no means was my above comment targeting the engineering capabilities of Eagleworks. I have zero criticism on their approach or method so far...
My only concern is that the assumption of some people, that the EMdrive scales easily might turn out very disappointing.
Until proven  or replicated that 0.4N/kW is achievable i don't think it is wise to project fantasies of cube satellites and others outlandish stuff.

Shawyer and Yang's results still need to be validated first, both in effect (does it exist?) and in numbers (can we get 0.4N/kW?).
If it needs babysteps, sure, fine with me, but very few things in this world scale in a linear fashion. The curve usually tends to flatten ones you scale up.
So, if the efficiency on a low power test is already low, it doesn't predict much good for the more powerful version.
What I'm starting to fear is that the effect turns into an interesting scientific case study, but that the real world application turns out far less promising then the flying cars that have been promised by some...
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?
post (http://post)

On scale-ability. With even the meager data out there, I've seen where you could potentially scale the thrusts to .1N/kW and to me this is a red flag as which way to go in my build. That would be 1/4 of the way to your .4M/kW figure. Adding spherical endplates to my next build should help that number climb higher. This is my goal, is it doable?  I don't know how stable the back of the others are I'm standing on are, but we will see if I can do it.


Nuff chattering, I've got a ton of work to get done.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Remberasha on 11/03/2015 04:56 pm
So - would anybody be interested in a new power source to power this drive (and other space based systems)?

For reference: I use to have many a discussion with the late Dr. Edward Teller on superconductivity projects

And Louise Kleba (Formerly of NASA's Shuttle Program) can verify my credentials.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/03/2015 05:49 pm
So - would anybody be interested in a new power source to power this drive (and other space based systems)?

For reference: I use to have many a discussion with the late Dr. Edward Teller on superconductivity projects

And Louise Kleba (Formerly of NASA's Shuttle Program) can verify my credentials.

Of course we would all be interested.  I suggest you start a new thread giving a bit of detail about the power source, and just who you are. I know of no way to verify credentials by a forum handle.

Then post the link on this thread. Be prepared for a LOT of questions, many will be negative and some will be spot-on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 11/03/2015 06:34 pm
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?

To this forum, that is an important question.  However, thinking broadly, even such low thrust levels, once they are unquestionable, might lead to a physics revolution, and who knows where that might lead us? Since we still do not have for a fact HOW it works, who can really tell these geometries or methods are the ideal?

IF the effect proves to be real beyond any doubt, my two cents are on an analogy of we discovering electricity by rubbing a comb on a piece of wool, and trying to use that for propulsion. Once we fully understand the mechanism, THEN we will be able REALLY create machines to use it.

First, let's prove that rubbing the comb on the wool makes the comb attract light objects, that it is not glue on the comb, wind on the light object our anything similar.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 11/03/2015 08:33 pm
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?

Have you looked at the crudity of the EMDrives being tested? They are copper pieces bolted together, with off-the-shelf magnetrons or RF transmitters.

If the effect is genuine, do you really think that such crude devices can possibly have achieved the maximum possible efficiency or output? You think that once the effect is understood, it won't be accessed in a much more direct way?

Aside:

1mN may not seem particularly useful, but it's that not far outside the margins for deep space missions.

Splitting the difference between MSL's RTG and the newer experimental designs, you're looking at maybe 200kg for 1kW (including the mass of the EMDrive itself.) 1mN/kW becomes 5mN per tonne of drive/power mass. Add a tonne of payload/etc. That gives 20yrs to Pluto flyby. Doable, but probably outside of useful.

However, just four times the efficiency to 4mN. The time to Pluto flyby is reduced to 11 years. (Less if you give it a bigger throw in the inner solar system.) BUT! And here's the kicker. Flight time into Pluto orbit is just 15 years. Or Jupiter in 5 years. Saturn in 8. Etc. With a 50% payload mass. Remember, that's at just 4 mN per kW.

Propellantless thrust is a whole new world. 4N/kW would be revolutionary of course, but just 1/1000th of that is useful to for science missions.


Continuing for 1/100th: At 40mN per kW, you can reach the sun's gravitational focus at 600AU in just 14 years. That's within a decent mission lifespan, and hence acceptable to funding agencies like NASA. (Also, Pluto orbit in 5 years. Flyby in 3.5yrs. Similar times to anywhere in the solar system.) So at just 40mN/kW, you essentially replace any other form of propulsion for deep space science missions.

And 1/10th: At 400mN per kW, you can orbit Pluto in 19 months. (Similar time to anywhere in the solar system. 5-6 months to Mars.) And you can reach the gravitational focal point in just 4 years. At that point, naturally you'll jack up your payload mass for realistic missions.

Anything beyond 1N/kW, and it will be the only means of transport outside of LEO (and landing on a moon or planet), and allows HSF to the even outer planets.

Hell, 4N/kW, at 50% payload mass, can flyby Alpha Centauri in 28 years, with a peak velocity of 30% of lightspeed (if you could find a 30 year power source.)

Propellantless thrust changes everything.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: fluxcapacitor on 11/03/2015 09:43 pm
So the question is... what can you do with a specific thrust of 0.00125N/kW? Where are the real world application for that?

Have you looked at the crudity of the EMDrives being tested? They are copper pieces bolted together, with off-the-shelf magnetrons or RF transmitters.

If the effect is genuine, do you really think that such crude devices can possibly have achieved the maximum possible efficiency or output? You think that once the effect is understood, it won't be accessed in a much more direct way?

Aside:

1mN may not seem particularly useful, but it's that not far outside the margins for deep space missions.

Splitting the difference between MSL's RTG and the newer experimental designs, you're looking at maybe 200kg for 1kW (including the mass of the EMDrive itself.) 1mN/kW becomes 5mN per tonne of drive/power mass. Add a tonne of payload/etc. That gives 20yrs to Pluto flyby. Doable, but probably outside of useful.

However, just four times the efficiency to 4mN. The time to Pluto flyby is reduced to 11 years. (Less if you give it a bigger throw in the inner solar system.) BUT! And here's the kicker. Flight time into Pluto orbit is just 15 years. Or Jupiter in 5 years. Saturn in 8. Etc. With a 50% payload mass. Remember, that's at just 4 mN per kW.

Propellantless thrust is a whole new world. 4N/kW would be revolutionary of course, but just 1/1000th of that is useful to for science missions.


Continuing for 1/100th: At 40mN per kW, you can reach the sun's gravitational focus at 600AU in just 14 years. That's within a decent mission lifespan, and hence acceptable to funding agencies like NASA. (Also, Pluto orbit in 5 years. Flyby in 3.5yrs. Similar times to anywhere in the solar system.) So at just 40mN/kW, you essentially replace any other form of propulsion for deep space science missions.

And 1/10th: At 400mN per kW, you can orbit Pluto in 19 months. (Similar time to anywhere in the solar system. 5-6 months to Mars.) And you can reach the gravitational focal point in just 4 years. At that point, naturally you'll jack up your payload mass for realistic missions.

Anything beyond 1N/kW, and it will be the only means of transport outside of LEO (and landing on a moon or planet), and allows HSF to the even outer planets.

Hell, 4N/kW, at 50% payload mass, can flyby Alpha Centauri in 28 years, with a peak velocity of 30% of lightspeed (if you could find a 30 year power source.)

Propellantless thrust changes everything.

Think about Lockheed Martin's compact fusion reactor: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

Could this be used? Also, at current efficiency, do you need 628 gigawatts of power to levitate a 80 kg person on earth? :)

They are aiming for a 100MW version.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cass0114 on 11/03/2015 09:47 pm
I would imagine a naval reactor would work pretty well to power one of these for ~30 years of travel.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/03/2015 09:58 pm
Reading about how ?N of thrust would achieve X in whatever time.. I find it bewildering to think about how 1kW of electrical power is sufficient to create EM forces strong enough to move a small electric human transport vehicle, but can't even push a feather when applied as light pressure. Why is that? I think it strongly correlates to near-field EM effects (predominantly electric or magnetic) being different from far-field effects (B and E field being connected).

I believe, that the key to understanding how an artifact like the EM-drive can apparently surpass photon rocket performance, lies in the appreciation that in the near-field (which is the EM-drive operating domain), the evanescent waves can carry quite a variety of momenta, while far-field photons only carry one, IIRC. Hence the difference in efficiency of impulse transfer. Perhaps this artifact, which we call EM-drive, is comparable to the discovery of the magnetic effects of electrical currents by Hans Christian Ørsted in 1820, by accidentally observing a weak force on a compass needle.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/03/2015 10:03 pm
What sort of power is available in a 3U cubesat?   Can they have deployable solar panels?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/03/2015 10:47 pm
I agree with you that propellant thrust is a game changer, but it still has to be more effective/convenient then traditional methods to find a real application.

Basically, if I may continue what Paul451 wrote, you'd need at least obtain 0.04N/kW.
5 years to Pluto instead of 9, that definitely qualifies as useful....
This means the EMdrive needs at least 40x better performance then what Eagleworks has under peerreview...

If someone is able to duplicate what Shawyer or Yang supposedly did, then it will not be a problem.
But until somebody is able to replicate their claims, 0.00125N/kW is what we should base our projections for the future on, no?
Making claims based on calculations is easy.
It gets more difficult when reality doesn't want to cooperate and comply to our calculations...:)

But then again.. we could also jumpstart the EMdrive with a chemical rocket. That would give you a nice start of what...30k km/h ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/03/2015 10:47 pm
I know Aero has done a lot of MEEP runs looking at various frequencies and frustum size, but I was wondering if there is any merit of looking at 160.2 GHz which is the peak of the cosmic background radiation distributed in the universe.

EW is apparently looking at a 6 dimension theoretical construct that involves interactions between space-time, quantum vacuum and the base dimensions. Since that cosmic radiation emanated from the big bang at the recombination that defines the existing universe, could it possibly be a "natural resonance" frequency or a marker of the interaction between space-time and the quantum vacuum?

Such is the place a layman's mind wanders while driving through the Columbia Gorge.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/03/2015 10:55 pm
Got some good news.

My latest PSA is 0.12. Was 0.21 before radiation started and 4.7 before the surgery.

Looks like serious work on the 1U CubeSat 25mN thruster will be starting early Dec, with this little black duck back in good long term health.

The biggest engineering issue I see is waste thermal heat radiation and management, being restrained by the 1U CubeSat form factor. Got a few ideas there. Should be interesting.

To compare the EW copper frustum's 1.25mN/kW to the CubeSat thruster's predicted 0.42N/kW consider.

1) spherical end plates versus flat end plates.

2) no loss producing dielectric.

3) Roger recommended TE013 excitation instead of TM211 excitation.

4) active resonance tracking.

5) based on the larger S band thruster designed with Roger's kind input.

6) the Flight Thruster experimental data, in 2009, has shown 0.33N/kW across a wide range of Rf input power levels.

7) highly optimised onboard embedded microprocessor, with multiple feed backs (including real world acceleration), to optimise operational characteristics for max thrust and/or power efficiency at any Rf power input level.

As SPR has already measured 0.33N/kW with their high fidelity Flight Thruster, 0.42N/kW should be deliverable by the 1U CubeSat form factor 25mN thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 11/03/2015 11:05 pm

Continuing for 1/100th: At 40mN per kW, you can reach the sun's gravitational focus at 600AU in just 14 years. That's within a decent mission lifespan, and hence acceptable to funding agencies like NASA. (Also, Pluto orbit in 5 years. Flyby in 3.5yrs. Similar times to anywhere in the solar system.) So at just 40mN/kW, you essentially replace any other form of propulsion for deep space science missions.

And 1/10th: At 400mN per kW, you can orbit Pluto in 19 months. (Similar time to anywhere in the solar system. 5-6 months to Mars.) And you can reach the gravitational focal point in just 4 years. At that point, naturally you'll jack up your payload mass for realistic missions.

Anything beyond 1N/kW, and it will be the only means of transport outside of LEO (and landing on a moon or planet), and allows HSF to the even outer planets.

Hell, 4N/kW, at 50% payload mass, can flyby Alpha Centauri in 28 years, with a peak velocity of 30% of lightspeed (if you could find a 30 year power source.)

Propellantless thrust changes everything.

aren´t these numbers dependent on the weight of the ship (including power source)????

400mn for a 100kg spacecraft would have the same acceleration as 400mn for a 100 tons spacecraft?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 12:06 am
Quote
The Rossi Effect

Until the inventor Andrea Rossi discovered the Rossi Effect there were basically only two categories of LENR studied:

Palladium – Deuterium(the original Cold Fusion process)
Nickel – Hydrogen

The Rossi Effect is a completely new discovery in the field of LENR technology and raises the available power density of LENR processes several orders of magnitude to at least 10 kW/kg. With Power Densities this high most conventional Energy Applications have the potential of being replaced with an ECAT energy source.
More here:
http://ecat.com/ecat-science/the-rossi-effect

Nice to have an energy density number to work with. Now to couple Rossi's LENR reactor with a high efficiency CO2 turbine and generator to feed the Rf generators feeding the IXS Clarke's EMDrives.

BTW nice those 8 finned heat sinks on the sides of the frustum to assist waste heat management and radiation. Just might use that idea. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 12:17 am
...

Like the KISS engineering of older Detroit metal. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 11/04/2015 12:59 am
aren´t these numbers dependent on the weight of the ship (including power source)????
400mn for a 100kg spacecraft would have the same acceleration as 400mn for a 100 tons spacecraft?

Splitting the difference between MSL's RTG and the newer experimental designs, you're looking at maybe 200kg for 1kW (including the mass of the EMDrive itself.) 1mN/kW becomes 5mN per tonne of drive/power mass. Add a tonne of payload/etc. [...] With a 50% payload mass. [...] At that point, naturally you'll jack up your payload mass for realistic missions. [...] Hell, 4N/kW, at 50% payload mass [...]

At 400mN/kW and 50% payload mass, a 100kg spacecraft would be 250W and 0.1N thrust. A 100 tonne spacecraft would be 500kW and 100N thrust. Both would accelerate at 1 mm/s².
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 01:26 am
...

Like the KISS engineering of older Detroit metal. :)

Me too, sometimes it's tough to keep it simple. Simple means it should be easier to isolate problems and issues with a build, at least we hope. ;)

Tried to lay more insulation today, all I have left is the ceiling, was just too sore to do much. Instead I did a plastic sheet wall to isolate my area from the rest of the shop. Tonight, will be hot tub time and tomorrow I'll hit it again. My goal is to have it all back together by this weekend and get some serious building of my test bed and frustum done.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/04/2015 02:20 am
NSF-1701 update - OK, old car restoration done...for now...magnets shipped and will receive later this week. This means 2 bits of static test data for all to chew on.

1. Fire up old original mag and snap a thermal image. Record a spectral analysis of original mag to use as baseline comparison for new mag.
2. Fire up new mag for spec an pic after additional magnets are installed to stabilize frequency. Monitor how stable frequency is and relative output strength comparison to old mag.

p.s. Decided a couple of things. First, I dumped old reddit emdrive forum and joined new reddit emdrive forum titled trueemdrive. I'm back into my writing mode and will put my musings there and my pertinent test stuff here. New thread is properly moderated like nsf...


I'm seeing cruse control, and also it looks like the car had a/c but I don't see the compressor?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/04/2015 02:31 am
Finally got around to looking for the expression I remember from ~50 years ago.

Here it is in Sachs: SYMMETRY IN ELECTRODYNAMICS, This article is Chapter 11 in: Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 1, Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 119. Editor: M. Evans. Series editors: I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (ISBN 0-471-38736-3)
Copyright year: 2002. Copyright owner: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
This material is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

It is not exactly as I remembered but this is also not the reference I remember either.

So, more puttering to get back to being able to put it in our context !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 02:38 am
Engineer's love numbers:

Rossi's LENR reactor published data:
1kWt/kg & 4m^3/MWt = 1mt & 4m^3/MWt.

At 50% efficiency t to e = 2mt & 8m^3/MWe.
At 33% efficiency e to Rf = 6mt & 24m^3/MWrf

At 2MWrf = 12mt & 48m^3. IXS Clarke design allows 20mt for the power system and 20mt for the EMDrives.

As for the EMDrive, 0.4N at 1kWrf = 1kg at 0.001m^3.
800N = 2mt & 2m^3.

The IXS Clarke's LENR power system is much bigger and more massive than the EMDrives. However the 20mt power system and 20mt EMDrive allowance is probably too much and the total may be more like 15mt, which would reduce the ship's mass from 90mt down to 65mt, enabling an acceleration rate 33% higher than at 90mt mass. Shorter transit times than Dr. White calculated may be possible.

Of course the mass and volume numbers are not locked down but it is still interesting to run what we have against what Dr. White predicted.

Wonder if there is a Moore's Law for LENR reactor & EMDrive power/thrust and volume density?

If the data above is where we start, where we may be in 10 years is mouth open and jaw on the ground stuff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 11/04/2015 02:57 am
Got some good news.
...

5) based on the larger S band thruster designed with Roger's kind input.



Glad to hear you're steadily recovering!

What do you think the advantages are of an S band thruster compared an X or Ka band? Seems to me we would want to downsize the EM Drive eventually if possible...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 03:13 am
Got some good news.
...

5) based on the larger S band thruster designed with Roger's kind input.



Glad to hear you're steadily recovering!

What do you think the advantages are of an S band thruster compared an X or Ka band? Seems to me we would want to downsize the EM Drive eventually if possible...

Can't fit a S band thruster into an 1U CubeSat form factor package. For sure more microwave black magic to deal with at X band than S band but should be doable as all the electronics will be on one pcb plus will have real time acceleration data input to add to the best operational freq selection process
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 04:49 am
I know Aero has done a lot of MEEP runs looking at various frequencies and frustum size, but I was wondering if there is any merit of looking at 160.2 GHz which is the peak of the cosmic background radiation distributed in the universe.

EW is apparently looking at a 6 dimension theoretical construct that involves interactions between space-time, quantum vacuum and the base dimensions. Since that cosmic radiation emanated from the big bang at the recombination that defines the existing universe, could it possibly be a "natural resonance" frequency or a marker of the interaction between space-time and the quantum vacuum?

Such is the place a layman's mind wanders while driving through the Columbia Gorge.
Bob,
That would mean making a frustum a little larger than .07"  of an inch long or 1.872mm, which is doable. Tiny tiny parts (http://Tiny tiny parts).

The question I'd like to ask is there is some proof that the effect scales to higher thrusts the lower the frequency, not higher. See notsosureofit's wiki page (http://notsosureofit's wiki page) Would it be better to wait until that thought is more matured first?

Got my coco and back to bed..


Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jaufgang on 11/04/2015 04:59 am
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.

I don't believe "Physics" means the "the workings of the universe." It is the science studies the workings of the universe, and the models we develop out of that study.  Getting an idea of something not yet understood is perfectly and succinctly described by the term "new physics." Every great physicist who has made discoveries and developed new models to understand and quantify those discoveries has created "new physics."

Does the physical phenomenon underlying the thrust measurements of this EM drive really require new physics to explain it?  I have no idea, I just started reading this thread today.  But if it does, I'm cool with that.  Bring it on!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: NicolasW on 11/04/2015 09:06 am
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.

I don't believe "Physics" means the "the workings of the universe." It is the science studies the workings of the universe, and the models we develop out of that study.  Getting an idea of something not yet understood is perfectly and succinctly described by the term "new physics." Every great physicist who has made discoveries and developed new models to understand and quantify those discoveries has created "new physics."

Does the physical phenomenon underlying the thrust measurements of this EM drive really require new physics to explain it?  I have no idea, I just started reading this thread today.  But if it does, I'm cool with that.  Bring it on!

I think the odds of some unknown kinds of physics being involved is higher then the emdrive generating a "real thrust".
Let's take a cathode ray tube for example. I know it's an unrealistic example, but imagine you had a CRT before electricity was discovered. Someone could have measured a thrust generated by it's electron gun, but if you had no idea about the opposite thrust when the electrons hit the monitor (or didn't even recognized that there IS a monitor), it would look like a violation of the law of conservation of momentum.
Same with lorentz force, if you would have no idea about magnetic fields and their nature.

So maybe, the emdrive is something new, something we just don't know about yet. Maybe there is "somewhere" an opposite thrust that is undetectable for us, because we can't recognize the "monitor" ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 09:17 am
I really really dislike the term "new physics". We aren't changing the workings of the universe, just getting an idea of something not yet understood.

I don't believe "Physics" means the "the workings of the universe." It is the science studies the workings of the universe, and the models we develop out of that study.  Getting an idea of something not yet understood is perfectly and succinctly described by the term "new physics." Every great physicist who has made discoveries and developed new models to understand and quantify those discoveries has created "new physics."

Does the physical phenomenon underlying the thrust measurements of this EM drive really require new physics to explain it?  I have no idea, I just started reading this thread today.  But if it does, I'm cool with that.  Bring it on!

The 2 longest term and experienced EMDrive researchers / experimenters, Roger Shawyer / SPR and Prof Yang have both developed theory models that predict the thrust they measure.

Both of these research groups, working at the EMDrive "coalface", say there is no new physics involved.

Roger goes further and has stated the EMDrive generates thrust because it obeys Newton.

As Eagleworks careful experimental research has now shown the "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation is real, is the next step acceptance that the Shawyer and Yang theory models, that predict the thrust, are also correct?

BTW Prof Yang's theory is Roger's theory but told using electrodynamics.

For those who may wish to brush up on Prof Yang work, here are her 5 peer reviewed research papers:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401423#msg1401423

Her 2013 paper, attached, does a good job breaking apart the Forces generated on the end plates and the side walls from the E and H fields of the resonant EM wave.

With TM mode excitation you sum the end plate E field Forces and the H field side wall Forces. With TE mode excitation you sum the H field Forces on the end plates and the E field Forces on the side walls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Paul451 on 11/04/2015 10:17 am
Re: "New physics"

before electricity was discovered. Someone could have measured a thrust generated by it's electron gun, but if you had no idea about the opposite thrust when the electrons hit the monitor (or didn't even recognized that there IS a monitor), it would look like a violation of the law of conservation of momentum.
Same with lorentz force, if you would have no idea about magnetic fields and their nature.

That's pretty much the definition of "new physics". Measuring a phenomenon where existing science doesn't even know of the existence of the thing causing the effect. (Invisible electrons, invisible magnetic fields.) You have to invent new physics to understand it.

Engineer's love numbers:
Rossi's LENR reactor published data:
1kWt/kg & 4m^3/MWt = 1mt & 4m^3/MWt.

Please don't pollute the thread with Rossi's eCat stuff. People who are trying to demonstrate the EMDrive effect (and for that matter, people trying to demonstrate LENR) have enough trouble being taken seriously, it does not help to conflate them with someone like Rossi.

Unlike EMDrive, where you have an effect that's down in the basement of detectability, Rossi has always claimed huge numbers for his eCats, even in the very first demonstration. Large enough heat output, and high enough output/input ratio, that you could effortlessly demonstrate the effect even in a lossy system. (For example, heating a simple insulated contained of water by a known amount. Like a "bomb calorimeter", you just measure total heat output, you don't care about the reaction within. A battery pack, a tub of water, an old lab thermometer, and a few hours. Bam, done.)

Instead Rossi always does a point measurement of temperature and extrapolates that to overall energy. Essentially, he always does the worst possible measurement. He then shouts abuse ("Snake! Liar! Dog!") at critics who point this out (even if they are long-time believers and supporters of LENR.) He refuses to let anyone else operate the equipment, or set experiment parameters, no matter what non-disclosure contracts they are willing to sign. He routinely changes rules for experiments mid-demonstration. (And the only "independent researchers" allowed to watch his demonstrations, are a small group of approved believers.) He keeps moving the goalposts of his production, he claims "sales" to secret customers which somehow always dissolves... etc etc etc.

If Rossi isn't running a scam, then he's writing the book on how to look like you're running a scam.

I'm skeptical that EMDrive will turn out to be genuine propellantless thrust, but Eagleworks Labs is doing everything right to eventually prove one way or another, listening to critics to guide the refinement of experiments, working with genuinely independent verification groups (outside the circle of believers). Basically, Eagleworks labs is the anti-Rossi. You do not help the "cause" by conflating EMDrive with Rossi. (Nor are you helping LENR.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/04/2015 12:02 pm
NSF-1701 update - OK, old car restoration done...for now...magnets shipped and will receive later this week. This means 2 bits of static test data for all to chew on.

1. Fire up old original mag and snap a thermal image. Record a spectral analysis of original mag to use as baseline comparison for new mag.
2. Fire up new mag for spec an pic after additional magnets are installed to stabilize frequency. Monitor how stable frequency is and relative output strength comparison to old mag.

p.s. Decided a couple of things. First, I dumped old reddit emdrive forum and joined new reddit emdrive forum titled trueemdrive. I'm back into my writing mode and will put my musings there and my pertinent test stuff here. New thread is properly moderated like nsf...


I'm seeing cruse control, and also it looks like the car had a/c but I don't see the compressor?
Cruise is not working. It was a vacuum operated solenoid and not compatible with new carb. Yes, it is a convertible with original air. Weird. Compressor was long gone when I got it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 12:11 pm
Re: "New physics"
...

You really don't know what is happening? Seems not. OK, sit back, grab some popcorn and watch what happens in 2016.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/04/2015 12:46 pm
RFMWGUY, SEA, anyone else in a build mode.

My strongest advice as you prepare your devices for testing is that you crowdsource through this community an optimal experimental design before you turn the power on.

There are a lot of critiques of various approaches, theories, etc. that can be overcome with a good experimental design.

Please note, an experimental design does not translate into changing the physical design of the device, it's rather a method for determining whether the performance of the device passes the sniff test of various critics, of which there will be many.

A good design can compensate for most of the ongoing criticisms.

If you're testing at full atmospheric pressure, you can compensate for that.

If you've got the potential for Lorenz forces, you can compensate for that.

If you've got thermal lift or convective air flow or changing centers of gravity, you can compensate for that.

The point is, if how you test with what you've got is carefully designed with as many possible objections designed into the testing, then if you produce statistically significant results, the odds are better that you'll be forcing replication efforts rather than pissing contests on Reddit.

For example, a few weeks ago, I got into a debate here regarding how to test given thermal effects with & without resonance.  The attached spreadsheet was a model of possible expectations.  If that model were appropriate, it would then lead to an experimental design on how to test.  I'm not suggesting you use this model as as, but rather...

Solict this community's input to develop the most bulletproof possible protocols given what you have or intend to have.

This is a smart community.

The starting point for each device would be the desciptions of the device, the descriptions of the measurement technique, the range of items that can be easily tuned during testing, and why you chose these items for your design.

The starting point for the community is to accept the physical designs as is.  Only to suggest easy modest changes, and then hash out everything that could go wrong, and figure out a test protocol that takes into account every possible variable.

If this suggestion works, then before you apply power, there will be a check list of what to do, there will be a set of statistics prepared and waiting, and a set of expectations regarding data collection.

Just some advice.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 01:19 pm
RFMWGUY, SEA, anyone else in a build mode.

My strongest advice as you prepare your devices for testing is that you crowdsource through this community an optimal experimental design before you turn the power on.

There are a lot of critiques of various approaches, theories, etc. that can be overcome with a good experimental design.

Please note, an experimental design does not translate into changing the physical design of the device, it's rather a method for determining whether the performance of the device passes the sniff test of various critics, of which there will be many.

A good design can compensate for most of the ongoing criticisms.

If you're testing at full atmospheric pressure, you can compensate for that.

If you've got the potential for Lorenz forces, you can compensate for that.

If you've got thermal lift or convective air flow or changing centers of gravity, you can compensate for that.

The point is, if how you test with what you've got is carefully designed with as many possible objections designed into the testing, then if you produce statistically significant results, the odds are better that you'll be forcing replication efforts rather than pissing contests on Reddit.

For example, a few weeks ago, I got into a debate here regarding how to test given thermal effects with & without resonance.  The attached spreadsheet was a model of possible expectations.  If that model were appropriate, it would then lead to an experimental design on how to test.  I'm not suggesting you use this model as as, but rather...

Solict this community's input to develop the most bulletproof possible protocols given what you have or intend to have.

This is a smart community.

The starting point for each device would be the desciptions of the device, the descriptions of the measurement technique, the range of items that can be easily tuned during testing, and why you chose these items for your design.

The starting point for the community is to accept the physical designs as is.  Only to suggest easy modest changes, and then hash out everything that could go wrong, and figure out a test protocol that takes into account every possible variable.

If this suggestion works, then before you apply power, there will be a check list of what to do, there will be a set of statistics prepared and waiting, and a set of expectations regarding data collection.

Just some advice.  :)
I have a detailed list on pretest items, a list for runs and a post list.

I cannot take into account every variable, there are so many but I can narrow down the list in construction of the test bed and pulling thrust data up out of the error windows. I'll record videos (two) of the operations and log acceleration tests as well as digital thrusts in weight/gram.

Thermals, I'm profiling the DUT with a simple heat lamp internally that will mimic the heating of the cavity without RF injection. The thermal balloon and cavity heating effects will be recorded through profiles and timed runs just like the ones planned for the power on tests.

The magnetron is ~ 1m away and isolated from the frustum set inside of another Faraday cage so no thermal effects and minimal RF interference will be seen from from it.

If you want to add something to your spreadsheet then it would be a another set of rows for the thermal runs.

Sea? ;) SeeShell selling shells? Na... clams.

Shell

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/04/2015 01:27 pm
MODERATOR

Can you look into permitting the upload of excel .xlsm files please?   These are spreadsheets with embedded Visual Basic.

IMHO that would be helpful to this community.

Upload into quarantine might be an approach if your sysadmin has a stroke at the idea.
I second the request...purdy please?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 01:28 pm
MODERATOR

Can you look into permitting the upload of excel .xlsm files please?   These are spreadsheets with embedded Visual Basic.

IMHO that would be helpful to this community.

Upload into quarantine might be an approach if your sysadmin has a stroke at the idea.

Just Zip it & upload.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JonathanD on 11/04/2015 01:29 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/04/2015 01:33 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)
Do no have a workable design yet. Scaling up in frequency for small real estate in a cubesat is problematic at best.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/04/2015 01:38 pm
MODERATOR

Can you look into permitting the upload of excel .xlsm files please?   These are spreadsheets with embedded Visual Basic.

IMHO that would be helpful to this community.

Upload into quarantine might be an approach if your sysadmin has a stroke at the idea.



Just Zip it & upload.


LOL!!!  I must be dain bramaged.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cfs on 11/04/2015 02:04 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Isn't that the end goal of the Hackaday team's baby EMDrive?  https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 02:04 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)
Do no have a workable design yet. Scaling up in frequency for small real estate in a cubesat is problematic at best.

Not easy but not hard either. Took a few days and goes to get a design I'm happy with. Damn Rf amp chip is $1,500. Sure don't want to blow up a lot of those. Plus the DSP (and emulator / debugger) to gen / control the signal. Not much space, so all custom. Other than the few discrete components, nothing off the shelf.

Need to get a proper X band VNA, digital storage scope, logic analyser, etc as the low cost USB based ones don't go that high.

So not a low cost exercise. Will totally blow my original $25k S band budget my quite a bit.

But then this is now a commercial outcome R&D project. Looks like the investment portfolio will get a hit.

Yes Dear, I say to SWMBO, It Will Be Worth It. She Says, I Though You Retired? After This Dear, After This. She Replies, Whatever. Every man who understands woman speak knows what I was just told.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 02:21 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Isn't that the end goal of the Hackaday team's baby EMDrive?  https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

To get a usable amount of thrust, there are significant thermal management issues that must be addressed.

As example turning 180We of electricity into 25mN of thrust will require 180Wt - the very small portion converted into kinetic energy to be radiated away in a vac with no atmo to help take the heat away.

Imagine a 180Wt resistor / heat load inside a 10x10x10cm metal box in vac with 5 sides creating 500cm^2 heat radiation surface and the other attached CubeSat modules not being very welcoming of the thrusters waste heat load.

So there are issues to solve.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/04/2015 03:17 pm

If you want to add something to your spreadsheet then it would be a another set of rows for the thermal runs.

Sea? ;) SeeShell selling shells? Na... clams.

Shell

By your command

Button processing takes several seconds now, it has to find a random state where the number of samples for each condition is within +- 10% for all cases
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 03:31 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Isn't that the end goal of the Hackaday team's baby EMDrive?  https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

To get a usable amount of thrust, there are significant thermal management issues that must be addressed.

As example turning 180We of electricity into 25mN of thrust will require 180Wt - the very small portion converted into kinetic energy to be radiated away in a vac with no atmo to help take the heat away.

Imagine a 180Wt resistor / heat load inside a 10x10x10cm metal box in vac with 5 sides creating 500cm^2 heat radiation surface and the other attached CubeSat modules not being very welcoming of the thrusters waste heat load.

So there are issues to solve.
Use the Solar Cells to also convert the excess IR heat to electricity and be a radiator. ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/04/2015 03:43 pm
TT,
why bothering with cubesats if you still do not have your test rig spinning?
Focus first on that test rig and get it spinning like you have predicted.
There is really no point dabbling with the cubesat idea -at this point- if you cant get your rotating rig spinning first.

Talking about the future possibilities without any tangible evidence doesn't help in credibility. Something R.Shawyer also missed when he talks about flying cars without having anything substantial that could support that claim.
You're a great engineer, i can see that by the passion and tenacity you tackle the problem..but do not undermine your credibility like this.

Let's do like Shell says... go step by step and leave those seven league boots behind. Cube sats are a distraction on your path... :)
Get that rig spinning first !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/04/2015 03:57 pm

I have a detailed list on pretest items, a list for runs and a post list.

I cannot take into account every variable, there are so many but I can narrow down the list in construction of the test bed and pulling thrust data up out of the error windows. I'll record videos (two) of the operations and log acceleration tests as well as digital thrusts in weight/gram.

Thermals, I'm profiling the DUT with a simple heat lamp internally that will mimic the heating of the cavity without RF injection. The thermal balloon and cavity heating effects will be recorded through profiles and timed runs just like the ones planned for the power on tests.

The magnetron is ~ 1m away and isolated from the frustum set inside of another Faraday cage so no thermal effects and minimal RF interference will be seen from from it.

If you want to add something to your spreadsheet then it would be a another set of rows for the thermal runs.

Sea? ;) SeeShell selling shells? Na... clams.

Shell

initial questions.  This is a shopping list to figure out what we can expect in terms of controls available to you.  This is NOT a list of things you should do  :)

1.  your balance system is vertical?  What sensitivity do you expect and how will you measure it?  Is its behavior linear, and if not, do you know how to characterize it?
2.  is your frustum adjustable so it can be oriented up/down/left/right easily?
3.  Is your data logging going to be logged by computer?  If so, how many channels recording what, at what data rate?  Time stamped?
4.  Do you have thermal monitoring?  Thermocouple(s), IR camera?
5.  Do you have any means of determining your mode or Q?  If so, how?
6.  With your faraday cage, do you have anything to measure its attenuation, i.e a grid dip meter or something?
7.  Do you have any technical specifications on the magnetron, especially turn on/off times, power specifications?  Frequency specifications? etc.
8.  What do you envision as your run time per test?  i.e. 10 seconds  How fast can you cycle between tests?  Do you have any idea how long it will take for thermal effects to decay to some baseline?
9.  For the Lorenz folks, can you provide a schematic and a physical map of the schematic plus orientation re: magnetic North?

I'm sure there are other things, but I'm hoping to spur someone other than me to help characterize this.  In the perfect world, someone writes up the report, you just fill in the numbers, and the results fill themselves into the tables.  :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/04/2015 04:50 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)
Do no have a workable design yet. Scaling up in frequency for small real estate in a cubesat is problematic at best.

Not easy but not hard either. Took a few days and goes to get a design I'm happy with. Damn Rf amp chip is $1,500. Sure don't want to blow up a lot of those. Plus the DSP (and emulator / debugger) to gen / control the signal. Not much space, so all custom. Other than the few discrete components, nothing off the shelf.

Need to get a proper X band VNA, digital storage scope, logic analyser, etc as the low cost USB based ones don't go that high.

So not a low cost exercise. Will totally blow my original $25k S band budget my quite a bit.

But then this is now a commercial outcome R&D project. Looks like the investment portfolio will get a hit.

Yes Dear, I say to SWMBO, It Will Be Worth It. She Says, I Though You Retired? After This Dear, After This. She Replies, Whatever. Every man who understands woman speak knows what I was just told.

Have you considered that, for the amount of money you're proposing to put into this, if you don't have venture capital contacts you might be able to buy them?  Make contact with some law and accounting firms in silicon valley and see if any of them have experience with a client not from the valley, needs help finding funding scenario.  I have to think that retired engineer with a potential product is not a rare scenario.

Couple of thoughts. Become theory agonistic.  Take a look at the hackaday teams Juday-White test and EW talking about a momentum wake in the QV.  See if you can replicate to prove something is coming out of the back of the EMDrive is disturbing the path of a laser.  Then this goes from breaks CoM to device emitting an unknown form of exhaust.  Not sure how interested VCs would be in something that breaks the laws of physics, trying to scale up a prototype that is not breaking CoM and getting it production ready, that's an entirely different ballgame.

I remember you saying at some point that you lived in Australia.  Know what the costs/issues would be with moving to either the US or Canada and make sure they are accounted for in your business plan. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/04/2015 04:52 pm
I know Aero has done a lot of MEEP runs looking at various frequencies and frustum size, but I was wondering if there is any merit of looking at 160.2 GHz which is the peak of the cosmic background radiation distributed in the universe.

EW is apparently looking at a 6 dimension theoretical construct that involves interactions between space-time, quantum vacuum and the base dimensions. Since that cosmic radiation emanated from the big bang at the recombination that defines the existing universe, could it possibly be a "natural resonance" frequency or a marker of the interaction between space-time and the quantum vacuum?

Such is the place a layman's mind wanders while driving through the Columbia Gorge.
Bob,
That would mean making a frustum a little larger than .07"  of an inch long or 1.872mm, which is doable. Tiny tiny parts (http://Tiny tiny parts).

The question I'd like to ask is there is some proof that the effect scales to higher thrusts the lower the frequency, not higher. See notsosureofit's wiki page (http://notsosureofit's wiki page) Would it be better to wait until that thought is more matured first?

Got my coco and back to bed..


Shell

Thanks Shell, I should have picked up on the size issue but didn't. Then again, thrusters on a circuit board in muti-board arrays might be very economical to produce in the end if the thrust/mass ratio is better

Variety of frustum sizes + variety of frequencies = a lot of data to characterize a range of effects/non-effects.  More data is always good.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Kit on 11/04/2015 05:07 pm
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/

Media is starting to pick up on recent events.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 05:09 pm

I have a detailed list on pretest items, a list for runs and a post list.

I cannot take into account every variable, there are so many but I can narrow down the list in construction of the test bed and pulling thrust data up out of the error windows. I'll record videos (two) of the operations and log acceleration tests as well as digital thrusts in weight/gram.

Thermals, I'm profiling the DUT with a simple heat lamp internally that will mimic the heating of the cavity without RF injection. The thermal balloon and cavity heating effects will be recorded through profiles and timed runs just like the ones planned for the power on tests.

The magnetron is ~ 1m away and isolated from the frustum set inside of another Faraday cage so no thermal effects and minimal RF interference will be seen from from it.

If you want to add something to your spreadsheet then it would be a another set of rows for the thermal runs.

Sea? ;) SeeShell selling shells? Na... clams.

Shell

initial questions.  This is a shopping list to figure out what we can expect in terms of controls available to you.  This is NOT a list of things you should do  :)

I would like to answer a few items.

1.  your balance system is vertical?  What sensitivity do you expect and how will you measure it?  Is its behavior linear, and if not, do you know how to characterize it?

The vertical composite carbon fiber balance beam will serve two functions, being able to cross correlate a digital pressure measurement and also the acceleration component with each other. I've a digital scale to .001mg and a laser on the end of the beam above the drive to measure vertical deviation. Each needs to be run by itself.  The pressure readings are simply that, force on a digital scale, that will be characterized out with calibrated weights. the acceleration portion of the tests will have the scales removed and just profile the movement curves, weights will be uses to profile out that aspect too. 

2.  is your frustum adjustable so it can be oriented up/down/left/right easily?

vertical only in this test but can do a 1800 Big end down big end up...

3.  Is your data logging going to be logged by computer?  If so, how many channels recording what, at what data rate?  Time stamped?

No data logging on these first tests, these first tests are not only for the Drive testing but to test out the test stand. Time stamped data logging will come at a latter time with accelerometer,  tilt, and compass sensors with a Raspberry Pi and WiFi system

4.  Do you have thermal monitoring?  Thermocouple(s), IR camera?

No digital camera as yet but should have one by the first tests otherwise a temperature probe similar to rfmwguy's will be used to monitor frustum temps as well as power supplies.

5.  Do you have any means of determining your mode or Q?  If so, how?

VNA and spectrum analyzer standardized Q measurements.

6.  With your faraday cage, do you have anything to measure its attenuation, i.e a grid dip meter or something?

spectrum analyzer to 3GHz

7.  Do you have any technical specifications on the magnetron, especially turn on/off times, power specifications?  Frequency specifications? etc.

Yes. Commercial Panasonic Inverter style can control on offs and duty cycles and power levels.

8.  What do you envision as your run time per test?  i.e. 10 seconds  How fast can you cycle between tests?  Do you have any idea how long it will take for thermal effects to decay to some baseline?

Because I've isolated the magnetron heat source the only heating will be with the microwaves into the frustum. I will be going with a 50% cycle time but the duty cycle time will be defined when I get more baseline data. I suspect from some crude calculations and from observing other tests it will end up being a 10-20 second 50% duty cycle.

9.  For the Lorenz folks, can you provide a schematic and a physical map of the schematic plus orientation re: magnetic North?

I may not want to show my true location (it is the net) but I will show compass readings and general map.

I'm sure there are other things, but I'm hoping to spur someone other than me to help characterize this.  In the perfect world, someone writes up the report, you just fill in the numbers, and the results fill themselves into the tables.  :)

Tere are a few other things like time, temperature, humidly and altitude, barometric pressure, parts list layouts, schematics, etc...

Thanks for your input, it's quite welcome.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/04/2015 05:17 pm
...
Her 2013 paper, attached, does a good job breaking apart the Forces generated on the end plates and the side walls from the E and H fields of the resonant EM wave.

With TM mode excitation you sum the end plate E field Forces and the H field side wall Forces. With TE mode excitation you sum the H field Forces on the end plates and the E field Forces on the side walls.

Not knowing much about Rf physics at all, this last paragraph cleared up A LOT of the discussions for me! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/04/2015 05:51 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 06:14 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
This was my primmer to get things going and you may enjoy it as well.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/04/2015 06:20 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
This was my primmer to get things going and you may enjoy it as well.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Yes, that is helpful.  Thank you! It also helps me address some of the holes in the logic of you know who over at the you know what forum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/04/2015 06:23 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.

Quoting my brother, who's a plasma physicist, "what's so great about reality?"

Virtual particles are a mathematical construct used to calculate outcomes in quantum field theory.  The outcomes are "real" because they are measured.  By analogy, you can choose to calculate the circumference of a circle as 2 pi r.  If pi is real, then perhaps virtual particles are real.  There are other ways to calculate the circumference of a circle without using pi.  If you use an alternative method to calculate, does that make pi any more or less real?

see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 06:28 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
This was my primmer to get things going and you may enjoy it as well.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Yes, that is helpful.  Thank you! It also helps me address some of the holes in the logic of you know who over at the you know what forum.
Hmmm posted it there as well. It's a very good educational write-up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/04/2015 06:35 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: NicolasW on 11/04/2015 06:50 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
If it would be any kind of "classical thrust", generated by ejecting mass, i think it should be easily testable by just letting it run long enough and see if the mass of the device went down. Would just need a very precise weigh device and a mounted fuel free electricity source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/04/2015 06:51 pm
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/

Media is starting to pick up on recent events.

Not particularly much though. Aside from Yahoo News none of the big mainstream online news sites has this time around. Perhaps that's for the best?

Have a gut feeling though that once we get into 2016 things may be entirely different in this respect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/04/2015 07:08 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
If it would be any kind of "classical thrust", generated by ejecting mass, i think it should be easily testable by just letting it run long enough and see if the mass of the device went down. Would just need a very precise weigh device and a mounted fuel free electricity source.

Yes, or we could simply put another metal plate very close to the small side of the frustum in a vacuum and find out if the Casimir effect is still there.  Now wouldn't that be a surprise if it weren't or if the effect got bigger?  Btw Star-Drive (aka Paul March) I suggest you try this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/04/2015 07:10 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Isn't that the end goal of the Hackaday team's baby EMDrive?  https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

To get a usable amount of thrust, there are significant thermal management issues that must be addressed.

As example turning 180We of electricity into 25mN of thrust will require 180Wt - the very small portion converted into kinetic energy to be radiated away in a vac with no atmo to help take the heat away.

Imagine a 180Wt resistor / heat load inside a 10x10x10cm metal box in vac with 5 sides creating 500cm^2 heat radiation surface and the other attached CubeSat modules not being very welcoming of the thrusters waste heat load.

So there are issues to solve.

Are you sure that this is really a problem?  That sixth side is accessing the outside of the cubesat.  Encase the other five sides in some kind of low weight, insulating, ceramic and stick a radiator on the external access.  Peltier tiles come to mind for active heat exchange. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/04/2015 07:13 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/04/2015 07:16 pm
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)

Isn't that the end goal of the Hackaday team's baby EMDrive?  https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

To get a usable amount of thrust, there are significant thermal management issues that must be addressed.

As example turning 180We of electricity into 25mN of thrust will require 180Wt - the very small portion converted into kinetic energy to be radiated away in a vac with no atmo to help take the heat away.

Imagine a 180Wt resistor / heat load inside a 10x10x10cm metal box in vac with 5 sides creating 500cm^2 heat radiation surface and the other attached CubeSat modules not being very welcoming of the thrusters waste heat load.

So there are issues to solve.

Are you sure that this is really a problem?  That sixth side is accessing the outside of the cubesat.  Encase the other five sides in some kind of low weight, insulating, ceramic and stick a radiator on the external access.  Peltier tiles come to mind for active heat exchange.

It's an issue to solve, not insurmountable at all, just needs some engineering...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/04/2015 07:27 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ProbablyAWizard on 11/04/2015 07:40 pm
I don't want to write a big paragraph again.  So, I'll just keep it short this time.  In relation to White's theory, are virtual particles real or fake? I always considered effects caused by particles from the quantum vacuum to be real ;causing real effects like Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.  No, the mathematical proofs are considered just proofs and the particles the gain and loose mass are represented as numbers.  But, just because we can't measure them doesn't make them not real.  Am I correct in my assumption.
If it would be any kind of "classical thrust", generated by ejecting mass, i think it should be easily testable by just letting it run long enough and see if the mass of the device went down. Would just need a very precise weigh device and a mounted fuel free electricity source.

Yes, or we could simply put another metal plate very close to the small side of the frustum in a vacuum and find out if the Casimir effect is still there.  Now wouldn't that be a surprise if it weren't or if the effect got bigger?  Btw Star-Drive (aka Paul March) I suggest you try this.

That could certainly be very interesting, if (as some propose) the device produces thrust via some interaction with imaginary particles, it would likely be measurable with a change in the Casimir effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 07:47 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.
When you have two (maybe more) modes operating within the cavity and still have a high Q we see mode interactions causing the more patterns to shift. What is your speculation is those cases?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/04/2015 08:01 pm
Tangential warning - I had been posting on another forum for about 4 months about emdrive (you may know this). However, I just discovered a few important tidbits about some of the people there who regularly stir up drama, I simply decided to delete all my accounts about 45 minutes ago. Not the place for me.

Only reporting this in case someone there asks where I went. "Here" is the answer...by choice. Besides, time crunching prohibits me from multiple forums. FYI only.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/04/2015 08:07 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.
When you have two (maybe more) modes operating within the cavity and still have a high Q we see mode interactions causing the more patterns to shift. What is your speculation is those cases?

The first response is that you would have to integrate PQX^2/f^3 over these modes with respect to time average.

The next consideration is the modulation products from coupling the modes.   

The third is that you have photon-photon coupling going on and in today's particle theories that spells axion.

I've only considered the first response.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/04/2015 08:17 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !
That is indeed about the force that R.Shawyer claimed for his flying car future visions.

Demand in Niobium is going to rise sharp IF 2 conditions are met :
a) microwaves do produce a force in a tapered cavity
b) the resulting force correlates very strongly with the Q of the cavity...

but..we are not there yet....:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/04/2015 08:20 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.
When you have two (maybe more) modes operating within the cavity and still have a high Q we see mode interactions causing the more patterns to shift. What is your speculation is those cases?

The first response is that you would have to integrate PQX^2/f^3 over these modes with respect to time average.

The next consideration is the modulation products from coupling the modes.   

The third is that you have photon-photon coupling going on and in today's particle theories that spells axion.

I've only considered the first response.
Thank you, it helps believe it or not. I've been puzzling over these last two for sometime, and nososureoftheaxion. We are not going to operate at high enough energies for photon photon  collisions so what's left is virtual photons, well the interacting fields created from two passing in the night.

(chuckling) A friend just asked me what happens when you pass two evanescent waves past each other. I was at a loss to answer him.

Thanks notsosureofit, it means a lot for you to take time to answer me I know your very busy.

Shell

PS: Gads I hate that guy now he will make me think and dig.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/04/2015 08:45 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.

Well, 1kw only has enough joules of energy in it to produce 1,000N if you could do a straight conversion of energy into motive force at 100% efficiency.  If you're getting 1,250N, then that suggests that some third force/medium is involved.  What that is would seem like a very interesting question.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/04/2015 08:48 pm
Pardon my slow, bit by bit thinking:

If the EW cavity had a superconducting Q of 10^10 as some have been reported, instead of 10^4, then it's specific force would be of the order of 1,250 N/kW !

What happens to the bandwidth at a Q that high?  Wouldn't the redshit from one photon bounce exceed the bandwidth (meaning that the photons are going to be going to heat)?

Photons don't bounce inside a cavity at such low mode indexes as are considered here.  At very high numbers, they act as if they are, but that also destroys any ability to generate significant force.

Well, 1kw only has enough joules of energy in it to produce 1,000N if you could do a straight conversion of energy into motive force at 100% efficiency.  If you're getting 1,250N, then that suggests that some third force/medium is involved.  What that is would seem like a very interesting question.

Big assumption there that things would be linear all the way to 10^10 Q !

Review the Appendix 2 at: http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis  (where PQ=2,000,000)

Note: Probably should mention that this is the static force so energy does not translate into Newtons....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 09:15 pm
TT,
why bothering with cubesats if you still do not have your test rig spinning?
Focus first on that test rig and get it spinning like you have predicted.
There is really no point dabbling with the cubesat idea -at this point- if you cant get your rotating rig spinning first.

Talking about the future possibilities without any tangible evidence doesn't help in credibility. Something R.Shawyer also missed when he talks about flying cars without having anything substantial that could support that claim.
You're a great engineer, i can see that by the passion and tenacity you tackle the problem..but do not undermine your credibility like this.

Let's do like Shell says... go step by step and leave those seven league boots behind. Cube sats are a distraction on your path... :)
Get that rig spinning first !

You seem to forget I talk with and work with Roger Shawyer. Not everything Roger has shared with me has been made public.

Despite what most here seem to wish to believe, I believe he cracked this back in 2002. I also believe the 2 most experienced EMDrive experimentalists, Roger & Prof Yang, have got the theory right. No new physics, just a new "Shawyer Effect" based on the frustum equal but opposite reaction to the EM wave momentum gradient created inside the EMDrive.

Which will be a very bitter pill for many to shallow. So bitter many will fight that event happening.

Building the CubeSat thruster is just a matter of following a proven recipe, thanks mainly to the EMDrive design spreadsheet Roger assisted me to create and our bread crumb trail driven discussions plus a lot of correct guess work on my part connecting the dots / bread crumbs into a very good understanding of how and why the EMDrive works. What amazes me is so many still think the EMDrive can't work. My rotary table is not designed to prove the EMDrive works. That is a fact and folks need to accept it. My rotary test rig will be used to optimise the N/kW rating of my commercial design so as to reduce the amount of waste heat the thruster needs to manage and radiate away.

I have, in the past, listed some of the reasons the EW thruster has limited thrust generation. If you and others wish to believe 1.25mN/kW is the state of the art and the best it gets, well you are very wrong, as most here have been since this topic was started.

I have no desire to move to the US/Canada nor to seek out Vulture Capital. I see myself building 1U CubeSat form factor thrusters in my workshop. Cottage industry if you like. At some point, the EMDrive based thruster work of others will emerge from the darkness. When that happens my market will be gone and it will be time to finally retire, so I don't fear it happening.

Between how and then I have some interesting and challenging technical issues to work on. I have no doubt my 1U CubeSat form factor thruster will be commercially available. Only real issue is when and what road blocks may be placed in my pathway to stop that happening. I have no doubts about how potentially disruptive this thruster may become.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 11:09 pm
Fairly accurate report. Note comments from Roger. If you think his comments are not accurate, well 2016 may be a really bad year for you.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-future-space-travel-nasa-eagleworks-hints-breakthrough-interstellar-flight-1527184
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 11/04/2015 11:32 pm
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/04/2015 11:43 pm
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

What part of EW gets 1.25mN/kW in 2015 versus Roger gets 0.33N/kW in 2009 don't you understand?

Looks like 2016 is not gonna be a good year for you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/04/2015 11:49 pm
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

What part of EW gets 1.25mN/kW in 2015 versus Roger gets 0.33N/kW in 2009 don't you understand?

Looks like 2016 is not gonna be a good year for you.
I've barely reviewed rogers latest work but those are impressive numbers to put out there. Are you sensing a big technology gap in mechanical or electrical design or both?  Something has to account for the disparity, cannot put my finger on it...not surprising as my first build was just completed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2015 12:08 am
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

What part of EW gets 1.25mN/kW in 2015 versus Roger gets 0.33N/kW in 2009 don't you understand?

Looks like 2016 is not gonna be a good year for you.
I've barely reviewed rogers latest work but those are impressive numbers to put out there. Are you sensing a big technology gap in mechanical or electrical design or both?  Something has to account for the disparity, cannot put my finger on it...not surprising as my first build was just completed.

EW frustum to SPR Flight Thruster (FT) differences:

1) 8k EW Q to 50k FT Q.

2) EW us a dielectric, FT doesn't.

3) EW excite in TM212 mode, FT excite in TE013 mode. (ref Yang 2013 paper to understand difference to thrust)

4) EW have flat end plates, FT has spherical.

5) EW use external impedance matcher, FT is done in cavity.

6) EW use adaptive/predictive freq fracker, FT uses active freq tracking.

7) EW frustum is EW's 1st gen thruster that worked, FT is at least the 5th generation device Roger has made.

8) Roger has a career of experience as a microwave engineer. EW guys, while good engineers, are learning on the job, the black arts of microwave engineering.

EW are producing really good data and working hard to reduce other effects so to make their low 100uN EMDrive Force signals really stand out from the measurement noise.

This is where Roger was in 2009:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: txdrive on 11/05/2015 12:35 am
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

What part of EW gets 1.25mN/kW in 2015 versus Roger gets 0.33N/kW in 2009 don't you understand?

Looks like 2016 is not gonna be a good year for you.
I've barely reviewed rogers latest work but those are impressive numbers to put out there. Are you sensing a big technology gap in mechanical or electrical design or both?  Something has to account for the disparity, cannot put my finger on it...not surprising as my first build was just completed.
Well, what typically happens when there's a huge controversial result of immense practical importance - and I'm not meaning to insult anyone here or even talk of the EmDrive specifically, I'm describing how controversies typically arise in physics - is that larger results arise due to research fraud while smaller results arise from honest self deception by enthusiastic followers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/05/2015 01:10 am
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

I think a better question is has the full extent of shawyer's testing been made public. Vacuum Chamber testing isnt necessary if you have increased thrust beyond micro newton and a few milinewtons.

Also if you assume that shawyer has enough positive results to justify belief in not only his theory but his experimental result. What would be the justification for not publicizing those results? What other roadblocks is Shawyer experiencing that would make disclosure less valuable than keeping that information a secret?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/05/2015 01:36 am
Hum, anyone have experience using conductive paint?  Strikes me that it might be easier to 3d print something in plastic/ceramic and coat with copper paint http://www.sra-solder.com/843-super-shield-silver-coated-copper-conductive-coating-20-gram-liquid (http://www.sra-solder.com/843-super-shield-silver-coated-copper-conductive-coating-20-gram-liquid) than bend metal.  Then again, that would introduce a whole nother set of complications.  Still it might be a decent idea to relatively rapidly test a number of different geometries.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/05/2015 01:45 am
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

I think a better question is has the full extent of shawyer's testing been made public. Vacuum Chamber testing isnt necessary if you have increased thrust beyond micro newton and a few milinewtons.

Also if you assume that shawyer has enough positive results to justify belief in not only his theory but his experimental result. What would be the justification for not publicizing those results? What other roadblocks is Shawyer experiencing that would make disclosure less valuable than keeping that information a secret?

What secret?  He flat out admits he's trying to scale the effect up more to fly a drone with it.  His paper on the subject has been published.  Hell it's taking some of the builders here 6mo to a year to build one of these things, and that's without testing things like superconductivity and gain media (for a maser). 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/05/2015 02:17 am
@Shell FYI

Thank Jack Sarfatti for this one:  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552v1.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/05/2015 02:49 am
@Shell FYI

Thank Jack Sarfatti for this one:  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552v1.pdf
Thank you! And thanks to Jack Sarfatti.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/05/2015 03:11 am
his comments are not accurate. Because NASA is not "behind in the tech". It just is doing what Shawyer never did: trying to really prove the effect exists by carefully eliminating side-effects, while Shawyer never worried about it.

Has Shawyer tested it on a vacuum chamber?

I think a better question is has the full extent of shawyer's testing been made public. Vacuum Chamber testing isnt necessary if you have increased thrust beyond micro newton and a few milinewtons.

Also if you assume that shawyer has enough positive results to justify belief in not only his theory but his experimental result. What would be the justification for not publicizing those results? What other roadblocks is Shawyer experiencing that would make disclosure less valuable than keeping that information a secret?

What secret?  He flat out admits he's trying to scale the effect up more to fly a drone with it.  His paper on the subject has been published.  Hell it's taking some of the builders here 6mo to a year to build one of these things, and that's without testing things like superconductivity and gain media (for a maser).

The secret I am referring to is from TT's comment below

...
You seem to forget I talk with and work with Roger Shawyer. Not everything Roger has shared with me has been made public.
...
emphasis added by me

From TT's comment it sounds like Shawyer has more information that has not been made public.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/05/2015 03:28 am
article on improved em drive at EW:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/nasa-eagleworks-has-tested-upgraded.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/05/2015 05:14 am
So....when is the emdrive cubesat kickstarter campaign starting?  Let's get this thing to orbit :)
Do no have a workable design yet. Scaling up in frequency for small real estate in a cubesat is problematic at best.

Not easy but not hard either. Took a few days and goes to get a design I'm happy with. Damn Rf amp chip is $1,500. Sure don't want to blow up a lot of those. Plus the DSP (and emulator / debugger) to gen / control the signal. Not much space, so all custom. Other than the few discrete components, nothing off the shelf.

Need to get a proper X band VNA, digital storage scope, logic analyser, etc as the low cost USB based ones don't go that high.

So not a low cost exercise. Will totally blow my original $25k S band budget my quite a bit.

But then this is now a commercial outcome R&D project. Looks like the investment portfolio will get a hit.

Yes Dear, I say to SWMBO, It Will Be Worth It. She Says, I Though You Retired? After This Dear, After This. She Replies, Whatever. Every man who understands woman speak knows what I was just told.

The final version has to fit in a 1U cubesat but the pre-prototype can be larger. That may allow use of cheaper off the shelf parts and extra heat sinks. Replace with custom made when the design works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/05/2015 07:05 am
Well, 1kw only has enough joules of energy in it to produce 1,000N if you could do a straight conversion of energy into motive force at 100% efficiency.  If you're getting 1,250N, then that suggests that some third force/medium is involved.  What that is would seem like a very interesting question.

Newtons describe force, 1 N = 1 kg*m/s^2
Joules describe energy, 1 J = 1 kg*m^2/s^2 = 1 N*m
Watts describe power,  1 W = 1 J/s

There is no way to reconcile those dimensions and come up with a unitless efficiency.

1000 N / 1000 W = 1 s/m, which I suppose would describe "slowness".

OK, please don't punch me for this, but.. I'd like to ask the following (I'm no physicist). Is the unit of m/s for speed valid the same in space-like, as well as time-like geodesics? Or is there a theoretical situation when m/s turns to s/m ? Does that question make any sense?

Best regards
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/05/2015 08:33 am
........
I have, in the past, listed some of the reasons the EW thruster has limited thrust generation. If you and others wish to believe 1.25mN/kW is the state of the art and the best it gets, well you are very wrong, as most here have been since this topic was started.
.......

Why do you pull this out of its context? Nobody of us here believes that 1.25mN/kW is the best it will ever get. What I said is that 1.25mN/kW is the best REPLICATED result so far and that by lack of any other replication results , that is what we should stick to for the moment.

The difference is that you believe Shawyer unconditional, where most of the participants inhere would like to believe Shawyer but need a replicated result first. Because the claim of thrust from an EMdrive is so controversial I think it is only a normal scientific reaction to ask for a replicated result. I do not have the same degree of "faith" you have.

As said before , I do find Shawyer's rotating rig a very compelling piece of evidence, but it leaves too many unanswered questions to blindly accept what I see. As part of my job revolves around visual perception, I'm all to well aware how misleading perception can be.

If you really want to support Roger's case, the best thing you can do is to replicate it. Talking is rather cheap, it is making it to work that's the hard part, in this case.

If you or any other can effectively replicate Shawyer's experiment, I'll be the first to nominate R.Shawyer for a future Nobel price, because we can all see the revolution it could spark. If it works, like in the tests by prof. Yang, at 288mN/kW, it will indeed be a game changer. All we ask, is a solid, bullet proof replication. nothing more, nothing less.

The credibility of the EMdrive is closely linked to what is perceived to be achievable on one side, and what is claimed on the other side. The closer the gap between those two sides, the more credibility the EMdrive will get.
As it stands now, there is still a big gap to bridge between 1.25mN/kW -> 288mN/kW.
With 288mN/kW, I'm inclined to accept that a projected 400mN/kW would be achievable.
With a replicated 1.25mN/kW, i have my doubts about the scale ability towards 400mN/kW.

So in order to gain momentum and credibility, better replicated results must emerge.
I repeat, as you got such a good relation with R.Shawyer, that would an ideal objective for you, no?
To give him the support he needs by producing the so needed high efficiency replication results...
I hope you understand that point of view?

No need for flying cars or EMdrives that lift spaceships.
Most of us are not "disbelievers" but we need something more tangible, then mere words and promises to overcome our reasonable doubt.

It is not a black or white issue here. No need for polarization. It is not a case of "either be with us or against us". Most of us stand in the grey zone and the more positive results pop up, the more we shift to the light grey zone. As simple as that...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dglow on 11/05/2015 11:45 am
^ ^
What an exchange, perfectly illustrative of the tension between Researcher and Maker. Do I build to better understand, or must I better understand before I build?

If one possesses experimental results and few seriously listen – because the 'community' tells you your results are 'impossible' – can one be blamed for plowing ahead and not waiting for the world to catch up? Thomas Kuhn's writings on revolutions in science come to mind; we have the Anomaly and are clearly approaching the stage of Crisis.

Further, we see an implicit America-entric bias in the press coverage of EW's results, as if NASA is the sole gatekeeper of scientific authority in this field. Clearly it makes more clickable headlines. But from the originator's perspective this might be frustrating to witness if, as TT states, others are much further head in replication and development.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/05/2015 11:51 am
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 01:21 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)
I'm about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you can get...however...I recently discovered something unusual that relates to the conversation about EMDrive IP. There is a lot at stake here. I commend both EW and Roger for their work and do not believe the adversity is between them. They are allies in the spirit of discovery and/or entrepreneurism.

Its the bigger picture...the corporate world. Should EMDrive come to pass, Trillion$ are at stake if it becomes scaleable. No one can argue against this successfully. IF a corporate entity, or entities, could discredit EMDrive, the existing (and upcoming patents) could be rendered valueless...for a time.

Let me be specific: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/google-wants-buy-patent-keep-away-trolls/

This topic is too detailed to go into here, but there appears to be a viable motive for discrediting EMDrive research; rendering any patents, lets say...available at bargain prices without R&D investment.

Call this wacky, call this over the top, but I do have reason to suspect this might be occuring (thanks to some tips).

In light of recent developments, I say we need to support any experimenters/labs involved in EMDrive research and not pit them against one another for there could be a bigger threat out there...the acquisition and exploitation of a promising device that could change transportation as we know it.

/end conspiracy theory  ::)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 11/05/2015 01:25 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)

Reminds me of Starlite. The paranoid inventor never disclosed the secret, never closed a deal to sell it... then he died in 2012. Never got rich and the world never got the incredible insulator
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/05/2015 02:42 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)

Reminds me of Starlite. The paranoid inventor never disclosed the secret, never closed a deal to sell it... then he died in 2012. Never got rich and the world never got the incredible insulator

That's another point I wanted to make. What, if Mr. Shawyer spontaneously dies? Does he have a mechanism in place that ensures the survival of his EM-drive heritage, so that the public can gain insight into his progress? I state it again.. I believe that such kinds of technology are too important for the whole human species, to keep the required knowledge and experience locked away in the head of a single individual, that can perish overnight. It's highly risky, and potentially an irrecoverable loss. I think that avoiding this has higher priority than personal monetary gain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/05/2015 02:53 pm
........
I have, in the past, listed some of the reasons the EW thruster has limited thrust generation. If you and others wish to believe 1.25mN/kW is the state of the art and the best it gets, well you are very wrong, as most here have been since this topic was started.
.......

Why do you pull this out of its context? Nobody of us here believes that 1.25mN/kW is the best it will ever get. What I said is that 1.25mN/kW is the best REPLICATED result so far and that by lack of any other replication results , that is what we should stick to for the moment.

I believe that Yang has reported a replication of Shawyer's data.  She doesn't get much respect around here because she is Chinese (and possible because she is a woman).  Shell started her drive to replicate Yang, but the translation out of Chinese is just awful and introduced a bunch of errors.  It doesn't help that Prof Yang is not willing to get involved in an internet debate in what is not her native language.  If somebody could ask her opinion in Mandarin, I'd be interested in hearing what she has to say.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/05/2015 02:55 pm
(...)
/end conspiracy theory  ::)
I get your point, but I think you're severely neglecting the fact, that even if this technology were instantly available, it would take many many decades to replace existing technology. Think about cars alone. There are about 1.2bn functioning cars in existence worldwide. Making them airborne via EM-drive tech, this would mean that many billions of EM-drives would have to be produced. That takes a loong time. Yes, you're right, there's trillions of USD of market share that we're talking here. But this would not be a hard revolution, but a very doable and soft transition. And personally, I don't have any damns left in my attic that I could give about the desires of any archaic multi-billion dollar companies holding the development of this world's civilization and mankind's evolution back.
:D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 11/05/2015 03:18 pm
Here's a thought: a way to address with thermal noise. Consider a TE mode and nearby TM mode with radically different thrust, as was mentioned (again) a few posts ago. The input power is the same, and if Q is the same I'd expect the same fraction of the power to reach the frustrum in each case.

Therefore there would be a thrust signal which varied with input frequency/tuning with the same temp profile in each case, making the excess thrust hard to ascribe to thermal effects.

[PS I still think TT's rotating table will nail this best.]

R.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/05/2015 03:44 pm
I'm about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you can get...however...I recently discovered something unusual that relates to the conversation about EMDrive IP. There is a lot at stake here. I commend both EW and Roger for their work and do not believe the adversity is between them. They are allies in the spirit of discovery and/or entrepreneurism.

Its the bigger picture...the corporate world. Should EMDrive come to pass, Trillion$ are at stake if it becomes scaleable. No one can argue against this successfully. IF a corporate entity, or entities, could discredit EMDrive, the existing (and upcoming patents) could be rendered valueless...for a time.

Let me be specific: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/google-wants-buy-patent-keep-away-trolls/

This topic is too detailed to go into here, but there appears to be a viable motive for discrediting EMDrive research; rendering any patents, lets say...available at bargain prices without R&D investment.

Call this wacky, call this over the top, but I do have reason to suspect this might be occuring (thanks to some tips).

In light of recent developments, I say we need to support any experimenters/labs involved in EMDrive research and not pit them against one another for there could be a bigger threat out there...the acquisition and exploitation of a promising device that could change transportation as we know it.

/end conspiracy theory  ::)

Um no.  If there were really trillions on the line the investment community would be in a race to get into this.  Even Rossi was, finally, able to find backers for LENR.   (Still not sure about Rossi, want to wait for the referees report at the end of the current test.  Leaked reports certainly make it sound like he's got excess heat over a period of time that imply something nuclear).  Hell, it looks like the Orb-O is getting made.  I pretty much guarantee you that the VCs don't care why it runs  (if it does, and is not an elaborate hoax, my bet is on some kind of electromagnetic Stirling engine) so much as that it can extend the life of a cell phone battery.

Despite some wishful thinking, there's no real evidence that the EMDrive is going to replace other means of terrestrial transportation.  Even if it could be scaled up to flying car level -- well there's more demand for Teslas than Cessnas.  There is something to be said about ground transportation.  Unless an EMDrive is more economical then an electric motor, the motor is going to win.  I wouldn't be at all surprised is a mature EMDrive couldn't hit 1 or 2N/KW.  That's extremely important for spaceflight, but it's not going to be putting the jet engine out of business anytime soon.  If Dr. White came out with a paper that said "this thing is creating a gravitational wake, here is how you take that wake and build a warpdrive" then there would be trillions of dollars involved.  We are a long way from that happening. 

It's not like there's really any way to invest in the EMDrive right now.  Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.  Cannae is already funded. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/05/2015 04:23 pm
Well, 1kw only has enough joules of energy in it to produce 1,000N if you could do a straight conversion of energy into motive force at 100% efficiency.  If you're getting 1,250N, then that suggests that some third force/medium is involved.  What that is would seem like a very interesting question.

Newtons describe force, 1 N = 1 kg*m/s^2
Joules describe energy, 1 J = 1 kg*m^2/s^2 = 1 N*m
Watts describe power,  1 W = 1 J/s

There is no way to reconcile those dimensions and come up with a unitless efficiency.

1000 N / 1000 W = 1 s/m, which I suppose would describe "slowness".

OK, please don't punch me for this, but.. I'd like to ask the following (I'm no physicist). Is the unit of m/s for speed valid the same in space-like, as well as time-like geodesics? Or is there a theoretical situation when m/s turns to s/m ? Does that question make any sense?

Best regards

It was just somebody trolling me.  What I meant to say, and I think was clear from the context, is that the energy in 1 KWs (kilowatt second) equals the same force as found in 1000 Ns (Newtons/second).  1000N/s translated into a certain number of Joules of kinetic energy.  If you have 1250Ns of thrust out of 1KWs then the device has more Joules of kinetic energy then if you turned the joules of electric energy into joules of motive energy at 100% efficiency.  If this is possible we can pretty much rule out radiation pressure from the EMWaves as the motive force. 


If you think I'm trolling you then show your work with units.  You just repeated the same non-sense from your post.

BTW, Ns and Newtons/second are different things. Ns would describe momentum. N/s would describe force onset rate.

N s^-1 / W = m^-1 (wavenumber)
N*s / W = s^2 / m (inverse acceleration)

EDIT: Just noticed that you are now using kWs for kW seconds, which is just a strange way of writing kJ (kJ s^-1 s = kJ). The rabbit hole goes deeper.

N s^-1 / J = s^-1 / m = 1 Hz/m (frequency gradient)
N*s / J = s / m (again slowness)

Fine, I've deleted the post.  My point was that I believe that there 1000 joules of energy in 1000 watt/seconds.  I hope that the definition of a joule is the energy transferred to an object when a force of one newton acts on the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter.  I would certain think, though I could be wrong, that 1N will accelerate a 1kg object at 1 m/s/s.  It would seem to me, and I admit I could be very wrong on this, that 1000 Joules equals the force of 1000 newtons acting in the direction of motion of an object through a distance of one meter.  Now again, I could be showing an extreme ignorance of this subject but I believe the theory in question was implying that 1000 joules in an EMDrive would accelerate a 1 kg object at 1250 m/s/s.  I suspect that 1000 joules of energy transferred to an object should not equal a force of 1250N in the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter.  If I've screwed this up somewhere I apologize.

Irregardless of how I've screwed this up, I believe that there should be an answer to the question "if I put 1000 Joules of energy per second into a 1kg object, acting in the direction of motion of the object, how many Newtons of acceleration does it experience?"  The answer to that question would seem to have some bearing on the matter at hand. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/05/2015 04:35 pm
I believe that Yang has reported a replication of Shawyer's data.  She doesn't get much respect around here because she is Chinese (and possible because she is a woman).  Shell started her drive to replicate Yang, but the translation out of Chinese is just awful and introduced a bunch of errors.  It doesn't help that Prof Yang is not willing to get involved in an internet debate in what is not her native language.  If somebody could ask her opinion in Mandarin, I'd be interested in hearing what she has to say.
I am with you on this and I see no apparent reason to mistrust her report(s).
But it is a fact that her data is shielded and what has been released can not be verified.

On top of that, China does not have the open culture as we experience in Europe or the USA. There are a lot more cultural, social and , yes, military restrictions in China then what we're used to deal with in the "western" world.
In fact in most commercial corporate structures it wouldn't be possible. Shawyer claims "others" are busy with R&D. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't...we'll never know till it hits us..

It is not hard to imagine that public contributions, like what Paul March has been doing, are simply not possible for her.
Or it might be as simple as not speaking English fluidly enough...

lot's of options to take there...

BTW,
Put in that perspective, it makes me appreciate ir. Paul March even more, that he's prepared to take risks and share his/their findings in public....
Call me old fashion or a naive romantic, but I still have high esteem for people that do the right thing and put honesty and transparency on top of their to do list in life...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/05/2015 05:06 pm

  If Dr. White came out with a paper that said "this thing is creating a gravitational wake, here is how you take that wake and build a warpdrive" then there would be trillions of dollars involved.  We are a long way from that happening. 

It's not like there's really any way to invest in the EMDrive right now.  Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.  Cannae is already funded.

This has all been discussed before.   There is no evidence that Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.   There is no evidence that Yang has replicated Shawyer's work.   There is no evidence Shawyer has achieved what he claims.   No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.   It is not surprising that so many contributors to this discussion have quietly dropped out, given the unscientific level it has devolved to.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/05/2015 05:12 pm
Still suffering from Lackadata. (although the latest EW was a surprisingly good fit)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 05:44 pm
(...)
/end conspiracy theory  ::)
I get your point, but I think you're severely neglecting the fact, that even if this technology were instantly available, it would take many many decades to replace existing technology. Think about cars alone. There are about 1.2bn functioning cars in existence worldwide. Making them airborne via EM-drive tech, this would mean that many billions of EM-drives would have to be produced. That takes a loong time. Yes, you're right, there's trillions of USD of market share that we're talking here. But this would not be a hard revolution, but a very doable and soft transition. And personally, I don't have any damns left in my attic that I could give about the desires of any archaic multi-billion dollar companies holding the development of this world's civilization and mankind's evolution back.
:D
lol, I hear you...don't get me wrong, its an interesting thought experiment at this point since emdrive IP was brought up. However, I did have a sidebar conversation about this a few weeks ago. In it, a senario was invented whose premise was there is emdrive technology existing right now that is able to lift a few pounds off the surface of the planet. What happens next?

Aside from it being useful for military drones, how could it disrupt the global economy? Rendering billions of planes, trains and automobiles (funny movie BTW) obsolete overnight is an economic disaster. Imagine the tooling, infrastructure and the product lines that would be laid to waste.

I do believe companies have acquired and buried disruptive technologies BTW. I worked for one once. They bought a competitor that had a rival product, cheaper to produce, but new tooling costs was cost prohibitive. That was very small scale compared to flying cars  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 06:16 pm
Well, 1kw only has enough joules of energy in it to produce 1,000N if you could do a straight conversion of energy into motive force at 100% efficiency.  If you're getting 1,250N, then that suggests that some third force/medium is involved.  What that is would seem like a very interesting question.

Newtons describe force, 1 N = 1 kg*m/s^2
Joules describe energy, 1 J = 1 kg*m^2/s^2 = 1 N*m
Watts describe power,  1 W = 1 J/s

There is no way to reconcile those dimensions and come up with a unitless efficiency.

1000 N / 1000 W = 1 s/m, which I suppose would describe "slowness".

OK, please don't punch me for this, but.. I'd like to ask the following (I'm no physicist). Is the unit of m/s for speed valid the same in space-like, as well as time-like geodesics? Or is there a theoretical situation when m/s turns to s/m ? Does that question make any sense?

Best regards

It was just somebody trolling me.  What I meant to say, and I think was clear from the context, is that the energy in 1 KWs (kilowatt second) equals the same force as found in 1000 Ns (Newtons/second).  1000N/s translated into a certain number of Joules of kinetic energy.  If you have 1250Ns of thrust out of 1KWs then the device has more Joules of kinetic energy then if you turned the joules of electric energy into joules of motive energy at 100% efficiency.  If this is possible we can pretty much rule out radiation pressure from the EMWaves as the motive force. 


If you think I'm trolling you then show your work with units.  You just repeated the same non-sense from your post.

BTW, Ns and Newtons/second are different things. Ns would describe momentum. N/s would describe force onset rate.

N s^-1 / W = m^-1 (wavenumber)
N*s / W = s^2 / m (inverse acceleration)

EDIT: Just noticed that you are now using kWs for kW seconds, which is just a strange way of writing kJ (kJ s^-1 s = kJ). The rabbit hole goes deeper.

N s^-1 / J = s^-1 / m = 1 Hz/m (frequency gradient)
N*s / J = s / m (again slowness)

Fine, I've deleted the post.  My point was that I believe that there 1000 joules of energy in 1000 watt/seconds.  I hope that the definition of a joule is the energy transferred to an object when a force of one newton acts on the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter.  I would certain think, though I could be wrong, that 1N will accelerate a 1kg object at 1 m/s/s.  It would seem to me, and I admit I could be very wrong on this, that 1000 Joules equals the force of 1000 newtons acting in the direction of motion of an object through a distance of one meter.  Now again, I could be showing an extreme ignorance of this subject but I believe the theory in question was implying that 1000 joules in an EMDrive would accelerate a 1 kg object at 1250 m/s/s.  I suspect that 1000 joules of energy transferred to an object should not equal a force of 1250N in the direction of its motion through a distance of one meter.  If I've screwed this up somewhere I apologize.

Irregardless of how I've screwed this up, I believe that there should be an answer to the question "if I put 1000 Joules of energy per second into a 1kg object, acting in the direction of motion of the object, how many Newtons of acceleration does it experience?"  The answer to that question would seem to have some bearing on the matter at hand.
Related to EMDrive experiments, micronewtons are calculated from milligram (force equivalent) weights in a balance beam configuration. Acceleration is another topic and is time dependent, usually measured against a standard distance or displacement. Newtons per second may not be relevant to small scale tests, as the newtons are a measurement of an applied weight (which does cause a displacement of the balance beam).

To complicate matters a bit, balance beam acceleration changes compared to thermal lift was useful to extract relevant data in my particular setup.

So, depending on what you are trying to accomplish, pick your units and run with it. Formulae generally bore me so I only go there when I need to.  I've got a passport to Mathland, its just not my idea of a fun vacation.  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/05/2015 07:46 pm

  If Dr. White came out with a paper that said "this thing is creating a gravitational wake, here is how you take that wake and build a warpdrive" then there would be trillions of dollars involved.  We are a long way from that happening. 

It's not like there's really any way to invest in the EMDrive right now.  Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.  Cannae is already funded.

This has all been discussed before.   There is no evidence that Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.   There is no evidence that Yang has replicated Shawyer's work.   There is no evidence Shawyer has achieved what he claims.   No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.   It is not surprising that so many contributors to this discussion have quietly dropped out, given the unscientific level it has devolved to.

You have neither any idea or evidence why certain contributors are not posting at the moment. Nor is it correct to say that no-one has been able to show an effect indistinguishable from a thermal effect. Nor is there any evidence to say that Shawyer hasn't achieved what he claimed or that Yang hasn't replicated his work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ARW on 11/05/2015 07:57 pm
lol, I hear you...don't get me wrong, its an interesting thought experiment at this point since emdrive IP was brought up. However, I did have a sidebar conversation about this a few weeks ago. In it, a senario was invented whose premise was there is emdrive technology existing right now that is able to lift a few pounds off the surface of the planet. What happens next?

Aside from it being useful for military drones, how could it disrupt the global economy? Rendering billions of planes, trains and automobiles (funny movie BTW) obsolete overnight is an economic disaster. Imagine the tooling, infrastructure and the product lines that would be laid to waste.

I do believe companies have acquired and buried disruptive technologies BTW. I worked for one once. They bought a competitor that had a rival product, cheaper to produce, but new tooling costs was cost prohibitive. That was very small scale compared to flying cars  ;)

I do not believe it would be too disruptive for global economy. Some strong ripples but nothing catastrophic.  While EM Drive would make old fashioned planes, automobiles and trains obsolete in a sense that there's no way those can compete with EM Drive powered vehicles and aircrafts but at the same time you'd still be flying EM Drive powered Audi, Ford and finally emission free VW while traveling on Boeing or Airbus to Europa for your skiing trip. On the other hand trains and ships would be rendered rather obsolete.

Another reason as to why transition wouldn't be too disruptive is the time it would take EM Drive technology to be adopted. Companies would have ample time to shift their resources, R&D and investment from what we have now to EM Drive powered era. All the testing, regulations and R&D would take at least 5-10 years to bring first products to the market and another decade to achieve decent adoption rate.

You have neither any idea or evidence why certain contributors are not posting at the moment. Nor is it correct to say that no-one has been able to show an effect indistinguishable from a thermal effect. Nor is there any evidence to say that Shawyer hasn't achieved what he claimed or that Yang hasn't replicated his work.

Me and I believe everyone else here mean no disrespect for people involved in forefront of EM Drive development however please understand that good science is built on evidence and not claims. My heart wants to believe but my  mind ask for hard evidence. Until we get data to confirm the claims, they are what they are - claims and nothing else.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/05/2015 08:51 pm
.../...
Irregardless of how I've screwed this up, I believe that there should be an answer to the question "if I put 1000 Joules of energy per second into a 1kg object, acting in the direction of motion of the object, how many Newtons of acceleration does it experience?"  The answer to that question would seem to have some bearing on the matter at hand.

I you put 1000 J/s (that is 1kW of power) into accelerating a 1kg object (action) by pushing against (reaction) an "infinite" mass (ground, for instance earth) then the answer to you question is "it depends on the velocity of the object relative to the ground".

Take for instance a 1kg train on a track, or a 1kg payload in a coil gun (mass driver), first case the power comes from the mobile, second case the power comes from the ground, both cases there is a relative velocity involved, both cases the 100% efficiency gives Power = Force x Velocity  or equivalently  Force = Power / Velocity. The faster, the less "efficient" a given power unit is at yielding a given force unit.
.001m/s : 1kW can yield 1000000 N  (think of a seriously geared down winch that lifts a boat very slowly)
1m/s : 1kW can yield 1000N (think of 3 rugby players pushing a sumo at the speed of walking)
1000m/s : 1kW can yield 1N (think of whatever hypersonic drone...)

Obviously the effective yields will be lower due to inefficiencies.

In general there is no way to relate a force to a power without talking of the relative velocity of the objects between which the force is exchanged. Well at least that is what I was taught as a Newtonian guy, there is no such thing as force on a single object A, always force of B on A, that is exactly opposite of force of A on B (for process that are slow compared to the speed of the force carrier).

This is basically what says @imaclimatescientist (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1442340#msg1442340) when he/she derives 1s/m (ie. velocity of 1m/s) from you relating 1N to 1W. And there is nothing special or natural with the velocity 1m/s, not anymore than 1mph or 1 furlong/fortnight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system). I have the deepest respect for the kms International System in terms of easing engineering calculations, but seeing naturalness to its units is magical thinking.

What is a natural velocity is c, and whether it's expressed in m/s or in mph or in furlong/fortnight, it does relate a force (in Newtons, in lbf, in Canadian lumberjacks...) to a power (in Watts, in hp, in BigMacs/day ...), that is the thrust force of a perfectly collimated photon flow of given power. This gives about 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt. The speed of light being invariant (not dependant on a particular "ground" or reference frame), there is no way to vary the velocity of an object (photon rocket) relative to what is pushes onto (a flow of photons), which makes it a special case compared to a train pushing on a track, or even a conventional rocket pushing on its exhaust.

In all those later cases (train on track, rocket on exhaust) there is no way to tell a force (or thrust) from a given power without consideration of a particular velocity. For instance in conventional action/reaction rockets, a higher exhaust velocity will mean a lower thrust (in Newtons) for a given power.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/05/2015 08:56 pm
You have neither any idea or evidence why certain contributors are not posting at the moment.

On the contrary, the most recent likes from Rodal and Frobnicat (two of the best contributors to the prior threads. Rodal is still silent, but it looks like Frobnicat is back for the moment) are rather damning, if circumstantial, statements to that effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Devilstower on 11/05/2015 09:02 pm
A few weeks ago, I made the suggestion that the EM Drive may be an "exploit" in the simulation. Because I mentioned some of the modeling tools for predicting wave behavior, several people seemed to think I was indicating that I was talking about a problem with the tools.

However, no... I was saying that the anomalous thrust demonstrated by EMDrive experiments may be an exploit in the simulation. This simulation. This simulation in the Bostrom sense. The simulation in which we are all manifest.

That is, I believe that the force demonstrated in EM Drive experiments may derive from edge conditions in the simulation. In a very crude way, think of it as similar to the asymmetric effect that particular track configurations can have in Minecraft, allowing acceleration of a mine car without a power source. It's a tiny flaw in the coding that generates effects which, properly harnessed, can turn out to provide a benefit. It's not something that would have been predicted based on the behavior demonstrated by forces outside specific conditions. It's... a bug. A possibly helpful bug. It's an exploit.

At first that statement may be mistaken for a throwing up of hands and announcing "it's all magic." But that's not my position. Whether this universe began through unintentional or intentional injection of information, that doesn't intrinsically affect the value of studying the internal rule-set. Those guys over in Minecraft land may not understand why the quanta of their world are so freaky big, but a study of how those blocky particles interact certainly provides evidence of consistent results and beneficial knowledge.

It also doesn't mean that the source of EMDrive thrust is forever unknowable, or untestable, or inexplicable. If this is an edge phenomenon, I'd fully expect the boundaries of the phenomenon to be definable (though there's no promise that a simulated universe is going to be information complete, or even self-consistent, ours has generally been pretty well-behaved).

And of course... no. No, I don't place "exploit" at the top of my list of possibilities. I likely wouldn't have thought about it had I know just come off writing a series of essays about Simulation Theory and how it fits with everything from Fermi's Paradox to B. F. Skinner's famous box.

But once I thought of it, it made me smile. The idea of finding the edges of the box... that's intriguing.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/05/2015 09:05 pm
I'm about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you can get...however...I recently discovered something unusual that relates to the conversation about EMDrive IP. There is a lot at stake here. I commend both EW and Roger for their work and do not believe the adversity is between them. They are allies in the spirit of discovery and/or entrepreneurism.

Its the bigger picture...the corporate world. Should EMDrive come to pass, Trillion$ are at stake if it becomes scaleable. No one can argue against this successfully. IF a corporate entity, or entities, could discredit EMDrive, the existing (and upcoming patents) could be rendered valueless...for a time.

Let me be specific: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/google-wants-buy-patent-keep-away-trolls/

This topic is too detailed to go into here, but there appears to be a viable motive for discrediting EMDrive research; rendering any patents, lets say...available at bargain prices without R&D investment.

Call this wacky, call this over the top, but I do have reason to suspect this might be occuring (thanks to some tips).

In light of recent developments, I say we need to support any experimenters/labs involved in EMDrive research and not pit them against one another for there could be a bigger threat out there...the acquisition and exploitation of a promising device that could change transportation as we know it.

/end conspiracy theory  ::)

Um no.  If there were really trillions on the line the investment community would be in a race to get into this.  Even Rossi was, finally, able to find backers for LENR.   (Still not sure about Rossi, want to wait for the referees report at the end of the current test.  Leaked reports certainly make it sound like he's got excess heat over a period of time that imply something nuclear).  Hell, it looks like the Orb-O is getting made.  I pretty much guarantee you that the VCs don't care why it runs  (if it does, and is not an elaborate hoax, my bet is on some kind of electromagnetic Stirling engine) so much as that it can extend the life of a cell phone battery.

Despite some wishful thinking, there's no real evidence that the EMDrive is going to replace other means of terrestrial transportation.  Even if it could be scaled up to flying car level -- well there's more demand for Teslas than Cessnas.  There is something to be said about ground transportation.  Unless an EMDrive is more economical then an electric motor, the motor is going to win.  I wouldn't be at all surprised is a mature EMDrive couldn't hit 1 or 2N/KW.  That's extremely important for spaceflight, but it's not going to be putting the jet engine out of business anytime soon.  If Dr. White came out with a paper that said "this thing is creating a gravitational wake, here is how you take that wake and build a warpdrive" then there would be trillions of dollars involved.  We are a long way from that happening. 

It's not like there's really any way to invest in the EMDrive right now.  Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.  Cannae is already funded.

Licensing may also include non-disclosure agreements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/05/2015 09:20 pm
You have neither any idea or evidence why certain contributors are not posting at the moment.

On the contrary, the most recent likes from Rodal and Frobnicat (two of the best contributors to the prior threads. Rodal is still silent, but it looks like Frobnicat is back for the moment) are rather damning, if circumstantial, statements to that effect.

Methinks you're rather over-reaching here
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 09:22 pm
I'm about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you can get...however...I recently discovered something unusual that relates to the conversation about EMDrive IP. There is a lot at stake here. I commend both EW and Roger for their work and do not believe the adversity is between them. They are allies in the spirit of discovery and/or entrepreneurism.

Its the bigger picture...the corporate world. Should EMDrive come to pass, Trillion$ are at stake if it becomes scaleable. No one can argue against this successfully. IF a corporate entity, or entities, could discredit EMDrive, the existing (and upcoming patents) could be rendered valueless...for a time.

Let me be specific: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/google-wants-buy-patent-keep-away-trolls/

This topic is too detailed to go into here, but there appears to be a viable motive for discrediting EMDrive research; rendering any patents, lets say...available at bargain prices without R&D investment.

Call this wacky, call this over the top, but I do have reason to suspect this might be occuring (thanks to some tips).

In light of recent developments, I say we need to support any experimenters/labs involved in EMDrive research and not pit them against one another for there could be a bigger threat out there...the acquisition and exploitation of a promising device that could change transportation as we know it.

/end conspiracy theory  ::)

Um no.  If there were really trillions on the line the investment community would be in a race to get into this.  Even Rossi was, finally, able to find backers for LENR.   (Still not sure about Rossi, want to wait for the referees report at the end of the current test.  Leaked reports certainly make it sound like he's got excess heat over a period of time that imply something nuclear).  Hell, it looks like the Orb-O is getting made.  I pretty much guarantee you that the VCs don't care why it runs  (if it does, and is not an elaborate hoax, my bet is on some kind of electromagnetic Stirling engine) so much as that it can extend the life of a cell phone battery.

Despite some wishful thinking, there's no real evidence that the EMDrive is going to replace other means of terrestrial transportation.  Even if it could be scaled up to flying car level -- well there's more demand for Teslas than Cessnas.  There is something to be said about ground transportation.  Unless an EMDrive is more economical then an electric motor, the motor is going to win.  I wouldn't be at all surprised is a mature EMDrive couldn't hit 1 or 2N/KW.  That's extremely important for spaceflight, but it's not going to be putting the jet engine out of business anytime soon.  If Dr. White came out with a paper that said "this thing is creating a gravitational wake, here is how you take that wake and build a warpdrive" then there would be trillions of dollars involved.  We are a long way from that happening. 

It's not like there's really any way to invest in the EMDrive right now.  Shawyer has licensed his IP to Boeing.  Cannae is already funded.

Licensing may also include non-disclosure agreements.
Oh yeah, almost a guarantee...good point. Its an interesting thought experiment for us former corporate types to kick around. But SPACEFLIGHT is the most likely early benefactor of this potential and think of the wonders it could unlock for us.

Upscaling is still a big question in my mind, I understand SPR has claimed as much, but NDAs can be a pesky thing...so I have committed to moving from 177 micronewtons to 17.5 millinewtons using the same 900 Watts of RF. Best I can determine from tips and gleanings is that a clean signal is required and much higher Q.

For example, a 100-fold power increase would appear require a 100-fold improvement in Q, or a move of my Q from around 450 to 4500 IF the translation were linear, which I have my doubts. But, its a place to start...clean up magnetron, design a new frustum with a Q of 4500 and give it a go...what do I have to loose? (except my patience I suppose) ;)

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/05/2015 09:27 pm
Methinks you're rather over-reaching here

You might be right, but I really feel like we've been going around in the same circles for ages, now.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/05/2015 09:34 pm
(...)
In all those later cases (train on track, rocket on exhaust) there is no way to tell a force (or thrust) from a given power without consideration of a particular velocity. For instance in conventional action/reaction rockets, a higher exhaust velocity will mean a lower thrust (in Newtons) for a given power.

What about a falling mass in Earth's gravity field:

m=1kg; a=9.81m/s²; t_fall=1s => E_kin=48.12J

If I gave the body a kinetic energy of 48.12J each second in the opposite direction of gravity, would the body then float? I think, that in this specific scenario, one would need to expend a continuous power of 48.12W at 100% conversion efficiency, to create a gravity-countering force of 9.81N per kilogram. Is that reasoning sound?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/05/2015 09:47 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MikeinSpain on 11/05/2015 10:01 pm
If I tried reading all the past posts it would be on Thread 6 or 7 by time I got back here, so excuse my ignorance on the subject.

I read about the EM Drive in a newspaper and a possibility as to it's cause struck me.

Is it possible that the microwaves striking the metal inside of a container are releasing atomic particles from the surface on the outside of the container so causing an ion drive effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2015 10:03 pm
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.

Spoken as a true denier to the very end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/05/2015 10:18 pm
Science is the process of finding truth by observation, creating hypothesis to explain your observations, and testing your ideas to see if they withstand physical scrutiny. Unwavering enthusiasm for an idea is not a part of the scientific method.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2015 10:38 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)

I believe Roger is financially comfortable and his investors will be looked after.

He once told me his desire was to see EMDrive tech being used all over and above the planet.

To the fullest extent that he can, working with his NDA restrictions, he has told me enough, and I have passed it on here, information to enable DIY builders to follow his recipe and avoid wasting time, money and effort going down pathways that will result in no or little thrust generation.

Dave's resonance VNA scan shows the accuracy of resonance prediction from the equations / spreadsheet I put together with Roger's help. My prediction of EW's frustum resonance, based on the spreadsheet model, being 600kHz higher in vac was also confirmed and opened the door to Paul being able to produce solid vac thrust results.

Those resonance equations and his Force equation are based on his theory paper.

I would also point out that bolting a magnetron to a frustum and directly injecting the microwave energy into it is not Roger's idea. It came from Iulian. I did ask Roger if this could work. He said obtaining impedance matching (good VSWR) would be difficult. So while this may look simple, it is not something Roger would do, nor can a null result be laid at Roger's feet.

Roger's 1st Experimental EMDrive was fed via a waveguide that had an aperature and rod tuner to match impenance and a circulator and reflected Rf energy load to direct reflected energy away from the magnetron.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: knowles2 on 11/05/2015 10:58 pm

Is it possible that the microwaves striking the metal inside of a container are releasing atomic particles from the surface on the outside of the container so causing an ion drive effect?
I'm no expert and can barely understand half the stuff these guys and girls talk about, okay about 10%.
Some people have suggested this as a possibility on other sites and probably on here as well. An as much as I would like this engine to work and be producing thrust from some new effect, your idea combine with some experimental error is still the most likely explanation but we need more data, more experiment that are bigger, produce cleaner results than previous experiments.
For all the theorising being done on here, only practical experiment that eliminate every possible experimental error will get this thruster accepted by the scientific community and some diehards will demand test flights in space before believing thrusters does what it inventors are claiming it does.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 11:00 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Shawyer was very worried about sort of losing his baby, if he were to publish current materials, results and testing-videos. It's human and perfectly normal. And still, intellectual property will invariably be adapted by others. It's called cultural and technological evolution. It's true, paper isn't worth a damn in regards to EM-drive tech. As Flyby said, it doesn't have to lift spaceships. It's a bit like saying, yeah I do have the cure to cancer, but I want to make it even better - so I don't make it available. That would sound weird, right, and so does, in my opinion, Mr. Shawyer's refusal to show his current EM-drive tech, to remove the doubt once and for all. It's his choice, but I find it pretty weird.

The situation is as simple as this: If EM-drive tech is irrefutably a thing, then others will find out ways to make it work even better than Mr. Shawyer in his secret mission to make it perfect. There's always someone smarter than oneself, and this has always been true. At the moment, Mr. Shawyer could actually have a technological edge over other EM-drive persuers.. but that could change faster than anyone thinks. And then what? Sue the planet? I doubt it. Also, I think that such technology is too important for the whole human species, to be paranoid about it and try to keep it to oneself in an unhealthy way, to make it 'perfect' - whatever that could mean. I heard that the Nobel Prize pays nicely, too. Personally, I'd take that, and fame for centuries to come, any day instead of perpetual intellectual property agony for years to come.
:)

I believe Roger is financially comfortable and his investors will be looked after.

He once told me his desire was to see EMDrive tech being used all over and above the planet.

To the fullest extent that he can, working with his NDA restrictions, he has told me enough, and I have passed it on here, information to enable DIY builders to follow his recipe and avoid wasting time, money and effort going down pathways that will result in no or little thrust generation.

Dave's resonance VNA scan shows the accuracy of resonance prediction from the equations / spreadsheet I put together with Roger's help. My prediction of EW's frustum resonance, based on the spreadsheet model, being 600kHz higher in vac was also confirmed and opened the door to Paul being able to produce solid vac thrust results.

Those resonance equations and his Force equation are based on his theory paper.

I would also point out that bolting a magnetron to a frustum and directly injecting the microwave energy into it is not Roger's idea. It came from Iulian. I did ask Roger if this could work. He said obtaining impedance matching (good VSWR) would be difficult. So while this may look simple, it is not something Roger would do, nor can a null result be laid at Roger's feet.

Roger's 1st Experimental EMDrive was fed via a waveguide that had an aperature and rod tuner to match impenance and a circulator and reflected Rf energy load to direct reflected energy away from the magnetron.
I can vouch for the spreadsheet...nailed resonance! Actually, Iulian was the DIYer that inspired me to build. I wish him well on his new adventures, but would have liked him to have stuck around a little longer...its just now getting...interesting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/05/2015 11:12 pm
If this pans out and there was a class about the emdrive in the future.  I swear that we would all get an A just because we are reading through these threads every day.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/05/2015 11:12 pm
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.

Spoken as a true denier to the very end.

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aceshigh on 11/05/2015 11:12 pm
A few weeks ago, I made the suggestion that the EM Drive may be an "exploit" in the simulation. Because I mentioned some of the modeling tools for predicting wave behavior, several people seemed to think I was indicating that I was talking about a problem with the tools.

However, no... I was saying that the anomalous thrust demonstrated by EMDrive experiments may be an exploit in the simulation. This simulation. This simulation in the Bostrom sense. The simulation in which we are all manifest.

That is, I believe that the force demonstrated in EM Drive experiments may derive from edge conditions in the simulation. In a very crude way, think of it as similar to the asymmetric effect that particular track configurations can have in Minecraft, allowing acceleration of a mine car without a power source. It's a tiny flaw in the coding that generates effects which, properly harnessed, can turn out to provide a benefit. It's not something that would have been predicted based on the behavior demonstrated by forces outside specific conditions. It's... a bug. A possibly helpful bug. It's an exploit.

At first that statement may be mistaken for a throwing up of hands and announcing "it's all magic." But that's not my position. Whether this universe began through unintentional or intentional injection of information, that doesn't intrinsically affect the value of studying the internal rule-set. Those guys over in Minecraft land may not understand why the quanta of their world are so freaky big, but a study of how those blocky particles interact certainly provides evidence of consistent results and beneficial knowledge.

It also doesn't mean that the source of EMDrive thrust is forever unknowable, or untestable, or inexplicable. If this is an edge phenomenon, I'd fully expect the boundaries of the phenomenon to be definable (though there's no promise that a simulated universe is going to be information complete, or even self-consistent, ours has generally been pretty well-behaved).

And of course... no. No, I don't place "exploit" at the top of my list of possibilities. I likely wouldn't have thought about it had I know just come off writing a series of essays about Simulation Theory and how it fits with everything from Fermi's Paradox to B. F. Skinner's famous box.

But once I thought of it, it made me smile. The idea of finding the edges of the box... that's intriguing.

I can swear i have already read this exact same post before... oh oh... deja vu... another simulation glitch :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/05/2015 11:15 pm

Is it possible that the microwaves striking the metal inside of a container are releasing atomic particles from the surface on the outside of the container so causing an ion drive effect?
I'm no expert and can barely understand half the stuff these guys and girls talk about, okay about 10%.
Some people have suggested this as a possibility on other sites and probably on here as well. An as much as I would like this engine work and be producing thrust from some new effect, your idea combine with some experimental error is still the most likely explanation but we need more data, more experiment that are bigger, cleaner than previous experiments.
For all the theorising being done on here, only practical experiment that eliminate every possible experimental error will get this thruster accepted by the scientific community and some diehards will demand test flights in space before believing thrusters does what it inventors are claiming it does.
Yes, this is right. Even with my ~177 micronewton measurement, I decided to try for 100x improvement next year...not a small task. I did this for 2 reasons; 1: being 177 is above noise level of the test stand (about 60 or 70 micronewton equivalent) and this small force is not really useable for spaceflight applications and 2: Further evidence well above test stand noise (or resolution if you will) for more robust data for the "community".

Granted, naysayers (and there are plenty of them for a variety of reasons) would still not accept this as proof and I am more than OK with that. I only have to prove it to myself. Even after the peer review paper comes out, there will be the cheap shots which are totally predictable and by now redundant. Final evidence is what you hint at, strapping one of these babies to a satellite and lighting the fuse.

Discovery is a messy business, history is repleat with examples such as Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton. The internet is brimming with wannabee Robert Hookes  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2015 11:37 pm
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.

Spoken as a true denier to the very end.

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.

Do you have any idea of what a thermally generated false thrust effect looks like compared to a non thermal real EMDrive thrust effect?

If you think these very rapid rise and fall time EMDrive thrust signals can be generated by thermally slow effects, please show me how?

As for the theory Roger and Prof Yang have already done that. A theory that not only correctly predicts resonance but also predicts the amount of thrust that can be generated. A theory that says no new physics are needed. Just the "Shawyer Effect" based on a Newtonian reaction Force to an EM wave momentum gradient generated Force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2015 11:51 pm

Is it possible that the microwaves striking the metal inside of a container are releasing atomic particles from the surface on the outside of the container so causing an ion drive effect?
I'm no expert and can barely understand half the stuff these guys and girls talk about, okay about 10%.
Some people have suggested this as a possibility on other sites and probably on here as well. An as much as I would like this engine work and be producing thrust from some new effect, your idea combine with some experimental error is still the most likely explanation but we need more data, more experiment that are bigger, cleaner than previous experiments.
For all the theorising being done on here, only practical experiment that eliminate every possible experimental error will get this thruster accepted by the scientific community and some diehards will demand test flights in space before believing thrusters does what it inventors are claiming it does.
Yes, this is right. Even with my ~177 micronewton measurement, I decided to try for 100x improvement next year...not a small task. I did this for 2 reasons; 1: being 177 is above noise level of the test stand (about 60 or 70 micronewton equivalent) and this small force is not really useable for spaceflight applications and 2: Further evidence well above test stand noise (or resolution if you will) for more robust data for the "community".

Granted, naysayers (and there are plenty of them for a variety of reasons) would still not accept this as proof and I am more than OK with that. I only have to prove it to myself. Even after the peer review paper comes out, there will be the cheap shots which are totally predictable and by now redundant. Final evidence is what you hint at, strapping one of these babies to a satellite and lighting the fuse.

Discovery is a messy business, history is repleat with examples such as Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton. The internet is brimming with wannabee Robert Hookes  :)

Dave,

I'm 100% sure you can achieve a loaded / measured Q (Shawyer's 3db off the rtn loss peak method) much higher than 4,500. Probably higher than 20,000.

What is not known is the effect the higher Q / reduced frustum bandwidth will have on slicing out only a small part of your maggie output spectrum and basically dropping the effective maggie power at resonance.

Also narrowing the maggie output spectrum means your new frustum's tighter resonance must be a much higher fit to the tighter maggie output.

Here take a tip from Roger. In his 2 maggie driven frustums, the length was adjustable to get the best thrust generation. So please consider making one end tunable and follow Roger's advise as otherwise it is just a gamble your higher Q frustum's resonance will hit your maggie's narrower output freq.

Also please consider using a waveguide feed that will allow you to do impedance matching to get your VSWR down as low as possible.

I would suggest to both you and Shell to consider adding in a circulator and reflective Rf energy heat load so as to protect your maggies from reflected energy that WILL occur during the tuning process.

If you look closely at the Demonstrator EMDrive photo you can see the circulator and the reflected energy heat radiators. This is how you do EMDrive designs that are powered by magnetrons. Reflected Rf energy will be there and it will heat up your magnetron, causing much higher operational temp and freq drift.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SirT35 on 11/06/2015 12:03 am
How the EM drive is working is not known,But maybe a bit of lateral thinking might help
what could a field push off in US UK and China yet not be discoverable.
What is 26.8%  of the universe made up of and as yet discovered DARK MATTER.
Congratulations you have just proved Dark Matter exists,maybe the drive could also be
re engineered to be a detector/scanner.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 12:09 am
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.

Spoken as a true denier to the very end.

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.

Do you have any idea of what a thermally generated false thrust effect looks like compared to a non thermal real EMDrive thrust effect?

If you think these very rapid rise and fall time EMDrive thrust signals can be generated by thermally slow effects, please show me how?

As for the theory Roger and Prof Yang have already done that. A theory that not only correctly predicts resonance but also predicts the amount of thrust that can be generated. A theory that says no new physics are needed. Just the "Shawyer Effect" based on a Newtonian reaction Force to an EM wave momentum gradient generated Force.

I'll wait for any theories to have a little more meat to them although I will comment on these images from EagleWorks, something that's been on my mind.

1. I see two antennas listed a 16mm loop and a 21mm whip. Why? Did they use two antennas inside the frustum? Paul, can you comment on this?

Shell

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/06/2015 12:14 am
(...)
In all those later cases (train on track, rocket on exhaust) there is no way to tell a force (or thrust) from a given power without consideration of a particular velocity. For instance in conventional action/reaction rockets, a higher exhaust velocity will mean a lower thrust (in Newtons) for a given power.

What about a falling mass in Earth's gravity field:

m=1kg; a=9.81m/s²; t_fall=1s => E_kin=48.12J

If I gave the body a kinetic energy of 48.12J each second in the opposite direction of gravity, would the body then float? I think, that in this specific scenario, one would need to expend a continuous power of 48.12W at 100% conversion efficiency, to create a gravity-countering force of 9.81N per kilogram. Is that reasoning sound?

Err, no, it is not a sound physical reasoning.
Let me see...

First, notice that I don't need to expend any power at all to make an object float at constant altitude in a g field, resting it on a simple table will do the job (9.81 N at the cost of 0W).

Next, "giving kinetic energy" is quantitatively ill defined unless you specify an inertial rest frame, preferably the one from which you are pushing but not necessarily. If I'm hit by a baseball ball launched at me I would tend to say that it gave me some kinetic energy. If I'm on the roof of a train and hit a ball hanging from a bridge, an external observer would say the other way around, I gave kinetic energy to the ball, while my relative personal impression would be the same as former situation. Kinetic energy is frame dependant.

Finally, what is so special about 1s ?
This is only the 3600th of a 24th of the period of rotation of a planet amongst billions. Completely arbitrary.
So why not 10s ?

m=1kg; a=9.81m/s²; t_fall=10s => E_kin=4812J

If I gave the body a kinetic energy of 4812J each 10 seconds in the opposite direction of gravity, would the body then float? I think, that in this specific scenario, one would need to expend a continuous power of 481.2W at 100% conversion efficiency, to create a gravity-countering force of 9.81N per kilogram.


So your end number could be 481.2 W as well as 48.12W or 3.1415W, depending of the arbitrary choice of a unit of time. So it is meaningless.

What are you trying to do ?



More details (checking) :

A mass of m=1kg freely falling at a=9.81m/s² from an initial altitude alt0 will have an altitude of alt=alt0-0.5*a*t² at time t after release. After a time t it will have lost h=0.5*a*t² in altitude, hence m*g*h being the gravitational potential energy it will have lost m*g*0.5*a*t²=0.5*m*a²*t² (since a=g, free falling).
DeltaEp = 0.5*m*(a*t)².
After t second the speed (initially 0) will be v=a*t, the acquired kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v²
DeltaEk = 0.5*m*(a*t)².
Ground chosen as inertial rest frame for commodity... (yeah, I know it's not inertial really...)

What I lose in potential energy I gain in kinetic energy. Energy is conserved, every one is happy.

A mass of m=1kg that "floats" against a force reacting on the ground, is not accelerating, that means that the force equals (opposite) m*g. Noting v the velocity downward, I (agent of the force opposing the fall) will receive a power of m*g*v. The faster I slip down a rope at constant velocity, the more power my hand will receive (as heat, usually, unless I'm Batman and I have a winch with regenerative breaking, i.e. I can run it in generator mode). The other way around, the faster I want to climb a rope, the more power I have to expand, as P=m*g*v. If v=0 (I'm standing still on the rope) then P=0. Of course I can always dissipate more than that but it is not required (by just fixing my harness to the rope, hehe, now I'm Robin you know).

Now if you want to speak of "floating" at constant altitude without exchanging force (i.e. connecting) with the ground, nor the air (an helium airship floats at 0 energetic cost), then this is a rocket, and the power needed by the thruster for the "levitation" will depend on the exhaust velocity (again). Slow exhaust velocity => low power need (but high mass flow, fast propellent depleting) and reciprocally. There is no intrinsic given power for a given "levitation" force. Your time of levitation is the isp of the rocket. The higher the isp the higher the power requirements (less mass hungry, more power hungry).

The guaranteed 100% most energetically efficient way to float at constant altitude needs strictly 0W of power but a connection to the ground (or the atmosphere, which itself rests on the ground).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/06/2015 12:36 am

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.

Do you have any idea of what a thermally generated false thrust effect looks like compared to a non thermal real EMDrive thrust effect?

If you think these very rapid rise and fall time EMDrive thrust signals can be generated by thermally slow effects, please show me how?

As for the theory Roger and Prof Yang have already done that. A theory that not only correctly predicts resonance but also predicts the amount of thrust that can be generated. A theory that says no new physics are needed. Just the "Shawyer Effect" based on a Newtonian reaction Force to an EM wave momentum gradient generated Force.

The "thrust" graphs you included in your post were from EW august 2014 paper.   In Dec 2014 or Jan. 2015 they reduced the Lorentz force error and modified the apparatus to run in a vacuum.   It is this apparatus I was discussing, not the experiments they did almost 2 years ago.    They graph shown below is from these later tests.   The underdamped waveform with a fast rise time is no longer there.   What happened?   Well the Lorentz force error was reduced.   And lately we have been told it has been reduced even more.    But when we look at the "thrust" waveform below it is obvious it does not have the characteristic shape we were seeing before.   It is not caused by a step excitation of the TP, as was seen with the capacitive test thrust.   So it is not a force caused by the RF.   It is a mix of thermal effects and the residual Lorentz error.  When EW is able to accurately measure the thermal force and subtract it from the "thrust" signature they believe they have when RF is applied to the fustrum, I believe the result will be close to zero.  No need for special physics.   Mr. Newton will not roll over in his grave and Mr. Hooke will not have his last laugh.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/06/2015 12:40 am
Dave,

Finally got around to doing a bit of analysis on your results as follows:

1) Based on Shawyer method loaded Q measurement method of 821, the frustum bandwidth was +-1.49MHz.

2) Maggie power output spectrum width is typically +-30MHz.

3) Based on an even spread of the maggie Rf across it's output spectrum, where would be about 37.5W effective across the frustum's bandwidth. Then adjusted for the 1.72 measured VSWR at resonance, delivers around 35W inside the frustum.

4) From Shawyer's equations the frustum's geometry Df = 0.54.

5) Putting these numbers into Roger's force equation (Df = 0.54, unloaded = Q 1,642 (twice measured Q), Power = 35W) gives a predicted thrust of 207uN, which is very close to that measured by Dave at 177uN.

6) Variation in the Rf energy available across the frustum's bandwidth could explain the small variance between predicted and measured thrust.

Another example that Roger's EMDrive theory equations are correct and can correctly predict frustum resonance in a wide number of excitation modes and can correctly predict measured thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/06/2015 12:47 am

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.

Do you have any idea of what a thermally generated false thrust effect looks like compared to a non thermal real EMDrive thrust effect?

If you think these very rapid rise and fall time EMDrive thrust signals can be generated by thermally slow effects, please show me how?

As for the theory Roger and Prof Yang have already done that. A theory that not only correctly predicts resonance but also predicts the amount of thrust that can be generated. A theory that says no new physics are needed. Just the "Shawyer Effect" based on a Newtonian reaction Force to an EM wave momentum gradient generated Force.

The "thrust" graphs you included in your post were from EW august 2014 paper.   In Dec 2014 or Jan. 2015 they reduced the Lorentz force error and modified the apparatus to run in a vacuum.   It is this apparatus I was discussing, not the experiments they did almost 2 years ago.    They graph shown below is from these later tests.   The underdamped waveform with a fast rise time is no longer there.   What happened?   Well the Lorentz force error was reduced.   And lately we have been told it has been reduced even more.    But when we look at the "thrust" waveform below it is obvious it does not have the characteristic shape we were seeing before.   It is not caused by a step excitation of the TP, as was seen with the capacitive test thrust.   So it is not a force caused by the RF.   It is a mix of thermal effects and the residual Lorentz error.  When EW is able to accurately measure the thermal force and subtract it from the "thrust" signature they believe they have when RF is applied to the fustrum, I believe the result will be close to zero.  No need for special physics.   Mr. Newton will not roll over in his grave and Mr. Hooke will not have his last laugh.

Back then EW did not realize the vac resonance increased by 600kHz. which was more than enough for the frustum freq adjustment system to not be able to handle and result in non resonance vac test conditions that generated very thermal like signals.

When Paul adjusted for the non resonant vac conditions, EW then started to get solid vac results that look like the atmo results as Paul has reported.

Sorry but the last leg you had to support a denier position got pulled away.

As Paul has reported the EMDrive works VERY WELL in vac. Maybe you missed his posts?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/06/2015 01:15 am
...

The "thrust" graphs you included in your post were from EW august 2014 paper.   In Dec 2014 or Jan. 2015 they reduced the Lorentz force error and modified the apparatus to run in a vacuum.   It is this apparatus I was discussing, not the experiments they did almost 2 years ago.    They graph shown below is from these later tests.   The underdamped waveform with a fast rise time is no longer there.   What happened?   Well the Lorentz force error was reduced.   And lately we have been told it has been reduced even more.    But when we look at the "thrust" waveform below it is obvious it does not have the characteristic shape we were seeing before.   It is not caused by a step excitation of the TP, as was seen with the capacitive test thrust.   So it is not a force caused by the RF.   It is a mix of thermal effects and the residual Lorentz error.  When EW is able to accurately measure the thermal force and subtract it from the "thrust" signature they believe they have when RF is applied to the fustrum, I believe the result will be close to zero.  No need for special physics.   Mr. Newton will not roll over in his grave and Mr. Hooke will not have his last laugh.

Back then EW did not realize the vac resonance increased by 600kHz. which was more than enough for the frustum freq adjustment system to not be able to handle and result in non resonance vac test conditions that generated very thermal like signals.

When Paul adjusted for the non resonant vac conditions, EW then started to get solid vac results that look like the atmo results as Paul has reported.

Sorry but the last leg you had to support a denier position got pulled away.

As Paul has reported the EMDrive works VERY WELL in vac. Maybe you missed his posts?

I haven't seen anymore posts from Paul or any new data.  The last post from Paul March is quoted below:
...

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

He talks about thermal effects and the differences in the "thrust" signal in a vacuum vs in STP air.    He also talks about a thermal signature.   I am not privy to his latest results as you claim to be but he is saying there is a thermal effect.    It would make sense to measure the thermal effect separately.   If EW doesn't want to measure the thermal effect they acknowledge exists it just reflects on the credibility of their experimental method IMHO.   When they publish their results we will all see if the "thrust" signature has the same characteristics as the capacitive test or if it looks entirely like a thermal effect.

But anyway why is it that you are now so vociferously defending EW?   Not so long ago you were saying they had it all wrong because the used a dielectric, did not use Shawyer's secret tuning method, or weren't going around in circles like your friend Shawyer.   If you are helping them then why aren't they measuring milliNewtons as you claim is possible?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/06/2015 01:22 am
...

The "thrust" graphs you included in your post were from EW august 2014 paper.   In Dec 2014 or Jan. 2015 they reduced the Lorentz force error and modified the apparatus to run in a vacuum.   It is this apparatus I was discussing, not the experiments they did almost 2 years ago.    They graph shown below is from these later tests.   The underdamped waveform with a fast rise time is no longer there.   What happened?   Well the Lorentz force error was reduced.   And lately we have been told it has been reduced even more.    But when we look at the "thrust" waveform below it is obvious it does not have the characteristic shape we were seeing before.   It is not caused by a step excitation of the TP, as was seen with the capacitive test thrust.   So it is not a force caused by the RF.   It is a mix of thermal effects and the residual Lorentz error.  When EW is able to accurately measure the thermal force and subtract it from the "thrust" signature they believe they have when RF is applied to the fustrum, I believe the result will be close to zero.  No need for special physics.   Mr. Newton will not roll over in his grave and Mr. Hooke will not have his last laugh.

Back then EW did not realize the vac resonance increased by 600kHz. which was more than enough for the frustum freq adjustment system to not be able to handle and result in non resonance vac test conditions that generated very thermal like signals.

When Paul adjusted for the non resonant vac conditions, EW then started to get solid vac results that look like the atmo results as Paul has reported.

Sorry but the last leg you had to support a denier position got pulled away.

As Paul has reported the EMDrive works VERY WELL in vac. Maybe you missed his posts?

I haven't seen anymore posts from Paul or any new data.  The last post from paul March is quoted below:
...

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

He talks about thermal effects and the differences in the "thrust" signal in a vacuum vs in STP air.    He also talks about a thermal signature.   I am not privy to his latest results as you claim to be but he is saying there is a thermal effect.    It would make sense to measure the thermal effect separately.   If EW doesn't want to measure the thermal effect they acknowledge exists it just reflects on the credibility of their experimental method IMHO.   When they publish their results we will all see if the "thrust" signature has the same characteristics as the capacitive test or if it looks entirely like a thermal effect.

But anyway why is it that you are now so vociferously defending EW?   Not so long ago you were saying they had it all wrong because the used a dielectric, did not use Shawyer's secret tuning method, or weren't going around in circles like your friend Shawyer.   If you are helping them then why aren't they measuring milliNewtons as you claim is possible?

As posted before:

Quote
EW frustum to SPR Flight Thruster (FT) differences:

1) 8k EW Q to 50k FT Q.

2) EW us a dielectric, FT doesn't.

3) EW excite in TM212 mode, FT excite in TE013 mode. (ref Yang 2013 paper to understand difference to thrust)

4) EW have flat end plates, FT has spherical.

5) EW use external impedance matcher, FT is done in cavity.

6) EW use adaptive/predictive freq fracker, FT uses active freq tracking.

7) EW frustum is EW's 1st gen thruster that worked, FT is at least the 5th generation device Roger has made.

8) Roger has a career of experience as a microwave engineer. EW guys, while good engineers, are learning on the job, the black arts of microwave engineering.

EW are producing really good data and working hard to reduce other effects so to make their low 100uN EMDrive Force signals really stand out from the measurement noise.

This is where Roger was in 2009:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

Bottom line is the current EW design is not ideal to show higher level of thrust generation. I believe Paul is working on a spherical end plate, non dielectric frustum similar to the one I designed with Roger's assistance. Any EW low thrust issues are fixable engineering issues as was the simple reason the original vac test results were in the toilet.


Also the relevant FULL post from Paul:

Quote
All:

I wish I could show you all the pictures I've taken on how we saluted and mitigated the issues raised by our EW Lab's Blue-Ribbon PhD panel and now Potomac-Neuron's paper, on the possible Lorentz force interactions.  That being the Lorentz Interactions with the dc currents on the EW torque pendulum (TP) with the stray magnetic fields from the torque pendulum's first generation open-face magnetic damper and the Earth's geomagnetic field, but I can't due to the restrictive NASA press release rules now applied to the EW Lab.   

However since I still can't show you this supporting data until the EW Lab gets our next peer-reviewed lab paper published, I will tell you that we first built and installed a 2nd generation, closed face magnetic damper that reduced the stray magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber by at least an order of magnitude and any Lorentz force interactions it could produce.  I also changed up the torque pendulum's grounding wire scheme and single point ground location to minimize ground loop current interactions with the remaining stray magnetic fields and unbalanced dc currents from the RF amplifier when its turned on.  This reduced the Lorentz force interaction to less than 2 micro-Newton (uN) for the dummy load test.  Finally we rebuilt the copper frustum test article so that it is now fully integrated with the RF VCO, PLL, 100W RF amp, dual directional coupler, 3-stub tuner and connecting coax cables, then mounted this integrated test article at the opposite end of the torque pendulum, as far away as possible from the 2nd generation magnetic damper where only the required counterbalance weights now reside.  Current null testing with both the 50 ohm dummy load and with the integrated test article rotated 90 degrees with respect to the TP sensitive axis now show less than one uN of Lorentz forces on the TP due to dc magnetic interactions with the local environment even when drawing the maximum RF amp dc current of 12 amps. 

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/06/2015 02:44 am
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.

Spoken as a true denier to the very end.

In the absence of evidence that EW measurements aren't from thermal effects, yes I have to deny the em-drive is real.   EW and some of the diy experimenters are the only ones who have been open about their experiments.    But so far EW have not made results available that show what the thermal effect is.   Their vacuum apparatus is the best testbed for measuring thermal forces independently.   This is part of the scientific process - eliminating alternative explanations.    We don't have enough information from Shawyer or Yang to know what they did.   You want us to accept it as an article of faith.   Myself and others will not do that.

So until EW does the test I have described and can show what the error is from thermal forces, with error bars, etc., I will not believe it.   There are too many other red flags that have been raised - violation of conservation of momentum, and other violations of the laws of physics as we know them.   First prove it works and then find a theory to match the result.

Do you have any idea of what a thermally generated false thrust effect looks like compared to a non thermal real EMDrive thrust effect?

If you think these very rapid rise and fall time EMDrive thrust signals can be generated by thermally slow effects, please show me how?

As for the theory Roger and Prof Yang have already done that. A theory that not only correctly predicts resonance but also predicts the amount of thrust that can be generated. A theory that says no new physics are needed. Just the "Shawyer Effect" based on a Newtonian reaction Force to an EM wave momentum gradient generated Force.

I'll wait for any theories to have a little more meat to them although I will comment on these images from EagleWorks, something that's been on my mind.

1. I see two antennas listed a 16mm loop and a 21mm whip. Why? Did they use two antennas inside the frustum? Paul, can you comment on this?

Shell

My guess would be one is a monitor, perhaps for locking the LO to the frustrum resonance frequency.

Where is "Slipstick" Libby when you need him?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/06/2015 02:45 am
...

The "thrust" graphs you included in your post were from EW august 2014 paper.   In Dec 2014 or Jan. 2015 they reduced the Lorentz force error and modified the apparatus to run in a vacuum.   It is this apparatus I was discussing, not the experiments they did almost 2 years ago.    They graph shown below is from these later tests.   The underdamped waveform with a fast rise time is no longer there.   What happened?   Well the Lorentz force error was reduced.   And lately we have been told it has been reduced even more.    But when we look at the "thrust" waveform below it is obvious it does not have the characteristic shape we were seeing before.   It is not caused by a step excitation of the TP, as was seen with the capacitive test thrust.   So it is not a force caused by the RF.   It is a mix of thermal effects and the residual Lorentz error.  When EW is able to accurately measure the thermal force and subtract it from the "thrust" signature they believe they have when RF is applied to the fustrum, I believe the result will be close to zero.  No need for special physics.   Mr. Newton will not roll over in his grave and Mr. Hooke will not have his last laugh.

Back then EW did not realize the vac resonance increased by 600kHz. which was more than enough for the frustum freq adjustment system to not be able to handle and result in non resonance vac test conditions that generated very thermal like signals.

When Paul adjusted for the non resonant vac conditions, EW then started to get solid vac results that look like the atmo results as Paul has reported.

Sorry but the last leg you had to support a denier position got pulled away.

As Paul has reported the EMDrive works VERY WELL in vac. Maybe you missed his posts?

I haven't seen anymore posts from Paul or any new data.  The last post from Paul March is quoted below:
...

Given all of the above TP wiring and test article modifications with respect to our 2014 AIAA/JPC paper design baseline needed to address these Lorentz force magnetic interaction issues, we are still seeing over 100uN of force with 80W of RF power going into the frustum running in the TM212 resonant mode, now in both directions, dependent on the direction of the mounted integrated test article on the TP.  However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other.  (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)  So we have now developed an analytical tool to help separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.  Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...

Best, Paul March

He talks about thermal effects and the differences in the "thrust" signal in a vacuum vs in STP air.    He also talks about a thermal signature.   I am not privy to his latest results as you claim to be but he is saying there is a thermal effect.    It would make sense to measure the thermal effect separately.   If EW doesn't want to measure the thermal effect they acknowledge exists it just reflects on the credibility of their experimental method IMHO.   When they publish their results we will all see if the "thrust" signature has the same characteristics as the capacitive test or if it looks entirely like a thermal effect.

But anyway why is it that you are now so vociferously defending EW?   Not so long ago you were saying they had it all wrong because the used a dielectric, did not use Shawyer's secret tuning method, or weren't going around in circles like your friend Shawyer.   If you are helping them then why aren't they measuring milliNewtons as you claim is possible?

Hold up zen-in. I may be interpretting something that isnt there in your comment. But Paul did not say that EW will not measure the Thermal effect. He said...

...

Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

...
emphasis added by me

My interpretation of what Paul said is

1. EW is aware of thermal effects in measurement

2. EW has observed that the thermal effect in vac is 3x higher than in atmosphere

3. EW has developed an analytical tool to separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.

4. EW plans to building a new test article which will mitigate the thermal effects they observed.

Now what I actually think is the most interesting question to me would be:

Is the ~100uN observed force  (anomolous force + reduced lorentz force) or (anomolous force + reduced lorentz force + observed thermal effect)? Since they developed an analytical tool I would assume that they have the ability to figure out with error bars how much of the measured force is anomalous force versus how much is observed thermal effect.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/06/2015 03:44 am

...

Hold up zen-in. I may be interpretting something that isnt there in your comment. But Paul did not say that EW will not measure the Thermal effect. He said...

...

Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all.

...
emphasis added by me

My interpretation of what Paul said is

1. EW is aware of thermal effects in measurement

2. EW has observed that the thermal effect in vac is 3x higher than in atmosphere

3. EW has developed an analytical tool to separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.

4. EW plans to building a new test article which will mitigate the thermal effects they observed.

Now what I actually think is the most interesting question to me would be:

Is the ~100uN observed force  (anomolous force + reduced lorentz force) or (anomolous force + reduced lorentz force + observed thermal effect)? Since they developed an analytical tool I would assume that they have the ability to figure out with error bars how much of the measured force is anomalous force versus how much is observed thermal effect.

A lot of assumptions have to be made when they employ this analytical tool.    If that's what they want to do it's their choice.   But a more direct way of answering the question of how much of the "thrust" is actually from thermal effects is to measure the thermal thrust independently.  I stand by my assertion that any em-drive thrust caused by RF energy should have the same underdamped fast rise time as the capacitive force simulator.   Reading between the lines of what Paul March wrote earlier I think they also have realized that.
...
(Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)
...
  He talks about an "impulsive signal", which is the same idea as what I discussed earlier and called the characteristic step response of the TP.  (For details about that refer to my earlier post on page 46.)

The thermal response of the TP in STP air will be faster than in vacuum because of convective cooling and the resulting air currents.   It is possible to underestimate the movement of the TP due to thermal effects and to assign that movement to an em-drive thrust.   Paul March stated that in a vacuum the thermal effect is 3X what they see in STP air and is due to a change in CG. 

...
However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. 
...
Best, Paul March
The thermal time constant in a vacuum is much longer because there is no convective cooling so the faster thermal response seen in STP air is gone in a vacuum.    I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 04:19 am
Catching up on the reading.

One point I'd like to make is from what I've seen many in the EagleWorks team are dreamers, no wait, that's not a bad thing to have in a lab testing fringe ideas, don't confuse the dreams with their scientific engineering prowess. I'll bet they were selected not only for their skills in their fields but to be able to think outside of the box.

If I was funded better you bet I would take it the direction they have, bit by bit, piece by piece define your goals, your environment, your errors and find the truth...  then document the daylights out of it.

When Paul M. relayed some preliminary information on where EagleWorks was at and what they found so far it wasn't about warp drives or reaching Pluto in months, it was from an engineering build and from an engineer. I applaud that and look forward to the final tests that can isolate the anomalous thrust signal.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/06/2015 05:30 am
I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

It is not just the value of the increase, it is also about the rise and fall time of the signal.

Ok, so how long will the all thermal effect take to increase from the base line to max value after the Rf is switched on and then once the Rf is switched off, how long will it take to return to the base line?

Let's say the on resonance Force signal takes only 100us to go up and down and the off resonance Force signal takes many 10s of seconds to go up and down.

What would your opinion then be concerning the source of the Force driving the on resonance 100us rise & fall time signal?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/06/2015 05:59 am
My interpretation of what Paul said is

1. EW is aware of thermal effects in measurement

2. EW has observed that the thermal effect in vac is 3x higher than in atmosphere

3. EW has developed an analytical tool to separate the EM-Drive thrust pulse waveform contributions from the thermal expansion cg induced baseline shifts of the TP.

4. EW plans to building a new test article which will mitigate the thermal effects they observed.
The on ground simulation of space conditions during flight equipment testing is usually performed in a so called "Thermal-Vacuum Chamber" where a cold skin filled with liquid nitrogen (or liquid helium for some scientific applications) surrounds the tested equipment.

The need for vacuum is easy to understand. It will get rid of any convection, balooning or buyoency effect.

The environment at liquid nitrogen temperature partially simulates the cold deep space temperature of the universe (2.7 Kelvin) and improves drastically the possibility of exchange of heat by radiation which varies in the fourth power of the absolute temperature.

Artificial satellites take profit of the 2.7 K temperature of deep space to evacuate their heat by radiation.

It would be interesting to know what kind of test chamber is used by EagleWorks : a simple vacuum chamber or a thermal-vacuum chamber with cold surrounder skin.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 11/06/2015 07:22 am
Can this community try to look on the EmDrive from different angle(s)? Several times I read here from several people that we might be missing something important or just simply overlooking.

In my branch of the science we try the following, when such things happens. We ask a "critic" to tell us why it may work and we ask "supporter" what are his concerns and why he thinks it might not work.

We also support those people, that it is not something to change their views, but simply a methodology to check for things we might have missed or overlooked.

We have several critics here, which is good as well, as they keep us "on the ground". Supporters on the other hand try to lead the way into the unknown territory and expand knowledge.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/06/2015 08:10 am
(...)

Thank you for your answer. This is why this forum can also serve as an educational tool for a wider audience. Your answer should clear things up for absolutely everyone.

I think that in the case of an EM-drive-like or a White QV-thruster device, if functioning, the classical ISP based physics seem to fail. If there were a sort of unidirectional pseudo-gravity flow from these devices, that counteracted the Earth's gravity, then it would just take as much power - however much or little that is - as the specific device needed, to produce a floating thruster. A pseudo-gravity based thruster would be, IMHO, a very different animal from mass or ISP based devices. If no apparent mass is involved in creating 'thrust', then no mass-based formula can be used. I think it boils down to this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chrochne on 11/06/2015 11:51 am
Another interesting observation from screening the news channels on the EmDrive.

Some journalists are starting to recognize NSF site as unofficial site for EmDrive news.

When compared to previous post about the EmDrive there is certainly less hype and more research done before they post their news. Still, some are nevertheless click baits.

It was also interesting to see that it is not only articles in English, but you can see articles in French, Spanish and Russian, that were posted about current developments.

There is still confusion on the news. What may help is, if the NSF people can do some sum-up of the news, when they recognize that some posts here could be major news to the current development. It can help to less mistakes about the EmDrive I see among the journalist.

The journalist are starting to follow up regulary on the development. EmDrive definitely carved its way to the news papers, but not yet to the main media. However, it is on the edge to get there. I feel that the official peer reviewed paper - if positive - may reach the main media.  The trigger can also be the upcoming BBC interview with Roger Shawyer on the New Horizions.

To reach main media means that EmDrive builders and NASA may recieve more funds for their projects.

To the new folks that would like to support with some tiny donations NSF current and upcoming projects. There are two builders that can use your help at the moment. It is our kind SeeShells here and Rfmwguy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Left Field on 11/06/2015 12:52 pm

...
There is still confusion on the news. What may help is, if the NSF people can do some sum-up of the news, when they recognize that some posts here could be major news to the current development. It can help to less mistakes about the EmDrive I see among the journalist.
...


I do not believe there will be much enthusiasm for that because, as far as I can recall, the previous summary article produced by NSF contributors in April did receive attention, but unfortunately it was of the unwelcome kind: sensationalist press articles that exaggerated the state of the art and confused the EMDrive with potential wormhole technology. The end result was that the open science that was occurring between this forum and Paul March of EagleWorks came to an abrupt end as a justifiably nervous NASA clammed up.

Much to everyone's delight, Paul recently returned to this forum and gave us as much information as he felt he could. The revelations did generate some articles as you have said and, based upon the feedback on this site, the reports were more balanced and appreciated.

In short, I am not sure we need to do anything until the experimenters or theorists crack this little nut. Hang on... Don't nuts sometimes have wormholes?

(http://i.imgur.com/UfsKJ.gif)

By the way, the BBC show is called Horizon, not New Horizons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 01:21 pm
I'll add some comments for any journalists that are performing their due-diligence by visiting this forum, it is (by a huge margin) the best place to get no-nonsense EMDrive updates directly from builders, labs and theorists. Against my better judgement, I began posting on another emdrive forum and I pulled the plug after only 4 months.

Why? Anonymous posters with a misrepresentation of their own credentials/authority (mainly by anti-emdrive enthusiasists). Yes, there are naysayers simply because they cannot fully conceptualize new physics/discoveries/methods/etc., I also suspect there are financial motivations to discredit emdrive, whether to drive down potential patent values or simply to negate a possible disruptive technology...via paid trolls.

I moved from a skeptical observer, to a builder and finally to an enthusiast here on NSF once I saw the effect with my own two eyes. The key here was lack of rigidity in my own thinking. This is the critical factor when responsible journalists read or write about EMDrive. There are no absolutes. There are no ultimate authorities. There are no correct theories on its operation (yet). Critics have simply been relying on old paradigms to explain why it can't work. Except for one experimenter in Maryland, no critic has ever attempted to demonstrate what causes the errors in measurements. They simply claim it is not worth the effort to do this.

So Dear Journalists, you have done a much better job at presenting the true facts about EMDrive because YOU were more informed this time around. I would venture to say that NSF helped you be that way. Keep a wary eye out for critics for almost none of them have any test data to back up their claims, only old math.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 01:52 pm
Dave,

Finally got around to doing a bit of analysis on your results as follows:

1) Based on Shawyer method loaded Q measurement method of 821, the frustum bandwidth was +-1.49MHz.

2) Maggie power output spectrum width is typically +-30MHz.

3) Based on an even spread of the maggie Rf across it's output spectrum, where would be about 37.5W effective across the frustum's bandwidth. Then adjusted for the 1.72 measured VSWR at resonance, delivers around 35W inside the frustum.

4) From Shawyer's equations the frustum's geometry Df = 0.54.

5) Putting these numbers into Roger's force equation (Df = 0.54, unloaded = Q 1,642 (twice measured Q), Power = 35W) gives a predicted thrust of 207uN, which is very close to that measured by Dave at 177uN.

6) Variation in the Rf energy available across the frustum's bandwidth could explain the small variance between predicted and measured thrust.

Another example that Roger's EMDrive theory equations are correct and can correctly predict frustum resonance in a wide number of excitation modes and can correctly predict measured thrust.
Thanks Phil,

Considering the dimensional imperfections of my build, test equipment accuracy, et al, I am estatic that the 207 datasheet prediction was within about 15% of what I logged.

So, my thanks again to Roger and you for spending the time to hammer out one of more useful build tools I have seen. Cheers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 01:54 pm
No one has been able to show an em-drive effect that is indistinguishable from a thermal effect.




My guess would be one is a monitor, perhaps for locking the LO to the frustrum resonance frequency.

Where is "Slipstick" Libby when you need him?
Yes, we sure could use him, but this isn't a inertialess drive is it?   :o  Or is it? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 02:15 pm
I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

It is not just the value of the increase, it is also about the rise and fall time of the signal.

Ok, so how long will the all thermal effect take to increase from the base line to max value after the Rf is switched on and then once the Rf is switched off, how long will it take to return to the base line?

Let's say the on resonance Force signal takes only 100us to go up and down and the off resonance Force signal takes many 10s of seconds to go up and down.

What would your opinion then be concerning the source of the Force driving the on resonance 100us rise & fall time signal?
Looking at rfmwguy's thermal rise it took several minutes to complete and stabilize. Even if it was a heat sink you should not see the quick 1.25 second RT and FT on deviations.

Also looking at the total run time of EW tests and looking at the slow rise of the baseline signal it seems to mirror even the actions in rfmwguy's thermal rise. (light blue line or dashed yellow from EW)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 11/06/2015 03:05 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Great visualization, Shell and aero!  Stuff like this helps those who are better at picking out patterns than balancing equations when it comes to trying to figure out what is going on in the system.  (For other readers, I haven't figured out how to repost pics, so click the link in the quote for the image in the discussion below.)

Since there aren't any axial cross sections or a legend for the .gif that Shell posted, I am making a few assumptions about what we are observing:
1) red and blue are used to indicate field direction going into/out of the cross section surface
2) intensity of the color indicates strength
3) either the E field or the B field is shown, not sure which (I don't know how you could show both with 2 colors)
4) if it were available, the axial cross section would be more or less concentric, but appear to "pulse" over time, synchronized with the image that Shell posted.

Based on these assumptions, the obvious longitudinal cycling in the image could be described as a frustum filled with a pair of EM "toroids" that are axially moving and aligned with the frustum axis.  The toroids are continually moving as follows:
1)  the initially larger outer toroid tends to migrate toward the small end of the frustum, the smaller inner toroid migrates toward the larger end of the frustum
2) as the outer toroid migrates to the smaller end of the frustum, it shrinks in size such that it continues to remain in contact on its outer surface with the frustum wall and in contact with the smaller inner toroid on at its inner surface
3) when the outer toroid meets the smaller end of the frustum, it shrinks in size and changes direction of travel relative to the frustum axis such that it starts to migrate to the larger end of the frustum by travelling through the other (now larger and outer) toroid
4) when the inner toroid meets the larger end of the frustum, it grows until it becomes the larger toroid and repeats the cycle

(edit: think of the toroid center as being a line on the surface of a water snake toy)

I suspect that the toroids are "capturing" something with different levels of success when they are in the inner and outer positions (perhaps the squeezing that occurs at the small end or proximity to the RF source at the small end has something to do with it).  The anomalous thrust would then be tied to how successful it is at forming a difference between the inner and outer loops (likely dependent on frustum geometry, Q and RF signal strength) and upon the cycling rate.

Assuming the above is an accurate interpretation, I propose the following:

Hypothesis:  There will be a relationship between the rate of cycling and the measured thrust (higher cycling = higher thrust).

I'm sure the cycling rate won't be the only driving characteristic on performance (if my hypothesis is true).  However, if we can determine ways to easily control the cycling rate (perhaps via the tuning rod, phase shifting the RF source, minor RF shifts), we could conduct some experiments to determine if the cycling rate does, in fact, affect the produced thrust.

Any thoughts on the easiest way to increase the cycling rate?  I think this would involve more simulation to verify, but I haven't started playing with meep yet.  Lots of interesting things happen within toroidal EM fields, but I don't want to speculate on the particulars of what the toroids are doing until there is more supporting evidence indicating that the cycling rate actually has an impact on the measured "EM thrust" in an experimental set-up.

An alternate hypothesis is for thrust dependency on modes: the number/geometry of migrating toroids present for a particular test configuration affect the efficiency of the effect that is producing the trust (e.g. more toroids = more thrust?).  I don't have a good handle on the motion for the other modes, so I'm am less able to refine this hypothesis at this point in time (please comment if you have seen a pattern).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/06/2015 03:08 pm
Engineer's love numbers:

Rossi's LENR reactor published data:
1kWt/kg & 4m^3/MWt = 1mt & 4m^3/MWt.

At 50% efficiency t to e = 2mt & 8m^3/MWe.
At 33% efficiency e to Rf = 6mt & 24m^3/MWrf

At 2MWrf = 12mt & 48m^3. IXS Clarke design allows 20mt for the power system and 20mt for the EMDrives.

As for the EMDrive, 0.4N at 1kWrf = 1kg at 0.001m^3.
800N = 2mt & 2m^3.

The IXS Clarke's LENR power system is much bigger and more massive than the EMDrives. However the 20mt power system and 20mt EMDrive allowance is probably too much and the total may be more like 15mt, which would reduce the ship's mass from 90mt down to 65mt, enabling an acceleration rate 33% higher than at 90mt mass. Shorter transit times than Dr. White calculated may be possible.

Of course the mass and volume numbers are not locked down but it is still interesting to run what we have against what Dr. White predicted.

Wonder if there is a Moore's Law for LENR reactor & EMDrive power/thrust and volume density?

If the data above is where we start, where we may be in 10 years is mouth open and jaw on the ground stuff.

I think it is important for people to keep in mind that at 0.4 N/kW, exotic power technologies like LENR are not required for the performance levels described here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

There it is stated that an aggregate power and propulsion specific mass of 20 kg/kW is consistent with "conventional" space nuclear reactors and electric thrusters.

My point being, two "miracles" are not required.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/06/2015 03:14 pm
I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

It is not just the value of the increase, it is also about the rise and fall time of the signal.

Ok, so how long will the all thermal effect take to increase from the base line to max value after the Rf is switched on and then once the Rf is switched off, how long will it take to return to the base line?

Let's say the on resonance Force signal takes only 100us to go up and down and the off resonance Force signal takes many 10s of seconds to go up and down.

What would your opinion then be concerning the source of the Force driving the on resonance 100us rise & fall time signal?

I have no idea what you are asking and what the answer would be.    It is very difficult to predict thermal effects on a new, one-off design like the emdrive TP system.   What researchers do is to measure the thermal effect independently and then develop some kind of model.   Anyone who thinks they can just eyeball it and scribble down a number is only fooling themselves.   This is something you do quite a bit.   You have not built an em-drive yet you talk as if you are an expert.    I have not built an em-drive either because I don't believe it works.   I have built many other experimental devices in support of research projects over the past several years. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 03:24 pm
I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

It is not just the value of the increase, it is also about the rise and fall time of the signal.

Ok, so how long will the all thermal effect take to increase from the base line to max value after the Rf is switched on and then once the Rf is switched off, how long will it take to return to the base line?

Let's say the on resonance Force signal takes only 100us to go up and down and the off resonance Force signal takes many 10s of seconds to go up and down.

What would your opinion then be concerning the source of the Force driving the on resonance 100us rise & fall time signal?
Looking at rfmwguy's thermal rise it took several minutes to complete and stabilize. Even if it was a heat sink you should not see the quick 1.25 second RT and FT on deviations.

Also looking at the total run time of EW tests and looking at the slow rise of the baseline signal it seems to mirror even the actions in rfmwguy's thermal rise. (light blue line or dashed yellow from EW)
EW did a far more elegant visual on the thermal lift, but you are correct, my tests replicated this slide. Its time slice was a smaller chunk of my overall test, however.

https://i.imgur.com/ZvdMRbH.png

This pic from one of my complete tests is a "40K foot view" with low resolution to show how prevalent thermal lift is. Pink areas indicate "mag on". Zooming in will show the effect against lift (attenuation, reversal or negating) in most cases. The point here is looking at the overall lift curve, it is significant but follows a predictable path...until "mag on" hits.

Predicted Lorentz force is about 10 times lower than my estimated test stand resolution, thanks to the paper submitted by Audrey Yueru Li and Shengchao Alfred Li, who are the only skeptics I know of who bothered to test their hypothesis.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/06/2015 03:35 pm

Where is "Slipstick" Libby when you need him?

Yes, we sure could use him, but this isn't a inertialess drive is it?   :o  Or is it?

From what I can tell, it may only be a partially inertialess drive.  Mass is being expended in teh form of electrons, impacting the interior of the device in such a way as to transfer their momentum in one direction.  However; the amount of motion imparted by the electrons appears to be disproportionally large for the amount of motion observed.   Some additional mechanism appears to be at work and every one is just trying to figure out why this is so.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 04:14 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Great visualization, Shell and aero!  Stuff like this helps those who are better at picking out patterns than balancing equations when it comes to trying to figure out what is going on in the system.  (For other readers, I haven't figured out how to repost pics, so click the link in the quote for the image in the discussion below.)

Since there aren't any axial cross sections or a legend for the .gif that Shell posted, I am making a few assumptions about what we are observing:
1) red and blue are used to indicate field direction going into/out of the cross section surface
2) intensity of the color indicates strength
3) either the E field or the B field is shown, not sure which (I don't know how you could show both with 2 colors)
4) if it were available, the axial cross section would be more or less concentric, but appear to "pulse" over time, synchronized with the image that Shell posted.

Let me help you here. This is just one complete cycle @ 16 slices, @ fmeep = 2.40GHz ~20MHz bandwidth from center frequency. The two base colors are indeed the different phases of the modes You can see both fields E and H in the two different directories we listed.

Based on these assumptions, the obvious longitudinal cycling in the image could be described as a frustum filled with a pair of EM "toroids" that are axially moving and aligned with the frustum axis.  The toroids are continually moving as follows:
1)  the initially larger outer toroid tends to migrate toward the small end of the frustum, the smaller inner toroid migrates toward the larger end of the frustum
2) as the outer toroid migrates to the smaller end of the frustum, it shrinks in size such that it continues to remain in contact on its outer surface with the frustum wall and in contact with the smaller inner toroid on at its inner surface
3) when the outer toroid meets the smaller end of the frustum, it shrinks in size and changes direction of travel relative to the frustum axis such that it starts to migrate to the larger end of the frustum by travelling through the other (now larger and outer) toroid
4) when the inner toroid meets the larger end of the frustum, it grows until it becomes the larger toroid and repeats the cycle

Good summary. I've been interested in controlling the rotational element of the modes while keeping a high Q within the cavity ever since I propose an Helical hybrid antenna in the large end, I finally realized it could not provide the rotational actions I was looking for.  This comes very close to what I'd like to test because you can excite some interesting actions with it I believe.

(edit: think of the toroid center as being a line on the surface of a water snake toy)

I suspect that the toroids are "capturing" something with different levels of success when they are in the inner and outer positions (perhaps the squeezing that occurs at the small end or proximity to the RF source at the small end has something to do with it).  The anomalous thrust would then be tied to how successful it is at forming a difference between the inner and outer loops (likely dependent on frustum geometry, Q and RF signal strength) and upon the cycling rate.

IF there was anything to capture and focus it does seem to be this kind of pattern, doesn't it?


Assuming the above is an accurate interpretation, I propose the following:

Hypothesis:  There will be a relationship between the rate of cycling and the measured thrust (higher cycling = higher thrust).

 You would think the higher frequencies that contain more energy would induce more thrust but there is some evidence that's not true and that a lower frequency produces higher thrust (http://produces higher thrust) but more data is needed to show if it is true. This seems to be another red flag as to why it is.

I'm sure the cycling rate won't be the only driving characteristic on performance (if my hypothesis is true).  However, if we can determine ways to easily control the cycling rate (perhaps via the tuning rod, phase shifting the RF source, minor RF shifts), we could conduct some experiments to determine if the cycling rate does, in fact, affect the produced thrust.

The quartz rod was a simple brain f@rt that happened in a flash, no idea where that came from but it is the reason I have bought a simple DC reversible variable speed motor to attach to the tuning micrometers, in another series of tests.

Any thoughts on the easiest way to increase the cycling rate?  I think this would involve more simulation to verify, but I haven't started playing with meep yet.  Lots of interesting things happen within toroidal EM fields, but I don't want to speculate on the particulars of what the toroids are doing until there is more supporting evidence indicating that the cycling rate actually has an impact on the measured "EM thrust" in an experimental set-up.

This cycle is the best it's going to get as it's only one cycle we are seeing.


An alternate hypothesis is for thrust dependency on modes: the number/geometry of migrating toroids present for a particular test configuration affect the efficiency of the effect that is producing the trust (e.g. more toroids = more thrust?).  I don't have a good handle on the motion for the other modes, so I'm am less able to refine this hypothesis at this point in time (please comment if you have seen a pattern).
I simply need to test to see what real world data emerges.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/06/2015 04:16 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

Shell -
I realize that there are 11 more views of the EM components perpendicular to the axis of rotation, but let me ask anyway. And this question is for all of the E&M experts who may be reading this.

"Does this image show low intensity energy going upward at the periphery and high intensity energy moving down near the axis?"

I base the question on the thought that at this level, RF energy must be conserved within the cavity so the same total energy goes in each direction over a cycle. But there is much more area near the periphery than there is near the axis so the intensity should be greater going downward. And didn't Paul M. mention that the EM Drive effect was non linear with drive power? Maybe you are showing how the virtual particles are focused out the back of the cavity?

The .gif shows the X view of the x component of the E field in the EM wave. Can x component energy change to y or z component energy over a cycle or is x component energy conserved? I thing that the linearity of Maxwell's equations dictate that the component energies are conserved but I'm not educated in that specific area of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vesc on 11/06/2015 05:16 pm
I have a question, something that occurred to me this morning. Has anyone considered the idea of a "better" null test device? I was thinking of a simple resonating cavity which is essentially just a near perfect cylinder. It would ideally have the same or nearly the same Q as the test device with all the proper dielectrics in use, but essentially no frustum.  If made of the same metals as the test device would it yield better data that could be used in error analysis? Since all other factors being nearly equal it should physically react in nearly all other manners the same as the test article minus thrust.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JohnBartram on 11/06/2015 05:19 pm
With the relatively-inexpensive rides to space available these days, and the potential value of this technology to those sending craft to space, is anyone planning to test this out in space? If so, who and when?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2015 05:20 pm
Hum, how about modeling the 3 Shawyer designs with spherical ends on the EMDrive wiki?  Each has a progressively higher Shawyer design factor  -- producing more force.  If the design factor corresponds to more energy shooting down the central axis of the drive that could be an important clue as to what's happening here
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 05:39 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

Shell -
I realize that there are 11 more views of the EM components perpendicular to the axis of rotation, but let me ask anyway. And this question is for all of the E&M experts who may be reading this.

"Does this image show low intensity energy going upward at the periphery and high intensity energy moving down near the axis?"

I base the question on the thought that at this level, RF energy must be conserved within the cavity so the same total energy goes in each direction over a cycle. But there is much more area near the periphery than there is near the axis so the intensity should be greater going downward. And didn't Paul M. mention that the EM Drive effect was non linear with drive power? Maybe you are showing how the virtual particles are focused out the back of the cavity?

The .gif shows the X view of the x component of the E field in the EM wave. Can x component energy change to y or z component energy over a cycle or is x component energy conserved? I thing that the linearity of Maxwell's equations dictate that the component energies are conserved but I'm not educated in that specific area of physics.

Did you generate the CSV data? That could tell us much on the poynting vectors and flow. About time I took the time to learn.

Shell

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 11/06/2015 05:40 pm

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Since there aren't any axial cross sections or a legend for the .gif that Shell posted, I am making a few assumptions about what we are observing:
1) red and blue are used to indicate field direction going into/out of the cross section surface
2) intensity of the color indicates strength
3) either the E field or the B field is shown, not sure which (I don't know how you could show both with 2 colors)
4) if it were available, the axial cross section would be more or less concentric, but appear to "pulse" over time, synchronized with the image that Shell posted.
Let me help you here. This is just one complete cycle @ 16 slices, @ fmeep = 2.40GHz ~20MHz bandwidth from center frequency. The two base colors are indeed the different phases of the modes You can see both fields E and H in the two different directories we listed.

Shell - although your replies to my cycling toroid description helped (especially the polite redirect to look at what you posted  ::) ), I don't know whether my interpretation of "a pair" of toroids is incompatible with the other images or if the cross section may be a local phenomenon more closely associated with the antenna. 

...
I realize that there are 11 more views of the EM components perpendicular to the axis of rotation...
...
The .gif shows the X view of the x component of the E field in the EM wave. Can x component energy change to y or z component energy over a cycle or is x component energy conserved? I thing that the linearity of Maxwell's equations dictate that the component energies are conserved but I'm not educated in that specific area of physics.

I'm unclear on where the axial cross section is located within the frustum or how the antenna orientation aligns with the field boundaries visible in the z-cross sections.  Are there existing diagrams which indicate 1) where the axes are defined relative to the frustum, 2) antenna placement/orientation, and/or 3) placement/orientation of the field cross sections images?  If such diagrams exist, it would be handy if a copy were posted to the same G-drive folder. 
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/06/2015 05:46 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

Shell -
I realize that there are 11 more views of the EM components perpendicular to the axis of rotation, but let me ask anyway. And this question is for all of the E&M experts who may be reading this.

"Does this image show low intensity energy going upward at the periphery and high intensity energy moving down near the axis?"

I base the question on the thought that at this level, RF energy must be conserved within the cavity so the same total energy goes in each direction over a cycle. But there is much more area near the periphery than there is near the axis so the intensity should be greater going downward. And didn't Paul M. mention that the EM Drive effect was non linear with drive power? Maybe you are showing how the virtual particles are focused out the back of the cavity?

The .gif shows the X view of the x component of the E field in the EM wave. Can x component energy change to y or z component energy over a cycle or is x component energy conserved? I thing that the linearity of Maxwell's equations dictate that the component energies are conserved but I'm not educated in that specific area of physics.

Did you generate the CSV data? That could tell us much on the poynting vectors and flow. About time I took the time to learn.

Shell

Shell

I did not. I have the .h5 files so generating the data would be straight forward. Except that there isn't any way that I know of to generate meaningful big end and small end Z slices due to the spherical ends. Z slices will be a varying distance from the end surface.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 06:12 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

Shell -
I realize that there are 11 more views of the EM components perpendicular to the axis of rotation, but let me ask anyway. And this question is for all of the E&M experts who may be reading this.

"Does this image show low intensity energy going upward at the periphery and high intensity energy moving down near the axis?"

I base the question on the thought that at this level, RF energy must be conserved within the cavity so the same total energy goes in each direction over a cycle. But there is much more area near the periphery than there is near the axis so the intensity should be greater going downward. And didn't Paul M. mention that the EM Drive effect was non linear with drive power? Maybe you are showing how the virtual particles are focused out the back of the cavity?

The .gif shows the X view of the x component of the E field in the EM wave. Can x component energy change to y or z component energy over a cycle or is x component energy conserved? I thing that the linearity of Maxwell's equations dictate that the component energies are conserved but I'm not educated in that specific area of physics.

Did you generate the CSV data? That could tell us much on the poynting vectors and flow. About time I took the time to learn.

Shell

Shell

I did not. I have the .h5 files so generating the data would be straight forward. Except that there isn't any way that I know of to generate meaningful big end and small end Z slices due to the spherical ends. Z slices will be a varying distance from the end surface.
Hmmm true. Stress would be a issue but would poynting?

Just post them and I'll see what can be done. Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jmossman on 11/06/2015 06:56 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
...

Did you generate the CSV data? That could tell us much on the poynting vectors and flow. About time I took the time to learn.

Shell

Shell

I did not. I have the .h5 files so generating the data would be straight forward. Except that there isn't any way that I know of to generate meaningful big end and small end Z slices due to the spherical ends. Z slices will be a varying distance from the end surface.

For post-processing it would be important to know which CSV entries are "valid" and which entries correspond to metal and/or "outside cavity". 

Dumping the data in vanilla XYZ cartesian coordinates still seems reasonable to me, regardless of the spherical ends.  (although if a spherical coordinates were an option, perhaps that would help simplify post-processing)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/06/2015 07:39 pm
@ rfmwguy

Sorry if I missed it, but did you have a mode for the cavity experiment ?

Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 07:47 pm
@ rfmwguy

Sorry if I missed it, but did you have a mode for the cavity experiment ?

Thanks
Good question. Doc, traveller and aero took a swipe at it with my top insertion of magnetron source on small diameter. If I recall, TE012, but cannot recall exactly...sorry 'bout that. Only thing I can say is insertion point and dimensions are very close to EW's 2014 design.

<edit> corrected mode to TE012 although the TM212 mode was looked at as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/06/2015 08:00 pm
Another detail that I notices regarding Shell's cavity posted above. That is

- the complex amplitude was strange = -0.042939045906273864-1.1294406577653866i

I don't know what it means that the imaginary component was 26 times larger than the real component.

anyone?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/06/2015 08:08 pm
@ rfmwguy

Sorry if I missed it, but did you have a mode for the cavity experiment ?

Thanks
Good question. Doc, traveller and aero took a swipe at it with my top insertion of magnetron source on small diameter. If I recall, TE012, but cannot recall exactly...sorry 'bout that. Only thing I can say is insertion point and dimensions are very close to EW's 2014 design.

<edit> corrected mode to TE012 although the TM212 mode was looked at as well.

All of the data that I generated for NSF-1701 is still up on Google drive, here:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfklENXg2TWhrbUhneGxZQzJ0VVhkRFRwUUhCN2xKX24yOGM2bFQzdVV5NlE&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfklENXg2TWhrbUhneGxZQzJ0VVhkRFRwUUhCN2xKX24yOGM2bFQzdVV5NlE&usp=sharing)

Unfortunately, at the time I didn't have a magnetron/wave guide model handy so all the data is with antennas placed in various locations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/06/2015 08:58 pm
With the relatively-inexpensive rides to space available these days, and the potential value of this technology to those sending craft to space, is anyone planning to test this out in space? If so, who and when?

No one here has said anything about an imminent space test. There has been discussion about CubeSat form factors and how they might be used, and The Traveler is actively working on a small form-factor EM drive as a station-keeping device for satellites.

Shawyer is "assisting" via  the Traveler on design hints. NASA Eagleworks is assumed to have been in closer contact with Shawyer as part of their testing, and I think that many might feel that if the positive force confirmation comes out of their pending peer-review, that funding will probably shake loose from various places and that NASA can make it happen if they so choose.

I'm just a layman, but I'd bet there will be a lot more testing before anything hits space. But... Elon Musk is out there among others that have direct access if they want it, and money to spend to boot.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 09:37 pm
Tangential alert - Spaceflight to package delivery - Applications for EMDrive?

Both Google and Amazon are investing heavily in propeller driven package delivery drones (yeah, I know-talk about fringe concepts). Alphabet, the new holding company for Google has their X Lab's Project Wing. Their first drone failed. Another drone has recently been released; a gangly copter-style affair likely to fail as well for a number of reasons IMO.

What does this have to do with emdrive? An immediate application if the device is scaleable to copter-style lifting capabilities for multinational corporations selling products online. I know...fringe, right? Lets just say these two retail giants are committed to aerial delivery.

My advice? Don't sell your emdrive patents at bargain prices just yet despite all the naysayers. You never know who they're really working for. ;)

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-project-wing-delivery-drones-could-be-flying-your-way-2017-2166424
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2015 10:01 pm
Just my useless thoughts for today:

Shawyer says the more rounded the endplate the higher the "design factor."  Modelling is showing something unusual with rounded endplates.  It could be that either enlarging or shrinking the unusual effect corresponds to design factor.  This would be the first hint on how to design a device to enhance the EMDrive/Shawyer effect that we've had.

I'm looking at at the visual output and wondering if there couldn't be some kind of "jelly bean" of energy going from the small end to the big end.  Energy goes up the sides then comes back down the middle all at once.  I wonder if there might be a much small jelly bean in current models that is smaller than the MEEP resolution.

This got me to thinking about Q.  At some of the higher Qs, we might see something like 10,000x energy retained/energy lost per cycle.  That means 100 watts would store about 1 megawatt of energy (for a time duration of much less than a second).  If you have a megawatt of energy in a 1cm^3 Jelly Bean are we still dealing with the electromagnetic force or has the energy density reached a high enough level that forces will start unifying?  Can somebody who knows what they're doing do a quick check to make sure this can't be doing something absurd like reaching the unified force, grabbing a chunk of spacetime, then launching it out the back of the drive when the jelly bean goes splat on the big end amd the forces seperate.

Speaking of all of which, because I have EW's suggestion that there might be some kind of momentum wake stuck in my head: the mini-EMDrive team reported something coming out of the back of the drive, interfering with a laser path (I know most people around here don't think much of that project).  When RFMWguy ran his tests, he had the laser positioned over the small end of the device in the first test and the large end in the second test.  I remember thinking, at some point, that there might have been a change in intensity of the laser, but -- without that being a controlled part of the experiment -- there was just too much going to say anything clears about it.  I wonder if something interesting happened here. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2015 10:05 pm
Tangential alert - Spaceflight to package delivery - Applications for EMDrive?

Both Google and Amazon are investing heavily in propeller driven package delivery drones (yeah, I know-talk about fringe concepts). Alphabet, the new holding company for Google has their X Lab's Project Wing. Their first drone failed. Another drone has recently been released; a gangly copter-style affair likely to fail as well for a number of reasons IMO.

What does this have to do with emdrive? An immediate application if the device is scaleable to copter-style lifting capabilities for multinational corporations selling products online. I know...fringe, right? Lets just say these two retail giants are committed to aerial delivery.

My advice? Don't sell your emdrive patents at bargain prices just yet despite all the naysayers. You never know who they're really working for. ;)

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-project-wing-delivery-drones-could-be-flying-your-way-2017-2166424

Um what patents?  I thought the EMDrive was like LENR, the only way to get an application through the USPO is to obfuscate what you're talking about (and not be on a double check and reject list).  Cannae has one patent on this and that's all they're likely to get unless it become accepted science.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 11/06/2015 11:06 pm
Tangential alert - Spaceflight to package delivery - Applications for EMDrive?

Both Google and Amazon are investing heavily in propeller driven package delivery drones (yeah, I know-talk about fringe concepts). Alphabet, the new holding company for Google has their X Lab's Project Wing. Their first drone failed. Another drone has recently been released; a gangly copter-style affair likely to fail as well for a number of reasons IMO.

What does this have to do with emdrive? An immediate application if the device is scaleable to copter-style lifting capabilities for multinational corporations selling products online. I know...fringe, right? Lets just say these two retail giants are committed to aerial delivery.

My advice? Don't sell your emdrive patents at bargain prices just yet despite all the naysayers. You never know who they're really working for. ;)

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-project-wing-delivery-drones-could-be-flying-your-way-2017-2166424

Um what patents?  I thought the EMDrive was like LENR, the only way to get an application through the USPO is to obfuscate what you're talking about (and not be on a double check and reject list).  Cannae has one patent on this and that's all they're likely to get unless it become accepted science.

That's the catch-22 for EM drive patents. You have to show the world it works before it becomes accepted science, but then everyone knows how to build it. Good luck enforcing a patent on technology you gave away before applying for the patent.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 11:09 pm
Tangential alert - Spaceflight to package delivery - Applications for EMDrive?

Both Google and Amazon are investing heavily in propeller driven package delivery drones (yeah, I know-talk about fringe concepts). Alphabet, the new holding company for Google has their X Lab's Project Wing. Their first drone failed. Another drone has recently been released; a gangly copter-style affair likely to fail as well for a number of reasons IMO.

What does this have to do with emdrive? An immediate application if the device is scaleable to copter-style lifting capabilities for multinational corporations selling products online. I know...fringe, right? Lets just say these two retail giants are committed to aerial delivery.

My advice? Don't sell your emdrive patents at bargain prices just yet despite all the naysayers. You never know who they're really working for. ;)

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-project-wing-delivery-drones-could-be-flying-your-way-2017-2166424

Um what patents?  I thought the EMDrive was like LENR, the only way to get an application through the USPO is to obfuscate what you're talking about (and not be on a double check and reject list).  Cannae has one patent on this and that's all they're likely to get unless it become accepted science.
Shawyer has several I believe thru eu authority. You may find it valid in the us. Also, note that there may be upcoming patent apps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/06/2015 11:09 pm
Been out today but got in got a cookie and a fresh cup=o-coffee and started reviewing my notes over the last few months. Know how things kind of get dropped out from the memory banks? I still find this paper interesting on treating photons in a waveguide as massive particles. "Eqs. (11)-(13) show that the behavior of guided waves are the same as that of deBroglie matter waves, such that the guided photon can be treated as a free massive particle." I'm pushing myself to relearn maths I haven't done in years, but I think it's worth it.

Shell

<quote from article>
PHOTONS INSIDE A WAVEGUIDE AS MASSIVE PARTICLES
Though a TEM mode (its electric and magnetic fields are both perpendicular to the
direction of propagation) cannot propagate in a single conductor transmission line, a guided
wave can be viewed as the superposition of two sets of TEM waves being continually
reflected back and forth between perfectly conducting walls and zigzagging down the
waveguide, the two sets of TEM waves have the same amplitudes and frequencies, but
reverse phases. Usually, the propagation of the electromagnetic wave through an ideal and
uniform waveguide is described by a wave equation in (1+1) D space-time. However, in our
formalism, we will generally place the waveguide along an arbitrary 3D spatial direction, by
which we will show that guided waves have the same behavior as de Broglie matter waves,
and in terms of the 6×1 spinor defined by Eq. (5), we obtain a relativistic quantum equation for the guided waves.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/06/2015 11:10 pm
You can't patent physics, only a specific way of applying it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/06/2015 11:17 pm
Tangential alert - Spaceflight to package delivery - Applications for EMDrive?

Both Google and Amazon are investing heavily in propeller driven package delivery drones (yeah, I know-talk about fringe concepts). Alphabet, the new holding company for Google has their X Lab's Project Wing. Their first drone failed. Another drone has recently been released; a gangly copter-style affair likely to fail as well for a number of reasons IMO.

What does this have to do with emdrive? An immediate application if the device is scaleable to copter-style lifting capabilities for multinational corporations selling products online. I know...fringe, right? Lets just say these two retail giants are committed to aerial delivery.

My advice? Don't sell your emdrive patents at bargain prices just yet despite all the naysayers. You never know who they're really working for. ;)

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-project-wing-delivery-drones-could-be-flying-your-way-2017-2166424

Um what patents?  I thought the EMDrive was like LENR, the only way to get an application through the USPO is to obfuscate what you're talking about (and not be on a double check and reject list).  Cannae has one patent on this and that's all they're likely to get unless it become accepted science.

That's the catch-22 for EM drive patents. You have to show the world it works before it becomes accepted science, but then everyone knows how to build it. Good luck enforcing a patent on technology you gave away before applying for the patent.
Very good observation. A catch 22 is what it is. Luckily I am not in a patent mood nor is my overall design a carbon copy of cannae or spr. What an interesting project this is for many reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 12:22 am
So, would the world be better off if Einstein was able to patent General Relativity?

Yes, making money is nice. Making this puppy work is enormous satisfaction.

Expanding the knowledge of the human race, and potentially reaching the stars, is eternal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2015 12:23 am
Shawyer says the more rounded the endplate the higher the "design factor."

Nope.

Roger's Df equation is below.

Spherical end plates increase frustum Q by reducing radiation pressure on side walls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Average_Joe on 11/07/2015 12:33 am
Been out today but got in got a cookie and a fresh cup=o-coffee and started reviewing my notes over the last few months. Know how things kind of get dropped out from the memory banks? I still find this paper interesting on treating photons in a waveguide as massive particles. <snip>


Shell

<snip>


Hi first post here after you advised me to register on reddit.  This paper appears to say that TEM modes are possible in some forms of wave guides.  From my rereading of classical EM theory I thought TEM modes were not possible unless you had two or more conductive surfaces?  Say a coaxial cable or parallel conductive lines like "ladder line" used in older RF connections.  If this article is correct (which I'm suspect as it states Higgs Bosons have not been detected) is a TEM mode a possibility in a truncated conical shape? If it is then I have much more math to do before I make any more assumptions. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 01:04 am
Been out today but got in got a cookie and a fresh cup=o-coffee and started reviewing my notes over the last few months. Know how things kind of get dropped out from the memory banks? I still find this paper interesting on treating photons in a waveguide as massive particles. <snip>


Shell

<snip>


Hi first post here after you advised me to register on reddit.  This paper appears to say that TEM modes are possible in some forms of wave guides.  From my rereading of classical EM theory I thought TEM modes were not possible unless you had two or more conductive surfaces?  Say a coaxial cable or parallel conductive lines like "ladder line" used in older RF connections.  If this article is correct (which I'm suspect as it states Higgs Bosons have not been detected) is a TEM mode a possibility in a truncated conical shape? If it is then I have much more math to do before I make any more assumptions.
Welcome to the #1 emdrive forum. te012 and tm212 have been discussed a lot. Aero and shell are excellent meepers. Glad you joined, I dropped the other forum recently...too much drama, not enough useful info for my build project...too little time for multiforum posting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 01:08 am
So, would the world be better off if Einstein was able to patent General Relativity?

Yes, making money is nice. Making this puppy work is enormous satisfaction.

Expanding the knowledge of the human race, and potentially reaching the stars, is eternal.
Spoken like a true non-mba type  ;) yep, guess it comes with age, a quick buck pales in comparison to potentially advancing our horizons for generations to come...potentially...that's all it takes to keep me interested.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 01:17 am
So, would the world be better off if Einstein was able to patent General Relativity?

Yes, making money is nice. Making this puppy work is enormous satisfaction.

Expanding the knowledge of the human race, and potentially reaching the stars, is eternal.
Spoken like a true non-mba type  ;) yep, guess it comes with age, a quick buck pales in comparison to potentially advancing our horizons for generations to come...potentially...that's all it takes to keep me interested.
Actually, I'm a Political Scientist who spent his career working in local government, doing programming and trying to drag government operations into the future by doing MBA kind of things.

But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 02:32 am
So, would the world be better off if Einstein was able to patent General Relativity?

Yes, making money is nice. Making this puppy work is enormous satisfaction.

Expanding the knowledge of the human race, and potentially reaching the stars, is eternal.
Spoken like a true non-mba type  ;) yep, guess it comes with age, a quick buck pales in comparison to potentially advancing our horizons for generations to come...potentially...that's all it takes to keep me interested.
Actually, I'm a Political Scientist who spent his career working in local government, doing programming and trying to drag government operations into the future by doing MBA kind of things.

But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there.
Awesome quote Bob.  Can I steal (with attribution) for an email tagline?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 02:54 am
So, would the world be better off if Einstein was able to patent General Relativity?

Yes, making money is nice. Making this puppy work is enormous satisfaction.

Expanding the knowledge of the human race, and potentially reaching the stars, is eternal.
Spoken like a true non-mba type  ;) yep, guess it comes with age, a quick buck pales in comparison to potentially advancing our horizons for generations to come...potentially...that's all it takes to keep me interested.
Actually, I'm a Political Scientist who spent his career working in local government, doing programming and trying to drag government operations into the future by doing MBA kind of things.

But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there.
Awesome quote Bob.  Can I steal (with attribution) for an email tagline?

Of course. Just make sure you spell Bob right  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/07/2015 03:02 am

...

A lot of assumptions have to be made when they employ this analytical tool.    If that's what they want to do it's their choice.   But a more direct way of answering the question of how much of the "thrust" is actually from thermal effects is to measure the thermal thrust independently.  I stand by my assertion that any em-drive thrust caused by RF energy should have the same underdamped fast rise time as the capacitive force simulator.   Reading between the lines of what Paul March wrote earlier I think they also have realized that.
...
(Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)
...
  He talks about an "impulsive signal", which is the same idea as what I discussed earlier and called the characteristic step response of the TP.  (For details about that refer to my earlier post on page 46.)

The thermal response of the TP in STP air will be faster than in vacuum because of convective cooling and the resulting air currents.   It is possible to underestimate the movement of the TP due to thermal effects and to assign that movement to an em-drive thrust.   Paul March stated that in a vacuum the thermal effect is 3X what they see in STP air and is due to a change in CG. 

...
However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. 
...
Best, Paul March
The thermal time constant in a vacuum is much longer because there is no convective cooling so the faster thermal response seen in STP air is gone in a vacuum.    I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

I think I have a better understanding of what your saying. Though I cant say that I completely agree. It is my understanding that you would like EW to carry out an experiment whose sole purpose is to quantify the force being generated ONLY by the reported thermal effect. In order to accurately quantify how much of the force is thermal.

The problem I have is I cannot conceive of a valid (from my perspective) test. Two potential options that come to mind would be

1. Stick the 50ohm resistor in the vac chamber and record what the force is.
2. Build a cylindrical frustum put it in the vac chamber and record what the force is.

I don't think either of those tests could be considered valid because of how different they are from the tapered frustum being experimented on. the only test that I think would give an accurate measurement would require a configuration change in the tapered frustum that disables anomalous force generation. But if we don't understand how the anomalous force is generated how can you change the configuration of tapered frustum to remove it. Hell if you knew what the anomalous force was then you would have already proven the effect and quantifying the thermal effect would be a minor detail that would only need to explored to make engineering improvements.

From my perspective, the analytical model that EW built would require some measurement to be worth while at all. So from my perspective I am assuming that EW has a way of identifying the thermal effect force contribution from each of their test runs. They just cant (purely my own assumption) run an experiment that ONLY generates Thermal effect. Now I agree that their analytical model probably assumptions baked into it, along side some actual measurements. However, if there is no valid test that could be carried out to generate only a thermal effect. The next step from my perspective would be to figure out if the characterized thermal effect can be mitigated. If thermal effect mitigation is possible, then a test with mitigation in place would allow you to claim that the characterized thermal effect is not singularly responsible for the anomalous force as long as the measured thrust remains the same as what your analytical model yielded. Which is my interpretation of what EW will be doing, given Paul's comment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 03:03 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/07/2015 03:23 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/07/2015 03:30 am

...

A lot of assumptions have to be made when they employ this analytical tool.    If that's what they want to do it's their choice.   But a more direct way of answering the question of how much of the "thrust" is actually from thermal effects is to measure the thermal thrust independently.  I stand by my assertion that any em-drive thrust caused by RF energy should have the same underdamped fast rise time as the capacitive force simulator.   Reading between the lines of what Paul March wrote earlier I think they also have realized that.
...
(Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)
...
  He talks about an "impulsive signal", which is the same idea as what I discussed earlier and called the characteristic step response of the TP.  (For details about that refer to my earlier post on page 46.)

The thermal response of the TP in STP air will be faster than in vacuum because of convective cooling and the resulting air currents.   It is possible to underestimate the movement of the TP due to thermal effects and to assign that movement to an em-drive thrust.   Paul March stated that in a vacuum the thermal effect is 3X what they see in STP air and is due to a change in CG. 

...
However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. 
...
Best, Paul March
The thermal time constant in a vacuum is much longer because there is no convective cooling so the faster thermal response seen in STP air is gone in a vacuum.    I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

I think I have a better understanding of what your saying. Though I cant say that I completely agree. It is my understanding that you would like EW to carry out an experiment whose sole purpose is to quantify the force being generated ONLY by the reported thermal effect. In order to accurately quantify how much of the force is thermal.

The problem I have is I cannot conceive of a valid (from my perspective) test. Two potential options that come to mind would be

1. Stick the 50ohm resistor in the vac chamber and record what the force is.
2. Build a cylindrical frustum put it in the vac chamber and record what the force is.

I don't think either of those tests could be considered valid because of how different they are from the tapered frustum being experimented on. the only test that I think would give an accurate measurement would require a configuration change in the tapered frustum that disables anomalous force generation. But if we don't understand how the anomalous force is generated how can you change the configuration of tapered frustum to remove it. Hell if you knew what the anomalous force was then you would have already proven the effect and quantifying the thermal effect would be a minor detail that would only need to explored to make engineering improvements.

From my perspective, the analytical model that EW built would require some measurement to be worth while at all. So from my perspective I am assuming that EW has a way of identifying the thermal effect force contribution from each of their test runs. They just cant (purely my own assumption) run an experiment that ONLY generates Thermal effect. Now I agree that their analytical model probably assumptions baked into it, along side some actual measurements. However, if there is no valid test that could be carried out to generate only a thermal effect. The next step from my perspective would be to figure out if the characterized thermal effect can be mitigated. If thermal effect mitigation is possible, then a test with mitigation in place would allow you to claim that the characterized thermal effect is not singularly responsible for the anomalous force as long as the measured thrust remains the same as what your analytical model yielded. Which is my interpretation of what EW will be doing, given Paul's comment.

I don't think a 50 Watt resistor would simulate the thermal load very well.   By now they know where local heating occurs - maybe along the feedline and at one of the endplates.   Several months ago Paul March talked about how the nylon screws holding the dielectric insert melted.    My latest suggestion was to attach kapton heating strips to the parts of the fustrum that heat up the most, possibly covering them with nomex so the heat is mostly directed towards the metal.   The nomex would not matter so much in a vacuum but would be needed in an STP air environment.   This would change the weight of the fustrum so re-balancing would have to be done.    The thermal load could be closely matched this way.  The test could be run using DC to supply the kapton heating pads, which would create a Lorentz force error, and AC where  there would be no Lorentz force error.

My prediction, if this test was done, is that the displacement of the TP because of this heating would look similar to the "thrust" waveform.   It's risetime would be slower because conduction has to occur and there would be other differences because the heating is not occurring in exactly the same places as occurs with RF eddy current heating.   But it would look similar.  I believe the thermal only response will look more like the recorded "thrust" waveform than the capacitive test response does.   The response we see with the capacitive test and the Lorentz force error are characteristic of the TP.   What we see there is the step response.   Anything that adds a unit of momentum to the TP will cause a response that looks like this.    If the response does not look like this it is because something else has happened - like CG creep, air currents, thermal stress, etc.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 03:43 am
This is completely off-topic, but what the Hell.

Last month my wife gave a TEDx talk here in Salem. You see, when she retired from a high pressure career, she decided to bake a pie every day for a year, and give it away! She became a local hit in newspapers and TV. Runs just under 10 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share)

Take a coffee break, watch and smile. I could not be more proud of her.

P.S. She would love to go viral...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/07/2015 03:55 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Hanging on
https://media.riffsy.com/images/1ec0fe7edbba52433fa62ae9444cc293/raw
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/07/2015 10:15 am
.../...
So Dear Journalists, you have done a much better job at presenting the true facts about EMDrive because YOU were more informed this time around. I would venture to say that NSF helped you be that way. Keep a wary eye out for critics for almost none of them have any test data to back up their claims, only old math.

Boring old maths are still useful sometimes, for instance do you mean really you want to reach a Q of 45000 ?

.../...
Upscaling is still a big question in my mind, I understand SPR has claimed as much, but NDAs can be a pesky thing...so I have committed to moving from 177 micronewtons to 17.5 millinewtons using the same 900 Watts of RF. Best I can determine from tips and gleanings is that a clean signal is required and much higher Q.

For example, a 100-fold power increase would appear require a 100-fold improvement in Q, or a move of my Q from around 450 to 4500 IF the translation were linear, which I have my doubts. But, its a place to start...clean up magnetron, design a new frustum with a Q of 4500 and give it a go...what do I have to loose? (except my patience I suppose) ;)


Seriously : I have one idea of one precise and motivated objection to your NSF1701 tests conclusions, putting in doubt the interpretation of downward thrust. This objection will certainly not disprove thrust, but indicate that thrust is not proven either (not even at 95%), unless some more thorough analysis is conducted. I won't have time to conduct such more thorough analysis, just to present the idea in a (hopefully) technically motivated manner. But I'm "afraid" of your reaction because of a few declaration you had lately... are you ready to receive and discuss such technical precise objection on a rational basis, you know, old maths and the such ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2015 11:51 am
.../...
So Dear Journalists, you have done a much better job at presenting the true facts about EMDrive because YOU were more informed this time around. I would venture to say that NSF helped you be that way. Keep a wary eye out for critics for almost none of them have any test data to back up their claims, only old math.

Boring old maths are still useful sometimes, for instance do you mean really you want to reach a Q of 45000 ?

.../...
Upscaling is still a big question in my mind, I understand SPR has claimed as much, but NDAs can be a pesky thing...so I have committed to moving from 177 micronewtons to 17.5 millinewtons using the same 900 Watts of RF. Best I can determine from tips and gleanings is that a clean signal is required and much higher Q.

For example, a 100-fold power increase would appear require a 100-fold improvement in Q, or a move of my Q from around 450 to 4500 IF the translation were linear, which I have my doubts. But, its a place to start...clean up magnetron, design a new frustum with a Q of 4500 and give it a go...what do I have to loose? (except my patience I suppose) ;)


Seriously : I have one idea of one precise and motivated objection to your NSF1701 tests conclusions, putting in doubt the interpretation of downward thrust. This objection will certainly not disprove thrust, but indicate that thrust is not proven either (not even at 95%), unless some more thorough analysis is conducted. I won't have time to conduct such more thorough analysis, just to present the idea in a (hopefully) technically motivated manner. But I'm "afraid" of your reaction because of a few declaration you had lately... are you ready to receive and discuss such technical precise objection on a rational basis, you know, old maths and the such ?

Old maths do not correctly predict resonance nor do they predict thrust generated.

Suggest you study the new maths of Roger and Prof Yang that do predict resonance and thrust.

If you approach with an assumption that the EMDrive does work, your outcome may be different than if you approach with an assumption the EMDrive can't possibly work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 01:21 pm
.../...
So Dear Journalists, you have done a much better job at presenting the true facts about EMDrive because YOU were more informed this time around. I would venture to say that NSF helped you be that way. Keep a wary eye out for critics for almost none of them have any test data to back up their claims, only old math.

Boring old maths are still useful sometimes, for instance do you mean really you want to reach a Q of 45000 ?

.../...
Upscaling is still a big question in my mind, I understand SPR has claimed as much, but NDAs can be a pesky thing...so I have committed to moving from 177 micronewtons to 17.5 millinewtons using the same 900 Watts of RF. Best I can determine from tips and gleanings is that a clean signal is required and much higher Q.

For example, a 100-fold power increase would appear require a 100-fold improvement in Q, or a move of my Q from around 450 to 4500 IF the translation were linear, which I have my doubts. But, its a place to start...clean up magnetron, design a new frustum with a Q of 4500 and give it a go...what do I have to loose? (except my patience I suppose) ;)


Seriously : I have one idea of one precise and motivated objection to your NSF1701 tests conclusions, putting in doubt the interpretation of downward thrust. This objection will certainly not disprove thrust, but indicate that thrust is not proven either (not even at 95%), unless some more thorough analysis is conducted. I won't have time to conduct such more thorough analysis, just to present the idea in a (hopefully) technically motivated manner. But I'm "afraid" of your reaction because of a few declaration you had lately... are you ready to receive and discuss such technical precise objection on a rational basis, you know, old maths and the such ?
Of course, and thank you for asking first as opposed to hand-waving. While I was an honor student in math, I found myself only using it to resolve problems I discovered and often simply plugged the numbers into a software package that did the calcs for me. So, I have become a lazy math student.

If you need any of my data, let me know. My only negative reaction is to those who present alternative views in an arrogant and rude manner. The other forum I used to post on was repleat with bad manners so I became defensive. Here on NSF, some of my favorite posters are not emdrive believers.

So yes, your hypothesis is more than welcome and I may possibly be able to modify my design/test stand for my upcoming Phase II tests in 2016.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: FrustumThruster on 11/07/2015 01:29 pm
Spacecraft Designers: Have you given any thought to how you would place the EM Drive(s) in a future manned (or unmanned) spacecraft?

How many Emdrives would be required? Where would you place them? Would you want to combine EM Drive with other contemporary attitude control systems?

Question: Could we use additional Emdrives as attitude thrusters or Reaction Control Systems, to make the spacecraft completely propellant-and-moving-parts free?

Consider that both reaction wheels failed on the current Dawn probe to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, on a mission within the solar system.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/journal_11_30_13.asp#reactionwheels

If we were trying to reduce moving parts down to an absolute minimum for a lengthy journey into deep space, could we use a series of EM Drives arranged around a frame to provide motive force and rotation control in all directions?

Something like this:

(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Isometric-thumbnail.jpg) (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Isometric.jpg)
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Front-thumbnail.jpg) (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Front.jpg)
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Above-thumbnail.jpg) (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Above.jpg)
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Aft-thumbnail.jpg) (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Aft.jpg)
(https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Port-thumbnail.jpg) (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/webcontent-ed/Microwave-Thruster-Spacecraft-Port.jpg)

Of course there would be a calculation to make about weight. However if we have limitless propulsion, perhaps we can go heavier with the craft? I imagine there is certainly some element of redundancy by having multiple EM Drives. Totally solid state.

Side note: perhaps by following maximum use of moving parts, you could have a single Emdrive contained within the craft on a sturdy three dimensional gimbal. Is it possible that the drive no longer needs to be "outside" the craft if it is no longer jetting hot matter out one end?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 01:34 pm
This is completely off-topic, but what the Hell.

Last month my wife gave a TEDx talk here in Salem. You see, when she retired from a high pressure career, she decided to bake a pie every day for a year, and give it away! She became a local hit in newspapers and TV. Runs just under 10 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share)

Take a coffee break, watch and smile. I could not be more proud of her.

P.S. She would love to go viral...

I'm crying.  One of the most touching TED talks I've ever seen.

P.S. I like pie! ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 01:47 pm
This is completely off-topic, but what the Hell.

Last month my wife gave a TEDx talk here in Salem. You see, when she retired from a high pressure career, she decided to bake a pie every day for a year, and give it away! She became a local hit in newspapers and TV. Runs just under 10 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share)

Take a coffee break, watch and smile. I could not be more proud of her.

P.S. She would love to go viral...

I'm crying.  One of the most touching TED talks I've ever seen.

P.S. I like pie! ;)
Did someone say pie?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 02:00 pm
Spacecraft Designers: Have you given any thought to how you would place the EM Drive(s) in a future manned (or unmanned) spacecraft?

How many Emdrives would be required? Where would you place them? Would you want to combine EM Drive with other contemporary attitude control systems?

Question: Could we use additional Emdrives as attitude thrusters or Reaction Control Systems, to make the spacecraft completely propellant-and-moving-parts free?

Consider that both reaction wheels failed on the current Dawn probe to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, on a mission within the solar system.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/journal_11_30_13.asp#reactionwheels

If we were trying to reduce moving parts down to an absolute minimum for a lengthy journey into deep space, could we use a series of EM Drives arranged around a frame to provide motive force and rotation control in all directions?

Something like this:

...(pics clipped)...

Of course there would be a calculation to make about weight. However if we have limitless propulsion, perhaps we can go heavier with the craft? I imagine there is certainly some element of redundancy by having multiple EM Drives. Totally solid state.

Side note: perhaps by following maximum use of moving parts, you could have a single Emdrive contained within the craft on a sturdy three dimensional gimbal. Is it possible that the drive no longer needs to be "outside" the craft if it is no longer jetting hot matter out one end?

For attitude (pointing) control you need +/- Yaw, Pitch, & Roll, usually in pairs centered around the center of mass - 12 in all - plus the ones you need for thrust in the desired direction of travel, so 13 minimum.

Yes, we've talked about it quite a bit.  I've thought about it even more  8)

Ideally you would put them on masts sticking out from the vehicle.  The moment arm helps with thrusters.  You've got the right idea with the hoops you show, but they add a lot of extra mass and don't functionally provide anything a mast sticking out from the vehicle wouldn't.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 03:14 pm
This is completely off-topic, but what the Hell.

Last month my wife gave a TEDx talk here in Salem. You see, when she retired from a high pressure career, she decided to bake a pie every day for a year, and give it away! She became a local hit in newspapers and TV. Runs just under 10 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MzzLz1sG3M&feature=share)

Take a coffee break, watch and smile. I could not be more proud of her.

P.S. She would love to go viral...

I'm crying.  One of the most touching TED talks I've ever seen.

P.S. I like pie! ;)

She left for her morning walk with friends a little while ago. I'll share with her when she gets back.

Your remarks will make her day...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/07/2015 03:32 pm
So, has anyone thought about a way to incorporate Time reversal signal processing to effectively focus the EM waves inside the frustum.  My idea behind this is that if you look at a reflector and see that light is amplified by it, then why can't em waves work the same.  I mean, I don't know, but the energy is being deflected downward in Shells frustum design in a certain mode.  Couldn't' one of these do something to strengthen that behavior and increase thrust if it works well.  I'm just reaching now aren't I?  I could do more research.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: original_mds on 11/07/2015 03:35 pm
Spacecraft Designers: Have you given any thought to how you would place the EM Drive(s) in a future manned (or unmanned) spacecraft?

How many Emdrives would be required? Where would you place them? Would you want to combine EM Drive with other contemporary attitude control systems?

Question: Could we use additional Emdrives as attitude thrusters or Reaction Control Systems, to make the spacecraft completely propellant-and-moving-parts free?

Consider that both reaction wheels failed on the current Dawn probe to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, on a mission within the solar system.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/journal_11_30_13.asp#reactionwheels

If we were trying to reduce moving parts down to an absolute minimum for a lengthy journey into deep space, could we use a series of EM Drives arranged around a frame to provide motive force and rotation control in all directions?

Something like this:

...(pics clipped)...

Of course there would be a calculation to make about weight. However if we have limitless propulsion, perhaps we can go heavier with the craft? I imagine there is certainly some element of redundancy by having multiple EM Drives. Totally solid state.

Side note: perhaps by following maximum use of moving parts, you could have a single Emdrive contained within the craft on a sturdy three dimensional gimbal. Is it possible that the drive no longer needs to be "outside" the craft if it is no longer jetting hot matter out one end?

For attitude (pointing) control you need +/- Yaw, Pitch, & Roll, usually in pairs centered around the center of mass - 12 in all - plus the ones you need for thrust in the desired direction of travel, so 13 minimum.

Yes, we've talked about it quite a bit.  I've thought about it even more  8)

Ideally you would put them on masts sticking out from the vehicle.  The moment arm helps with thrusters.  You've got the right idea with the hoops you show, but they add a lot of extra mass and don't functionally provide anything a mast sticking out from the vehicle wouldn't.
All indications so far are that the thrust would be more similar to an ion drive than a conventional rocket.  I'm thinking that maintenance and thermal effects will dominate the design.  If multiple frustums are used (which is a bit of a reach, since we don't understand what is causing the effect and whether there would be an unhelpful interaction amongst multiple nearby units), then the center of thrust just needs to be in line with the center of mass.  I can't help but think that conventional gyros, and possibly conventional thrusters, would be used for more rapid orientation control.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/07/2015 04:00 pm
Sigh.... now we're already into spaceships designs? :o

How about gathering some evidence that it actually works (or does not work) before we start seeing ourselves as the next Captain Kirk?
It is still NOT proven it works...and we're already designing spaceships? seriously? No wonder that diehard EMdrive skeptics thrive here. I'd almost become one myself...

There are indications of thrust, sure, but are they to be attributed to the Microwave fed cavity, or to something more ordinary, like vibrations, thermal effects, Lorenz forces, etc?

Finding strange thrust signals is one thing, attributing to what's causing them is still not sure. As long we have to "believe" there is a thrust signal caused by resonating microwaves, I'm not prepared to jump in the water. I'll stick on that fence until one or the other is proven or dis-proven.

Admittedly, sitting on the fence hurts a little... ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 04:15 pm
Sigh.... now we're already into spaceships designs? :o

How about gathering some evidence that it actually works (or does not work) before we start seeing ourselves as the next Captain Kirk?
It is still NOT proven it works...and we're already designing spaceships? seriously? No wonder that diehard EMdrive skeptics thrive here. I'd almost become one myself...

There are indications of thrust, sure, but are they to be attributed to the Microwave fed cavity, or to something more ordinary, like vibrations, thermal effects, Lorenz forces, etc?

Finding strange thrust signals is one thing, attributing to what's causing them is still not sure. As long we have to "believe" there is a thrust signal caused by resonating microwaves, I'm not prepared to jump in the water. I'll stick on that fence until one or the other is proven or dis-proven.

Admittedly, sitting on the fence hurts a little... ::)

Note that was FrustrumThruster's first post.  I design satellites for a living, was just giving him/her some data to ponder.
*IF* it can be made into a useful spaceflight thruster (I don't doubt that it can FYI...YMMV) then this is how it could be used.  I think it's a useful exercise while waiting for more data (and waiting for a video to render...check back in about an hour!!)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Andy Smith on 11/07/2015 04:18 pm


...

A lot of assumptions have to be made when they employ this analytical tool.    If that's what they want to do it's their choice.   But a more direct way of answering the question of how much of the "thrust" is actually from thermal effects is to measure the thermal thrust independently.  I stand by my assertion that any em-drive thrust caused by RF energy should have the same underdamped fast rise time as the capacitive force simulator.   Reading between the lines of what Paul March wrote earlier I think they also have realized that.
...
(Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)
...
  He talks about an "impulsive signal", which is the same idea as what I discussed earlier and called the characteristic step response of the TP.  (For details about that refer to my earlier post on page 46.)

The thermal response of the TP in STP air will be faster than in vacuum because of convective cooling and the resulting air currents.   It is possible to underestimate the movement of the TP due to thermal effects and to assign that movement to an em-drive thrust.   Paul March stated that in a vacuum the thermal effect is 3X what they see in STP air and is due to a change in CG. 

...
However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. 
...
Best, Paul March
The thermal time constant in a vacuum is much longer because there is no convective cooling so the faster thermal response seen in STP air is gone in a vacuum.    I believe it is all thermal and until they measure the thermal response independently they will not know how large it is.

I think I have a better understanding of what your saying. Though I cant say that I completely agree. It is my understanding that you would like EW to carry out an experiment whose sole purpose is to quantify the force being generated ONLY by the reported thermal effect. In order to accurately quantify how much of the force is thermal.

The problem I have is I cannot conceive of a valid (from my perspective) test. Two potential options that come to mind would be

1. Stick the 50ohm resistor in the vac chamber and record what the force is.
2. Build a cylindrical frustum put it in the vac chamber and record what the force is.

I don't think either of those tests could be considered valid because of how different they are from the tapered frustum being experimented on. the only test that I think would give an accurate measurement would require a configuration change in the tapered frustum that disables anomalous force generation. But if we don't understand how the anomalous force is generated how can you change the configuration of tapered frustum to remove it. Hell if you knew what the anomalous force was then you would have already proven the effect and quantifying the thermal effect would be a minor detail that would only need to explored to make engineering improvements.

From my perspective, the analytical model that EW built would require some measurement to be worth while at all. So from my perspective I am assuming that EW has a way of identifying the thermal effect force contribution from each of their test runs. They just cant (purely my own assumption) run an experiment that ONLY generates Thermal effect. Now I agree that their analytical model probably assumptions baked into it, along side some actual measurements. However, if there is no valid test that could be carried out to generate only a thermal effect. The next step from my perspective would be to figure out if the characterized thermal effect can be mitigated. If thermal effect mitigation is possible, then a test with mitigation in place would allow you to claim that the characterized thermal effect is not singularly responsible for the anomalous force as long as the measured thrust remains the same as what your analytical model yielded. Which is my interpretation of what EW will be doing, given Paul's comment.

Could I suggest the frustrums are turned horizontal in line with the balance beam, then a run with thrust towards the pivot, followed by another run with thrust away from the pivot. As near as possible that should only produce a thermal response.

Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 04:24 pm
Spacecraft Designers: Have you given any thought to how you would place the EM Drive(s) in a future manned (or unmanned) spacecraft?

How many Emdrives would be required? Where would you place them? Would you want to combine EM Drive with other contemporary attitude control systems?

Question: Could we use additional Emdrives as attitude thrusters or Reaction Control Systems, to make the spacecraft completely propellant-and-moving-parts free?

Consider that both reaction wheels failed on the current Dawn probe to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, on a mission within the solar system.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/journal_11_30_13.asp#reactionwheels

If we were trying to reduce moving parts down to an absolute minimum for a lengthy journey into deep space, could we use a series of EM Drives arranged around a frame to provide motive force and rotation control in all directions?

Something like this:

...(pics clipped)...

Of course there would be a calculation to make about weight. However if we have limitless propulsion, perhaps we can go heavier with the craft? I imagine there is certainly some element of redundancy by having multiple EM Drives. Totally solid state.

Side note: perhaps by following maximum use of moving parts, you could have a single Emdrive contained within the craft on a sturdy three dimensional gimbal. Is it possible that the drive no longer needs to be "outside" the craft if it is no longer jetting hot matter out one end?

For attitude (pointing) control you need +/- Yaw, Pitch, & Roll, usually in pairs centered around the center of mass - 12 in all - plus the ones you need for thrust in the desired direction of travel, so 13 minimum.

Yes, we've talked about it quite a bit.  I've thought about it even more  8)

Ideally you would put them on masts sticking out from the vehicle.  The moment arm helps with thrusters.  You've got the right idea with the hoops you show, but they add a lot of extra mass and don't functionally provide anything a mast sticking out from the vehicle wouldn't.
All indications so far are that the thrust would be more similar to an ion drive than a conventional rocket.  I'm thinking that maintenance and thermal effects will dominate the design.  If multiple frustums are used (which is a bit of a reach, since we don't understand what is causing the effect and whether there would be an unhelpful interaction amongst multiple nearby units), then the center of thrust just needs to be in line with the center of mass.  I can't help but think that conventional gyros, and possibly conventional thrusters, would be used for more rapid orientation control.

Yes, and RAPID is the key.  Big satellites that need to very quickly slew to targets sometimes will incorporate an extra reaction wheel just for that slew maneuver.
Attitude control thrusters are generally only used for dumping momentum out of the attitude control reaction wheels if they saturate (get too much speed in one direction) and then only on satellites that aren't in orbit around a body with a magnetic field.  If you're around Earth, Venus(I think), Jupiter, or Saturn, you can use electromagnets (torque rods) for the same function.
There are designs that only have thrusters (LCROSS is a recent example) but they're rare.

BUT: If you can stand to reorient slowly, or we can get the thrust >1N/Kw in a small frustrum then this device may be able to supplant all 3.  There would be huge benefits: No electromagnets (the fields can mess up some science,no idea what kind of EM this device will produce outside the frustrum!), no thrusters/catalysts/fuel/fuel lines, and no reaction wheels to wear out.  It's a very compelling design possibility!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/07/2015 04:49 pm

Could I suggest the frustums are turned horizontal in line with the balance beam, then a run with thrust towards the pivot, followed by another run with thrust away from the pivot. As near as possible that should only produce a thermal response.

Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature
[/quote]

BINGO! Perfect idea. Like the way you think. I'll incorporate it into my tests.

Shell

PA: Back to the shop...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/07/2015 05:27 pm


Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature

No where close to what's needed in a sample.  You need to characterize the variability/noise/range of "normalized" values and have a confidence interval around that.

IF there's a strong signal, maybe 30 of each might do.  If there's a weak signal, it could be many many many more.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/07/2015 05:40 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell

I picked what looked right in the E fields.  If you want to see something different in either the E or H fields or some combination let me know, it will be quick to re-gen with a different set of frames now.

https://youtu.be/OYoG9KjOU5o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/07/2015 05:49 pm


Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature

No where close to what's needed in a sample.  You need to characterize the variability/noise/range of "normalized" values and have a confidence interval around that.

IF there's a strong signal, maybe 30 of each might do.  If there's a weak signal, it could be many many many more.

Right about needing a sufficient number of measurements to close in on statistical confidence. However, since  the signal sought results from a number of cycling on/off events of the magnetron in a single test run, gathering that information may be fairly easy.

Clearly the thermal effects take some time to maximize as a result of heating occurring during the cycling events. I'm sure that Shell will be calculating and measuring all the event cycles and effects to the best of her and her equipment's capability. She certainly has exhibited a thoroughness in evaluating and designing her test rig.

As is always the case, more data is good.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/07/2015 06:04 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell

I picked what looked right in the E fields.  If you want to see something different in either the E or H fields or some combination let me know, it will be quick to re-gen with a different set of frames now.

https://youtu.be/OYoG9KjOU5o

Check to make sure it's not reversed.

Got my network working on the laptop in the shop... yea, the house is ~120ft away.

Shell

Added: VERY nice work and a great job, it shows the wave actions very well. Thanks MaxHead!!!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jötunn on 11/07/2015 06:17 pm
Creating a confidence interval around some central figure using an appropriately large number of observations is only one necessary but not sufficient step.

The anomalous thrust observed in EmDrive experiments thus far is much more likely to be a systematic error than due to random chance.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 07:23 pm
Creating a confidence interval around some central figure using an appropriately large number of observations is only one necessary but not sufficient step.

The anomalous thrust observed in EmDrive experiments thus far is much more likely to be a systematic error than due to random chance.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html
You will need to identify which particular test this refers to. There have been several emdrive tests over the past few years. Are you saying this applies to all? If so, you need to know that a variety of test methods and test stands have been used. Which one are you specifically pointing out?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/07/2015 08:38 pm

...

Could I suggest the frustrums are turned horizontal in line with the balance beam, then a run with thrust towards the pivot, followed by another run with thrust away from the pivot. As near as possible that should only produce a thermal response.

Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature

In most cases multiple tests like that would be sufficient to get an idea what the thermal lift is.   One detail most people overlook is the TP displacement wrt to force is around .06 microns / microNewton.   The picture below shows an EW test in vacuum where the capacitive force test is applying a 29.1 μN force and the indicated displacement of the TP is 1.8 μM  (1.8 X 10-6Meter).  Everytime the fustrum is detached and reattached to the pendulum the thermal expansion characteristics change.   I doubt there is any clear protocol for doing this and getting consistant results.   It is probably a trial and error process with the goal of maximizing perceived thrust.

Another thing I would like to point out in this picture is the difference in the rising edge slope vs falling edge slope response to the RF power.   Intuitively one would expect them to be symmetrical just as the capacitive force response is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/07/2015 08:55 pm

Creating a confidence interval around some central figure using an appropriately large number of observations is only one necessary but not sufficient step.

The anomalous thrust observed in EmDrive experiments thus far is much more likely to be a systematic error than due to random chance.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html
You will need to identify which particular test this refers to. There have been several emdrive tests over the past few years. Are you saying this applies to all? If so, you need to know that a variety of test methods and test stands have been used. Which one are you specifically pointing out?

Precisely and it's pretty shocking if people haven't grasped by now something as basic as that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/07/2015 09:37 pm

Another thing I would like to point out in this picture is the difference in the rising edge slope vs falling edge slope response to the RF power.   Intuitively one would expect them to be symmetrical just as the capacitive force response is.

Um inertia, it takes a short amount of time to get something moving and a short amount of time for it to stop.  (This was a horizontal test right.)  Seems like the bit showing thrust shows inertia and the bit showing a non-thrust error source does not.  And they're seeing this in a vacuum chamber, interesting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/07/2015 11:20 pm

Creating a confidence interval around some central figure using an appropriately large number of observations is only one necessary but not sufficient step.

The anomalous thrust observed in EmDrive experiments thus far is much more likely to be a systematic error than due to random chance.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html
You will need to identify which particular test this refers to. There have been several emdrive tests over the past few years. Are you saying this applies to all? If so, you need to know that a variety of test methods and test stands have been used. Which one are you specifically pointing out?

Precisely and it's pretty shocking if people haven't grasped by now something as basic as that.

Easy folks.  My comment simply said 4 measurements was not sufficient to establish a thermal baseline.  At this time, it's not knowable how many measurements are needed.  It all depends on whether a thrust signal is in the weeds, as some claim it will always be, or it jumps out at you like a long-tailed weasel escaping a powered on microwave oven.

Now with all due respect to the decendents of Thomas Bayes in this forum, to me, the objective is to assist the DIY folks so that when they turn on their gadgets and collect data, we can provide guidance that allows them to produce results that don't immediately get labled B.S. on Reddit, nor that get over inflated by the editors of Wired.  We can help them with their experimental design, data collection and data analysis.  I for one, cannot help them assemble and create their devices, and I doubt many of us in this forum can either.

Once again I attach a model spreadsheet.  It is exemplary because:

1.  I produced it
2.  It defines a random trial sequence
3.  It deals with thermal properties up/down, with various constraints such as random variation and differential effects in various directions.

It's a model of what might be visible if.... thermal properties are something (you can change that), thrust properties are something else (you can change that), in fact, you can change anything in the yellow boxes.

The graphs show what would be expected with the random variations (that you can also change).  Anyone who wants to argue statistical methods with me, review the spreadsheet, and let's have at it.  I'll provide my phone/skype/email to anyone who thinks they've got ideas.

I think we have a responsibility to first:
1.  State that we have no idea what the actual values are, or are not
2.  Monitor the DIY activities and suggest trial counts, randomness strategies, anything in their test procedures that are within their range of what they've designed.
3.  Good things or bad things that they can do to help or hinder replicable statistical analysis, provided their device documentation is sufficient to be replicated.

As the DIY data accumulates, we'll have some basis to state what the range of possible values are, and from that, we should be able to state things like confidence intervals, trial counts, test methods and all those goodies that should ideally come from a theory, were a single one viable and accepted, which is not the case.

Right now, we have statistical data that hints that something, and lord knows what that means, is happening in the few tests provided to this forum.

As SEE and RFMGUY move forward, while they have their own agendas in why, how and what they do, our best strategy is to provide the most methodologically precise guidance possible, and hope our advice is good, and that they take it.

Vague statements about confidence intervals, trial counts, large number of observations, etc. are just as much voodoo as attributing EM Drive effects to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We simply don't know at this point given the actual data in hand.

We CAN however, set up a standard of measurement criteria that allows DIY testing to move forward in a sane, replicable, and meaningful way.  The outcomes, whatever they are, will happen.

I don't know if any of this is real, and at my age, it really won't impact me before I move on, but I do know, for myself, I can educate and advise in the exploration of the unknown.  That I shall do.  I invite those who can, to join me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/07/2015 11:36 pm

Creating a confidence interval around some central figure using an appropriately large number of observations is only one necessary but not sufficient step.

The anomalous thrust observed in EmDrive experiments thus far is much more likely to be a systematic error than due to random chance.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html
You will need to identify which particular test this refers to. There have been several emdrive tests over the past few years. Are you saying this applies to all? If so, you need to know that a variety of test methods and test stands have been used. Which one are you specifically pointing out?

Precisely and it's pretty shocking if people haven't grasped by now something as basic as that.

Easy folks.  My comment simply said 4 measurements was not sufficient to establish a thermal baseline.  At this time, it's not knowable how many measurements are needed.  It all depends on whether a thrust signal is in the weeds, as some claim it will always be, or it jumps out at you like a long-tailed weasel escaping a powered on microwave oven.

Now with all due respect to the decendents of Thomas Bayes in this forum, to me, the objective is to assist the DIY folks so that when they turn on their gadgets and collect data, we can provide guidance that allows them to produce results that don't immediately get labled B.S. on Reddit, nor that get over inflated by the editors of Wired.  We can help them with their experimental design, data collection and data analysis.  I for one, cannot help them assemble and create their devices, and I doubt many of us in this forum can either.

Once again I attach a model spreadsheet.  It is exemplary because:

1.  I produced it
2.  It defines a random trial sequence
3.  It deals with thermal properties up/down, with various constraints such as random variation and differential effects in various directions.

It's a model of what might be visible if.... thermal properties are something (you can change that), thrust properties are something else (you can change that), in fact, you can change anything in the yellow boxes.

The graphs show what would be expected with the random variations (that you can also change).  Anyone who wants to argue statistical methods with me, review the spreadsheet, and let's have at it.  I'll provide my phone/skype/email to anyone who thinks they've got ideas.

I think we have a responsibility to first:
1.  State that we have no idea what the actual values are, or are not
2.  Monitor the DIY activities and suggest trial counts, randomness strategies, anything in their test procedures that are within their range of what they've designed.
3.  Good things or bad things that they can do to help or hinder replicable statistical analysis, provided their device documentation is sufficient to be replicated.

As the DIY data accumulates, we'll have some basis to state what the range of possible values are, and from that, we should be able to state things like confidence intervals, trial counts, test methods and all those goodies that should ideally come from a theory, were a single one viable and accepted, which is not the case.

Right now, we have statistical data that hints that something, and lord knows what that means, is happening in the few tests provided to this forum.

As SEE and RFMGUY move forward, while they have their own agendas in why, how and what they do, our best strategy is to provide the most methodologically precise guidance possible, and hope our advice is good, and that they take it.

Vague statements about confidence intervals, trial counts, large number of observations, etc. are just as much voodoo as attributing EM Drive effects to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We simply don't know at this point given the actual data in hand.

We CAN however, set up a standard of measurement criteria that allows DIY testing to move forward in a sane, replicable, and meaningful way.  The outcomes, whatever they are, will happen.

I don't know if any of this is real, and at my age, it really won't impact me before I move on, but I do know, for myself, I can educate and advise in the exploration of the unknown.  That I shall do.  I invite those who can, to join me.
First class as always Glenn...thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2015 12:12 am
...
We CAN however, set up a standard of measurement criteria that allows DIY testing to move forward in a sane, replicable, and meaningful way.  The outcomes, whatever they are, will happen.

I don't know if any of this is real, and at my age, it really won't impact me before I move on, but I do know, for myself, I can educate and advise in the exploration of the unknown.  That I shall do.  I invite those who can, to join me.

Glenn,

Would be interested in your, and those of others, opinions on my proposed horizontal, high balanced, magnetic thrust bearing, rotary test table and protocol, which will initially be conducted in atmo and will move to 1 torr or lower vac for the commercial X band 1U CubeSat form factor thruster.

Lithium Ion battery pack is sized to provide 1 hour primary Dc supply to the 100w Rf at 2/3 discharge. Full data logging on all tests including spin down deceleration rate to characterise frictional losses per rpm.

The rotary table will be shielded from external air currents, is totally battery powered and has no external cords. Comms are via a 5GHz high band wireless USB link as indicated in the attachment.

Test system is HIGHLY portable.


1) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to the left. Allowed to rotate CCW for 30 minutes.

2) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to centre of table. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

3) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to right. Allowed to rotate CW for 30 minutes.

4) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, away from centre. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

5) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, straight up. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

6) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, straight down. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

Repeat the above 5 times.

Using the spin down frictional loss data, adjust the spin up data to reflect a lossless accelerative data set.

Present all S band thruster data sets and video of one spin up run on a web site designed to promote commercial sales of the later X band thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/08/2015 01:26 am
@rfmwguy,

ok, nice, so from amateur sceptic reviewer to amateur enthusiast builder, here is the caveat about why I think the 95% confidence correlation seen by @glennfish between "slowed rate of raise" during power on pulses on the latest NSF1701 balance tests charts don't prove downward thrust :

Let's pretend for a while that there is only forces involved by thermal convective flow (no Lorentz forces, no expansion driven centre of mass shifts, no vibrations, no EMdrive effect...). We then have a system driven with one input signal : the injected electric power (that I suppose is converted 100% to heating thermal power almost instantly, compared to the time scale of your recordings), and with one output : the convective flow driven force (that I will suppose is measured instantly as proportional to the displacement. I'll discount the mechanical inertia of balance for the moment)

Input : heating power
Output : convective flow (upward) force

This idealised input/output system can be understood as a filter : it is a low pass filter. Clearly the convective force would follow slow variations of power, but fast variations will be "smoothed out" due to significant heat capacity and finite heat conduction of various masses intermediate between where the electric power is dissipated and where surfaces are in contact with air. Building a precise quantitative thermal model would be hard, so I can't give you quantitative arguments in what follows, but in the general sense it can't really be argued that it is a low pass filter of some sort.

Causal low pass filter (causal meaning that the output at time t can't be influenced by inputs at time t+1, hence all physically real filters are causal until we invent anti-telephones) always introduce some delay in the signal. When excited by a periodic input, the output will exhibit a similar periodic component but with a different magnitude (lower magnitude if excitation is above the cutoff) and with a phase shift that depends on the frequency (how far above the cutoff) and the order of the filter.


order |  phase shift for freq >> cutoff
  1   |   -90°
  2   |  -180°
  3   |  -270°
  4   |     0°
  5   |   -90°
  6   |  -270°
  ...


So what I'm saying is that if your system happens to behave anything like a second order ( or sixth, or (2+4n)th order) low pass filter and if your periodic on/off excitation has a frequency (I'm speaking below Hz, nothing to do with the microwaves at GHz !) significantly higher than the cutoff then :
- The periodic on/off excitation will induce (attenuated) ripples in the output
- Those ripples will be phase shifted -180°, dips when excitation on, crests when excitation off

Typical second order Bode plot (amplitude/phase) :

(http://sim.okawa-denshi.jp/images/crcrs1.png)


Likewise if it happens to be of order 3 or 4 and the excitation has a frequency not so above cutoff that makes the phase shift happen around -180°. I say that in case you would remark that for the second order, the flat part @ -180° correspond to severe attenuations (in dB), with hardly any ripple left (maybe, maybe).

Anyway, basically, the "slowed down rate of upward increase" during the on half periods could be just the delayed consequence of the previous off half period. A second order filter is made quite easily by putting in series 2 first order filters, for instance by having a conduction of heat to a mass that thermally conduct to a second mass that is in contact with air. This is the thermal equivalent of the electric circuit attached, where capacitor represent a mass of a certain heat capacity, electric charge is thermal energy (J), tension is temperature, inner resistors are thermal path of limited heat conduction, last resistor R3 current represents the power that dissipates in air by convection, and tension above R3 the temperature of convective surface (roughly, proportional to the convective force, if it is linear with temp. difference and dissipated power, which I have to check, not sure). Third order, 4th order wouldn't be hard to be made "by accident" either...

What is the Bode plot of your system, as far as coupling power input to convective force output is concerned is anyone's guess, so the amplitude and phase of thermal ripples are both unknown. Should their amplitude be significant (which we have no idea of), the chances that those ripples mimic a downward rather than an upward component during on half periods is kind of 50/50. This needs to be characterised, until then the result is inconclusive, IMO.

ps. I wanted to do some simulations to illustrate the idea but, being the (happy) father of a brand new baby (since May) my spare time is severely restricted. That is the main reason of my hampered rate of contribution as of late (the other reasons having been stated by zen-in). I will try to think of ways to overcome this problem of unknown phase shift. In principle, I guess, it should be possible to characterize those aspects by treating the system as a black box, experimentally, i.e. without having to model the thermal characteristics from geometry and materials of the parts. For lack of time and tools, I probably can't do either. I would recommend at least testing with various on/off periods (twice, half) to have some indication of what the transfer function looks like and where we sit on it. That and having a separate characterisation of the mechanic (moment of inertia, restoring torque in function of angular deviation). Probably also a higher number of runs, on/off sequence, stop, on/off sequence, stop, and so on. Analyse the level (magnitude) of ripples when the situation is cold (start of on/off sequences), warm, hot (end of on/off sequence). A "real effect" should show no significant magnitude difference whether it is operated cold or warm or hot (you would always have the excuse of "losing resonance" I guess...). Not sure this would be enough to conclusively separate a thrust signal from thermal responses but that would be tougher food for sceptics to chew on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/08/2015 01:59 am

Another thing I would like to point out in this picture is the difference in the rising edge slope vs falling edge slope response to the RF power.   Intuitively one would expect them to be symmetrical just as the capacitive force response is.

Um inertia, it takes a short amount of time to get something moving and a short amount of time for it to stop.  (This was a horizontal test right.)  Seems like the bit showing thrust shows inertia and the bit showing a non-thrust error source does not.  And they're seeing this in a vacuum chamber, interesting.

Actually I take that back.   The rising edge and falling edge are symmetrical almost like the capacitive thrust.   The picture below shows this.  I traced out the falling edge, flipped it vertically and placed it next to the rising edge (blue).   They line up quite well for a little bit.   The V flipped falling edge, in blue has the same exponential shape as the voltage wrt time of a charging capacitor.    This exponential waveform is also seen when something heats up; figure2.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/08/2015 06:07 am

Another thing I would like to point out in this picture is the difference in the rising edge slope vs falling edge slope response to the RF power.   Intuitively one would expect them to be symmetrical just as the capacitive force response is.

Um inertia, it takes a short amount of time to get something moving and a short amount of time for it to stop.  (This was a horizontal test right.)  Seems like the bit showing thrust shows inertia and the bit showing a non-thrust error source does not.  And they're seeing this in a vacuum chamber, interesting.

Actually I take that back.   The rising edge and falling edge are symmetrical almost like the capacitive thrust.   The picture below shows this.  I traced out the falling edge, flipped it vertically and placed it next to the rising edge (blue).   They line up quite well for a little bit.   The V flipped falling edge, in blue has the same exponential shape as the voltage wrt time of a charging capacitor.    This exponential waveform is also seen when something heats up; figure2.

I look forward to seeing your statistical analysis.  I can't help but feel that if EW had said that they were conducting further tests about something else, that you would be insisting that something else explains the effect.  Put numbers to it, saying that curves look vaguely alike gets us nowhere.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/08/2015 09:36 am

Another thing I would like to point out in this picture is the difference in the rising edge slope vs falling edge slope response to the RF power.   Intuitively one would expect them to be symmetrical just as the capacitive force response is.

Um inertia, it takes a short amount of time to get something moving and a short amount of time for it to stop.  (This was a horizontal test right.)  Seems like the bit showing thrust shows inertia and the bit showing a non-thrust error source does not.  And they're seeing this in a vacuum chamber, interesting.

Actually I take that back.   The rising edge and falling edge are symmetrical almost like the capacitive thrust.   The picture below shows this.  I traced out the falling edge, flipped it vertically and placed it next to the rising edge (blue).   They line up quite well for a little bit.   The V flipped falling edge, in blue has the same exponential shape as the voltage wrt time of a charging capacitor.    This exponential waveform is also seen when something heats up; figure2.

I look forward to seeing your statistical analysis.  I can't help but feel that if EW had said that they were conducting further tests about something else, that you would be insisting that something else explains the effect.  Put numbers to it, saying that curves look vaguely alike gets us nowhere.

Those rises and decays looking thermal and not sharp enough to be electromagnetic in nature has been discussed since almost day one of publication of 2014 Brady's report on NSF, so you can't seriously be talking of moving goalposts. It is as anomalous today as it was then, and one day or another it will have to be quantitatively assessed. EW publication, and later Paul March (aka. Start Drive) here say that it is too fast to be 100% thermal, that there is a sharp component, but this is words too, not much quantitative analysis have been done by proponents either.

Presented with those curves, the edges are apparently too steep to be thermal (words), and too smooth to be electromagnetic (words). Understanding this contradiction is not a matter of statistics, as in "95% confidence" and the such. Although having a lot more data points couldn't hurt (hell, in vacuum we have what, 2 or 3 plots ?). It is about building models qualitatively and quantitatively consistent with the few curves we have at hand.

The sad situation is at this point it is only words against words, but that doesn't mean some arguments aren't sound. Zen-in raises a valid point when he says "This exponential waveform is also seen when something heats up". Granted, this should be backed by numbers. EW makes a pertinent remark when saying that the typical time constants of their thermals are one or two order of magnitude longer than the rises and decay times. But this should be backed by numbers and models much more than they did so far, which frankly up to this point was more like some excessive amount of arm waving and jumping the gun to conclusion (fast enough to the naked eye => thrust).

I have my idea why and how that could be thermal edges. I'm saying that it could be happening, I don't (can't) say this is what is happening. To do so I would need EW to perform a few specific tests :
- record the excitation (MW power) on a dual channel on scope traces (I don't trust the post facto time stamping of on/off excitation pulses)
- vary the power from 10W to 80W by 10W steps
- do much longer series, with continuous monitoring, i.e. 20 40s_on/40s_off in a continuous row
- on such series do a parameter study on periods and duty cycle (20s_on/20s_off, 20s_on/30s_off  ...)
- obviously we don't want man in the loop (during experiments) as was the case so far with Paul March manually tuning the resonance during runs, this should be tracked by proper feedback loop, or an algorithm, or whatever deterministic system
- properly characterise the sensitivity of the experiment to centre of mass shift with a dedicated centre of mass calibration instrument tm. (i.e. a servomotor that shifts its own weight from left to right, budget 10$)
- check and quantify precisely (by a parameter study) the influence of pendulum axis tilt (that should be vertical really), in relation to sensitivity to centre of mass shifts (previous point). All that can be done in air.
- specify the amount of torque used to secure the nylon bolts that hold the dielectric slab inside.
- do a parameter study of the influence of said torque (previous point)

My hypothesis (that could easily be wrong, but that is not ruled out by the data publicly available so far) is that the nylon bolts are operating in a range of temperature near the glass transition. See Tg on the blue curve.

(http://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/resources/images/cdn/cms/0615ptKHMaterials3.jpg)

There is a temp. where little temp variation will change material elasticity a lot. This transition is not melting, this transition is reversible. The melting would occur at much higher temp. and does occur from time to time at EW (as per March communication, and I can't stress enough the positive role of having one of the lead experimentalist having been open to such "details"). If nylon bolts melting occurs sometimes, it is not far fetched to consider that temperatures swinging around glass transition occur routinely. As to why the temp. would raise to such magnitude as 75°C in the nylon bolts, while the rest of the "copper box" has typical temps kept <30°C (was that it ?) would be a good question. We know they melt sometime, so we know they can heat a lot, but why ? Maybe because Nylon has a very significant ability to absorb water ? Yes, this is a little known fact but a plain block of nylon is a "sponge", to some extent. Not my area of knowledge, chemists in polymers please chime in. That would make the nylon bolts hot points in the microwave standing wave, like a (slightly) wet sponge in a microwave oven gets hot while the casing remains relatively cold. Put on top of that the behaviour of a not yet fully degassed (water content evaporated) nylon bolt in vacuum since 1 or 2 hours, that already had 0 or 1 or 4 thermal cycles, and one would have a very complex experimental situation to deal with (hard to replicate results, unexplainable drifts...). Remember also that the MW standing wave has nodes and antinodes. Depending on the exact placement of bolts you might have an effect or not, even a MW mode shift during a run could make a dramatic difference in response.

Obviously when/if the nylon bolt have a glass transition, the nylon bolt will hold more or less tightly the dielectric slab against the (slightly elastic, and potentially buckled) end PCB plate. This will make the whole slab move by a few µm, and shift the rest angular position of the pendulum accordingly (since it is slightly tilted, for stabilisation purpose), and generate a false signal.

Specific absorption of heat by nylon bolts, amplified effect (by steep non linearity of glass transition), high temperatures (lower time constants, in particular that would explain fast cooling on power off, it takes less time to cool from 80°C to 60°C than from 30°C to 20°C, also nylon bolts could cool conductively to the surrounding, that has been heated but is still cooler than them), sensitivity to centre of mass shifts, all that makes possible a 100% thermal explanation to the observed plots. That would also explain why 180° reversal of the frustum showed inconsistent result (that would depend whether its 180° around vertical or horizontal axis, whether a bolt that is up stays up or is now down, in the 3 120° spaced bolts design).

You might say this is a bit of a stretch. Agree, and I wouldn't give this specific line of explanation of the "effect" more than 10% chances if I had to bet. This is just one example of how messy reality could be (and often is)... experimentalist want to see the expected effect. They will try to "mitigate" and characterize and eliminate some systematics, but they will also tinker around and add special sauce, like dielectric slabs and nylon bolts, until "it works". There is a strong incentive to literally build up messy situations where improbable chains of unlikely events will produce anomalies semi-reliably. I'm looking forward to the "details" of next EW published results. But won't be convinced until they evacuated those kind of messy possibilities with much cleaner and systematic procedures.

And vacuum doesn't magically get rid of all of them. No matter what, this horizontal pendulum should be run horizontal (axis of rotation vertical, as strictly as possible) such that there is no centre of mass shift induced consequence on signal. I see no serious reason why we should "mitigate" such spurious component and rely on post treatment, when it shouldn't be here in the first place on a cleanly operated torsion pendulum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RERT on 11/08/2015 10:40 am
I was thinking over the past few days on what would be required to make sense of the 'plume of distorted spacetime' exhaust for the emdrive. It will take me months or years of learning and analysis to say much coherent about this, if it is even possible. However, one immediate thought struck me as worth sharing.

If spacetime is distorted so as to exert a force on a frustrum, a first stab is that it might look like plain old gravity localised at one end and oriented in the correct direction.

If that is the case, then maybe the force on an object would be proportional to its mass, just like gravity.

In that case, the figure of merit for EMdrives would be N/W/kg, not just N/W.

To heap on another layer of conjecture, the higher thrusts measured by Shawyer and Yang could simply be a result of using bigger, heavier test rigs.

R.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ARW on 11/08/2015 12:07 pm
Could someone clear for me Paul March reply regarding EW results. It's last paragraph I'm bit confused about. Did he meant that they still observed trust after deducing thermal effects analytically but they weren't happy with only analytical approach or did he meant that they are building analytical tools with engineering solution to remove thermal effects once and for all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/08/2015 12:22 pm
Could someone clear for me Paul March reply regarding EW results. It's last paragraph I'm bit confused about. Did he meant that they still observed trust after deducing thermal effects analytically but they weren't happy with only analytical approach or did he meant that they are building analytical tools with engineering solution to remove thermal effects once and for all.

I think the point was that with their "current" test configuration, the best they could do was try to analytically remove a theoretical thermal effect from the observed signal after which they still observed thrust. Any attempt to actually eliminate the thermal contamination would require modifying the test configuration, which was the next step.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/08/2015 12:30 pm


Four runs in total (up, down, in and out) being done under the same conditions should provide enough data to enable the thermal lift characteristics to be removed from the signal letting us extract any thrust signature

No where close to what's needed in a sample.  You need to characterize the variability/noise/range of "normalized" values and have a confidence interval around that.

IF there's a strong signal, maybe 30 of each might do.  If there's a weak signal, it could be many many many more.

 If the radial runs show a signal corresponding to a purely thermal effect (whatever that looks like) AND the tangential tests show more of a signal one might expect from a combination of thermal and thrust (whatever that looks like) AND the signal was reversed in magnitude when the tangential thruster orientation was changed I might be convinced something really interesting is happening.

But as you say, more runs would be needed to try to actually nail down the magnitude of the thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/08/2015 12:33 pm
@rfmwguy,

ok, nice, so from amateur sceptic reviewer to amateur enthusiast builder, here is the caveat about why I think the 95% confidence correlation seen by @glennfish between "slowed rate of raise" during power on pulses on the latest NSF1701 balance tests charts don't prove downward thrust :

Let's pretend for a while that there is only forces involved by thermal convective flow (no Lorentz forces, no expansion driven centre of mass shifts, no vibrations, no EMdrive effect...). We then have a system driven with one input signal : the injected electric power (that I suppose is converted 100% to heating thermal power almost instantly, compared to the time scale of your recordings), and with one output : the convective flow driven force (that I will suppose is measured instantly as proportional to the displacement. I'll discount the mechanical inertia of balance for the moment)

Input : heating power
Output : convective flow (upward) force

This idealised input/output system can be understood as a filter : it is a low pass filter. Clearly the convective force would follow slow variations of power, but fast variations will be "smoothed out" due to significant heat capacity and finite heat conduction of various masses intermediate between where the electric power is dissipated and where surfaces are in contact with air. Building a precise quantitative thermal model would be hard, so I can't give you quantitative arguments in what follows, but in the general sense it can't really be argued that it is a low pass filter of some sort.

Causal low pass filter (causal meaning that the output at time t can't be influenced by inputs at time t+1, hence all physically real filters are causal until we invent anti-telephones) always introduce some delay in the signal. When excited by a periodic input, the output will exhibit a similar periodic component but with a different magnitude (lower magnitude if excitation is above the cutoff) and with a phase shift that depends on the frequency (how far above the cutoff) and the order of the filter.


order |  phase shift for freq >> cutoff
  1   |   -90°
  2   |  -180°
  3   |  -270°
  4   |     0°
  5   |   -90°
  6   |  -270°
  ...


So what I'm saying is that if your system happens to behave anything like a second order ( or sixth, or (2+4n)th order) low pass filter and if your periodic on/off excitation has a frequency (I'm speaking below Hz, nothing to do with the microwaves at GHz !) significantly higher than the cutoff then :
- The periodic on/off excitation will induce (attenuated) ripples in the output
- Those ripples will be phase shifted -180°, dips when excitation on, crests when excitation off

Typical second order Bode plot (amplitude/phase) :

(http://sim.okawa-denshi.jp/images/crcrs1.png)


Likewise if it happens to be of order 3 or 4 and the excitation has a frequency not so above cutoff that makes the phase shift happen around -180°. I say that in case you would remark that for the second order, the flat part @ -180° correspond to severe attenuations (in dB), with hardly any ripple left (maybe, maybe).

Anyway, basically, the "slowed down rate of upward increase" during the on half periods could be just the delayed consequence of the previous off half period. A second order filter is made quite easily by putting in series 2 first order filters, for instance by having a conduction of heat to a mass that thermally conduct to a second mass that is in contact with air. This is the thermal equivalent of the electric circuit attached, where capacitor represent a mass of a certain heat capacity, electric charge is thermal energy (J), tension is temperature, inner resistors are thermal path of limited heat conduction, last resistor R3 current represents the power that dissipates in air by convection, and tension above R3 the temperature of convective surface (roughly, proportional to the convective force, if it is linear with temp. difference and dissipated power, which I have to check, not sure). Third order, 4th order wouldn't be hard to be made "by accident" either...

What is the Bode plot of your system, as far as coupling power input to convective force output is concerned is anyone's guess, so the amplitude and phase of thermal ripples are both unknown. Should their amplitude be significant (which we have no idea of), the chances that those ripples mimic a downward rather than an upward component during on half periods is kind of 50/50. This needs to be characterised, until then the result is inconclusive, IMO.

ps. I wanted to do some simulations to illustrate the idea but, being the (happy) father of a brand new baby (since May) my spare time is severely restricted. That is the main reason of my hampered rate of contribution as of late (the other reasons having been stated by zen-in). I will try to think of ways to overcome this problem of unknown phase shift. In principle, I guess, it should be possible to characterize those aspects by treating the system as a black box, experimentally, i.e. without having to model the thermal characteristics from geometry and materials of the parts. For lack of time and tools, I probably can't do either. I would recommend at least testing with various on/off periods (twice, half) to have some indication of what the transfer function looks like and where we sit on it. That and having a separate characterisation of the mechanic (moment of inertia, restoring torque in function of angular deviation). Probably also a higher number of runs, on/off sequence, stop, on/off sequence, stop, and so on. Analyse the level (magnitude) of ripples when the situation is cold (start of on/off sequences), warm, hot (end of on/off sequence). A "real effect" should show no significant magnitude difference whether it is operated cold or warm or hot (you would always have the excuse of "losing resonance" I guess...). Not sure this would be enough to conclusively separate a thrust signal from thermal responses but that would be tougher food for sceptics to chew on.
Thank you very much. I am working my way through your proposal and trying to relate it to my test bed. Attached is the raw data (columns b-c are noise channels, channel E is timestamp) for my Flight Test 2D as well as a graph I made this AM.

It is a simple graph that was taken after the first test run at about data point 905. There is a beam oscillation induced by air disturbance as I returned to the lab and walked past the frustum mounted on one end of the balance beam. This was a slight air disturbance that was dampened quickly but this shows the resonance, or period of the 7 foot balance beam.

After inserting the mean on the first cycle, the displacement period after the air disturbance is about 0.08 hertz (12 seconds) which persists for about 3 cycles before being dampened by the oil bath.

Understanding that there are smaller values of harmonics and sub-harmonics on any mechanical system, I cannot visualize any rapid displacement changes (measured by the Laser Displacement Sensor) due to an outside kinetic force such as an air disturbance or mechanical shock.

This is not to say that there is no noise in the system, but the length of the balance beam is 7 feet and was chosen to provide a very low cycle (period) rate, so as not to have an immediate impact on any displacement caused by magnetron on or off.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/08/2015 12:56 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell

I picked what looked right in the E fields.  If you want to see something different in either the E or H fields or some combination let me know, it will be quick to re-gen with a different set of frames now.

https://youtu.be/OYoG9KjOU5o
It would be nice to see something in the H fields, you pick what you find interesting.

This last set after viewing it several times over showed actions on the large plate that I didn't see in just the stills. Also it was in the right direction not reversed, my bad.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 01:11 pm


1) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to the left. Allowed to rotate CCW for 30 minutes.

2) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to centre of table. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

3) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, to right. Allowed to rotate CW for 30 minutes.

4) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, away from centre. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

5) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, straight up. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

6) Frustum aligned, pointing small end, straight down. Allowed to operate for 30 minutes.

Repeat the above 5 times.

Using the spin down frictional loss data, adjust the spin up data to reflect a lossless accelerative data set.

Present all S band thruster data sets and video of one spin up run on a web site designed to promote commercial sales of the later X band thruster.

In your case, you are starting with a theory as to why this should work, and you have some scaling laws that you've identified that indicate the level of thrust you expect.

There are several possible approaches you could consider:
1.  validate your theory by pre-calculating what you should see, and then testing to see how closely your device matches calculated performance
2.  take a step back and simply attempt to validate that any thrust occurs

The first is more ambitious than the 2nd, and is more suited to commercialization whereas the 2nd is less ambitious and more suited to skeptical review.  In the first case, it doesn't matter what the skeptic thinks, it only matters what the prospective customer thinks.  In the 2nd case, you have to be prepared to take a serious beating by any skeptic with an internet connection.  Remember though, every prospective customer will have a due diligence team whose job it is to unconditionally say, "It's a waste of money."  Customers sometimes listen to their due diligence team.

Now with respect to your proposed testing.  On the physical side, I would add one consideration in your approach that considers the effects of oxidation as seen by Tajmar.  His Q values dropped by over 50% from the beginning to the end of the testing and he attributed that to oxidation.  With any long duration testing in atmosphere, you should expect to see similar problems, so I'd add something such as a de-oxidation process after each run and perhaps, if practicable, monitor the Q in real time as a surrogate for oxidation effects.

On the statistical side you have 6 test conditions replicated 5 times.  Even if your signal is high and your noise is low, it wouldn't be enough to make a statistical claim for publication.  However, if your theory says you'll get x Newtons and you get x +- y% and x is way out of the weeds, then it would be a very compelling test.

One thing that would be good to know before you start is the character of your "table" hysteresis.  That should be relatively easy to measure and model.  Once you have that fully characterized, then you could probably shorten your run times and increase your number of replications.

From my point of view, I'd rather see 30 one minute tests than five 30 minute tests.  If you bumped that up to 100 one minute tests per orientation and  you video tape it all, the statistical outcomes, whatever they are, would be a very strong statement.

The rotary table will be a strong focal point of any otherwise positive results.  Unless the table is clearly characterized, there will be the claim that James Randi is your design consultant.  I would consider doing over the top type things, i.e. making everything out of clear polycarbonate so everything is visible at all times.  Doing the testing in the center of a concrete floor with no extraneous cables or extra stuff visible.  Keep in the back of your mind that to a physicist on a due diligence team, occam's razor will say it's more likely that you cheated than it is that you're demonstrating a propellantless drive.

As you get closer to the testing, I'll toss you some models and statistics that are a good fit for where you actually end up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 02:46 pm
Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 03:05 pm
Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

I don't think Karl Popper would agree with you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 03:22 pm
Peer revision of physics doesn't ban anything. But the group of interests on EM drive are limiting themselves from interaction with physicians.

Try pushing information about EM drive into the physical society, may led to interesting result.

Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

I don't think Karl Popper would agree with you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 03:36 pm
Peer revision of physics doesn't ban anything. But the group of interests on EM drive are limiting themselves from interaction with physicians.

Try pushing information about EM drive into the physical society, may led to interesting result.

Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

I don't think Karl Popper would agree with you.

我们感谢所有的意见在这里。我相信,您的意见是不理解。
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 04:06 pm
I don't have language problems, and I read Karl Popper's theory on Open Society long ago.

However it's strange that a question about basic physical laws could be limited among engineers, without  physicians.

This is going against Karl Popper.

Peer revision of physics doesn't ban anything. But the group of interests on EM drive are limiting themselves from interaction with physicians.

Try pushing information about EM drive into the physical society, may led to interesting result.

Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

I don't think Karl Popper would agree with you.

我们感谢所有的意见在这里。我相信,您的意见是不理解。
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 04:20 pm
If the theory of EM propulsion goes true, the consequence could exceed propulsion engineering MUCH.

All physical models of phenomenon involving strong EM radiation field needs to be amended, almost everything in nuclear / astrophysics / theory of universe

Stars and hydrogen bombs have extremely intense radiation fields and radiation pressure forces inside.

What would happen to black holes?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 04:33 pm
I don't have language problems, and I read Karl Popper's theory on Open Society long ago.

However it's strange that a question about basic physical laws could be limited among engineers, without  physicians.

This is going against Karl Popper.

Peer revision of physics doesn't ban anything. But the group of interests on EM drive are limiting themselves from interaction with physicians.

Try pushing information about EM drive into the physical society, may led to interesting result.

Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

I don't think Karl Popper would agree with you.

我们感谢所有的意见在这里。我相信,您的意见是不理解。

I was thinking more of The Myth of the Framework and the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

These are yet unresolved questions studied by epistemology. Empiricism doesn't require credentials.  On the otherhand, if you want to be published in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, you'd better have credentials.

There are real physicists who monitor this forum.  Occassionally they shake the tree.

Physicians tend to be medical doctors.

Today, EM Drive would be classified as  fringe science.  Not a perjorative term, but it is definitely something to avoid on a tenure track.  Fringe science evolves over time to become either mainstream or voodoo science.

The DIY folks here happen to come from engineering backgrounds AND have the time AND have the resources to try to build and test. They wish to build a working device and the specifications to do so are within the reach of many people. 

If they ever have a convincing data set, you can be sure that physicists will swarm like gnats.

Until such time, physicists will probably not, and probably should not, participate directly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/08/2015 04:35 pm

...

Actually I take that back.   The rising edge and falling edge are symmetrical almost like the capacitive thrust.   The picture below shows this.  I traced out the falling edge, flipped it vertically and placed it next to the rising edge (blue).   They line up quite well for a little bit.   The V flipped falling edge, in blue has the same exponential shape as the voltage wrt time of a charging capacitor.    This exponential waveform is also seen when something heats up; figure2.

I look forward to seeing your statistical analysis.  I can't help but feel that if EW had said that they were conducting further tests about something else, that you would be insisting that something else explains the effect.  Put numbers to it, saying that curves look vaguely alike gets us nowhere.

No one can do an accurate statistical analysis without raw data and we don't have any raw data.   Frobnicat, Rodal, and others in this discussion are eminently more qualified than I to undertake this.   From my limited experience working in a research lab I think that doing a curve fit of the "thrust" data would be the best we can do at this point since we don't have any raw data.    When a curve fit is done analytically an equation is derived that when plotted will very closely match the data.    Visually we can see the "thrust" waveform is very similar to the temp. plot of an incandescent light.   They both appear to be exponential functions.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 04:58 pm

No one can do an accurate statistical analysis without raw data and we don't have any raw data. 

I wouldn't say that we "don't have any raw data."  We can question its quality, its relevance, whether it's sufficient... many things about it can be said, good or bad.  But it's raw, and attached.

one of RFMWGUY's runs, columns B, C, and D.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 04:59 pm
Many theoretical physicists are radical in proposing hypothetical theories, sometimes much more radical than EM drive, awaiting to get even tiny proof from experiments.

This is what happening now to string theory / dark matter, etc.

Processes involved in EM drive are ubiquitous. With imagination and mathematical deduction, much characteristic experiment methods could be designed instead of barely measuring forces.

Something comparable to Michelson-Morley Experiment with inferometer, bending of light passing near sun, or anomalies of Mercury's orbit.

However,theoretical physicists are geeky and the popularity of EM drive is still low, lobbying maybe necessary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/08/2015 05:05 pm
Those "experiments" are meaningless without peer revision of physicists, NOT engineers.

What I publish in results will come under the scrutiny of novice to physicists. It will be a open data set for all to view and comment on. I'm after one simple thing and that is data to present to all.

One thing to realize no matter who reviews it, the data will not be to a 5 sigma level, I don't have the resources to build to that level. I do have enough to build to bring the data sets out from the noise and whether is good data or bad data will be subject to your views.

This Drive is a very heated topic and certainly will remain so for years to come.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/08/2015 05:18 pm

No one can do an accurate statistical analysis without raw data and we don't have any raw data. 

I wouldn't say that we "don't have any raw data."  We can question its quality, its relevance, whether it's sufficient... many things about it can be said, good or bad.  But it's raw, and attached.

one of RFMWGUY's runs, columns B, C, and D.

The tests I have been discussing were done by EW.  Twice I posted a photo of the EW data.   Before that I discussed the great value of the EW vacuum tests because thermal effects can be tested independently.   We don't have any raw data from EW.  Maybe I should have made that more clear.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 05:21 pm
Real problem lies in theory explanation, not precision.

Many historical important physics experiments don't have five sigmas, but they have great explanations (may be radical).

Simply reproduce the same kind of experiments without theory won't increase the interest of physicists, they simply get confused and cease into "other thing may go wrong".

Extreme experiments need extreme theory.

Unless the experimental results becomes "catastrophic", e.g. the discovery of radioactive elements. Or build one into a cubesat and have considerable orbit rise?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 05:27 pm

The tests I have been discussing were done by EW.  Twice I posted a photo of the EW data.   Before that I discussed the great value of the EW vacuum tests because thermal effects can be tested independently.   We don't have any raw data from EW.  Maybe I should have made that more clear.

My apologies, my bad.

IMHO, if the signal is strong enough, thermal effects, even asymmetric thermal effects are acceptable with in atmosphere testing, provided:  the random variation isn't too large, and the signal is measurable.  Model attached.  Baseline assumption is thermal effects are 10 X greater than thrust signature and noise is 10% of total signal.  Change anything in yellow to meet your assumptions, then push the button.  Taylored to SEE's current build strategy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/08/2015 05:37 pm
Considering the popularity of experiments, it may be economically feasible to crowdfund a cubesat for utimate convincing experiment.

Platforms such as Kickstarter may be useful to collect resources,  it's even possible to attract Angel investment with buisness PR.

However promising too much about business may turns into scandal if it do fails.

Engineering and business seldom go ahead of physics.

Anyway, add more resources to orbit may be the fastest way to some decisive result, even if negative result becomes scandal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jötunn on 11/08/2015 06:44 pm
Unlikely. There have been several crowdfunding campaigns now by seeshell and rfmwguy. None of which have come even close to the amount needed to build and launch a cubesat. It would be best to demonstrate the drive more convincingly here on Earth first.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/08/2015 07:32 pm
Here is a very crude curve fit that was done graphically.   I traced rising edge of the EW waveform (green) I posted earlier and stretched it horizontally to match the time constant of the lightbulb thermal plot.  The initial slopes are close and the asymptotic values are close as well.   A better curve fit would use many sets of raw data that were acquired one after the other and then averaged to reduce noise.  But this does show the rising edge of the EW "thrust" waveform is an exponential. function.  Deviations from a smooth curve are likely caused by thermal relief events.

In the second picture I have added the lightbulb heating curve in orange.   It was flipped vertically, rotated CW 10 degrees and stretched vertically.   The first parts of the curve line up very well.   If the falling edge of the "thrust" waveform was not an exponential function then no amount of stretching and rotating would make the two curves line up like this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/08/2015 08:26 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell

I picked what looked right in the E fields.  If you want to see something different in either the E or H fields or some combination let me know, it will be quick to re-gen with a different set of frames now.

...

It would be nice to see something in the H fields, you pick what you find interesting.

This last set after viewing it several times over showed actions on the large plate that I didn't see in just the stills. Also it was in the right direction not reversed, my bad.

Shell

OK - I wasn't sure what you meant by 'reversed' and now I don't have to figure it out  8)

I'm trying to figure out what to show in the H fields and I can't figure out how to correlate the pictures, so I copied just frame 0 for all viewpoints - and I still can't figure out how any of the X or Y crosssections match the BIG end... However, the small end is obvious.  Thumbnail view attached.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 08:34 pm
Here is a very crude curve fit that was done graphically.   I traced rising edge of the EW waveform (green) I posted earlier and stretched it horizontally to match the time constant of the lightbulb thermal plot.  The initial slopes are close and the asymptotic values are close as well.   A better curve fit would use many sets of raw data that were acquired one after the other and then averaged to reduce noise.  But this does show the rising edge of the EW "thrust" waveform is an exponential. function.  Deviations from a smooth curve are likely caused by thermal relief events.

Here's an interesting reference:  http://www.intechopen.com/books/microwave-heating/microwave-synthesis-a-physical-concept

especially these two graphics

1. compares microwave heating rates for ethanol vs oil bath
(http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/17006/media/image12.png)
2. shows heating rates of a metal film with & without magnetic fields
(http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/17006/media/image21.png)

It would appear as if microwave heating follows the same basic function as tungsten heating.

The time domain in these examples is much closer to the EW time domain than your lightbulb example.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: marbor22 on 11/08/2015 10:00 pm
I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: marbor22 on 11/08/2015 10:19 pm
I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)

What defines "Planck time" and that instant where interaction becomes possible? What allows the QVF to become possible? How can we answer these questions, or hope to answer further ones involving Quantum until we resolve these (ergo, no answer to the EmDrive)??
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/08/2015 10:29 pm
@VAXHeadroom

I know it's confusing. Unfortunately, you'll need to work with the coordinate axis included in the file name.

In the BEZ and SEZ you are looking in the positive direction along the Z coordinate at the end slice point.
In the X and Y view, you see a center slice. X-vu has you looking along the positive X coordinate and Y-vu along the positive Y coordinate.

Its a right hand system. The two dipole antennas are on the X axis
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/08/2015 10:33 pm
I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)

What defines "Planck time" and that instant where interaction becomes possible? What allows the QVF to become possible? How can we answer these questions, or hope to answer further ones involving Quantum until we resolve these (ergo, no answer to the EmDrive)??
There are rumors that nasa EW has a peer review paper in progress. We may have to wait a few weeks for release of their qvt hypothesis. I am a builder who has not tried to resolve the theory, only check to see if something was there. I think there is no answer yet. I believe other type of experiments will occur that addresses qvt interaction. It may take years...it may never fully pan out. Best not hold your breath.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/08/2015 10:39 pm
.../...
Thank you very much. I am working my way through your proposal and trying to relate it to my test bed. Attached is the raw data (columns b-c are noise channels, channel E is timestamp) for my Flight Test 2D as well as a graph I made this AM.

It is a simple graph that was taken after the first test run at about data point 905. There is a beam oscillation induced by air disturbance as I returned to the lab and walked past the frustum mounted on one end of the balance beam. This was a slight air disturbance that was dampened quickly but this shows the resonance, or period of the 7 foot balance beam.

After inserting the mean on the first cycle, the displacement period after the air disturbance is about 0.08 hertz (12 seconds) which persists for about 3 cycles before being dampened by the oil bath.

Understanding that there are smaller values of harmonics and sub-harmonics on any mechanical system, I cannot visualize any rapid displacement changes (measured by the Laser Displacement Sensor) due to an outside kinetic force such as an air disturbance or mechanical shock.

This is not to say that there is no noise in the system, but the length of the balance beam is 7 feet and was chosen to provide a very low cycle (period) rate, so as not to have an immediate impact on any displacement caused by magnetron on or off.

Thing is, such long period for mechanical oscillations will lower the magnitude of response for thermal convection driven forces (good) but also for the response to a thrust signal (bad) in a similar amount. In itself, that doesn't really help to discriminate between the two.
This mechanical inertia aspect wasn't discussed in my previous comment about phase shifting, but obviously it has to enter the picture as the time constant are of same order as the excitation period. As I see it, we have an input=power_in / output=LDS_readings system that can be modelled roughly (very roughly) by

In parallel, two entries receiving a certain proportion of power input
- A high thermal inertia stack (with some depth) and high air surface contact at the magnetron
- A low thermal inertia thin reservoir and higher air surface contact situation at the frustum

Then in series the 2 convective forces are filtered by one slightly underdamped mechanical harmonic oscillator (second order) to get a displacement output.

The rising heated air itself would have some level of inertia, and even possibly turbulence, and the 2 flows would lift/drag in all sort of manners on the horizontal top plate and other surfaces, and interfere... that, frankly, is beyond my range of experience. But I could have a shot at modelling the linear model described above by assuming convective forces proportional to temp. difference (above ambient air). The second order mechanical harmonic oscillator should be relatively easy to model with some precision from the mechanical disturbance data. The thermal characteristics of frustum (by assuming simplistic linear convection cooling, Newton's law of cooling) can be tackled from known geometry. The thermal characteristics of the magnetron stack (with radiators), err, well, that's a tough one, maybe try a simple concentric shells model for a start (you know, let's model a chicken : it is roughly spherical in shape...)

With all those unknowns and approximation, I believe it is still possible to come up with a range of simplified models and see how many of them predict 180° (or about) shifted thermal ripples of comparable magnitude to what you recorded (i.e. are the models robust enough to say something about the expected outcome).

If anyone reading and understanding this "program" feels like tackling the problem, please do so (or feel free to comment, obviously). Time permitting I'll give it a shot, but it might be 2 weeks or a month, or I might get discouraged in the process. Side note : I did this kind of signal/filter stuff as graduate student, long ago, this never was at professional or expertise level, this certainly wasn't about thermal systems, I don't have knowledge of physics simulation packages and won't have time to learn one, expect only amateur level custom simulation code, first order integration results, possibly dimensionless (relative amplitudes only) : read "not serious enough for publication".

For the time being I have 2 questions :
- what was the period of the on/off cycles (this is in the data, sorry to ask) ?
- from the VSWR measurements (?) can you tell what proportion of power gets dissipated by the magnetron and what proportion gets dissipated in the skin of the frustum ? (for instance "500W in frustum, 400W in magnetron"). It is not relevant whether the power dissipated in magnetron is primary (limited efficiency) or secondary (bounced back EM energy), only the net.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: marbor22 on 11/08/2015 10:44 pm
I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)

What defines "Planck time" and that instant where interaction becomes possible? What allows the QVF to become possible? How can we answer these questions, or hope to answer further ones involving Quantum until we resolve these (ergo, no answer to the EmDrive)??
There are rumors that nasa EW has a peer review paper in progress. We may have to wait a few weeks for release of their qvt hypothesis. I am a builder who has not tried to resolve the theory, only check to see if something was there. I think there is no answer yet. I believe other type of experiments will occur that addresses qvt interaction. It may take years...it may never fully pan out. Best not hold your breath.

I know Bud. But it is absolutely essential. It just makes me Grrr up inside, as we all...can do nothing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/08/2015 10:51 pm

For the time being I have 2 questions :
- what was the period of the on/off cycles (this is in the data, sorry to ask) ?
- from the VSWR measurements (?) can you tell what proportion of power gets dissipated by the magnetron and what proportion gets dissipated in the skin of the frustum ? (for instance "500W in frustum, 400W in magnetron"). It is not relevant whether the power dissipated in magnetron is primary (limited efficiency) or secondary (bounced back EM energy), only the net.

part 1 of your question is in the attached spreadsheet, columns B, C, D, includes V, timestamp, Mag State

Part 2, don't know, up to RFMWGUY to try to answer.  When I see VSWR, I think backhaul.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/08/2015 10:51 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.
Working on putting this into a 3D animation now...hang on :)
Love it when you talk 3D to me. Look forward to your animation!

Shell

I picked what looked right in the E fields.  If you want to see something different in either the E or H fields or some combination let me know, it will be quick to re-gen with a different set of frames now.

...

It would be nice to see something in the H fields, you pick what you find interesting.

This last set after viewing it several times over showed actions on the large plate that I didn't see in just the stills. Also it was in the right direction not reversed, my bad.

Shell

OK - I wasn't sure what you meant by 'reversed' and now I don't have to figure it out  8)

I'm trying to figure out what to show in the H fields and I can't figure out how to correlate the pictures, so I copied just frame 0 for all viewpoints - and I still can't figure out how any of the X or Y crosssections match the BIG end... However, the small end is obvious.  Thumbnail view attached.
That's because the big end is is a 2d slice through the frustum from where the side wall ends not on the bottom of the curved surface.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 12:18 am

For the time being I have 2 questions :
- what was the period of the on/off cycles (this is in the data, sorry to ask) ?
- from the VSWR measurements (?) can you tell what proportion of power gets dissipated by the magnetron and what proportion gets dissipated in the skin of the frustum ? (for instance "500W in frustum, 400W in magnetron"). It is not relevant whether the power dissipated in magnetron is primary (limited efficiency) or secondary (bounced back EM energy), only the net.

part 1 of your question is in the attached spreadsheet, columns B, C, D, includes V, timestamp, Mag State

Part 2, don't know, up to RFMWGUY to try to answer.  When I see VSWR, I think backhaul.
I measured vswr at about 1.8:1. The signal is complex and varies widely at abt +/- 40 mhz around 2.45 ghz.  It is estimated that about 40 watts of power are supplied at resonance of cavity.

Regarding thermal dissipation, I never measured a heat rise on the side mesh nor the opposite wall of the frustum from the magnetron which was inserted centrally on the large diameter end. Almost all heat rise was directly on magnetron itself. Thermal currents would be primarily straight up as mag was on top of frustum, the lds rise showed very little turbulence or assymetry...some but not a lot. In fact the variations of thermal rise when mag was off could be considered minimal.

The mag on dissplacement was more assymetrical, either reversing, holding against or attenuating lift. The variance is likely due to frequency variation of mag. My next tests will be with a more stabilized mag signal...hopefully.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 12:24 am
Wow, LHC at $8billion to build, who knows how much to operate and a new $2billion particle detector on the ISS to look for dark matter.

I could use a $300 piece of software...perhaps I need to suggest the frustum is checking for dark matter :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/09/2015 12:31 am
Wow, LHC at $8billion to build, who knows how much to operate and a new $2billion particle detector on the ISS to look for dark matter.

I could use a $300 piece of software...perhaps I need to suggest the frustum is checking for dark matter :o
Tell me about it, it adds up doesn't it? I'll send you something to help.  Help rfmwguy with a few bucks people. I'd like to get a thermal camera but will hold off.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/09/2015 12:45 am
@VAXHeadroom

I know it's confusing. Unfortunately, you'll need to work with the coordinate axis included in the file name.

In the BEZ and SEZ you are looking in the positive direction along the Z coordinate at the end slice point.
In the X and Y view, you see a center slice. X-vu has you looking along the positive X coordinate and Y-vu along the positive Y coordinate.

Its a right hand system. The two dipole antennas are on the X axis

I must confess, to say I barely understand what I'm looking at is probably an overstatement.  But data mining and visualization is one of my strongest skills.  I'm rendering all the '_hy' frames into an animation now...
The way these waves flow is not sinusoidal, it builds and then pulses toward the small end.  I'm convinced there's a clue here - that the acceleration is not symmetric...
Video will be posted in a bit...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/09/2015 12:54 am
@VAXHeadroom

I know it's confusing. Unfortunately, you'll need to work with the coordinate axis included in the file name.

In the BEZ and SEZ you are looking in the positive direction along the Z coordinate at the end slice point.
In the X and Y view, you see a center slice. X-vu has you looking along the positive X coordinate and Y-vu along the positive Y coordinate.

Its a right hand system. The two dipole antennas are on the X axis

I must confess, to say I barely understand what I'm looking at is probably an overstatement.  But data mining and visualization is one of my strongest skills.  I'm rendering all the '_hy' frames into an animation now...
The way these waves flow is not sinusoidal, it builds and then pulses toward the small end.  I'm convinced there's a clue here - that the acceleration is not symmetric...
Video will be posted in a bit...
Aero sometimes a picture works better. I believe you are looking at these cords.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/09/2015 01:18 am
@VAXHeadroom

I know it's confusing. Unfortunately, you'll need to work with the coordinate axis included in the file name.

In the BEZ and SEZ you are looking in the positive direction along the Z coordinate at the end slice point.
In the X and Y view, you see a center slice. X-vu has you looking along the positive X coordinate and Y-vu along the positive Y coordinate.

Its a right hand system. The two dipole antennas are on the X axis

I must confess, to say I barely understand what I'm looking at is probably an overstatement.  But data mining and visualization is one of my strongest skills.  I'm rendering all the '_hy' frames into an animation now...
The way these waves flow is not sinusoidal, it builds and then pulses toward the small end.  I'm convinced there's a clue here - that the acceleration is not symmetric...
Video will be posted in a bit...
Aero sometimes a picture works better. I believe you are looking at these cords.

Yeah I get that much, it's what all the other data inside those pics actually means that boggles me :)

BTW: I'm using a freeware raytracing program called POVRay - it's been around a LOOONG time www.povray.org (http://www.povray.org) - I was originally running it on 486's :)  (I've been around a long time too!)
I should post the POVRay code too for posterity...  I'm now running on a 3Ghz i7 - I can't imagine how long this would take on a 486 - probably 2-3 days!

The video editing software I'm using is not freeware, but it's inexpensive - Corel VideoStudio.

Here's the H fields video!
https://youtu.be/MosidTkI54A
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 01:25 am
Wow, LHC at $8billion to build, who knows how much to operate and a new $2billion particle detector on the ISS to look for dark matter.

I could use a $300 piece of software...perhaps I need to suggest the frustum is checking for dark matter :o
Tell me about it, it a ;Ddds up doesn't it? I'll send you something to help.  Help rfmwguy with a few bucks people. I'd like to get a thermal camera but will hold off.

Shell
Thank you shell!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/09/2015 01:42 am
Relevence with dark matter could be very real.

Theory of "dark matter" started from the problem of force balance in galaxies, but evolved into the hypothesis of Weak Interaction Mega Particals over these years.

Looks like the "Ether" in the 19th century proposed as medium of EM waves. (If Ether exists, there may be some means of "ether breathing" EM propulsion?)

Some physicists also hypothesised that basic laws need certain amendment (updated version of the Theory of Relativity) to explain the galaxy force balance problem without adding excessive "dark matter". Though these hypothesis are hard to experiment and decaying from mainstream.

Digg out those physicists from publications and push information of frustum to them. The cost of personal experiment could be circumvented by theoretical cooperation with the right person.

Albert Einstein also started from amateur, but neither built optoelectronic vacuum chamber nor Michelson-Morley inferometer by himself. He bootstrapped his theory from scrach with state of art PR lobbying.
Wow, LHC at $8billion to build, who knows how much to operate and a new $2billion particle detector on the ISS to look for dark matter.

I could use a $300 piece of software...perhaps I need to suggest the frustum is checking for dark matter :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 01:58 am
This possibility may be very real.

Theory of "dark matter" started from the problem of force balance in galaxies, but evolved into the hypothesis of Weak Interaction Mega Partical over these years.

Looks like the proposed "Ether" in the 19th century for medium of light. (If Ether exists, there may be some means of "ether breathing" propulsion?)

Some physicists also hypothesised that basic laws need certain amendment (updated version of the Theory of Relativity) to explain the galaxy force balance problem without adding excessive "dark matter". Though these hypothesis are hard to experiment and decaying from mainstream.

Digg out those physicists from publications and push information of frustum to them.

The cost of personal experiment could be circumvented by theoretical cooperation with the right person. Albert Einstein also started from amateur, but neither built inferometer nor vacuum chamber by himself.

Wow, LHC at $8billion to build, who knows how much to operate and a new $2billion particle detector on the ISS to look for dark matter.

I could use a $300 piece of software...perhaps I need to suggest the frustum is checking for dark matter :o
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/09/2015 02:20 am
Monopoly, but not pure. Hundreds of small labs are still working on more radical or interdisciplinary theories, with intermediate resources between amateur and LHC, around the cost of a cubesat.

Anyway, huge amounts of cold war funding have some minor spinoff funding into small and marginal entities, according to the 80-20 law.

Monopoly problem faced by Albert Einstein was much more hash.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/09/2015 03:06 am
This month is the 100th anniversary of Einstein's November talks.  from today's NYT:

"ON four Thursdays in November 1915 — one lecture each week — Albert Einstein rose to the podium at the Prussian Academy of Sciences to deliver updates on what he came to call his “general theory of relativity.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/how-politics-shaped-general-relativity.html?_r=0

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/09/2015 03:07 am
Been out today but got in got a cookie and a fresh cup=o-coffee and started reviewing my notes over the last few months. Know how things kind of get dropped out from the memory banks? I still find this paper interesting on treating photons in a waveguide as massive particles. "Eqs. (11)-(13) show that the behavior of guided waves are the same as that of deBroglie matter waves, such that the guided photon can be treated as a free massive particle." I'm pushing myself to relearn maths I haven't done in years, but I think it's worth it.

Shell

<quote from article>
PHOTONS INSIDE A WAVEGUIDE AS MASSIVE PARTICLES
Though a TEM mode (its electric and magnetic fields are both perpendicular to the
direction of propagation) cannot propagate in a single conductor transmission line, a guided
wave can be viewed as the superposition of two sets of TEM waves being continually
reflected back and forth between perfectly conducting walls and zigzagging down the
waveguide, the two sets of TEM waves have the same amplitudes and frequencies, but
reverse phases. Usually, the propagation of the electromagnetic wave through an ideal and
uniform waveguide is described by a wave equation in (1+1) D space-time. However, in our
formalism, we will generally place the waveguide along an arbitrary 3D spatial direction, by
which we will show that guided waves have the same behavior as de Broglie matter waves,
and in terms of the 6×1 spinor defined by Eq. (5), we obtain a relativistic quantum equation for the guided waves.

First time poster, long time lurker.  I would like the opinions of professionals but let me supply some premises.

P1) Spacetime is best modeled as a "partless" fluid
                   (from deBroglie/Bohmian mechanics)
P2) There is an energy gradient of some unspecified energetic density that is not static
                   (from the well-studied properties of the sorts of devices we speak of)
P3) Gravitational attraction is indistinguishable from inertial force
                   (from the Principle of Equivalence)
C) ... There is a frame-dragging effect of some sort on what we model as spacetime
                   (from 1,2,3, known physics about frame-dragging in gravitation, and the idea that the energy inside has a local gradient of spacetime-displacement that is rotating in 3d, perhaps analogous to a propeller in water)

Question: can such a locally concentrated amount of energy ever be enough, under GR, to produce enough of a frame-warping effect to be significant at the levels that we observe in the empirical tests of EMdrives done so far?

It is clear to me that the best understandings of "spacetime" invoke a fluid analogy (similar to what you might be yielded by extending the concept of an energy tensor matrix to an infinite number of nodes), and it is clear that if the EMdrive force exists as discussed it must have some interaction with the "spacetime" substance.  Given this, can the already-predicted affects of frame-dragging (given that the EMdrive creates, given these definitions [deBroglie/Bohmian mechanics], some sort of exotic particle) account for an observed force (that is, given the Principle of Equivalence)?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/09/2015 03:24 am
You are very likely on the right way, do it.

Fludic analogy may be updated to more delicated mathematics beyond tensors.

Tensor or even matrix were extremely new to physicists in 1915.

And good PR to society of physicists :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Tetrakis on 11/09/2015 04:27 am
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/09/2015 04:27 am

...
These are yet unresolved questions studied by epistemology. Empiricism doesn't require credentials.  On the otherhand, if you want to be published in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, you'd better have credentials.
...

Until such time, physicists will probably not, and probably should not, participate directly.

And I think that is one of the problems that Academia brings.

Here we are witnessing crowdsourcing of data, analysis, conjecture and revision through shared knowledge. It's new but I can't believe that this is a bad thing. Just maybe it will accelerate the acquisition of Truth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/09/2015 04:46 am
You are very likely on the right way, do it.

Fludic analogy may be updated to more delicated mathematics beyond tensors.

Tensor or even matrix were extremely new to physicists in 1915.

And good PR to society of physicists :)

The interesting thing that I think occupies the crossover between deBroglie/Bohmian mechanics and this drive is that it sort of fits into the general notion, given the potential truth value of the hypothesis of spacetime as a medium that affects an otherwise closed experiment, that an engine pushing against the medium is at the very least conceptually possible and seemingly noncontradictory with known physics.  Whether or not that is the EMdrive is an obviously empirical matter under current study (hence this forum).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/09/2015 08:30 am

I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)

What defines "Planck time" and that instant where interaction becomes possible? What allows the QVF to become possible? How can we answer these questions, or hope to answer further ones involving Quantum until we resolve these (ergo, no answer to the EmDrive)??
There are rumors that nasa EW has a peer review paper in progress. We may have to wait a few weeks for release of their qvt hypothesis. I am a builder who has not tried to resolve the theory, only check to see if something was there. I think there is no answer yet. I believe other type of experiments will occur that addresses qvt interaction. It may take years...it may never fully pan out. Best not hold your breath.

I thought Dr March indicated two papers one for copper & one for aluminium?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Katana on 11/09/2015 09:12 am
Unlikely. There have been several crowdfunding campaigns now by seeshell and rfmwguy. None of which have come even close to the amount needed to build and launch a cubesat. It would be best to demonstrate the drive more convincingly here on Earth first.
Where are the projects? I searched electromagnetic drive on Kickstarter / Indiegogo with no results.

Private funding only need to build a mini EM drive inside a cube. Some educational cubesat programs by students have cubesat platforms with launch opportunities awaiting for meaningful function = cooperation opportunity.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2015 11:30 am
Unlikely. There have been several crowdfunding campaigns now by seeshell and rfmwguy. None of which have come even close to the amount needed to build and launch a cubesat. It would be best to demonstrate the drive more convincingly here on Earth first.
Where are the projects? I searched electromagnetic drive on Kickstarter / Indiegogo with no results.

Private funding only need to build a mini EM drive inside a cube. Some educational cubesat programs by students have cubesat platforms with launch opportunities awaiting for meaningful function = cooperation opportunity.

Have designed a X band 1U CubeSat form factor EmDrive thruster. Should get 25mN at 180W dc input.

Will start the X band build right after my S band thruster is spinning merrily on the rotary test rig. S band thruster is a faster build as will be using a commercial 100W Rf amp & freq gen and X band thruster will use custom 60W rf amp & freq gen.

Have discussed this project with Roger. He thinks a X band 1U CubeSat thruster is a good pathway. It is my intention to market the X band thruster under a SPR license, so to keep it all legal and also to respect the work Roger has done.

Health update. Last rad session 27 Sept. Horray!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/09/2015 11:42 am
Been out today but got in got a cookie and a fresh cup=o-coffee and started reviewing my notes over the last few months. Know how things kind of get dropped out from the memory banks? I still find this paper interesting on treating photons in a waveguide as massive particles. "Eqs. (11)-(13) show that the behavior of guided waves are the same as that of deBroglie matter waves, such that the guided photon can be treated as a free massive particle." I'm pushing myself to relearn maths I haven't done in years, but I think it's worth it.

Shell

<quote from article>
PHOTONS INSIDE A WAVEGUIDE AS MASSIVE PARTICLES
Though a TEM mode (its electric and magnetic fields are both perpendicular to the
direction of propagation) cannot propagate in a single conductor transmission line, a guided
wave can be viewed as the superposition of two sets of TEM waves being continually
reflected back and forth between perfectly conducting walls and zigzagging down the
waveguide, the two sets of TEM waves have the same amplitudes and frequencies, but
reverse phases. Usually, the propagation of the electromagnetic wave through an ideal and
uniform waveguide is described by a wave equation in (1+1) D space-time. However, in our
formalism, we will generally place the waveguide along an arbitrary 3D spatial direction, by
which we will show that guided waves have the same behavior as de Broglie matter waves,
and in terms of the 6×1 spinor defined by Eq. (5), we obtain a relativistic quantum equation for the guided waves.

First time poster, long time lurker.  I would like the opinions of professionals but let me supply some premises.

P1) Spacetime is best modeled as a "partless" fluid
                   (from deBroglie/Bohmian mechanics)
P2) There is an energy gradient of some unspecified energetic density that is not static
                   (from the well-studied properties of the sorts of devices we speak of)
P3) Gravitational attraction is indistinguishable from inertial force
                   (from the Principle of Equivalence)
C) ... There is a frame-dragging effect of some sort on what we model as spacetime
                   (from 1,2,3, known physics about frame-dragging in gravitation, and the idea that the energy inside has a local gradient of spacetime-displacement that is rotating in 3d, perhaps analogous to a propeller in water)

Question: can such a locally concentrated amount of energy ever be enough, under GR, to produce enough of a frame-warping effect to be significant at the levels that we observe in the empirical tests of EMdrives done so far?

It is clear to me that the best understandings of "spacetime" invoke a fluid analogy (similar to what you might be yielded by extending the concept of an energy tensor matrix to an infinite number of nodes), and it is clear that if the EMdrive force exists as discussed it must have some interaction with the "spacetime" substance.  Given this, can the already-predicted affects of frame-dragging (given that the EMdrive creates, given these definitions [deBroglie/Bohmian mechanics], some sort of exotic particle) account for an observed force (that is, given the Principle of Equivalence)?

Unanswered question(s) that need more datasets coming from DYIers, NASA and Universities.  We need these datasets to be able to insert real world numbers into these theories and formulas. 

Currently from what I've read there are 8-9 theories as to what causes the drive to produce an anomaly like thrust. They all evoke one of five-6 possibilities being a closed system. Anyone here feel free to add one if I missed it.

Something is happening inside of the frustum to change its mass in respect to the outside spacetime.

Something from the outside penetrating into and through the walls of the frustum that it can interact with.

Something is escaping the closed confines of the frustum to interact with spacetime.

Something inside the frustum is interacting with another dimension of spacetime.

A virtual particle emanating from the Drive causing a spacetime warpage in front and behind of the drive or the drive creating a warpage due to it's shape.

And a couple more. It also could be a complicated physical anomaly of running RF power to a can that has no real use in propulsion.

EagleWorks is doing a great job to produce datasets of numbers that can be slotted into these theories and speculations and while it's fun pushing yourself to think what it could be now is the time for data. Right no there is no bad data.

For your reading pleasure...
I'll try to pull out what has been discussed here over the last year or so on the waveguides photons acting as massive particles. (search function on the site lacks any robustness here)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1422815;topicseen#msg1422815

A short read on a subset of NSF
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35049.msg1219244#msg1219244

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1419283;topicseen#msg1419283

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1401174;topicseen#msg1401174

Morning coffee thoughts
Shell

I really want to add this quote by Carl Sagan for it rings so very true:
It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/09/2015 11:45 am
Unlikely. There have been several crowdfunding campaigns now by seeshell and rfmwguy. None of which have come even close to the amount needed to build and launch a cubesat. It would be best to demonstrate the drive more convincingly here on Earth first.
Where are the projects? I searched electromagnetic drive on Kickstarter / Indiegogo with no results.

Private funding only need to build a mini EM drive inside a cube. Some educational cubesat programs by students have cubesat platforms with launch opportunities awaiting for meaningful function = cooperation opportunity.
Mine is on the bottom of my post page...
http://www.gofundme.com/yy7yz3k

rfmwguy's
https://www.paypal.me/NSF1701

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 11/09/2015 01:43 pm
Where are the projects? I searched electromagnetic drive on Kickstarter / Indiegogo with no results.

Shell lists hers at the bottom of every post she puts up.

I'm sure many of y'all working on this are of the age that remember these launches clearly:
https://youtu.be/1uoVfZpx5dY (Launch of Apollo 4 from a Saturn V).
The noise! The giant flames coming out of the end of that huge rocket...

Now some 50 odd years later we're discussing forces of an unknown nature that could, *potentially* one day replace that giant tube of flammable gases with a microwave oven...

I love progress. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 01:59 pm
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?
While I understand your sensitivity to billions spent on particle research, et al, , my post was simply to illustrate the disparity in research and development. Climate and particle research are valid fields of study that just happen to be absorbing a large portion of funding. Remember, the Higgs particle has no useful application for humanity. Proof and knowledge of its existence has cost $Billions.

Regarding your dismissive judgement (disappointing results) I would counter that with a few thing I have learned I freely passed along on a home-budget to emdrive builders and enthusiasts:

1) Validation of a (work in progress emdrive) spreadsheet regarding resonance and predictive thrust.
2) Q analysis based on mesh versus solid copper.
3) Significant thermal lift properties and the ability to extract useful data from it.
4) Laser Displacement Sensor measurement applications for balance beam testing.
5) Long period balance beam positives and negatives.
6) Knife edge fulcrum design without stickiness.
7) Low cost approaches for milligram measurements of kilogram weight displacement.
8 ) Symetrical insertion of magnetron radome on one end of the frustum yielding low VSWR and resonance.
9) Low systematic errors includisive of Lorentz force.
10) Physical isolation of digital equipment and benefits to low noise/errors.
11) Method of power supply wiring with minimal friction or drag on balance beam measurements.
12) Liquid metal contact trials and disadvantages.
13) Near field MW radiation analysis, dangers and safety considerations.
14) High voltage design safety considerations and solutions.
15) Reconfiguring readily available commercial equipment for high tech applications.
16) Open source information to anyone interested via a Test Report, raw data and multiple videos.

So "disappointing" I would argue with as not being valid even if displacement measurements were "only" about 40% over system noise levels.

One of the reasons I left another emdrive forum permanently were posts like yours, only they were far more obnoxious. It struck me as questionable why so many posters were dismissive on an EMDrive forum. General physics forums/threads...fine. A forum to discuss EMDrive designs/theories/applications should be just that. Valid critiques like from wallofwolfstreet, deltamass and others should be welcomed. General dismissive attitudes without scientific content should be flushed along with the poster IMHO.

So yes, particle physics, climate changers and helicopter drones did take a bit of a hit, if nothing more than to illustrate the EMDrive project has no significant funding and its resolution could be found if only just a little of the $Billions were spent on it.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/09/2015 02:15 pm
EM Drives, like Particle Physics, will get big money public funding when, and only when, the phenomenon is published in a respected Journal and stated to be completely real. The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; when it comes to science, the public expects concrete results, and will crucify public officials if they don't get the desired results.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/09/2015 02:23 pm
... The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge#Road_to_nowhere
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jötunn on 11/09/2015 02:29 pm
TheTraveller,

Do you have a rough cost estimate for your cubesat thruster?

Legally, wouldn't you only need an SPR license in the UK?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/09/2015 02:37 pm
... The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge#Road_to_nowhere

There was a lot of public backlash in the aftermath of this story, and it has probably been an influential factor in several House and Senate elections since 2006. Do you remember the media coverage of candidates decrying fiscal irresponsibility? Bad spending still happens, but as it was with the Gravina Island Bridge incident, there's usually hell to pay when it does. No one wants to be responsible for the next "wasteful spending" incident that snowballs onto the national stage.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 02:40 pm
...The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; when it comes to science, the public expects concrete results, and will crucify public officials if they don't get the desired results.  :-\
While this should be true, it is not. A topic for another forum another time perhaps: http://cagw.org
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 02:43 pm
EM Drives, like Particle Physics, will get big money public funding when, and only when, the phenomenon is published in a respected Journal and stated to be completely real. The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; when it comes to science, the public expects concrete results, and will crucify public officials if they don't get the desired results.  :-\

I will have to disagree with that. Maybe I am wrong about this but for something like EmDrive to make it to a journal your going to have to have public acceptance first. Meaning demonstrations of thrust way above noise. The ability to provide thrust to cubesats; and I don't mean simply getting the thing spinning, I mean orbital changes on command. From my perspective the establishment views Shawyer's theory as entirely wrong. And the replication experiments that they could trust from Tajmar and EW as being all experimental error. Which I believe they interpret as not even being a sign of anything at all. So step 1 really is show them that there actually IS an anomalous thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 02:45 pm

I have to say, I am majorly stumped.

I took time off - for a not inconsiderable amount of time to study this topic. That also interfered in my professional life.
I made the sacrifice, and learned yet again that I am not retired enough to do this crap.
I would ask everyone a very simple question here.
I don't make energy. I turn "Time" OFF. (no possibility of interaction)
What makes energy? (when I turn it on?)

What defines "Planck time" and that instant where interaction becomes possible? What allows the QVF to become possible? How can we answer these questions, or hope to answer further ones involving Quantum until we resolve these (ergo, no answer to the EmDrive)??
There are rumors that nasa EW has a peer review paper in progress. We may have to wait a few weeks for release of their qvt hypothesis. I am a builder who has not tried to resolve the theory, only check to see if something was there. I think there is no answer yet. I believe other type of experiments will occur that addresses qvt interaction. It may take years...it may never fully pan out. Best not hold your breath.

I thought Dr March indicated two papers one for copper & one for aluminium?
He may have...I have not followed his recent postings as much as I should have. Two will be better than one!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 02:49 pm
EM Drives, like Particle Physics, will get big money public funding when, and only when, the phenomenon is published in a respected Journal and stated to be completely real. The public sector has learned not to spend significant quantities of money on things that don't pan out; when it comes to science, the public expects concrete results, and will crucify public officials if they don't get the desired results.  :-\

I will have to disagree with that. Maybe I am wrong about this but for something like EmDrive to make it to a journal your going to have to have public acceptance first. Meaning demonstrations of thrust way above noise. The ability to provide thrust to cubesats; and I don't mean simply getting the thing spinning, I mean orbital changes on command. From my perspective the establishment views Shawyer's theory as entirely wrong. And the replication experiments that they could trust from Tajmar and EW as being all experimental error. Which I believe they interpret as not even being a sign of anything at all. So step 1 really is show them that there actually IS an anomalous thrust.
I agree with your assessment. One thing that I observed over the many years especially in the electrical engineering community was a "Not Invented Here" tendency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

When I was consulting for a small company, a paper of mine was published in Broadcast Engineering, now TVTechnology: http://www.tvtechnology.com/equipment/0005/highpower-attenuators/262796

I recall the principal engineer at this company freaking out and claiming he knew this all the time, just never bothered to tell anyone.  :D

As he did when I wrote this white paper...heheheh: http://www.everythingrf.com/whitepapers/details/1401-designing-a-cost-effective-in-situ-digital-power-measurement-system
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: IdleMind on 11/09/2015 03:06 pm
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?
While I understand your sensitivity to billions spent on particle research, et al, , my post was simply to illustrate the disparity in research and development. Climate and particle research are valid fields of study that just happen to be absorbing a large portion of funding. Remember, the Higgs particle has no useful application for humanity. Proof and knowledge of its existence has cost $Billions.

Regarding your dismissive judgement (disappointing results) I would counter that with a few thing I have learned I freely passed along on a home-budget to emdrive builders and enthusiasts:

1) Validation of a (work in progress emdrive) spreadsheet regarding resonance and predictive thrust.
2) Q analysis based on mesh versus solid copper.
3) Significant thermal lift properties and the ability to extract useful data from it.
4) Laser Displacement Sensor measurement applications for balance beam testing.
5) Long period balance beam positives and negatives.
6) Knife edge fulcrum design without stickiness.
7) Low cost approaches for milligram measurements of kilogram weight displacement.
8 ) Symetrical insertion of magnetron radome on one end of the frustum yielding low VSWR and resonance.
9) Low systematic errors includisive of Lorentz force.
10) Physical isolation of digital equipment and benefits to low noise/errors.
11) Method of power supply wiring with minimal friction or drag on balance beam measurements.
12) Liquid metal contact trials and disadvantages.
13) Near field MW radiation analysis, dangers and safety considerations.
14) High voltage design safety considerations and solutions.
15) Reconfiguring readily available commercial equipment for high tech applications.
16) Open source information to anyone interested via a Test Report, raw data and multiple videos.

So "disappointing" I would argue with as not being valid even if displacement measurements were "only" about 40% over system noise levels.

One of the reasons I left another emdrive forum permanently were posts like yours, only they were far more obnoxious. It struck me as questionable why so many posters were dismissive on an EMDrive forum. General physics forums/threads...fine. A forum to discuss EMDrive designs/theories/applications should be just that. Valid critiques like from wallofwolfstreet, deltamass and others should be welcomed. General dismissive attitudes without scientific content should be flushed along with the poster IMHO.

So yes, particle physics, climate changers and helicopter drones did take a bit of a hit, if nothing more than to illustrate the EMDrive project has no significant funding and its resolution could be found if only just a little of the $Billions were spent on it.

In this list I don't see a reference per se to radiating heat away from the frustum.

I assume this must have been discussed, but since these threads are so long I must have missed it by not reading all of them.  And I did not see Shawyer in his video discuss it.  Anyway, I came across this article: "http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/".  It's view on EMDrive is that it's improbably due to violations of current physics laws, I'm guessing Newton's third law and conservation of momentum.  According to Shaywer, the EMDrive works inside of those rules and it works better with the super conducting cavity.

How is momentum coming into play and how does it get conserved? Is the conservation occurring because the frustum absorbs more of the microwaves in the small end of the frustum and converts it to heat and then dissipates it multi-directionally? That'd leave the small end at a deficit compared to the larger end creating a momentum imbalance in the resonance chamber.  Parts of the microwaves are absorbed into the frustum, converted to heat and radiated away in all directions while the coherent portion at the larger in produces a uni-directional "thrust" to balance the portion absorbed and converted to heat.  I guess that still leaves open the question of how and why the microwaves generate momentum in the first place.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 03:20 pm
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?
While I understand your sensitivity to billions spent on particle research, et al, , my post was simply to illustrate the disparity in research and development. Climate and particle research are valid fields of study that just happen to be absorbing a large portion of funding. Remember, the Higgs particle has no useful application for humanity. Proof and knowledge of its existence has cost $Billions.

Regarding your dismissive judgement (disappointing results) I would counter that with a few thing I have learned I freely passed along on a home-budget to emdrive builders and enthusiasts:

1) Validation of a (work in progress emdrive) spreadsheet regarding resonance and predictive thrust.
2) Q analysis based on mesh versus solid copper.
3) Significant thermal lift properties and the ability to extract useful data from it.
4) Laser Displacement Sensor measurement applications for balance beam testing.
5) Long period balance beam positives and negatives.
6) Knife edge fulcrum design without stickiness.
7) Low cost approaches for milligram measurements of kilogram weight displacement.
8 ) Symetrical insertion of magnetron radome on one end of the frustum yielding low VSWR and resonance.
9) Low systematic errors includisive of Lorentz force.
10) Physical isolation of digital equipment and benefits to low noise/errors.
11) Method of power supply wiring with minimal friction or drag on balance beam measurements.
12) Liquid metal contact trials and disadvantages.
13) Near field MW radiation analysis, dangers and safety considerations.
14) High voltage design safety considerations and solutions.
15) Reconfiguring readily available commercial equipment for high tech applications.
16) Open source information to anyone interested via a Test Report, raw data and multiple videos.

So "disappointing" I would argue with as not being valid even if displacement measurements were "only" about 40% over system noise levels.

One of the reasons I left another emdrive forum permanently were posts like yours, only they were far more obnoxious. It struck me as questionable why so many posters were dismissive on an EMDrive forum. General physics forums/threads...fine. A forum to discuss EMDrive designs/theories/applications should be just that. Valid critiques like from wallofwolfstreet, deltamass and others should be welcomed. General dismissive attitudes without scientific content should be flushed along with the poster IMHO.

So yes, particle physics, climate changers and helicopter drones did take a bit of a hit, if nothing more than to illustrate the EMDrive project has no significant funding and its resolution could be found if only just a little of the $Billions were spent on it.

In this list I don't see a reference per se to radiating heat away from the frustum.

I assume this must have been discussed, but since these threads are so long I must have missed it by not reading all of them.  And I did not see Shawyer in his video discuss it.  Anyway, I came across this article: "http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/".  It's view on EMDrive is that it's improbably due to violations of current physics laws, I'm guessing Newton's third law and conservation of momentum.  According to Shaywer, the EMDrive works inside of those rules and it works better with the super conducting cavity.

How is momentum coming into play and how does it get conserved? Is the conservation occurring because the frustum absorbs more of the microwaves in the small end of the frustum and converts it to heat and then dissipates it multi-directionally? That'd leave the small end at a deficit compared to the larger end creating a momentum imbalance in the resonance chamber.  Parts of the microwaves are absorbed into the frustum, converted to heat and radiated away in all directions while the coherent portion at the larger in produces a uni-directional "thrust" to balance the portion absorbed and converted to heat.  I guess that still leaves open the question of how and why the microwaves generate momentum in the first place.
You are correct...this wasl part of my decision to move to Phase II testing next year. I acquired a thermal camera and plan to characterize the frustum's "glow" more than anything. My hypothesis is 90% of the heat is contained in the magnetron's own frame and not within the frustum, but I cannot prove this beyond simply taking IR spot measurements...too basic for what we're trying to do here.

I could not fathom kenetic energy from any RF source in the beginning. I still have trouble with that. Years of working around RF equipment up to many kWatts trained me to dismiss the EMDrive offhand, it has to be outgassing, bad test beds, methodology, etc., But then Iulian Berca slapped one together in his Romanian apartment...

I think Shell will analyze thermals before I do next year, but have been reading up on the pioneer anomaly and many other things to try and understand. However, vacuum testing appears to have been successful and thermal causes are becoming less likely. Something is happening is all I can say at this point. My personal journey continues.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: IdleMind on 11/09/2015 03:41 pm
Thanks rfmwguy,

So a frustum might not be absolutely needed then, more of a way to guide and absorb part of the microwaves to get coherence sort of like a laser.  Would there then be some sort of ratio upper limit to maximize thrust produced?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 03:48 pm
...

I could not fathom kenetic energy from any RF source in the beginning. I still have trouble with that. Years of working around RF equipment up to many kWatts trained me to dismiss the EMDrive offhand, it has to be outgassing, bad test beds, methodology, etc., But then Iulian Berca slapped one together in his Romanian apartment...

...

There was alot of talk in the earlier threads about how this was not observed in other RF experiments using resonant cavities. But I never saw an answer to the obvious question, which was, Have their been any situation where a resonant tapered frustum was under test?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 03:58 pm
Thanks rfmwguy,

So a frustum might not be absolutely needed then, more of a way to guide and absorb part of the microwaves to get coherence sort of like a laser.  Would there then be some sort of ratio upper limit to maximize thrust produced?
Interesting thought...I suppose if one were able to contain and reflect the radiation in a pattern similar to a frustum, a cavity may not be needed. Cylindrical cabities and square cavities are not resulting in noticeable force. DIYer KML and our student friend zelleriium in Cal have not had positive results yet:

http://emdrive.wiki/Building

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 04:00 pm
...

I could not fathom kenetic energy from any RF source in the beginning. I still have trouble with that. Years of working around RF equipment up to many kWatts trained me to dismiss the EMDrive offhand, it has to be outgassing, bad test beds, methodology, etc., But then Iulian Berca slapped one together in his Romanian apartment...

...

There was alot of talk in the earlier threads about how this was not observed in other RF experiments using resonant cavities. But I never saw an answer to the obvious question, which was, Have their been any situation where a resonant tapered frustum was under test?
This exact question is what lit up the naysayers on the other emdrive thread. No, were are no published or measured kenetic forces on a frustum shaped cavity prior to Shawyers experiments. Believe me, I looked long and hard.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: IdleMind on 11/09/2015 04:11 pm
Thanks rfmwguy,

So a frustum might not be absolutely needed then, more of a way to guide and absorb part of the microwaves to get coherence sort of like a laser.  Would there then be some sort of ratio upper limit to maximize thrust produced?
Interesting thought...I suppose if one were able to contain and reflect the radiation in a pattern similar to a frustum, a cavity may not be needed. Cylindrical cabities and square cavities are not resulting in noticeable force. DIYer KML and our student friend zelleriium in Cal have not had positive results yet:

http://emdrive.wiki/Building

Thanks, I'll check the wiki.  One last thing then?  Supposedly like light waves, microwaves behaves like a particle and a wave so would have some sort of momentum anyway.  Inside the resonant cavity, it behaves like a child on a swing.  The big open end acts like the child on the swing and the small closed end acts like the adult pushing the child.  The moment fed to the adult is dissipated into muscles and channeled into the earth and so the adult doesn't move but the child does with less confinements attached to the child's motion.

Again thanks for answering my questions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 04:22 pm
Latest emdrive naysayer blog at Forbes from yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

Nothing really new.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/09/2015 04:35 pm
Latest emdrive naysayer blog at Forbes from yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

Nothing really new.

It... doesn't really say much of anything at all, does it? "Electromagnetics is the domain of experts, and the experts says it can't work, therefor it almost certainly doesn't. Stop fooling yourselves."  ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Space Time Engineer on 11/09/2015 04:40 pm
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?

Completely disagree.  No way a new program focused on a potential anti-cancer drug from a natural compound can get going for $200k.  I know of >10 drug development startups whose budgets are 10 times that just to get to a useful stage of knowing what the compound even does.  $200k gets you maybe some bulk compound and maybe a week or 2 of in vitro biological testing and iterative chemistry.  And that still gives you ZERO potential equity since you cant license or sell it after that little testing.

As they say in professional sports "haters are going to hate", but this is a scientific discussion not Monday Morning QB, so leave the emotion at the door and have a little regard for the folks making this happen, regardless of outcome.  Human nature to troll to feel strong and powerful is just a sign of internal weakness.

But that is just my humble opinion.

Cheers.
DrB
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Mulletron on 11/09/2015 04:51 pm
See page 269 para 2 about effective mass current and gravitomagnetic field. I am completely shocked.

https://goo.gl/qhJQGv

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 04:57 pm
Latest emdrive naysayer blog at Forbes from yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

Nothing really new.

It... doesn't really say much of anything at all, does it? "Electromagnetics is the domain of experts, and the experts says it can't work, therefor it almost certainly doesn't. Stop fooling yourselves."  ???
Yeah, its an empty article that groups emdrive with cold fusion, etc...I guess that has been the biggest annoyance I've experienced...opinions passed off as scientific pronouncements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 05:00 pm
Thanks rfmwguy,

So a frustum might not be absolutely needed then, more of a way to guide and absorb part of the microwaves to get coherence sort of like a laser.  Would there then be some sort of ratio upper limit to maximize thrust produced?
Interesting thought...I suppose if one were able to contain and reflect the radiation in a pattern similar to a frustum, a cavity may not be needed. Cylindrical cabities and square cavities are not resulting in noticeable force. DIYer KML and our student friend zelleriium in Cal have not had positive results yet:

http://emdrive.wiki/Building

Thanks, I'll check the wiki.  One last thing then?  Supposedly like light waves, microwaves behaves like a particle and a wave so would have some sort of momentum anyway.  Inside the resonant cavity, it behaves like a child on a swing.  The big open end acts like the child on the swing and the small closed end acts like the adult pushing the child.  The moment fed to the adult is dissipated into muscles and channeled into the earth and so the adult doesn't move but the child does with less confinements attached to the child's motion.

Again thanks for answering my questions.
Mulletron just posted an interesting snippet you might find interesting...I do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/09/2015 05:30 pm
See page 269 para 2 about effective mass current and gravitomagnetic field. I am completely shocked.

https://goo.gl/qhJQGv

Hello Mulletron,

thanks for posting this. I think it plausible, that the standing wave pattern inside the cavity is equivalent to a confined particle pattern, which behaves very differently from random photons bouncing off the metal surfaces. It would be very interesting to see, if there are any affordable and very sensitive accelerometers for checking out a gravitational anomaly, when an EM-drive cavity is energized.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/09/2015 05:33 pm
See page 269 para 2 about effective mass current and gravitomagnetic field. I am completely shocked.

https://goo.gl/qhJQGv

The publisher is Troubador, a nice self-publishing outfit in the UK:  http://www.troubador.co.uk/

If you do a search for "photonic mass current" the one and only hit is this book.

The most positive review I could find was in the Fortean times.

I don't think this path is helpful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/09/2015 05:57 pm
It seems to me that particle physics has the monopoly on large sums of money since the hardware is so costly as well as the cost of operating...electricity...coolant, etc.

This has been the accepted test method, boosted by nuclear weapons research of the last century...splitting atoms. It will take a significant event to extract funds from these test methods as they are standard models...only new cash will help fund other activites.

Who knows, emdrive research may get funding someday. It makes more sense than JPL getting funding from nasa for earth science research...lots of wasted and redundant research going on out there.

Private companies also waste dollars, look at google and amazon spending big bucks on package deliveries by helicopter drones...ridiculous imho.

Regardless, I feel the next big discovery won't be by a well funded entity...no sense of urgency needed when funds are secured. 8)

The tone of this comment really burns my britches. On the whole the EMdrive is getting about what it deserves as far as a slice of the global R&D budget is concerned, when you look at the credentials of the inventor- just enough money to perform a "is there anything interesting going on in here" type of investigation. Considering the salaries of the people doing the work and the amount of time spent, the EW effort alone has probably cost somewhere around $200,000 (at least). In chemistry, that amount is enough to (with >90% confidence) synthesize and start studying a possible anticancer natural product.

Getting disappointing results does not qualify you to judge the cumulative value of particle physics, the field which gave humanity its most precise and testable scientific theories, earth science, which broadly benefits weather and climate forecasting, or private research performed by tech companies. You're really out to make friends here, aren't you?

Completely disagree.  No way a new program focused on a potential anti-cancer drug from a natural compound can get going for $200k.  I know of >10 drug development startups whose budgets are 10 times that just to get to a useful stage of knowing what the compound even does.  $200k gets you maybe some bulk compound and maybe a week or 2 of in vitro biological testing and iterative chemistry.  And that still gives you ZERO potential equity since you cant license or sell it after that little testing.

As they say in professional sports "haters are going to hate", but this is a scientific discussion not Monday Morning QB, so leave the emotion at the door and have a little regard for the folks making this happen, regardless of outcome.  Human nature to troll to feel strong and powerful is just a sign of internal weakness.

But that is just my humble opinion.

Cheers.
DrB

Regardless if this turns out to be a bust or a bang it's a win.

I feel for those who have decided to be public in building and testing this because we are the ones who take the flames and heat just because we choose to build it. It doesn't matter what we believe, the flames are there, calling us crackpots and nutjobs and violators of laws.

I want to let those who are building in secret or in full view of John Q public I support you and you have my deepest respect.
 
“Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 06:45 pm
Latest emdrive naysayer blog at Forbes from yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

Nothing really new.

It... doesn't really say much of anything at all, does it? "Electromagnetics is the domain of experts, and the experts says it can't work, therefor it almost certainly doesn't. Stop fooling yourselves."  ???
Yeah, its an empty article that groups emdrive with cold fusion, etc...I guess that has been the biggest annoyance I've experienced...opinions passed off as scientific pronouncements.
Tell you one thing, the author is...well...an interesting character:

http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/10_best_science_writers_of_2014/ethan_siegel.html

https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang

He works at NASA's The Space Place, a child-friendly website: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov

Past contributor to beforeitsnews.com (!) : http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/pages/57/689/bio.html

Article was basically the same as his earlier one in Forbes this past summer:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/05/04/no-nasa-did-not-accidentally-invent-warp-drive/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: 3cpo on 11/09/2015 06:55 pm
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: birchoff on 11/09/2015 06:59 pm
...

I could not fathom kenetic energy from any RF source in the beginning. I still have trouble with that. Years of working around RF equipment up to many kWatts trained me to dismiss the EMDrive offhand, it has to be outgassing, bad test beds, methodology, etc., But then Iulian Berca slapped one together in his Romanian apartment...

...

There was alot of talk in the earlier threads about how this was not observed in other RF experiments using resonant cavities. But I never saw an answer to the obvious question, which was, Have their been any situation where a resonant tapered frustum was under test?
This exact question is what lit up the naysayers on the other emdrive thread. No, were are no published or measured kenetic forces on a frustum shaped cavity prior to Shawyers experiments. Believe me, I looked long and hard.

Good to know. My follow up question would then be, Is there some reason to expect the behavior of RF to be invariant no matter what the geometry of the resonant cavity is?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 07:12 pm
...

I could not fathom kenetic energy from any RF source in the beginning. I still have trouble with that. Years of working around RF equipment up to many kWatts trained me to dismiss the EMDrive offhand, it has to be outgassing, bad test beds, methodology, etc., But then Iulian Berca slapped one together in his Romanian apartment...

...

There was alot of talk in the earlier threads about how this was not observed in other RF experiments using resonant cavities. But I never saw an answer to the obvious question, which was, Have their been any situation where a resonant tapered frustum was under test?
This exact question is what lit up the naysayers on the other emdrive thread. No, were are no published or measured kenetic forces on a frustum shaped cavity prior to Shawyers experiments. Believe me, I looked long and hard.

Good to know. My follow up question would then be, Is there some reason to expect the behavior of RF to be invariant no matter what the geometry of the resonant cavity is?

I believe Shawyer started with a cylindrical cavity, them moved to a frustum...where, why and when I could not answer. KML and zellerium here have not had luck with symetrical cavities yet. Don't think they have ruled them out. They may pop in here and clarify for us.

To completely answer your question, I have been told the shape is critical to generating the effect. Its been pure speculation as to the theory behind it and not enough testing has occured due to slim budgets, general disdain in the classical science community and tightly-budgeted corporate entities.

My design was similar to nasa's and shawyers, only about 1.2 inches longer and without a dielectric material. I also did not have side RF injection, but from the large diameter plate, centered. Regardless, I did keep the frustum shape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/09/2015 07:13 pm
@ Mulletron

Interesting note !  Theorywise, that has been around a long time (see: Sachs-Schwebel etc)  Any treatment of spin-2 type interactions ( by quaternions, for example) will show gravitational currents (that was a surprise at the time)

In the EMdrive, if its a photon-photon interaction that's responsible, (as opposed to field generation of electron-positron pairs) then the Fynman diagrams should show the graviton or the axion, neither having been detected as yet.

First reference I've heard that even mentions that for EMdrive !!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 07:39 pm
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis
The strength of the superconductor magnet could possibly interfere with any efferct created by the emdrive. All test stands try to minimize additional magnetic forces near the emdrive. Hope this helps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/09/2015 07:44 pm
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis

There are MANY things easier than sending it into orbit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/09/2015 07:53 pm
See page 269 para 2 about effective mass current and gravitomagnetic field. I am completely shocked.

https://goo.gl/qhJQGv

I'm not sure basing anything on a self-published work is a good idea, especially one with a 2015 copyright, suggesting that it is explaining observed effects instead of making predictions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/09/2015 08:40 pm
Just wanted to point out some of the underlying economics going on here.  Interest rates have been very low for quite some time.  This has led for a search for yield, driving down the return on risky investments.  Changes to the risk/reward calculation mean that high risk / high reward projects begin to look more viable.  The process of formal publication assures investors that there is a higher chance that something is going to work.  Perhaps surprisingly, Rossi has emerged as a bit of a leader in the fringe community for basically giving up fighting for scientific acceptance and moving a product to market.  Turns out many venture capitalists subscribe a poke it with a stick model of science.  Does the e-cat work?  Well put one in a shipping container and see if it can produce heat longer than a conventional process can.  Does it matter if it's cold fusion or not; not really as long as it results in a sellable product. 

We're seeing part of the backwash of this process here.  Economic conditions got Cannae funding, which ended up with EW testing the drive.  Keep in mind that, when we're talking about this process, we're talking about outliers.  The headline grabbing inventions, EMDrive, E-Cat are things that we are talking about because of a surprising amount of experimental proof behind them.  That's leaving aside all of the crazy ideas that didn't work out.

While there currently does not seem to be much interest from the scientific "establishment" I should point out that it makes some amount of sense to wait for EW to publish their results, look over the paper for some clear source of systemic error and then start work having some idea of what to look for.  This get around to it in a couple of years schedule is running headlong into engineers that are accustomed to working on quicker timeframes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/09/2015 08:53 pm
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

The magnetic repelling force, called the Meissner effect, is not strong enough to support much weight.   A lot of high temp superconductor would be needed to float the fustrum and lots of liquid Nitrogen.   The boil-off of LN2 would complicate any force measurement.   There are u-toob videos of levitating skatebord tracks done this way.   I can't speak for the value to science these innovations bring.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2015 09:31 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/09/2015 09:43 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 09:48 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.
Its one of those conundrums: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2015 09:50 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.

At rest, no. At light speed, yes.

If that is too much for you, just ignore the word "mass" and try to follow the rest of the info. You just might learn something.

You might also read the 1st attachment, which I have attached here again for your reading pleasure.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 10:01 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.

At rest, no. At light speed, yes.

If that is too much for you, just ignore the word "mass" and try to follow the rest of the info. You just might learn something.

You might also read the 1st attachment, which I have attached here again for your reading pleasure.
This is probably not the right place to repeat wild theories about the photon, but its amusing stuff: 1) Photons at rest are dark matter. 2) Photons at rest leave our dimension. 3) Photons can never be at rest, if they do, we all get sucked into a wormhole  ;)

p.s. I made up 1 of the 3

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2015 10:11 pm
Something to consider.

A Photon's momentum & mass decreases as it's wavelength increases. This is the basis of the "Shawyer Effect".

Inside the EmDrive frustum at the small end a photon's guide wavelength is the largest, momentum and mass are the smallest, while at the big end a photon's wavelength is the shortest, momentum and mass are the largest.

This changing photon momentum and mass gradient cause a Force to be generated toward the big end and a Newtonian equal but opposite Force to be generated on the frustum toward the small end.

This Force generation process is modeled in the Shawyer force equation

Force = (2 Qunloaded P Df) / c with the Df equation doing the hard lifting adjusting the Force as per the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum.

Basically if Shawyer's Force equation works for you, then you are accepting his theory as to how the EmDrive works.

Dr. McCulloch's latest EmDrive theory is also based on this photon monentum & mass gradient that is created inside the EmDrive.

As far as I know no theory other than Roger's and Mike's  has tried to predict resonance and Force produced. Would suggest the 1st goal of any theory would be to correctly predict resonance and Force generated.

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.

At rest, no. At light speed, yes.

If that is too much for you, just ignore the word "mass" and try to follow the rest of the info. You just might learn something.

You might also read the 1st attachment, which I have attached here again for your reading pleasure.
This is probably not the right place to repeat wild theories about the photon, but its amusing stuff: 1) Photons at rest are dark matter. 2) Photons at rest leave our dimension. 3) Photons can never be at rest, if they do, we all get sucked into a wormhole  ;)

p.s. I made up 1 of the 3

There are no photons at rest inside the EmDrive. Busily propogating from end to end, along the momentum gradient, until their energy is either thermalised or turned into external kinetic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/09/2015 11:24 pm

...

I stopped read when you implied a photon has mass to begin with.  it doesnt.

At rest, no. At light speed, yes.

If that is too much for you, just ignore the word "mass" and try to follow the rest of the info. You just might learn something.

You might also read the 1st attachment, which I have attached here again for your reading pleasure.

I choose to ignore the whole thing.   It has been posted repetitively on this forum.   Several  months ago it was established that the poynting vector inside a cavity was zero.   The (fictional) momentum gradiant is also zero and therefore can be ignored for two compelling reasons.   Momentum is transferred from the emdrive, but that is a thermal process.   Photons just supply the heat.   It might be the same thing that causes the Pioneer anomaly.  We have not seen a movement of more than 5 microns in any TP experiment.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/09/2015 11:29 pm
So this thread's been reported to the mods and I'm guessing they all shrugged their shoulders like I did....but:

"OFF TOPIC argumentative quarreling about the mass of a photon/Nothing to do with EM Drive SpaceFlight applications" - so.........no more of whatever that is!

By the way, I hope all you EM Drive followers do venture outside of this thread. There's a whole world of SpaceXness and NASA stuff you'd really enjoy! Us chemical propulsion fans will welcome you!

Carry on, clever people! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/09/2015 11:54 pm
So this thread's been reported to the mods and I'm guessing they all shrugged their shoulders like I did....but:

"OFF TOPIC argumentative quarreling about the mass of a photon/Nothing to do with EM Drive SpaceFlight applications" - so.........no more of whatever that is!

By the way, I hope all you EM Drive followers do venture outside of this thread. There's a whole world of SpaceXness and NASA stuff you'd really enjoy! Us chemical propulsion fans will welcome you!

Carry on, clever people! :)
Hey Chris, no fair stealing folks off this thread...wait a minute...nevermind  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/10/2015 12:35 am
So this thread's been reported to the mods and I'm guessing they all shrugged their shoulders like I did....but:

"OFF TOPIC argumentative quarreling about the mass of a photon/Nothing to do with EM Drive SpaceFlight applications" - so.........no more of whatever that is!

By the way, I hope all you EM Drive followers do venture outside of this thread. There's a whole world of SpaceXness and NASA stuff you'd really enjoy! Us chemical propulsion fans will welcome you!

Carry on, clever people! :)

Chemical propulsion... That's soooo 10th century...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: EquiFritz on 11/10/2015 12:44 am
Shell, please don't misinterpret my snipping of your comment as disrespect. I'm just trying to focus on one thing you said...

[...] It doesn't matter what we believe, the flames are there, calling us crackpots and nutjobs and violators of laws. [...]

I just want to go on record as stating that I certainly do not think of you as a crackpot or nutjob, and I haven't even seen that said of you at "that other place". It's obvious that you are a very intelligent person, a skilled engineer, and the best kind of dreamer. I've enjoyed watching the approach you've taken with the MEEP simulations and the cooperation you've initiated with other participants. Most of all, I think your positive attitude, even in the face of some pretty harsh criticisms, is very admirable.

I'm posting this because I've been lumped into the "trolls" faction by you know who, since I dared to express my skepticism on that other forum. So, I feel like I'm one of the critics you're referring to in the comment I've quoted. I know you're not sitting in a corner crying because you think someone considers you a crackpot, but even so, I just wanted to clarify that I, for one, don't think that at all. And I honestly don't think any of the other critical voices over there think that of you.

People need to separate the personalities from the ideas...there's a major difference between attacking an idea (opinion, belief, etc.) and attacking a person.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/10/2015 12:55 am
And people need to be patient. It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s). Why don't people both supporters and critics wait for them to be published rather than all this needless spinning off onto pointless asides rather than staying on topic. At some point soon the noise to signal ratio on this thread is going to cause issues with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/10/2015 12:57 am

 It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s).

Not to burst any bubbles here, but peer reviewed papers can be rejected at the peer review stage.   Submitting a paper for peer review is not the same as getting it accepted for publication.  Sometimes the "peers" say, "no way".

EW submission <> publication.

I'd hope the <> is an =, but at this time, the best guess is a submission received, not publication pending.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/10/2015 12:59 am


 It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s).

Not to burst any bubbles here, but peer reviewed papers can be rejected at the peer review stage.   Submitting a paper for peer review is not the same as getting it accepted for publication.  Sometimes the "peers" say, "no way".

EW submission <> publication.

I'd hope the <> is an =, but at this time, the best guess is a submission pending, not a publication pending.

Doesn't all this go without saying though?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 01:05 am
Shell, please don't misinterpret my snipping of your comment as disrespect. I'm just trying to focus on one thing you said...

[...] It doesn't matter what we believe, the flames are there, calling us crackpots and nutjobs and violators of laws. [...]

I just want to go on record as stating that I certainly do not think of you as a crackpot or nutjob, and I haven't even seen that said of you at "that other place". It's obvious that you are a very intelligent person, a skilled engineer, and the best kind of dreamer. I've enjoyed watching the approach you've taken with the MEEP simulations and the cooperation you've initiated with other participants. Most of all, I think your positive attitude, even in the face of some pretty harsh criticisms, is very admirable.

I'm posting this because I've been lumped into the "trolls" faction by you know who, since I dared to express my skepticism on that other forum. So, I feel like I'm one of the critics you're referring to in the comment I've quoted. I know you're not sitting in a corner crying because you think someone considers you a crackpot, but even so, I just wanted to clarify that I, for one, don't think that at all. And I honestly don't think any of the other critical voices over there think that of you.

People need to separate the personalities from the ideas...there's a major difference between attacking an idea (opinion, belief, etc.) and attacking a person.

And people need to be patient. It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s). Why don't people both supporters and critics wait for them to be published rather than all needless spinning off onto pointless asides rather than staying on topic. At some point the noise to signal ratio on this thread is going to cause issues with it.
Well said. Shell is a pioneer in an uncertain field who is not afraid to give it a go. I personally read derogatory comments there about her, Dr White, Paul March, Roger Shawyer, myself, traveller and about everyone else who dared investigate/build/ponder the possibilities of emdrive spaceflight propulsion. What we have here is/should be a respectful dialogue regardless of which side people are on. This is all thanks to forum management, for without it, you have...well...a lesser value proposition for anyone wanting to seriously learn and discuss the emdrive.

We can be impatient for data, there is so little of it released and so few attempting experiments. But we can deal with it. Regardless of facts, ideas theories, etc., we are still people and everyone should respect another's viewpoint.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/10/2015 01:08 am


 It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s).

Not to burst any bubbles here, but peer reviewed papers can be rejected at the peer review stage.   Submitting a paper for peer review is not the same as getting it accepted for publication.  Sometimes the "peers" say, "no way".

EW submission <> publication.

I'd hope the <> is an =, but at this time, the best guess is a submission pending, not a publication pending.

Doesn't all this go without saying though?

IMHO it has to be said.  Reality, whatever it is, doesn't hinge on "peer review".  Tenure may.  The focus of this forum is not subject to "peer review" because when you're an internet forum, your "peers" are whomever has internet access.

The majic of "peer review" for EW is the hope that someone other than EW says, "good job, it's real".  That may or may not happen.  BUT, stating a pending peer review paper is evidence for reality????  Please.

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/10/2015 01:13 am



 It's pretty clear there is more stuff coming from EW at the very least in the form of peer reviewed paper(s).

Not to burst any bubbles here, but peer reviewed papers can be rejected at the peer review stage.   Submitting a paper for peer review is not the same as getting it accepted for publication.  Sometimes the "peers" say, "no way".

EW submission <> publication.

I'd hope the <> is an =, but at this time, the best guess is a submission pending, not a publication pending.

Doesn't all this go without saying though?

IMHO it has to be said.  Reality, whatever it is, doesn't hinge on "peer review".  Tenure may.  The focus of this forum is not subject to "peer review" because when you're an internet forum, your "peers" are whomever has internet access.

The majic of "peer review" for EW is the hope that someone other than EW says, "good job, it's real".  That may or may not happen.  BUT, stating a pending peer review paper is evidence for reality????  Please.

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)

Odd attitude to take to the peer review process...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/10/2015 01:24 am

Odd attitude to take to the peer review process...

I'm not up for tenure.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/10/2015 01:27 am
So this thread's been reported to the mods and I'm guessing they all shrugged their shoulders like I did....but:

"OFF TOPIC argumentative quarreling about the mass of a photon/Nothing to do with EM Drive SpaceFlight applications" - so.........no more of whatever that is!

By the way, I hope all you EM Drive followers do venture outside of this thread. There's a whole world of SpaceXness and NASA stuff you'd really enjoy! Us chemical propulsion fans will welcome you!

Carry on, clever people! :)
Thanks Chris! Several of us have been discussing the role of cat videos in chemical vs. EM thrust measurements.

Just kidding... I think?  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 01:32 am
Shell, please don't misinterpret my snipping of your comment as disrespect. I'm just trying to focus on one thing you said...

[...] It doesn't matter what we believe, the flames are there, calling us crackpots and nutjobs and violators of laws. [...]

I just want to go on record as stating that I certainly do not think of you as a crackpot or nutjob, and I haven't even seen that said of you at "that other place". It's obvious that you are a very intelligent person, a skilled engineer, and the best kind of dreamer. I've enjoyed watching the approach you've taken with the MEEP simulations and the cooperation you've initiated with other participants. Most of all, I think your positive attitude, even in the face of some pretty harsh criticisms, is very admirable.

I'm posting this because I've been lumped into the "trolls" faction by you know who, since I dared to express my skepticism on that other forum. So, I feel like I'm one of the critics you're referring to in the comment I've quoted. I know you're not sitting in a corner crying because you think someone considers you a crackpot, but even so, I just wanted to clarify that I, for one, don't think that at all. And I honestly don't think any of the other critical voices over there think that of you.

People need to separate the personalities from the ideas...there's a major difference between attacking an idea (opinion, belief, etc.) and attacking a person.
True, people will be people, trying to push you to one side or another, we all enjoy labels and choosing sides, if we didn't we we wouldn't have had the gladiator games or football.

I'm glad you don't see my dreams as a bad thing, we all have them, but I'm an engineer first.

Thank You,

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ppnl on 11/10/2015 01:36 am
So this thread's been reported to the mods and I'm guessing they all shrugged their shoulders like I did....but:

"OFF TOPIC argumentative quarreling about the mass of a photon/Nothing to do with EM Drive SpaceFlight applications" - so.........no more of whatever that is!

By the way, I hope all you EM Drive followers do venture outside of this thread. There's a whole world of SpaceXness and NASA stuff you'd really enjoy! Us chemical propulsion fans will welcome you!

Carry on, clever people! :)

Meh, if we had a thread on the spaceflight applications of flying reindeer it would be off topic to point out that flying reindeer don't exist. But if this were a place where people could talk about flying reindeer and not have the existential issue addressed then this site would be of no value to me.

You cannot have a discussion of the implications for space flight without understanding what the drive does. Does it accelerate constantly with constant power or not? You cannot design a spacecraft unless you know this detail.  You cannot hope to understand this issue without understanding the relevance of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

If you talk about photon propulsion you need to be able to talk about photon mass, lack of same or photon momentum.

If you cannot talk about theory then you may as well be talking about flying reindeer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: EquiFritz on 11/10/2015 01:42 am
I personally read derogatory comments there about her, Dr White, Paul March, Roger Shawyer, myself, traveller and about everyone else who dared investigate/build/ponder the possibilities of emdrive spaceflight propulsion.

You are referring to one person's opinion. There is one person over there who has a very bad opinion of many of the names you've mentioned. But I still say that I've never seen anyone, even the one person you are talking about, speak negatively about Shell. Did that person disagree with Shell about numerous things? Yes. But never said anything derogatory about the person...just critiqued the ideas.

Enough though. Every little side-jab in a comment just brings this up again, which doesn't seem to be doing anything to confirm thrust above the noise level. We've heard all of the arguments, now we wait for iteration and replication. That's the correct way to silence the dissent, not by asking moderators to censor any voice of opposition.

I've rarely commented here out of respect for this forum's atmosphere, so I apologize for one more interruption. Let the data flow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/10/2015 01:47 am

Again the failed math defense.

Cullen in 1951 experimentally showed the radiation pressure of a EM wave inside a circular waveguide was reduced from that expected if the EM wave were outside the waveguide.

Any mathematical model that fails to take account of the momemtun variance with guide wavelengrh variance will never be able to model the non fictional momentum gradient that develops inside the EmDrive.

Prof Yang's model, based on electrodynamics does model this very real effect and is able to calculate the Force generated. Maybe you should visit her work?

TT, the mini-EMDrive team had an interesting reading coming out of the back of the drive before they went dark (though I just saw a post within the last seven hours indicating that they're redoing their measuring rig in light of the result).  Is there anything in Shawyer's theory that could explain this?  Could you ask Rodger if he has similar findings?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/10/2015 02:09 am
they went dark? could be the result of the unexpected materialization of a wormhole out of the relevant end of the frustrum? That'd probably do it...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 02:10 am
I personally read derogatory comments there about her, Dr White, Paul March, Roger Shawyer, myself, traveller and about everyone else who dared investigate/build/ponder the possibilities of emdrive spaceflight propulsion.

You are referring to one person's opinion. There is one person over there who has a very bad opinion of many of the names you've mentioned. But I still say that I've never seen anyone, even the one person you are talking about, speak negatively about Shell. Did that person disagree with Shell about numerous things? Yes. But never said anything derogatory about the person...just critiqued the ideas.

Enough though. Every little side-jab in a comment just brings this up again, which doesn't seem to be doing anything to confirm thrust above the noise level. We've heard all of the arguments, now we wait for iteration and replication. That's the correct way to silence the dissent, not by asking moderators to censor any voice of opposition.

I've rarely commented here out of respect for this forum's atmosphere, so I apologize for one more interruption. Let the data flow.
There are about 4 there, not 1. No matter, 1 or 4 were not able to be persuaded to act like adults. Their forum's problem not this ones. Shell is entitled to vent, she's earned it and we can all understand it quite well. People want data, support her efforts with a few bucks and limit the distractions for an accomplished design engineer writing her own blueprints.Shell felt dissed there and that's all I need to know. BTW its getting out of hand there as evidenced by this recent post: "The laymen "replicators" don't exactly help, as they have neither the equipment nor the education to conduct proper experiments..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 02:54 am
Call for timelines - to help cheer up the mood a bit, l'd like to see some timeline estimates on emdrive experiments/builds. Guess they can be your own or what you picked up from elsewhere. I'll start with my own:

Mid november: spectrum analyzer shot of original nsf1701 magnetron. Thermal shot of original magnetron.
End november: first fire up of modified magnetron with spec an and thermal shots.
December: New frustum construction. Solid sidewalls, same form factor as original.
January: Determine freq variability of new mag
February: Design feedback circuitry for resonance tuning
March: Determine if electronic tuning is feasable, if not proceed with mechanical tuning.
April: Finalize design
May: Reassemble original test stand. Design mag "power on" sensor for use in channel 2 of DAQ module.
June: Flight Test 3x begins.

Who's next?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/10/2015 03:02 am
Quote
Dakang Ma,1,2 Joseph L. Garrett,2,3 and Jeremy N. Munday1,2,a)
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
2
Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
3
Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
(Received 26 January 2015; accepted 21 February 2015; published online 6 March 2015)
Light reflected off a material or absorbed within it exerts radiation pressure through the transfer of
momentum. Micro/nano-mechanical transducers have become sensitive enough that radiation
pressure can influence these systems. However, photothermal effects often accompany and
overwhelm the radiation pressure, complicating its measurement. In this letter, we investigate the
radiation force on an uncoated silicon nitride microcantilever in ambient conditions. We identify
and separate the radiation pressure and photothermal forces through an analysis of the cantilever’s
frequency response. Further, by working in a regime where radiation pressure is dominant, we are
able to accurately measure the radiation pressure. Experimental results are compared to theory and
found to agree within the measured and calculated uncertainties. VC 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.

Why not take a test-frustrum and equip both of its ends with a device capable of measuring radiation pressure instead of static metal plates?

Presumably these devices are near-perfect mirrors, and this could quickly end the debate about the mass of a set of photons undergoing group-velocity and wavelength changes...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/10/2015 03:05 am
Quote
Dakang Ma,1,2 Joseph L. Garrett,2,3 and Jeremy N. Munday1,2,a)
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
2
Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
3
Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
(Received 26 January 2015; accepted 21 February 2015; published online 6 March 2015)
Light reflected off a material or absorbed within it exerts radiation pressure through the transfer of
momentum. Micro/nano-mechanical transducers have become sensitive enough that radiation
pressure can influence these systems. However, photothermal effects often accompany and
overwhelm the radiation pressure, complicating its measurement. In this letter, we investigate the
radiation force on an uncoated silicon nitride microcantilever in ambient conditions. We identify
and separate the radiation pressure and photothermal forces through an analysis of the cantilever’s
frequency response. Further, by working in a regime where radiation pressure is dominant, we are
able to accurately measure the radiation pressure. Experimental results are compared to theory and
found to agree within the measured and calculated uncertainties. VC 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.

Why not take a test-frustrum and equip both of its ends with a device capable of measuring radiation pressure instead of static metal plates?  One ought to be able to model the photothermals as long as enough data about the end plate can be gathered.

Presumably these devices are near-perfect mirrors, and this could quickly end the debate about the mass of a set of photons undergoing group-velocity and wavelength changes...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/10/2015 06:39 am
Quote
Dakang Ma,1,2 Joseph L. Garrett,2,3 and Jeremy N. Munday1,2,a)
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
2
Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742, USA
3
Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
(Received 26 January 2015; accepted 21 February 2015; published online 6 March 2015)
Light reflected off a material or absorbed within it exerts radiation pressure through the transfer of
momentum. Micro/nano-mechanical transducers have become sensitive enough that radiation
pressure can influence these systems. However, photothermal effects often accompany and
overwhelm the radiation pressure, complicating its measurement. In this letter, we investigate the
radiation force on an uncoated silicon nitride microcantilever in ambient conditions. We identify
and separate the radiation pressure and photothermal forces through an analysis of the cantilever’s
frequency response. Further, by working in a regime where radiation pressure is dominant, we are
able to accurately measure the radiation pressure. Experimental results are compared to theory and
found to agree within the measured and calculated uncertainties. VC 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.

Why not take a test-frustrum and equip both of its ends with a device capable of measuring radiation pressure instead of static metal plates?

Presumably these devices are near-perfect mirrors, and this could quickly end the debate about the mass of a set of photons undergoing group-velocity and wavelength changes...

Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/10/2015 06:52 am
We have not seen a movement of more than 5 microns in any TP experiment.

Try this:
http://www.emdrive.com

You might find the videos of Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive of interest. Bit more than 5 microns of movement there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: 3cpo on 11/10/2015 08:07 am
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

The magnetic repelling force, called the Meissner effect, is not strong enough to support much weight.   A lot of high temp superconductor would be needed to float the fustrum and lots of liquid Nitrogen.   The boil-off of LN2 would complicate any force measurement.   There are u-toob videos of levitating skatebord tracks done this way.   I can't speak for the value to science these innovations bring.

I was just wondering if testing this in a friction-less environment (except the air friction) would bring any value, especially since i saw @frobnicat mentioning melting nylon bolts. Sounds that as few interacting components as possible would be desired.

Yeah, i though of the hoverboard videos too, which seem to be able to hold a man's weight. Would holding a cubesat weight device cost that much energy that it would make it not viable?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/10/2015 08:31 am

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/10/2015 08:32 am
I apologize if this will sound stupid, i'm only an enthusiast.

Wouldn't be easier to put it on top of one of these things and see if it moves, instead of sending it into orbit?

The magnetic repelling force, called the Meissner effect, is not strong enough to support much weight.   A lot of high temp superconductor would be needed to float the fustrum and lots of liquid Nitrogen.   The boil-off of LN2 would complicate any force measurement.   There are u-toob videos of levitating skatebord tracks done this way.   I can't speak for the value to science these innovations bring.

I was just wondering if testing this in a friction-less environment (except the air friction) would bring any value, especially since i saw @frobnicat mentioning melting nylon bolts. Sounds that as few interacting components as possible would be desired.

Yeah, i though of the hoverboard videos too, which seem to be able to hold a man's weight. Would holding a cubesat weight device cost that much energy that it would make it not viable?

My rotary table will use a magnetic thrust bearing to take 99.999% of the load. Will also have 2 very low start torque axial bearing to keep the table rotating & aligned in the horizontal plane.

This will allow continual application of Rf energy to the frustum and generate long time acceleration. Design data suggests angular acceleration from 0 to 120 rpm in around 16 minutes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/10/2015 10:23 am
One thing I found interesting recently is that the very, very remote possibility of alien built megastructures around a distant star seemed to attract less angry words & responses of derision online than the EM drive often still does.

My point being that to my mind a fair chunk of why investigation into the EM drive has stalled for so long & why even now it is mired down is that from the get go it has suffered from a credibility issue where even distant aliens do better in being taken seriously. To be blunt I am not sure how much this situation has or can change without some pretty cast iron evidence. But at least the DIY people on here & elsewhere are aiming to give some weight to changing this.

That said investigations into it are on firmer footing than they are into LENR.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 12:35 pm

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
I too am anxious to see phils rotary table. However, there will be some small effect from bouyancy. If the rotary table is balanced in all quadrants, the quadrant with the frustum will become lighter, possibly adding an angular force. I'm sure mr t has planned for this but thermal lift is a pesky byproduct that needs to be addressed. Obvious solution would be centering the device on the table to limit induction of angular forces. Am I right, phil?

Wait, I am wrong...centering would not provide rotary vector for frustum...dooooh!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 12:51 pm

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
I too am anxious to see phils rotary table. However, there will be some small effect from bouyancy. If the rotary table is balanced in all quadrants, the quadrant with the frustum will become lighter, possibly adding an angular force. I'm sure mr t has planned for this but thermal lift is a pesky byproduct that needs to be addressed. Obvious solution would be centering the device on the table to limit induction of angular forces. Am I right, phil?

Wait, I am wrong...centering would not provide rotary vector for frustum...dooooh!
I think Phil mentioned he was thinking or someone mentioned that identical opposing 180oEMDrives sitting on the rotary table would provide a better acceleration profile and reduce the off center thrust vectors.

Phil, is this in the design works, are you considering a dual drive setup?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 01:18 pm
One thing I found interesting recently is that the very, very remote possibility of alien built megastructures around a distant star seemed to attract less angry words & responses of derision online than the EM drive often still does.

My point being that to my mind a fair chunk of why investigation into the EM drive has stalled for so long & why even now it is mired down is that from the get go it has suffered from a credibility issue where even distant aliens do better in being taken seriously. To be blunt I am not sure how much this situation has or can change without some pretty cast iron evidence. But at least the DIY people on here & elsewhere are aiming to give some weight to changing this.

That said investigations into it are on firmer footing than they are into LENR.
I find it interesting, no one has an issue of SciFi films with blue glowing lights where the engines are providing thrust on a spaceship. Maybe we should attach some blue glowing LEDs to the back of the drive and even add a couple of red ones for turn signals? We have all been conditioned, to believe we could be visiting our neighborhood Star Wars pub in the near future and we're ok with that. Or warp Drives flinging stars at us in our windscreens. We're fine with that. Throw a can with microwaves into the mix pointing to a potential new form of thrust and all heck breaks out.

It's very important that I get this right and gain solid data this first run. Time isn't as much a killer as doing a bad test. So I'm taking the time, just a little extra to make it the best that can be. For all of those out there getting antsy, bear with me for just a little longer, I believe it will be worth it. (now I've got to think of adding blue glowing LEDs to it as well  :o )

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/10/2015 01:30 pm
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 01:41 pm
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.
A simple replication of a test stand and dummy load without a frustum that shows kinetic energy. So far, only one team has tried to do this. It was a successful lorentz force test at 5 amps and exhibited a few micronewtons, well below other exhibited results.
Seems to me naysayers are quick with words and slow with testing, often claiming it isn't worth the effort or they don't have the burden of proof. No offense but this is a rather lazy approach. Imagine the first experimenter that can show all this was some sort of systematic error.
And yet...we wait...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vix on 11/10/2015 01:54 pm
I just assume that some people (The Traveller for example) has an access to some info that the others don't, but he is not in a position to disclose that information. Hence for a moment I choose to believe his claims.
People are more upset by Emdrive and Lenr because it will highly disrupt some of them, in contrast to an Alien Mega structure which won't have any important effect upon us even if it was real.
Now, microwavs ovens. We know that they are almost a by-product of Radar tech. I don't believe that some engineer 80 or so years ago started to develop microwaves in order to pop a popcorn. Yet, today we do it and take it for granted.
If you were to tell this to engineers back then? They would laugh. That's why I don't laugh at Emdrive, but I choose to believe it's real :)
Meanwhile, we are waiting for a "pop" moment :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 02:35 pm
Mr Whiskers volunteered to help test new thermal cam.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/10/2015 02:58 pm
Call for timelines - to help cheer up the mood a bit, l'd like to see some timeline estimates on emdrive experiments/builds. Guess they can be your own or what you picked up from elsewhere. I'll start with my own:

Mid november: spectrum analyzer shot of original nsf1701 magnetron. Thermal shot of original magnetron.
End november: first fire up of modified magnetron with spec an and thermal shots.
December: New frustum construction. Solid sidewalls, same form factor as original.
January: Determine freq variability of new mag
February: Design feedback circuitry for resonance tuning
March: Determine if electronic tuning is feasable, if not proceed with mechanical tuning.
April: Finalize design
May: Reassemble original test stand. Design mag "power on" sensor for use in channel 2 of DAQ module.
June: Flight Test 3x begins.

Who's next?

How does the cost, safety, time and proposed difficulty of this approach stack up to building an amplifier and using software defined radio for tuning?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 03:06 pm
Mr Whiskers volunteered to help test new thermal cam.
Doesn't seem to want to play Dave...

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 03:21 pm
Call for timelines - to help cheer up the mood a bit, l'd like to see some timeline estimates on emdrive experiments/builds. Guess they can be your own or what you picked up from elsewhere. I'll start with my own:

Mid november: spectrum analyzer shot of original nsf1701 magnetron. Thermal shot of original magnetron.
End november: first fire up of modified magnetron with spec an and thermal shots.
December: New frustum construction. Solid sidewalls, same form factor as original.
January: Determine freq variability of new mag
February: Design feedback circuitry for resonance tuning
March: Determine if electronic tuning is feasable, if not proceed with mechanical tuning.
April: Finalize design
May: Reassemble original test stand. Design mag "power on" sensor for use in channel 2 of DAQ module.
June: Flight Test 3x begins.

Who's next?

How does the cost, safety, time and proposed difficulty of this approach stack up to building an amplifier and using software defined radio for tuning?
Its a major shift in design parameters. Amps themselves have many times the mass of a magnetron and a computer controlled signal source adds a degree of complexity I'm not prepared to take on. Pehaps a well funded lab could, it has merit, but not for me on a home budget.

SDR is typically a receive function but can also be used as a programmable sig gen from what I gather. Simplicity is my design parameter out of necessity and out of concern of introducing more variables in a high emf environment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/10/2015 03:23 pm
I just assume that some people (The Traveller for example) has an access to some info that the others don't, but he is not in a position to disclose that information. Hence for a moment I choose to believe his claims.
People are more upset by Emdrive and Lenr because it will highly disrupt some of them, in contrast to an Alien Mega structure which won't have any important effect upon us even if it was real.
Now, microwavs ovens. We know that they are almost a by-product of Radar tech. I don't believe that some engineer 80 or so years ago started to develop microwaves in order to pop a popcorn. Yet, today we do it and take it for granted.
If you were to tell this to engineers back then? They would laugh. That's why I don't laugh at Emdrive, but I choose to believe it's real :)
Meanwhile, we are waiting for a "pop" moment :)

Been wondering lately if some paranoid individual(s) somewhere in the energy industry might not have hired some trolls to try to disrupt alternative energy discussion (both LENR and more conventional things like solar and wind).  We're catching some of the fallout because Shawyer once said that the EMDrive might be able to produce energy (even though I don't think anyone here really believes it will). 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/10/2015 03:53 pm
One thing I found interesting recently is that the very, very remote possibility of alien built megastructures around a distant star seemed to attract less angry words & responses of derision online than the EM drive often still does.

My point being that to my mind a fair chunk of why investigation into the EM drive has stalled for so long & why even now it is mired down is that from the get go it has suffered from a credibility issue where even distant aliens do better in being taken seriously. To be blunt I am not sure how much this situation has or can change without some pretty cast iron evidence. But at least the DIY people on here & elsewhere are aiming to give some weight to changing this.

That said investigations into it are on firmer footing than they are into LENR.
I find it interesting, no one has an issue of SciFi films with blue glowing lights where the engines are providing thrust on a spaceship. Maybe we should attach some blue glowing LEDs to the back of the drive and even add a couple of red ones for turn signals? We have all been conditioned, to believe we could be visiting our neighborhood Star Wars pub in the near future and we're ok with that. Or warp Drives flinging stars at us in our windscreens. We're fine with that. Throw a can with microwaves into the mix pointing to a potential new form of thrust and all heck breaks out.

It's very important that I get this right and gain solid data this first run. Time isn't as much a killer as doing a bad test. So I'm taking the time, just a little extra to make it the best that can be. For all of those out there getting antsy, bear with me for just a little longer, I believe it will be worth it. (now I've got to think of adding blue glowing LEDs to it as well  :o )

Shell

     I think part of the reason that most people are freaking out about this is that it DOES seem like so much Science Fiction.

     We've seen so much hand-wavey explaination of how an STL or FTL drive would work that people are kind of, well, so used to the technobabble, that when a real system like this comes about, with all sorts of rather difficult concepts to understand, it seems, to the average person, just like more technobabble, and as such, they are very suspicious of this.

     While we aren't quite sure what is actually happening here, hopefully, once we understand it, and if it turns out to be an actual phenomena, then, they should be able to explaing what is happening without the apparent technobabble.

     Yes, I KNOW it's not technobabble, but most of the general public aren't as well educated as they really ought to be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/10/2015 04:25 pm
One thing I found interesting recently is that the very, very remote possibility of alien built megastructures around a distant star seemed to attract less angry words & responses of derision online than the EM drive often still does.

My point being that to my mind a fair chunk of why investigation into the EM drive has stalled for so long & why even now it is mired down is that from the get go it has suffered from a credibility issue where even distant aliens do better in being taken seriously. To be blunt I am not sure how much this situation has or can change without some pretty cast iron evidence. But at least the DIY people on here & elsewhere are aiming to give some weight to changing this.

That said investigations into it are on firmer footing than they are into LENR.
I find it interesting, no one has an issue of SciFi films with blue glowing lights where the engines are providing thrust on a spaceship. Maybe we should attach some blue glowing LEDs to the back of the drive and even add a couple of red ones for turn signals? We have all been conditioned, to believe we could be visiting our neighborhood Star Wars pub in the near future and we're ok with that. Or warp Drives flinging stars at us in our windscreens. We're fine with that. Throw a can with microwaves into the mix pointing to a potential new form of thrust and all heck breaks out.

It's very important that I get this right and gain solid data this first run. Time isn't as much a killer as doing a bad test. So I'm taking the time, just a little extra to make it the best that can be. For all of those out there getting antsy, bear with me for just a little longer, I believe it will be worth it. (now I've got to think of adding blue glowing LEDs to it as well  :o )

Shell

Blue lights are good, but maybe you also want to add a bumper sticker that says "My EM Drive is an Honor Student at Tau Ceti High School". They'll be able to relate to that. ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: watermod on 11/10/2015 06:01 pm

Now, microwavs ovens. We know that they are almost a by-product of Radar tech. I don't believe that some engineer 80 or so years ago started to develop microwaves in order to pop a popcorn. Yet, today we do it and take it for granted.
If you were to tell this to engineers back then? They would laugh. That's why I don't laugh at Emdrive, but I choose to believe it's real :)
Meanwhile, we are waiting for a "pop" moment :)

Actually, a friend of the family, John Gunarson, invented it in the late 1940's after graduation from MIT with emphasis on Radar.   
I've seen his first commercial unit in his garage.  His were designed for major restaurants - a hamburger in 3 secs, cake in a min or two. (Higher power units).   The existing large stove producers (such as those with 2 letter names) never missed a chance to trash his "Radiation Oven" in the press or file nuisance lawsuits.  They kept trying to drag the FDA into it too.  He gave up and the week his patents expired every major stove producer came out with low power units that are the parents of today's microwaves.   His first commercial one?   About 6 feet x 4 feet x 3 high.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/10/2015 06:02 pm
...

I don't think anyone objects to looking for low probability things. The frustration comes more from the fact that Shawyer is seeming not capable of grasping principles of high school physics. That does not mean that the EMdrive does not work or that experimenters will not measure a force. It does mean that Shawyer's claim of no new physics is nonsense. Worse if his claim of no new physics is taken seriously it will stall any understanding of what is happening.

Experimentalists need theory to tell them what to look for. Without that they are just throwing darts in the dark. Even if they hit on an anomaly they have no context to judge it by.

I would say that LENR is a priori more probable than the EM drive. Until you factor in 25 years of failure.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Shawyer doesn't understand high school physics.   I think he, like most people who believe they have discovered something, has let his emotions take too much charge over his reasoning and has chosen to not look critically at his theory, experiments and alternative explanations.   My theory of his rotating em-drive is that the coolant being pumped in the device generates a torque.   For all the years he has been working on this and even after getting patent protection for his ideas very little experimental data has been made public.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jnet on 11/10/2015 06:03 pm
Hello, read

EM DRIVE - SPECIAL OPINION

http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml (http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml)
(http://samlib.ru/img/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive/emdvigatel.jpg)

1. This photonic jet engine on photons invisible spectrum.
2.. (a = F / M) - changes in the engine mass (m variable)
(a technology for zero weight or mass)
Scientists have found a "mass effect is zero."
a - acceleration of the material point;
F - resultant of all the forces applied to the material point;
m - mass of the material point.

The theory states
1."body emitting infrared waves have unstable m. That's you and the technology of "zero mass". The more EM - the engine will warm up and radiate infrared waves the less weight, which means according to the formula (a = F / M)"

2. describes experiments with bodies emit infrared waves.
Mass is reduced.


proposition
   
 It proposed to measure the mass of the engine
Prior to and during
(http://samlib.ru/img/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive/force.jpg)

Best regards!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 06:51 pm
Hello, read

EM DRIVE - SPECIAL OPINION

http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml (http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml)
(http://samlib.ru/img/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive/emdvigatel.jpg)

1. This photonic jet engine on photons invisible spectrum.
2.. (a = F / M) - changes in the engine mass (m variable)
(a technology for zero weight or mass)
Scientists have found a "mass effect is zero."

The theory states
1."body emitting infrared waves have unstable m. That's you and the technology of "zero mass". The more EM - the engine will warm up and radiate infrared waves the less weight, which means according to the formula (a = F / M)"

2. describes experiments with bodies emit infrared waves.
Mass is reduced.


proposition
   
 It proposed to measure the mass of the engine
Prior to and during
(http://samlib.ru/img/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive/force.jpg)

Best regards!!
Trhanks for posting. I translated and read the opinion paper and learned something. IR intensity is inversely proportional to mass, or the more IR is emitted, the lower the mass...which returns to its normal state at normal temperature.

Unfortunately, this might explain paet of the strong lift on my balance beam (scale), it does not account for the disruption of lift during mag on conditions.

When mag on, one would think IR would be at its zenith, radiating outward to thermal conductors and mass decreases faster causing more lift. I measured the opposite in my tests, mass gain or thrust perhaps a repellant or attractive force in the vertical direction.

Enjoyed the article, thank you and welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/10/2015 07:00 pm
How to convince skeptics

I have some suggestions for how to convince skeptics that the EmDrive effect is real.

A prerequisite is to be taken seriously by physicists and engineers.

First, take that picture of spherical waves inside a frustum and delete it.  Forever.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1074925)

This representation of a wave propagating through free space with some wave guides drawn around it is not just misleading; it is wrong.  Completely wrong. So wrong.  I know a number of informed people have already tried to convince the forum of that fact using references (Egan), mathematics, Meep outputs, and analogy, but none of that has been fully successful, because it is still showing up.

You need to realize that showing that picture to someone who understands basic E/M (Electromagnetic) theory is like standing on a box and shouting, "I DO NOT KNOW how to integrate a field equation in the presence of BOUNDARY CONDITIONS!  I probably don't even know what that means!"  It's like walking around with a big sign on your back that says, "Kick me! I failed my E/M theory class!"  Yes, it's that bad.  It's really embarrassing.

Even if your EmDrive device works flawlessly, that picture shows such a profound ignorance of how electromagnetic fields resonate in a chamber or wave guide that NOBODY who's taken a 3rd year E/M course will take you seriously. Those are the people you need to convince.  You aren't going to convince any skeptics if that picture is included anywhere as evidence.  That clanking sound you hear at night is probably Maxwell's ghost walking back and forth in the hallway moaning about boundary conditions.  Let him rest in peace!

Likewise, don't say things like:

"Spherical end plates increase frustum Q by reducing radiation pressure on side walls."

It completely kills your credibility to say something that is SO WRONG according to Maxwell's equations.  Maybe spherical end plates increase frustum Q or maybe they don't (I have no idea, myself, though it seems plausible), but I can guarantee they don't do it BECAUSE of reducing radiation pressure on the side walls.  That's not how E/M waves resonate in ANY enclosed chamber.  I know the math for this is non-trivial, but if you don't want to or can't do it yourself, then trust the people who have already done the work, or the computer systems that calculate results using those same equations.

There's no excuse for not knowing how microwaves resonate in a hollow chamber with conducting walls if you want to claim you are an expert.  That's been well understood since 1865 and is kind of fundamentally important for understanding the EmDrive.  It's not just so-called crackpot killers with agendas that have a problem with that sort of statement and you can't resolve the misunderstanding by quoting from the Holy Book of Shawyer, chapter and verse.

In fact, if you can't use Maxwell's equations, you're probably better off not saying anything about electromagnetic fields at all and that won't diminish the value of your experimental results one bit.

Continuing my rant...while public speculation and discussion are fine things in general, keep in mind that if you come up with a new theory about quantum mechanics to explain this effect, but you don't know the difference between a wave equation and an eigenvector, you aren't going to get ANY credibility from anyone who does, because quantum mechanics works amazingly well to solve the problems that it solves right now.  My suggestion is that if you wouldn't know Schrödinger's equation if it crawled up and bit you on the ass, then avoid promoting new quantum mechanics theories without a bold label of "Complete Speculation." 

The same goes for General Relativity, even if your theory turns out to be EXACTLY CORRECT!.

Lastly, understand that whenever you imply that conservation of momentum is broken by a device in a closed system, what you're saying to a physicist is that the device is a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE and a source of INFINITE FREE ENERGY.  If you don't understand the math and physics behind that conclusion, then I suggest you don't say anything at all to any physicists on the subject until you work out that result for yourself to complete understanding completely outside the context of an EmDrive (various derivations have been posted to this forum multiple times already).  After doing that so YOU understand why it's an issue, then you can discuss the implications of that and any possible loopholes with anyone you want to your heart's content.  Do you understand this important perspective?  Because it is critical to convincing any skeptics.  To understand how a skeptic might react in view of such a claim, just replace every instance of EmDrive with Perpetual Motion Machine and read how it sounds.  That doesn't mean the EmDrive doesn't work a priori, but crackpots have been designing perpetual motion machines for a long time and NONE of them have worked so far...

Whenever you say that there is an unqualified force per Watt in a closed system (rather than just an instantaneous force per Watt), you are implying breaking conservation of momentum.  See above.  So, don't say that without that same tag of "Complete Speculation," or you won't convince anybody knowledgeable about anything.  Instead put caveats and qualifications.  It may or may not be a closed system, but we don't know what it is interacting with in the outside world, if anything, and we'll need more research to figure that out.  (Shawyer's and Yang's hand waving to try to explain conservation of momentum are not at all convincing to me, and I seem to be in good company there.)

Bold claims about trips to Alpha Centauri may be exciting, but they really just hurt your credibility unless you temper them with caveats.

To summarize, avoid saying things that are known to be wrong, use caveats if you're talking about theories that you don't understand, and be sensitive that physicists and engineers both are rightly very cautious about any claims that imply INFINITE FREE ENERGY.

So, enough of what we shouldn't.  What can we actually do?

First, consistently get a signal well above the noise floor.  It seems to me that several projects have achieved this or are close to it.

Second, reproduce those signals at different places and using different measuring devices.  Having a test bed that can test many differently constructed frustums using different microwave sources in the same test environment will be very helpful.

Third, science the shit out of everything!  There's been good advice on this forum about how to do that.

Measure everything, including environmental factors (such as temperature, orientation, gaussmeter readings, unloaded Q, etc.).

Now change one thing at a time and retest.  To get useful science, you don't have to necessarily  improve the signal.  It's just as useful to see what degrades the signal and by how much!  Obviously change the orientation of the frustum from up to down to horizontal and East, West, North, South and to 45 degrees off of all of those.  Change the antenna source location.  Degrade the Q by a factor of 2 and see if the force drops by the same factor.  Move the magnetron to the other side of the frustum.  Turn the magnetron 90 degrees while leaving the frustum alignment alone.  Test a cylinder, a 5 degree angle, 10 degree angle, 80 degree angle!  There have been some great suggestions by experienced experimentalists.

Change just one thing at a time and rerun the experiment and get LOTS of data points.  For example, see if there is a clear relationship of instantaneous force to Q or to input power and show LOTS of data points.  See if there is a relationship between measured force and where the power cables are or where the magnetron or RF amplifier sits.  Lorentz forces are tricky things to calculate at the best of times and my kitchen microwave kicks out all kinds of spurious fields even though it is supposedly covered by a Faraday cage (I've measured them!).  You can't account for all Lorentz forces just by twisting the wires of your power cord! 

As others have said, put your EmDrive in a self enclosed box, including power (batteries), magnetron or RF amplifier and frustum.  That will reduce, although certainly not eliminate, variables.

Understand the huge difference between measuring micronewtons, millinewtons, and newtons. Micronewton level forces are EVERYWHERE for uncountable reasons. It's basically impossible to avoid them even in the most carefully controlled laboratory environments, so they have to be accounted for very carefully.

Instead of defending your experimental results against all skeptics (which is the natural human response), attack them yourself first.  Other people will anyway, so you should figure out what the questions are and which ones you can answer ahead of time.  List the questions you can't answer yet BEFORE your critics do.  Be more critical of your own experiments than your biggest critic, and then you will have defensible results.  Listen to the critics respectfully and address and serious questions.  For example, I was disappointed how casually the possibilities for Lorentz force contamination were dismissed by some experimentalists.  You will be a much more effective experimentalist by thinking like a skeptic first!!!

I'm very much looking forward to Traveler's rotary demonstrations, because, despite his unbounded optimism and questionable theoretical structure, I think his design is good and could provide very illuminating results.  Let's see if he can get his rotary table up to 33 1/3 rpm and play an LP of Rocket Man on it!

Finally, put one in low earth orbit and then fly the sucker around the moon. That would convince me.

In the meantime, you'll do EmDrive investigation in general a valuable service by carefully separating hype and speculation from serious reproduction attempts and testing and by encouraging skepticism as much or more than faith

Like rfwmguy, if you aren't qualified to talk about theory, then don't.  The physical world doesn't care about credentials.  However, for better or worse, scientific journals do.  While the "crackpot killers" lurking on forums can be unacceptably harsh on "true believers," to me it's just as bad how obviously flawed science is regularly allowed to stand unchallenged in this forum.  It badly degrades the whole conversation.

I am a space flight enthusiast, like most of the people on this forum.  I am a skeptic, but I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. 

Show me more data!

And good luck to all!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jnet on 11/10/2015 07:21 pm
Hello, read

EM DRIVE - SPECIAL OPINION

http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml (http://samlib.ru/editors/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive.shtml)

1. This photonic jet engine on photons invisible spectrum.
2.. (a = F / M) - changes in the engine mass (m variable)
(a = F / M) - changes in the engine mass (m variable)
(a technology for zero weight or mass)
Scientists have found a "mass effect is zero."
a - acceleration of the material point;
F - resultant of all the forces applied to the material point;
m - mass of the material point.
(a technology for zero weight or mass)
Scientists have found a "mass effect is zero."

The theory states
1."body emitting infrared waves have unstable m. That's you and the technology of "zero mass". The more EM - the engine will warm up and radiate infrared waves the less weight, which means according to the formula (a = F / M)"

2. describes experiments with bodies emit infrared waves.
Mass is reduced.



Trhanks for posting.

Hello  ;D

I want to see diagram
(http://samlib.ru/img/l/lemeshko_a_w/emdrive/diagramm.jpg)

because the great Newton teaches if we see the power of it is reactive.
Only F - reactive.

Do you think he found uncompensated force (A)
Explain!!!!
  Prove!!!!

See formula:
А -  acceleration
(А = F / M) -
a - acceleration of the material point;
F - resultant of all the forces applied to the material point;
m - mass of the material point. (if stable)


If the mass is stable
You are a winner. You have the jackpot
You will find the power that did not know about the great Newton.

NEED DIAGRAMM!

Thank!!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jötunn on 11/10/2015 07:26 pm
I agree, the whole conspiracy thing is dull.

Also, I'm not a geologist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/10/2015 07:52 pm
All I'm waiting for is a basic theory of how this item is supposed to work.

I've heard items from "tapping into the Quantum Foam" to "Creating some form of Gravity Drive".

So correct me if I am stating this incorrectly in layman's terms;

     The device in question appears to be using microwaves in a tunicated conical structure made of copper, reflecting those microwaves in such as way as to produce thrust.  However, said thrust seems to disproportionately large for the amount of power being applied to the device.

     As there is no apparent discharge of matter in the opposing direction to account for the thrust in micro-newtons, that seems to be generated, this is being considered a reactionless drive.  (Although, as I understand it electrons ARE a form of matter, and are being ejected from the device, albeit at a lower energy level than they were generated at, having imparted much of their energy to the interior of the device as kenitic energy.  The basic E=MC2 equation, essentially, seems to be at the heart of this issue, as does the Second Law of motion).

      That being said, there still appears to be more motion being generated than can be accounted for with classical physics.

     Have I summed up the issue correctly?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ppnl on 11/10/2015 07:53 pm
...

I don't think anyone objects to looking for low probability things. The frustration comes more from the fact that Shawyer is seeming not capable of grasping principles of high school physics. That does not mean that the EMdrive does not work or that experimenters will not measure a force. It does mean that Shawyer's claim of no new physics is nonsense. Worse if his claim of no new physics is taken seriously it will stall any understanding of what is happening.

Experimentalists need theory to tell them what to look for. Without that they are just throwing darts in the dark. Even if they hit on an anomaly they have no context to judge it by.

I would say that LENR is a priori more probable than the EM drive. Until you factor in 25 years of failure.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Shawyer doesn't understand high school physics.   I think he, like most people who believe they have discovered something, has let his emotions take too much charge over his reasoning and has chosen to not look critically at his theory, experiments and alternative explanations.   My theory of his rotating em-drive is that the coolant being pumped in the device generates a torque.   For all the years he has been working on this and even after getting patent protection for his ideas very little experimental data has been made public.

Well yes the easiest person for you to fool is yourself but most people find complex ways to fool themselves. Shawyer's mistake is almost charming in its simplicity. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jnet on 11/10/2015 08:01 pm


     Have I summed up the issue correctly?

I think you're right.
Most likely it is the nature of the reactive power.
It is abnormally high.
This is a problem .. The strength should be much less.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/10/2015 08:10 pm
A thought occurred to me recently. There is some equipment, like thermal cameras, that can be helpful for these various homebrew experiments that don't need to be there all the time. Would there be any interest in trying to set up a sort of shared test equipment box to just kind of ship around?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/10/2015 08:37 pm
Space Ghost and others, I'm not so sure that we should assume that the moderators deleted the Rodal post, as they clearly did not delete gargoyles. I saw and read Rodal as it was posted. It is certainly possible that Dr. Rodal deleted his own post.

I'm not a scientist, just very interested, but have been reading here since last spring. There has been plenty of jousting, some of it less than "collegial". Dr. Rodal was extremely active and helpful to all. But several weeks ago he and others abruptly stopped posting. Rfmwguy stepped in to take the thread leadership that Dr Rodal had previously done. We were told that Dr. Rodal was still actively monitoring the site, but wouldn't be able to post for some time.

I think that most of us took that to mean something else was going on, possibly participation in a peer review effort.

I certainly don't know for sure why his post disappeared, but I also try not to assume a course of action occurred without having data to back it up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 08:49 pm
Space Ghost and others, I'm not so sure that we should assume that the moderators deleted the Rodal post, as they clearly did not delete gargoyles. I saw and read Rodal as it was posted. It is certainly possible that Dr. Rodal deleted his own post.

I'm not a scientist, just very interested, but have been reading here since last spring. There has been plenty of jousting, some of it less than "collegial". Dr. Rodal was extremely active and helpful to all. But several weeks ago he and others abruptly stopped posting. Rfmwguy stepped in to take the thread leadership that Dr Rodal had previously done. We were told that Dr. Rodal was still actively monitoring the site, but wouldn't be able to post for some time.

I think that most of us took that to mean something else was going on, possibly participation in a peer review effort.

I certainly don't know for sure why his post disappeared, but I also try not to assume a course of action occurred without having data to back it up.

Being honest here I can build the devil and test the dickens out of something but my math has languished over the decades to sloth through it again, been trying to do online courses but that can only go so far. It was a helpful hand that Dr. Rodal picked up where I was falling short in, I've found it a hindrance to not have him here.

I would have loved to be able to see the stress calculations from my dual waveguide CE design vs the dipoles I designed,  as of now I'm taking my best engineering guess at doing the dual waveguides and that's on limited information.

I truly wished he was here.


Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/10/2015 08:53 pm
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.

To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 09:03 pm
NSF-1701 update - Movie time

Grab some popcorn, your favorite beverage and watch a short clip in a couple of hours. Just took nsf1701 out of hibernation and fired it up for the thermal cam. First runs were to center image and choose display mode and color gradients. Not Oscar worthy but you shall see heat buildup on. Will do a 10 minute static flight test at 50% power cycle to get things heated up. Shop is at 15°C. Yes, my wife is annoyed she couldn't pull car into garage.  ;)

Will process and upload around 7 PM EST.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/10/2015 09:06 pm
NSF-1701 update - Movie time

Grab some popcorn, your favorite beverage and watch a short clip in a couple of hours. Just took nsf1701 out of hibernation and fired it up for the thermal cam. First runs were to center image and choose display mode and color gradients. Not Oscar worthy but you shall see heat buildup on. Will do a 10 minute static flight test at 50% power cycle to get things heated up. Shop is at 15°C. Yes, my wife is annoyed she couldn't pull car into garage.  ;)

Will process and upload around 7 PM EST.

I hope one of our image processing gurus in this forum can run some cross sections over time and color key to temperature and output a csv file.... hint hint hint

JoeSteinregen, if you're still out there.....  :)  Please?

A thermal profile could be most instructive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/10/2015 09:11 pm
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.

To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/10/2015 09:27 pm
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.

To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase. I am curious about.
I can show it (pic below TE113). The quintessence is the problem is much more complicated than you think about.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/10/2015 09:34 pm

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
I too am anxious to see phils rotary table. However, there will be some small effect from bouyancy. If the rotary table is balanced in all quadrants, the quadrant with the frustum will become lighter, possibly adding an angular force. I'm sure mr t has planned for this but thermal lift is a pesky byproduct that needs to be addressed. Obvious solution would be centering the device on the table to limit induction of angular forces. Am I right, phil?

Wait, I am wrong...centering would not provide rotary vector for frustum...dooooh!
I think Phil mentioned he was thinking or someone mentioned that identical opposing 180oEMDrives sitting on the rotary table would provide a better acceleration profile and reduce the off center thrust vectors.

Phil, is this in the design works, are you considering a dual drive setup?

Shell

I've thought on this, too.  Ideally, you'd like a pure "couple" to minimize force on the turntable axis. Remember your basic dynamics: an unbalanced tangential force is equivalent to a pure couple producing the same torque PLUS the equivalent force acting through the center of mass.

Remember the behavior of the Baby EMDrive when they had it magnetically levitated? The thing had a constant "coning", which is exactly the motion you would expect for an unbalanced tangential force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/10/2015 10:03 pm

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
I too am anxious to see phils rotary table. However, there will be some small effect from bouyancy. If the rotary table is balanced in all quadrants, the quadrant with the frustum will become lighter, possibly adding an angular force. I'm sure mr t has planned for this but thermal lift is a pesky byproduct that needs to be addressed. Obvious solution would be centering the device on the table to limit induction of angular forces. Am I right, phil?

Wait, I am wrong...centering would not provide rotary vector for frustum...dooooh!
I think Phil mentioned he was thinking or someone mentioned that identical opposing 180oEMDrives sitting on the rotary table would provide a better acceleration profile and reduce the off center thrust vectors.

Phil, is this in the design works, are you considering a dual drive setup?

Shell

I've thought on this, too.  Ideally, you'd like a pure "couple" to minimize force on the turntable axis. Remember your basic dynamics: an unbalanced tangential force is equivalent to a pure couple producing the same torque PLUS the equivalent force acting through the center of mass.

Remember the behavior of the Baby EMDrive when they had it magnetically levitated? The thing had a constant "coning", which is exactly the motion you would expect for an unbalanced tangential force.


:) I do remember the Baby EMDrive and thought about why it would be a easy thing (relativity) for TT to do. He said he was getting his frustums made for him by a Chinese company and if that is the case I assume that they would be balanced more than a home brewed build would.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:01 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

https://youtu.be/dmpUQ5ZkyRw
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Prunesquallor on 11/10/2015 11:08 pm

I'm going to wait and see what SEE and RFMWGUY do.  Whatever they do doesn't depend on publication standards and promises at the very least to be interesting.  I rate interesting more interesting than "peer review".  Just me I guess.  :)
Personally, I'd like to see TheTraveller's experiment also included in that list. Even if his personality is sometimes subject to controversy, his approach with the rotating table differs substantially from the other experiments to make it an interesting study case. A rotating table will have very little noise from thermal effects, like buoyancy...

The most compelling "indication of evidence" on the EMworkings is still Shawyer's rotating table video.
As it is also highly contested, it is absolutely essential that it is either confirmed or denounced.
If that setup can not be replicated, then it will be a serious dent in the credibility of the EMdrive.
I too am anxious to see phils rotary table. However, there will be some small effect from bouyancy. If the rotary table is balanced in all quadrants, the quadrant with the frustum will become lighter, possibly adding an angular force. I'm sure mr t has planned for this but thermal lift is a pesky byproduct that needs to be addressed. Obvious solution would be centering the device on the table to limit induction of angular forces. Am I right, phil?

Wait, I am wrong...centering would not provide rotary vector for frustum...dooooh!
I think Phil mentioned he was thinking or someone mentioned that identical opposing 180oEMDrives sitting on the rotary table would provide a better acceleration profile and reduce the off center thrust vectors.

Phil, is this in the design works, are you considering a dual drive setup?

Shell

I've thought on this, too.  Ideally, you'd like a pure "couple" to minimize force on the turntable axis. Remember your basic dynamics: an unbalanced tangential force is equivalent to a pure couple producing the same torque PLUS the equivalent force acting through the center of mass.

Remember the behavior of the Baby EMDrive when they had it magnetically levitated? The thing had a constant "coning", which is exactly the motion you would expect for an unbalanced tangential force.


:) I do remember the Baby EMDrive and thought about why it would be a easy thing (relativity) for TT to do. He said he was getting his frustums made for him by a Chinese company and if that is the case I assume that they would be balanced more than a home brewed build would.

If you could get two frusta with the same mass and could expect relatively the same thrust from each, having one on each end of a diameter with both thrusting with the same sense (e.g. clockwise), it should absolutely minimize friction on the turntable axis. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/10/2015 11:18 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

<video link> (https://youtu.be/dmpUQ5ZkyRw)

Ace!

For ease of comparison, could you take a photograph of NSF-1701 with a regular camera, in the same approximate frame as the infrared footage?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:21 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

<video link> (https://youtu.be/dmpUQ5ZkyRw)

Ace!

For ease of comparison, could you take a photograph of NSF-1701 with a regular camera, in the same approximate frame as the infrared footage?
No problemo, back in a sec.

Here it is. A little distorted with some fish-eye lens stuff going on but this is the general shot.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/10/2015 11:23 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

{snip}

The video appears to show -40 °C. Is that the temperature of a coolant or is it a relative temperature?
145 °C - 40 °C = 105 °C
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/10/2015 11:23 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.



Very cool..er HOT...  I was a little surprised that the top & bottom box plates did not "appear" to warm as much or as quickly as the wire mesh of the frustum did, except right where the magnetron was. I also was looking to  pickup any thermal signature of heated air escaping from under the lip of the top box plate, or through the mesh itself. Just a guess on my part that the temp difference of any heated air just wasn't discernable near the heat signature of the metal components.

On the brighter side, next time you run it you could put a couple of Costco Polish Dogs on the lid and have dinner after!  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:29 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

{snip}

The video appears to show -40 °C. Is that the temperature of a coolant or is it a relative temperature?
145 °C - 40 °C = 105 °C
No coolant, no pumps, just ambient air. Looks like EMF confused thermal cam towards the end of the video. Probably the upper limit of Seek Thermal cam. Had some cold temp overlay which was not accurate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/10/2015 11:29 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.



Dave, for reference, can you shoot an optical still of the field of view so we have a reference image to map from?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:31 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.



Very cool..er HOT...  I was a little surprised that the top & bottom box plates did not "appear" to warm as much or as quickly as the wire mesh of the frustum did, except right where the magnetron was. I also was looking to  pickup any thermal signature of heated air escaping from under the lip of the top box plate, or through the mesh itself. Just a guess on my part that the temp difference of any heated air just wasn't discernable near the heat signature of the metal components.

On the brighter side, next time you run it you could put a couple of Costco Polish Dogs on the lid and have dinner after!  :)
Sounds like a plan, Bob...Mmmmm hot dogs. This was what I saw with the IR spot cam. Insignificant heating iof frustum sidewalls, especially with mesh copper. Looks to me like all heat contained on magnetron frame and nothing internal to speak of.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/10/2015 11:31 pm
A little distorted with some fish-eye lens stuff going on but this is the general shot.

Is that all distortion from the lens? It looks... crushed and bent in places. The mesh frustum itself doesn't look straight at all.  :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:32 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.



Very cool..er HOT...  I was a little surprised that the top & bottom box plates did not "appear" to warm as much or as quickly as the wire mesh of the frustum did, except right where the magnetron was. I also was looking to  pickup any thermal signature of heated air escaping from under the lip of the top box plate, or through the mesh itself. Just a guess on my part that the temp difference of any heated air just wasn't discernable near the heat signature of the metal components.

On the brighter side, next time you run it you could put a couple of Costco Polish Dogs on the lid and have dinner after!  :)
Sounds like a plan, Bob...Mmmmm hot dogs. This was what I saw with the IR spot cam. Insignificant heating iof frustum sidewalls, especially with mesh copper. Looks to me like all heat contained on magnetron frame and nothing internal to speak of.
I did add a quick one a couple of posts back, let me get a smaller one for here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/10/2015 11:34 pm
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

{snip}

The video appears to show -40 °C. Is that the temperature of a coolant or is it a relative temperature?
145 °C - 40 °C = 105 °C
No coolant, no pumps, just ambient air. Looks like EMF confused thermal cam towards the end of the video. Probably the upper limit of Seek Thermal cam. Had some cold temp overlay which was not accurate.

Thank you. It was a great video.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Superfastjellyfish on 11/10/2015 11:42 pm
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:43 pm
Here's a still shot of the frustum, still has some fish-eye stuff going on, as the cellphone cam is not meant for close ups. This is the approximate screen size of the frustum in the video, perhaps the still is a little larger.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:47 pm
A little distorted with some fish-eye lens stuff going on but this is the general shot.

Is that all distortion from the lens? It looks... crushed and bent in places. The mesh frustum itself doesn't look straight at all.  :-[
One side has been slightly compressed, but it is exaggerated by the lens. Since this frustum design has been retired, I probably didn't handle it carefully when I disassembled the test stand. The mesh is quite easy to deform. It was symmetrical when I did the testing a couple of months ago. Just wanted to show thermal heating today, not concerned about sidewalls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/10/2015 11:55 pm
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Thanks, you know, I forgot to look at the small plate. Guess I'm going out there and shoot another video, this time looking up from the floor to the small diameter. Thanks a lot, I had just settled in... ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/11/2015 12:02 am
Thanks for these videos and images rfmwguy!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 12:15 am
Here's a still shot of the frustum, still has some fish-eye stuff going on, as the cellphone cam is not meant for close ups. This is the approximate screen size of the frustum in the video, perhaps the still is a little larger.

Please confirm, irrespective of the optical crap,which we can compensate for, is this the same orientation as the IR view?  The edges of the images should be  detectable and scalable, photography 101 :).  Just want you to confirm that the IR imaging had the same field of view as this image.  Top, bottom, left, right.

If so, I can start my slow processsing or maybe a hoped for guru can start his faster.

My reduction time will be days to weeks.  His could be faster, but he's in school which somewhat has a priority in his life, which we should all respect, and encourage.

Just want confirmation on the field of view.  Scale and optical distortion doesn't matter.  There's always a deformation metric to match the camera.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zellerium on 11/11/2015 12:27 am
To whomever is moderating the EM Drive wiki page: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

I believe there is an error in the geomertry for Yang. She has not published measured thrust from the frustum with extended ends, unless there is another paper I am unaware of. The calculation for this geometry is linked to Dr. Rodal's post, but those are calculations based on the 2014 paper in which no thrust was measured. This 2014 paper was simply a resonance demonstration.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412339#msg1412339

The thrust measurements are from the 2013 paper in which they used a frustum without extended ends.

So normal frustum+magnetron = thrust (NWPU)
normal frustum + amplifier = no thrust (EW)
normal frustum+dielectric + amplifier = thrust (EW)
or spherical ended frustum + amplifier = thrust (Shawyer)
but extended end frustum has not had any thrust measurements, so do we really know that it produces the same effect as Shawyer's spherical ends?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 12:34 am
Here's a still shot of the frustum, still has some fish-eye stuff going on, as the cellphone cam is not meant for close ups. This is the approximate screen size of the frustum in the video, perhaps the still is a little larger.

Please confirm, irrespective of the optical crap,which we can compensate for, is this the same orientation as the IR view?  The edges of the images should be  detectable and scalable, photography 101 :).  Just want you to confirm that the IR imaging had the same field of view as this image.  Top, bottom, left, right.

If so, I can start my slow processsing or maybe a hoped for guru can start his faster.

My reduction time will be days to weeks.  His could be faster, but he's in school which somewhat has a priority in his life, which we should all respect, and encourage.

Just want confirmation on the field of view.  Scale and optical distortion doesn't matter.  There's always a deformation metric to match the camera.  :)
Yes, the still image is the exact orientation as the thermal cam shot.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 12:40 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Thanks, you know, I forgot to look at the small plate. Guess I'm going out there and shoot another video, this time looking up from the floor to the small diameter. Thanks a lot, I had just settled in... ;)
OK, I just came in from running the thermal cam looking up at the bottom plate. Unfortunately, I saw no TM/TE patterns, in fact, I saw almost no thermal rise at all. Strange. It could be that the double-sided PC board I am using is enough of an insulator that no hotspots are appearing, only a general warming. I think a solid copper plate would show this much better. That is my next frustum, NSF-1701A...all solid copper in the same dimensions as the original. But that, my friends, is down the road a bit. Have a supporter who is willing to 3D print the frustum so I can shape the copper sheets. That will be a big help. He is planning on doing it before the new year some time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/11/2015 01:04 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Thanks, you know, I forgot to look at the small plate. Guess I'm going out there and shoot another video, this time looking up from the floor to the small diameter. Thanks a lot, I had just settled in... ;)
OK, I just came in from running the thermal cam looking up at the bottom plate. Unfortunately, I saw no TM/TE patterns, in fact, I saw almost no thermal rise at all. Strange. It could be that the double-sided PC board I am using is enough of an insulator that no hotspots are appearing, only a general warming. I think a solid copper plate would show this much better. That is my next frustum, NSF-1701A...all solid copper in the same dimensions as the original. But that, my friends, is down the road a bit. Have a supporter who is willing to 3D print the frustum so I can shape the copper sheets. That will be a big help. He is planning on doing it before the new year some time.

You're probably aware of this, but the emissivity of bare metals is usually well below the typical 0.95 default value set on thermal cameras and IR thermometers (this value is OK for non-metallic materials such as plastics, brick, plaster, wood, painted or anodized surfaces, etc.).

A good trick is to apply a bit of thin adhesive tape to the surface of metals so that an imager registers a realistic temperature in these areas when it is set for an emissivity of 0.95.  This saves trying to work out what the real metal surface emissivity is and setting the imager accordingly.

Any tape will do, the thinner the better to minimize thermal insulation, provided it is organic in nature (e.g. PVC, kapton, polyester, masking tape …).  Hope this helps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 01:07 am
How to convince skeptics

I am a space flight enthusiast, like most of the people on this forum.  I am a skeptic, but I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. 

Show me more data!

And good luck to all!

Welcome to the NSF site good to have you here.

For a first post that had two things, good advise and long. Thank you for both.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 01:21 am
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/11/2015 01:23 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Thanks, you know, I forgot to look at the small plate. Guess I'm going out there and shoot another video, this time looking up from the floor to the small diameter. Thanks a lot, I had just settled in... ;)

Is the square shaped part that has the magnetron on top and is attached to the small end of the fustrum a 5 sided box?   What is the section between the magnetron and fustrum made of?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 01:41 am
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
This was a Seek Thermal usb clip on thermal cam for an android phone. It is also available for iphones. Resolution seems ok, well below a flir but cost effective and generally shows what I suspected, heat concentration on mag itself, not within frustrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 01:48 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!
Thanks, you know, I forgot to look at the small plate. Guess I'm going out there and shoot another video, this time looking up from the floor to the small diameter. Thanks a lot, I had just settled in... ;)

Is the square shaped part that has the magnetron on top and is attached to the small end of the fustrum a 5 sided box?   What is the section between the magnetron and fustrum made of?
The entire assembly is double sided pcb with 1/8 square copper supports. The mag is mounted on large diameter, center insertion. Only sidewalls are copper mesh. My test report on page 1 of thread 5 has more specifics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 02:29 am
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
This was a Seek Thermal usb clip on thermal cam for an android phone. It is also available for iphones. Resolution seems ok, well below a flir but cost effective and generally shows what I suspected, heat concentration on mag itself, not within frustrum.

I've was looking at that one on Ebay along with the Flir1 but with both I need to get a Iphone 5s (up) with the Flir1, or or a Galaxy S5 with the Thermal SEEK.

It does show your maggie getting very hot and some of the top part of the frustum, no resonance I can see. It will get better I have little doubt.

Maybe blocking the heat just to show the lower half could help?


Shell

PS: Sorry a little tired, I've been getting ready most of the day for a major snow storm to hit tonight.
Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 02:34 am
Cullen has already done that using one plate and directly measured the reduced radiation pressure generated by the longer guide wavelength inside a cylinderical waveguide.

His equation 15, attached, is at the heart of how and why the EmDrive works.

Using Cullen 15 plus knowing the guide wavelength at each end of the frustum, the values of the momentum gradient formed inside the frustum can be calculated.

Why this is so hard to understand and accept is really difficult to work out. Any microwave engineering text will confirm the guide wavelength calculations. Then add Cullen 15 and the momentum gradient values are clear.

Cullen 15 is derived for a constant area waveguide, you cannot just apply it to a tapered resonator and say it works. You have mentioned microwave "black magic" before. The reason people use that term is because intuition doesn't work with electromagnetic calculations. You have to be very careful to use all of the equations correctly, and can't take a result out of the context it was derived in.

This doesn't mean that there is no change in the momentum stored in the EM fields from one end to the other. Due to conservation of momentum though, any change in momentum of the fields means momentum had to go somewhere. Assuming the EM drive is a closed system this means it would be transferred to the walls of the resonator (note that momentum of the electrons from induced currents has to be accounted for if you are summing all the momentum at a given time).

Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion on what kind of test would convince people like me there is a real effect. Equally important is what would convince other people that there is no effect. I am especially interested in what it would take to convince TheTraveller, since he seems to be the strongest believer here.

To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase. I am curious about.
I can show it (pic below TE113). The quintessence is the problem is much more complicated than you think about.

Biggest issue I see with your model is the wavelengths at the big and small ends appear to be the same.

Here is a EW mode map for TE013. Note the wavelength at the small end is much longer than at the big end. Also the meep runs show the same effect. Longer wavelength at the small versus the big end.

Attached is the guide wavelength map for Dave's NSF-1701. This data correctly predicted his VNA resonance scan and predicted his Force measurement.

Can your model do that? Please give it a go and show the results.

Basically if you create a mode map model and there is no guide wavelength variance (it is not longer at the small end and shorter at the big end) it is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 02:37 am
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
This was a Seek Thermal usb clip on thermal cam for an android phone. It is also available for iphones. Resolution seems ok, well below a flir but cost effective and generally shows what I suspected, heat concentration on mag itself, not within frustrum.

Patience children.  Followers.  Rodal  :)

This will take time to characterize.  My best guess is weeks unless our imaging guru decides to flunk his classes...or I decide its time to get fired, again.... :)  There is a ton of data to be extracted from a short video.

There's some solid data here, re: thermals   The video shows the thermal propogation over time.

We need some time to describe what it is and how or if it effects prior testing.

Updates as the frustum turns.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 02:44 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!

Dave has done a S11 VNA scan of his frustum and found resonance at the freq my EMDrive design spreadsheet had predicted. Additionally the Force he measured of 177uN was close to the Force of 207uN predicted by the same spreadsheet.

Dave has since stated the magnetron freq range was +-40MHz and not the assumed +-30MHz. That additional output energy spectrum spread would drop the Rf energy in the +-1.5MHz measured input bandwidth of the frustum to drop the 207uN to be very close to the value Dave measured.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 02:53 am
7 PM EST, time for a NSF-1701 thermal cam video. Oh, BTW, thanks to Pink Floyd...crank it up!

50% power cycle for 10 minutes, 1.3x speed.

https://youtu.be/dmpUQ5ZkyRw

Dave,

Remember the measured VSWR of 1.72 only applies to the maggies Rf energy in the +-1.5MHz input bandwidth of the frustum or approx 35W. The other 715W, that is outside the frustum input bandwidth, will have a very high VSWR and be reflected back to inside the maggie resonant chamber and be thermalised. So the maggie will heat up from the conversion inefficiency waste heat PLUS heat from the 715W of reflected back Rf energy. IE it will get hot!

I doubt the 35W that gets inside the frustum will generate any significant heating, especially with the mesh sides.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: poutrew on 11/11/2015 02:59 am
A methodology for the production of thrust by an enclosed, self contained microwave resonator is provided by my theory. Composite dimensionality shows how our three spatial dimensions are not fundamental things but are in fact composite structures created by more fundamental entities. Motion happens when something causes these fundamental entities to become distorted - such as the application of microwave energy in an enclosed resonating cavity.

I am unclear as to how much detail the current tests go into when measuring the thrust vector for the EM Drive, but it should be controllable to a degree by altering the particular standing wave ratio within the cavity by, for example, changing the frequency of microwave radiation, or by altering the geometrical configuration of the cavity itself.

Anyway, you might want to give my idea a read:
http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0201

Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 03:34 am
I think Phil mentioned he was thinking or someone mentioned that identical opposing 180oEMDrives sitting on the rotary table would provide a better acceleration profile and reduce the off center thrust vectors.

Phil, is this in the design works, are you considering a dual drive setup?

Shell

Plans are for a single frustum for many reasons.

However as the major heat radiator is the waste heat from the 25% efficient Rf amp (~300W) versus ~100W from the black frustum, have made a change to mount the Rf amp and it's heat sink such that their centre of mass and thermal radiation are at the centre of rotation of the table so as to reduce their possible effect on thermally generated false rotation to the min possible.

The table will have a transparent side wall and top. Additionally there will be a stationary additional transparent side wall and top enclosure approx 0.5m away from the rotating frustum to stop any effect from air currents in the room.

To please The Great Randi, the rotary table and support stand will be constructed of transparent Perspex / acrylic to ensure there are no hidden wires, motors or other propulsive sources.

Got a tough crown to please.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Croppa on 11/11/2015 04:06 am
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
This was a Seek Thermal usb clip on thermal cam for an android phone. It is also available for iphones. Resolution seems ok, well below a flir but cost effective and generally shows what I suspected, heat concentration on mag itself, not within frustrum.

Patience children.  Followers.  Rodal  :)

This will take time to characterize.  My best guess is weeks unless our imaging guru decides to flunk his classes...or I decide its time to get fired, again.... :)  There is a ton of data to be extracted from a short video.

There's some solid data here, re: thermals   The video shows the thermal propogation over time.

We need some time to describe what it is and how or if it effects prior testing.

Updates as the frustum turns.  :)

I can try to extract some numbers if you feel that would be useful. Personally all I learn from this movie is that Pink Floyd were awesome and that the magnetron is the major focus of the heating issues (heating of the supply wires also seems significant).

The floating labels don't help in terms of quantifying an area over time but the numbers displayed are potentially useful as a reference. It's no doubt possible to get a plot of something over time but how accurately that relates to actual temperature is obviously going to be questionable.

@rfmwguy - presumably the thermal gizmo has no app which will output a list of numbers for the points that it's tracking? Thanks for your continued efforts with this btw. I'm still on the fence myself but the work of all of you guys who are actually getting hands dirty and building these things is very much to be admired. It's ultimately those efforts which will prove whether the Emdrive sinks or swims.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/11/2015 04:32 am
To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.
I have never seen a textbook that discusses wavelength in a tapered cavity. The equations for wavelength in a waveguide are always for constant area waveguides. Nothing about the emdrive can be described as constant area.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said that Cullen 15 does not apply, since it was derived for a completely different situation?

Also, I already explained that the EM momentum density can be different at different points in the cavity, but any differences will only happen due to exchanging momentum with the walls of the cavity.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
Nothing is simple about microwave physics, and attempts to simplify it lead to wrong answers.


TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase. I am curious about.
I can show it (pic below TE113). The quintessence is the problem is much more complicated than you think about.

Biggest issue I see with your model is the wavelengths at the big and small ends appear to be the same.

Here is a EW mode map for TE013. Note the wavelength at the small end is much longer than at the big end. Also the meep runs show the same effect. Longer wavelength at the small versus the big end.

Attached is the guide wavelength map for Dave's NSF-1701. This data correctly predicted his VNA resonance scan and predicted his Force measurement.

Can your model do that? Please give it a go and show the results.

Basically if you create a mode map model and there is no guide wavelength variance (it is not longer at the small end and shorter at the big end) it is wrong.

What are you basing the wavelength on from those pictures? X_RaY asked you to define the radius of constant phase. I would use the term surface of constant phase. Either way this would be the first step in defining a guide wavelength. Please do this before trying to claim that a FEM calculation is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/11/2015 05:04 am

...

Is the square shaped part that has the magnetron on top and is attached to the small end of the fustrum a 5 sided box?   What is the section between the magnetron and fustrum made of?
The entire assembly is double sided pcb with 1/8 square copper supports. The mag is mounted on large diameter, center insertion. Only sidewalls are copper mesh. My test report on page 1 of thread 5 has more specifics.

Do you have a paper where the experimental procedure is explained and raw data, along with an explanation of how it was acquired, can be looked at?    I looked at a couple of the u-toob videos.  One had a blurry clock display and graphs that appeared after awhile.   I didn't understand what was happening there.   Are you looking for an upward movement or a downward movement?   Have you done a test where the magnetron was shorted?  ie: no RF going into the fustrum but the magnetron on.   I am not trying to get you riled.  I just want to learn more about what you did.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 05:20 am
Have you done a test where the magnetron was shorted?  ie: no RF going into the fustrum but the magnetron on.   I am not trying to get you riled.  I just want to learn more about what you did.

You do understand the maggie's antenna is INSIDE the frustum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/11/2015 05:36 am
Have you done a test where the magnetron was shorted?  ie: no RF going into the fustrum but the magnetron on.   I am not trying to get you riled.  I just want to learn more about what you did.

You do understand the maggie's antenna is INSIDE the frustum?

I haven't seen enough to know that.    I thought it was just a hollow waveguide.   What I am interested in knowing is what happens if the magnetron is shorted so that the RF energy does not enter the fustrum.   The same amount of heat is generated.   But I assume this test has not been done.

BTW magnetic bearings are not trivial.   You might be able to make 2 circular Halbach arrays with NIB magnets.    However because of the non-uniformity of the fields it may not turn smoothly.   The other option is 2 massive donut shaped magnets.   If the weight is too great they will strike and the magnetic fields of the two will deteriorate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 05:59 am
Have you done a test where the magnetron was shorted?  ie: no RF going into the fustrum but the magnetron on.   I am not trying to get you riled.  I just want to learn more about what you did.

You do understand the maggie's antenna is INSIDE the frustum?

I haven't seen enough to know that.    I thought it was just a hollow waveguide.   What I am interested in knowing is what happens if the magnetron is shorted so that the RF energy does not enter the fustrum.   The same amount of heat is generated.   But I assume this test has not been done.

BTW magnetic bearings are not trivial.   You might be able to make 2 circular Halbach arrays with NIB magnets.    However because of the non-uniformity of the fields it may not turn smoothly.   The other option is 2 massive donut shaped magnets.   If the weight is too great they will strike and the magnetic fields of the two will deteriorate.

Quote
I haven't seen enough to know that.

Just maybe before making suggestions about his test you should review his test setup and get to know it fairly well?

As for shorting the antenna of the maggie, I assume you will be buying Dave a new maggie? Even if the magge did not blow, the thermal load would be lower as the maggie would shut down and not generate much if at all any Rf.

Building the magnetic thrust bearing is not a issue. Have used this several times before. Yes it will be 2 opposing ring magnets with at least twice the upward repulsion force as the downward load force. The 2 very low start torque axial bearings will keep the mag fields aligned. The bottom ring marget can be adjusted in 2 axis to generate minimal force on the axial bearings.

The table will be spun up, via an externally applied drive motor to the outer rim of the turntable, to characterise the frictional loads versus rpm just before and after each frustum powered rotation test run. Call them calibration runs as EW do before and after each of their frustum power on then off runs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 06:13 am
To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.
I have never seen a textbook that discusses wavelength in a tapered cavity. The equations for wavelength in a waveguide are always for constant area waveguides. Nothing about the emdrive can be described as constant area.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said that Cullen 15 does not apply, since it was derived for a completely different situation?

Also, I already explained that the EM momentum density can be different at different points in the cavity, but any differences will only happen due to exchanging momentum with the walls of the cavity.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
Nothing is simple about microwave physics, and attempts to simplify it lead to wrong answers.


TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase. I am curious about.
I can show it (pic below TE113). The quintessence is the problem is much more complicated than you think about.

Biggest issue I see with your model is the wavelengths at the big and small ends appear to be the same.

Here is a EW mode map for TE013. Note the wavelength at the small end is much longer than at the big end. Also the meep runs show the same effect. Longer wavelength at the small versus the big end.

Attached is the guide wavelength map for Dave's NSF-1701. This data correctly predicted his VNA resonance scan and predicted his Force measurement.

Can your model do that? Please give it a go and show the results.

Basically if you create a mode map model and there is no guide wavelength variance (it is not longer at the small end and shorter at the big end) it is wrong.

What are you basing the wavelength on from those pictures? X_RaY asked you to define the radius of constant phase. I would use the term surface of constant phase. Either way this would be the first step in defining a guide wavelength. Please do this before trying to claim that a FEM calculation is wrong.

Can the FEM calculation correctly predict resonance in 16 different modes?

My model, based on SPR's model, can.

Both meep and EW show the wavelength being longer at the small and and shorter at the big end, as microwave theory predicts, yet X-Ray's model does not. Please explain.

The 2nd attachment is the predicted guide wavelength variance for Dave's NSF-1701 frustum that has correctly predicted the VNA scan resonance he discovered. BTW he built his frustum based on the predicted length I gave him to get resonance in a TE mode at 2.45GHz.

Anytime you or X-Ray would like to repeat that prediction process, please do it. I will keep the mode secret for the moment as it will be a final check that the system you guys come up with is actually working.

It is so easy to take pot shots at my work but so difficult to duplicate the good results, that is without using standard microwave engineering text book guide wavelength equations and following a bit of Shawyer's theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Superfastjellyfish on 11/11/2015 06:22 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!

Dave has done a S11 VNA scan of his frustum and found resonance at the freq my EMDrive design spreadsheet had predicted. Additionally the Force he measured of 177uN was close to the Force of 207uN predicted by the same spreadsheet.

Dave has since stated the magnetron freq range was +-40MHz and not the assumed +-30MHz. That additional output energy spectrum spread would drop the Rf energy in the +-1.5MHz measured input bandwidth of the frustum to drop the 207uN to be very close to the value Dave measured.

I don't think there is resonance inside the frustum this run because the side wall mesh is deformed(admittedly, I don't know the tolerances for resonance).  As I understand it, when there is no resonance a good portion of the input energy is reflected back to the magnetron hence heating it up more than if there were resonance.  So, the thermal data we are seeing in this video cannot be used with dave's previous tests as there are different levels of energy stored inside the mesh frustum.  And, as zen-in pointed out, the upper support of your frustum is a five sided heat catcher.  The more energy stored as resonance in the frustum then the more the ballooning will affect the measurement.  Just my armchair thoughts.  :)

Keep the data coming!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 06:22 am
Lets make the challenge simple.

Below is the VNA S11 resonance freq Dave measured with his frustum.

The frustum dimensions are:

Frustum big diameter: 0.2797m
Frustum small diameter: 0.1588m
Frustum centre length: 0.2591m

Find the excitation mode that will give the resonance freq Dave measured and report it.

I'll PM Dave the excitation mode I calculated so he can be the judge if you and X-Ray can correctly predict the resonance mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 06:31 am
I'm very interested in views of the end plates(not sure if you're able to view the big end with the magnetron injecting there though).  If for nothing else than to confirm that there is a resonant mode actually inside the mesh.   :)

Keep up the good work!

Dave has done a S11 VNA scan of his frustum and found resonance at the freq my EMDrive design spreadsheet had predicted. Additionally the Force he measured of 177uN was close to the Force of 207uN predicted by the same spreadsheet.

Dave has since stated the magnetron freq range was +-40MHz and not the assumed +-30MHz. That additional output energy spectrum spread would drop the Rf energy in the +-1.5MHz measured input bandwidth of the frustum to drop the 207uN to be very close to the value Dave measured.

I don't think there is resonance inside the frustum this run because the side wall mesh is deformed(admittedly, I don't know the tolerances for resonance).  As I understand it, when there is no resonance a good portion of the input energy is reflected back to the magnetron hence heating it up more than if there were resonance.  So, the thermal data we are seeing in this video cannot be used with dave's previous tests as there are different levels of energy stored inside the mesh frustum.  And, as zen-in pointed out, the upper support of your frustum is a five sided heat catcher.  The more energy stored as resonance in the frustum then the more the ballooning will affect the measurement.  Just my armchair thoughts.  :)

Keep the data coming!

I guess you haven't seen the S11 VNA scan Dave did? See my last past posting for the image.

The reported resonance freq and the VSWR of 1.72 are clearly seen. BTW for the frustum's bandwidth +-1.5MHz, the VSWR is very acceptable. Of the estimated 37.5W available across the frustum's input bandwidth, 35W would have made it inside the frustum, formed resonance and generated the measured 177uN of thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/11/2015 07:05 am

...

I haven't seen enough to know that.    I thought it was just a hollow waveguide.   What I am interested in knowing is what happens if the magnetron is shorted so that the RF energy does not enter the fustrum.   The same amount of heat is generated.   But I assume this test has not been done.

BTW magnetic bearings are not trivial.   You might be able to make 2 circular Halbach arrays with NIB magnets.    However because of the non-uniformity of the fields it may not turn smoothly.   The other option is 2 massive donut shaped magnets.   If the weight is too great they will strike and the magnetic fields of the two will deteriorate.

Quote
I haven't seen enough to know that.

Just maybe before making suggestions about his test you should review his test setup and get to know it fairly well?

As for shorting the antenna of the maggie, I assume you will be buying Dave a new maggie? Even if the magge did not blow, the thermal load would be lower as the maggie would shut down and not generate much if at all any Rf.

Building the magnetic thrust bearing is not a issue. Have used this several times before. Yes it will be 2 opposing ring magnets with at least twice the upward repulsion force as the downward load force. The 2 very low start torque axial bearings will keep the mag fields aligned. The bottom ring marget can be adjusted in 2 axis to generate minimal force on the axial bearings.

The table will be spun up, via an externally applied drive motor to the outer rim of the turntable, to characterise the frictional loads versus rpm just before and after each frustum powered rotation test run. Call them calibration runs as EW do before and after each of their frustum power on then off runs.

When are you going to build all of this?   It's been over a year now that you have been talking about it and all there is to show is the crude diagram you keep posting.  In that time I have built a couple of experimental apparatuses and performed several experiments.  My lathe barely has time to cool down.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 11:50 am
about 7 months ago....
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1354873#msg1354873
or even
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1620

Just a review of so much great information that's been posted in this blog is humbling and mind boggling. The argument on what is happening in the frustum cavity in wave functions has been going on almost since page one. I've read the blog several time over and each time I glean something that equates to a AHA moment. I'm currently reviewing it again. I highly recommend the other builders do so and everyone else if you so desire.

Want to learn something of how the human mind works, read this blog. Want to find detailed information that was hen pecked to a final soultion, read the blog. I wish I could do a Krell Mind Boost to keep it all in. Thanks... Forbidden Planet (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9rfcXc4fWIE/VjKIedo3tZI/AAAAAAACIMw/oxAe29GoQi4/s400/Forbidden%2BPlanet%2BHC%2B2015%2B%252830%2529.jpg)

I remember reading this blog starting in the early summer and became interested in discovering what was happening. I joined and then I decided to build it. The rest has been learning just how to build it. That has been the tough part, building it so it could potentially be a device that could test a anomalous thrust.   

I'm getting very close and still have to test several parts of the design but I'm feeling quite good about it. Please don't ask me for a specific date, to much depends on how the testing goes and the modifications I might have to do.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/11/2015 12:34 pm
I recently found this video...not hard to image this to be a frustum on its side...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHNJR1SY8A
Too bad one needs a MATLAB license to work with that iFDTD toolbox, because I would love to have some more insight on Shawyer's 2nd generation  design.

Based on that video, I can see where the infamous curved surface resonating waves goes wrong.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1074925)
That drawing states that waves propagate perpendicular to the sidewalls and in parallel with the curved surfaces.
However, to really match the wave front propagation as pictured, the emitter/wave guide exit MUST be at the vertex point, which is currently outside the physical model of the cavity. Hence impossible...
Must agree with gargoyle99 that the image is incorrect/deceptive.
Shawyer's 2nd generation design features a wave guide slit in the side wall, so the waves come in from the side and then fill the frustum interior space.

At the very end of the horn, you can also see how the waves propagate further in free space after being confined.They tend to curl around the edge in a circular way, while the other part of the wave continues it original confinement shape.

If this is a correct wave behavior then the input opening of wave guide into the frustum causes some serious wave pattern disturbances.
And this is only in 2D... if you imagine that edge effect to happen in 3D it is getting even a lot more complex.

It is risky to say without having done the software simulation, but as I'm trying to mentally picture the process of propagating waves, I'm inclined to say that a convex surface is not helping. I'd go for 2 concave end plate surfaces...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 01:05 pm

I can try to extract some numbers if you feel that would be useful.

absolutely yes please
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/11/2015 01:16 pm
What are you basing the wavelength on from those pictures? X_RaY asked you to define the radius of constant phase. I would use the term surface of constant phase. Either way this would be the first step in defining a guide wavelength. Please do this before trying to claim that a FEM calculation is wrong.
...

Both meep and EW show the wavelength being longer at the small and and shorter at the big end, as microwave theory predicts, yet X-Ray's model does not. Please explain.

...

You still haven't answered the question. How are you defining guide wavelength? Part of this answer should include a description of a surface of constant phase.

Also for your challenge, I don't have any EM finite element tools available, so the best I could do would be calculate the resonance mode for curved endplates. (I have offered this before). This won't match exactly, since it is a different shape, and I probably won't have time until the weekend anyway.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 01:21 pm
Dave! Nice work.

Good to see you getting thermals from your drive.

Can you tell what camera you were using and the resolution?

Shell
This was a Seek Thermal usb clip on thermal cam for an android phone. It is also available for iphones. Resolution seems ok, well below a flir but cost effective and generally shows what I suspected, heat concentration on mag itself, not within frustrum.

Patience children.  Followers.  Rodal  :)

This will take time to characterize.  My best guess is weeks unless our imaging guru decides to flunk his classes...or I decide its time to get fired, again.... :)  There is a ton of data to be extracted from a short video.

There's some solid data here, re: thermals   The video shows the thermal propogation over time.

We need some time to describe what it is and how or if it effects prior testing.

Updates as the frustum turns.  :)

I can try to extract some numbers if you feel that would be useful. Personally all I learn from this movie is that Pink Floyd were awesome and that the magnetron is the major focus of the heating issues (heating of the supply wires also seems significant).

The floating labels don't help in terms of quantifying an area over time but the numbers displayed are potentially useful as a reference. It's no doubt possible to get a plot of something over time but how accurately that relates to actual temperature is obviously going to be questionable.

@rfmwguy - presumably the thermal gizmo has no app which will output a list of numbers for the points that it's tracking? Thanks for your continued efforts with this btw. I'm still on the fence myself but the work of all of you guys who are actually getting hands dirty and building these things is very much to be admired. It's ultimately those efforts which will prove whether the Emdrive sinks or swims.
Hello Croppa, long time no hear...sorry, the Seek Thermal is pretty basic (all I could afford) and has no data output. Wish it did, but we're kinda stuck with the color gradient.

A few things I found interesting is there appears to be no hotspots on the frustum anywhere except the mag frame. I shot an upward video looking at the bottom base (small diameter) and no patterns developed. PCB apparently insulates well enough or the frustum deformation was not allowing modes to develop. I have to admit, I did not try and reshape the mesh, just took the thing out of the storage box and quickly fired it up.

There are some interesting vertical lines on the frustum sidewalls and I cannot determine if that is a camera artifact or we're seeing a radiation pattern of heated air or mesh.

Apparently the thermal cam freaks out a bit at 140 deg C and cold spot overlays the hotspot. This is a technical artifact.

The power cycle was 50% on/off for 10 minutes, but the thermal heating was very stable best I could tell. This matches the balance beam displacement in the mag off condition. I did see displacement (lift) disruption during mag on. Glenn has the best spreadsheet analysis on that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 01:27 pm

...

Is the square shaped part that has the magnetron on top and is attached to the small end of the fustrum a 5 sided box?   What is the section between the magnetron and fustrum made of?
The entire assembly is double sided pcb with 1/8 square copper supports. The mag is mounted on large diameter, center insertion. Only sidewalls are copper mesh. My test report on page 1 of thread 5 has more specifics.

Do you have a paper where the experimental procedure is explained and raw data, along with an explanation of how it was acquired, can be looked at?    I looked at a couple of the u-toob videos.  One had a blurry clock display and graphs that appeared after awhile.   I didn't understand what was happening there.   Are you looking for an upward movement or a downward movement?   Have you done a test where the magnetron was shorted?  ie: no RF going into the fustrum but the magnetron on.   I am not trying to get you riled.  I just want to learn more about what you did.
Yes, my test report is on page 1 of this thread (5). Glennfish has a very good spreadsheet with analysis of mag on/off variations. My raw data (spreadsheet) was posted at the end of thread 4. Post back if you have more questions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 01:41 pm

...

I haven't seen enough to know that.    I thought it was just a hollow waveguide.   What I am interested in knowing is what happens if the magnetron is shorted so that the RF energy does not enter the fustrum.   The same amount of heat is generated.   But I assume this test has not been done.

BTW magnetic bearings are not trivial.   You might be able to make 2 circular Halbach arrays with NIB magnets.    However because of the non-uniformity of the fields it may not turn smoothly.   The other option is 2 massive donut shaped magnets.   If the weight is too great they will strike and the magnetic fields of the two will deteriorate.

Quote
I haven't seen enough to know that.

Just maybe before making suggestions about his test you should review his test setup and get to know it fairly well?

As for shorting the antenna of the maggie, I assume you will be buying Dave a new maggie? Even if the magge did not blow, the thermal load would be lower as the maggie would shut down and not generate much if at all any Rf.

Building the magnetic thrust bearing is not a issue. Have used this several times before. Yes it will be 2 opposing ring magnets with at least twice the upward repulsion force as the downward load force. The 2 very low start torque axial bearings will keep the mag fields aligned. The bottom ring marget can be adjusted in 2 axis to generate minimal force on the axial bearings.

The table will be spun up, via an externally applied drive motor to the outer rim of the turntable, to characterise the frictional loads versus rpm just before and after each frustum powered rotation test run. Call them calibration runs as EW do before and after each of their frustum power on then off runs.

When are you going to build all of this?   It's been over a year now that you have been talking about it and all there is to show is the crude diagram you keep posting.  In that time I have built a couple of experimental apparatuses and performed several experiments.  My lathe barely has time to cool down.
In defense of Mr T, he has had health issues none of us would want to deal with it. I have been anxiously awaiting his testing as well, don't mistake me, but we should understand its all his own money and time. His spreadsheets lead me to build NSF-1701 successfully and for that I commend him and RS.

I think Shell is next up at the plate for testing. My sense is she is wanting to hit a home run with big results right out of the box, whic I can tell you is no easy task. I had several null runs as I tweeked the test stand to be able to resolve milligram displacement of 2.3Kg hanging on each end, not to mention the weight of the balance beam and power supply wires. Basically, I could estimate the total weight I had to displace was approximately 8-9Kg and my resolution (floor) was below 10 milligrams.

So test stand design is critical to minimize noise in an ambient environment, thermal lift will need to be factored in with any displacement measurements and the mechanical design of the frustum needs to be spot on for resonance.

It is a big challenge for traditional labs, not to mention home labs on a home budget. Perhaps if we all were professionally funded, things would move quicker...I know they would, but patience is a virtue in the EMDrive project.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/11/2015 01:55 pm
I recently found this video...not hard to image this to be a frustum on its side...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHNJR1SY8A
Too bad one needs a MATLAB license to work with that iFDTD toolbox, because I would love to have some more insight on Shawyer's 2nd generation  design.

Based on that video, I can see where the infamous curved surface resonating waves goes wrong.

...


You can start to see near the end of the 'horn' video the kind of wave action our MEEP simulations are showing for the frustrum.  Here is the recent E and H field videos I did from one of aero's last runs:
In summary: the waves don't do anything close to what you think they might, and I deliberately deleted that smooth wave reflection image from the quote so that it's not propagated anymore :)

https://youtu.be/OYoG9KjOU5o
https://youtu.be/MosidTkI54A
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 02:04 pm
I want to post three simulations done in meep because sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

The first animation is kind of hard to look at but you can see what first happens just when the wave front propagates down the cavity. This looks like the Shawyer model for the first few frames. After that the standing waves and modes of the resonate chamber start to build, it becomes different actions in the cavity. (http://A traveling standing wave).

The second is a full mode simulation in meep where there is propagation of the high Q energy TE modes due to the waveguide injection and the cavity dimensions. We're looking at a very high Q environment. The internal actions of modes are different than a traveling wave front in the cavity.

That last is a meep simulation of a simple resonate mode with no traveling.

All of these were done in meep running under the Maxwell equations and are actual design considerations.

This is a great primmer from MIT.
http://web.mit.edu/22.09/ClassHandouts/Charged%20Particle%20Accel/CHAP12.PDF

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 02:26 pm

You can start to see near the end of the 'horn' video the kind of wave action our MEEP simulations are showing for the frustrum.  Here is the recent E and H field videos I did from one of aero's last runs:
In summary: the waves don't do anything close to what you think they might, and I deliberately deleted that smooth wave reflection image from the quote so that it's not propagated anymore :)
Geez that's nice work!

Did anyone see what is happening in the frustum between the E and H components and how they are propagating in the frustum? To me this is a critical separation of the E and H fields that I find very interesting to investigate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/11/2015 02:52 pm
What puzzles me on the horn animation , is that the wave bend over the edge to return, but that the exterior waves also cause evanescent waves at the other side of the wall (interior) on their way back to the origin, causing an interference pattern with the outgoing internal waves.

The way it causes the wave to curl over the edge must have serious implications when using a rectangular wave guide that arrives into the frustum cavity.
I fear that you can forget about getting nice symmetrical resonance patterns. They will always be distorted/asymmetrical when the waves come from the sides. Even the angle of the wave guide with the frustum wall matters.

Damn... really wished we could see how it reacts on curved end plates... :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/11/2015 02:53 pm

You can start to see near the end of the 'horn' video the kind of wave action our MEEP simulations are showing for the frustrum.  Here is the recent E and H field videos I did from one of aero's last runs:
In summary: the waves don't do anything close to what you think they might, and I deliberately deleted that smooth wave reflection image from the quote so that it's not propagated anymore :)
Geez that's nice work!

Did anyone see what is happening in the frustum between the E and H components and how they are propagating in the frustum? To me this is a critical separation of the E and H fields that I find very interesting to investigate.

I really need to understand the structure of the CSV files so I can create a raytraced picture of the full 3D cavity from the sources.  Also what would work for showing both the E and H fields at the same time.  I'm thinking to sum the vector lengths for the E fields and use that as the color of the 'voxel' (3d volume pixel) (not sure how handle the polarity yet) which I would keep somewhat transparent and lines for the H field vectors.  I have to try a few things first, just haven't had time to code anything up yet.
If I understand the data correctly, a 3D vector for each location is composed of the x,y,z field magnitudes for both E and H.  I'll have to start looking at it when I get home, google drive is blocked here at work... (and darn it I need to do my day job!!)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 03:02 pm
I want to post three simulations done in meep because sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

The first animation is kind of hard to look at but you can see what first happens just when the wave front propagates down the cavity. This looks like the Shawyer model for the first few frames. After that the standing waves and modes of the resonate chamber start to build, it becomes different actions in the cavity. (http://A traveling standing wave).

The second is a full mode simulation in meep where there is propagation of the high Q energy TE modes due to the waveguide injection and the cavity dimensions. We're looking at a very high Q environment. The internal actions of modes are different than a traveling wave front in the cavity.

That last is a meep simulation of a simple resonate mode with no traveling.

All of these were done in meep running under the Maxwell equations and are actual design considerations.

This is a great primmer from MIT.
http://web.mit.edu/22.09/ClassHandouts/Charged%20Particle%20Accel/CHAP12.PDF

Shell

If you would please supply the frustum dimensions, excitation mode and resonant freq, I'll post the data that my spreadsheet produces including the plot of the guide wavelength changes from big to small end.

BTW have you or Aero tried to model NSF-1701 and match it's predicted resonance to the VNA actual resonance scan Dave did? If so what was the excitation mode?

I feel Dave's VNA resonance scan and frustum dimensions offers an excellent opportunity to test various resonance freq versus excitation mode versus frustum dimensions prediction models against Dave's real world measured data.

BTW my son flew in from interstate this evening and we have been catching up for some time. Well past my bed time. Will answer more posts tomorrow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 03:17 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 03:42 pm
Still shot I took on thermal cam used to help center frustum after an initial temp run. Note the thermal artifacts on the right side of the frame. This is simply my reflection on the copper. Learned quickly that copper acts like a thermal mirror, so any heat source several feet away can reflect off it, causing a false temp reading of the reflective surface.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Croppa on 11/11/2015 03:43 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).

That certainly looks more useful for getting numbers out. Is it possible to do the same with grayscale output? Trying to convert RGB back to a temperature is next to impossible without knowing the lookup table which the software uses to produce the RGB. Also I suspect that the image is being constantly autocontrasted since the background appears to get cooler as the magnetron heats up (or is that actually cooling of the air?). Anyway I'll play around with this one and see if it's possible to plot something.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 03:53 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).

That certainly looks more useful for getting numbers out. Is it possible to do the same with grayscale output? Trying to convert RGB back to a temperature is next to impossible without knowing the lookup table which the software uses to produce the RGB. Also I suspect that the image is being constantly autocontrasted since the background appears to get cooler as the magnetron heats up (or is that actually cooling of the air?). Anyway I'll play around with this one and see if it's possible to plot something.
I have a grayscale option for the output, but unfortunately, all is taken down...so my wife of 37 years has a place to park ;)
I can convert the color movie to grayscale but I don't think thats what you need.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 04:06 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).

That certainly looks more useful for getting numbers out. Is it possible to do the same with grayscale output? Trying to convert RGB back to a temperature is next to impossible without knowing the lookup table which the software uses to produce the RGB. Also I suspect that the image is being constantly autocontrasted since the background appears to get cooler as the magnetron heats up (or is that actually cooling of the air?). Anyway I'll play around with this one and see if it's possible to plot something.
I suspect it is a bit of both as cold air is likely being drawn up from the floor in a simple thermal chimney effect, although I think the cam needs a solid surface, not ambient air to get an image. The image behind the unit is a blanket laying over my old car to hide any reflective metal or glass surfaces.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 04:07 pm

You can start to see near the end of the 'horn' video the kind of wave action our MEEP simulations are showing for the frustrum.  Here is the recent E and H field videos I did from one of aero's last runs:
In summary: the waves don't do anything close to what you think they might, and I deliberately deleted that smooth wave reflection image from the quote so that it's not propagated anymore :)
Geez that's nice work!

Did anyone see what is happening in the frustum between the E and H components and how they are propagating in the frustum? To me this is a critical separation of the E and H fields that I find very interesting to investigate.

I really need to understand the structure of the CSV files so I can create a raytraced picture of the full 3D cavity from the sources.  Also what would work for showing both the E and H fields at the same time.  I'm thinking to sum the vector lengths for the E fields and use that as the color of the 'voxel' (3d volume pixel) (not sure how handle the polarity yet) which I would keep somewhat transparent and lines for the H field vectors.  I have to try a few things first, just haven't had time to code anything up yet.
If I understand the data correctly, a 3D vector for each location is composed of the x,y,z field magnitudes for both E and H.  I'll have to start looking at it when I get home, google drive is blocked here at work... (and darn it I need to do my day job!!)
Mixing both the E and H fields in the same simulation could become confusing??? To much data, but you're the champ here and it's what you do so if you can figure a way to do it and not look like a frog in a blender that go for it. ;)

Shell

PS: Correct on the CSV 3D vectors and field magnitudes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 04:08 pm
could someone confirm or suggest a different way of calculating airflow?

I think the below is the correct approach, but would like some confirmation or alternative.

The natural draft head can be calculated as

dpmmH2O = 1000 h (ρo - ρr) / ρh2o         

where

dpmmH2O = head in millimeter water column (mm H2O)

ρo = density outside air (kg/m3)

ρr = density inside air (kg/m3)

ρh2o = density water (in general 1000 kg/m3)

h = height between outlet and inlet air (m)



Natural Draft Pressure


dp = g (ρo - ρr) h         

where

dp = pressure (Pa, N/m2)

g = acceleration of gravity - 9.81 (m/s2)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 04:18 pm
This may be better Glenn, not my area of expertise.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-air-flow-d_1006.html


could someone confirm or suggest a different way of calculating airflow?

I think the below is the correct approach, but would like some confirmation or alternative.

The natural draft head can be calculated as

dpmmH2O = 1000 h (ρo - ρr) / ρh2o         

where

dpmmH2O = head in millimeter water column (mm H2O)

ρo = density outside air (kg/m3)

ρr = density inside air (kg/m3)

ρh2o = density water (in general 1000 kg/m3)

h = height between outlet and inlet air (m)



Natural Draft Pressure


dp = g (ρo - ρr) h         

where

dp = pressure (Pa, N/m2)

g = acceleration of gravity - 9.81 (m/s2)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cee on 11/11/2015 04:43 pm
Still shot I took on thermal cam used to help center frustum after an initial temp run. Note the thermal artifacts on the right side of the frame. This is simply my reflection on the copper. Learned quickly that copper acts like a thermal mirror, so any heat source several feet away can reflect off it, causing a false temp reading of the reflective surface.
Dave a suggestion for your next run. There should be enough leakage in your mesh frustum to take your S/A and a simple 1/4 wave probe and actually see if your cavity is resonating at the same frequency as your VNA measurements and also check the spectrum around the resonant area in greater detail with a higher resolution to see how stable the maggie is, especially as it heats up. It would also be interesting as well to repeat your VNA measurement with the same setup although I doubt the leakage is enough to get a decent S/N unless the VNA output is high enough and the S/A sensitive enough to get a reliable transmission measurement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/11/2015 05:16 pm
To calc resonance and for that calc to match measured resonance via say a VNA scan, the guide wavelength must alter as per the diameter as per microwave engineering text books.

So a simple VNA scan that shows resonance at the predicted frequency, from Shawyers equations, proves guide wavelength does alter as suggested.
I have never seen a textbook that discusses wavelength in a tapered cavity. The equations for wavelength in a waveguide are always for constant area waveguides. Nothing about the emdrive can be described as constant area.

Following on from that and applying Cullen 15, it is clear a momentum gradient does form inside an EmDrive.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said that Cullen 15 does not apply, since it was derived for a completely different situation?

Also, I already explained that the EM momentum density can be different at different points in the cavity, but any differences will only happen due to exchanging momentum with the walls of the cavity.

Don't really understand why accepting simple microwave physics this is so hard.
Nothing is simple about microwave physics, and attempts to simplify it lead to wrong answers.


TT. This is a simple FEM-calculation of the E component of the TE011 mode inside a truncated cone. Please show us the radius of constant phase. I am curious about.
I can show it (pic below TE113). The quintessence is the problem is much more complicated than you think about.

Biggest issue I see with your model is the wavelengths at the big and small ends appear to be the same.

Here is a EW mode map for TE013. Note the wavelength at the small end is much longer than at the big end. Also the meep runs show the same effect. Longer wavelength at the small versus the big end.

Attached is the guide wavelength map for Dave's NSF-1701. This data correctly predicted his VNA resonance scan and predicted his Force measurement.

Can your model do that? Please give it a go and show the results.

Basically if you create a mode map model and there is no guide wavelength variance (it is not longer at the small end and shorter at the big end) it is wrong.

What are you basing the wavelength on from those pictures? X_RaY asked you to define the radius of constant phase. I would use the term surface of constant phase. Either way this would be the first step in defining a guide wavelength. Please do this before trying to claim that a FEM calculation is wrong.

Can the FEM calculation correctly predict resonance in 16 different modes?

My model, based on SPR's model, can.

Both meep and EW show the wavelength being longer at the small and and shorter at the big end, as microwave theory predicts, yet X-Ray's model does not. Please explain.

The 2nd attachment is the predicted guide wavelength variance for Dave's NSF-1701 frustum that has correctly predicted the VNA scan resonance he discovered. BTW he built his frustum based on the predicted length I gave him to get resonance in a TE mode at 2.45GHz.

Anytime you or X-Ray would like to repeat that prediction process, please do it. I will keep the mode secret for the moment as it will be a final check that the system you guys come up with is actually working.

It is so easy to take pot shots at my work but so difficult to duplicate the good results, that is without using standard microwave engineering text book guide wavelength equations and following a bit of Shawyer's theory.
1.) For sure k_z changes along the central axis.
2.) Your diagram looks right but this is for one specific mode, the plot for other mode shapes are different. It depends on the mode number (Bessel function, ...)
3.) Yes EMPro is able to calculate more than 16 different modes, much more if needed!
4.) If you think the FEM doesn't work correctly please tell it someone at Agilent how they have to solve it in a way to get pics like that what you post again and again. May be they write an special TT-solver. ??? ;)
5.) You are not the only one who have calculated modes in truncated conical cavities. Rodal and others did it also using other than your method.
6.) Yes I can see a peak in Daves plot,but how sure are you that this is the right mode shape? The IR-cam vids don't show if the mode is equal to what you have calculated.

EDIT: I used the Brady cone dimensions for the calculations. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1444928#msg1444928
The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/11/2015 05:30 pm
I recently found this video...not hard to image this to be a frustum on its side...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHNJR1SY8A
Too bad one needs a MATLAB license to work with that iFDTD toolbox, because I would love to have some more insight on Shawyer's 2nd generation  design.

Based on that video, I can see where the infamous curved surface resonating waves goes wrong.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1074925)
clip

This is an extended frustum and past the cutoff but it still creates resonate modes.
Shell
PS: Sorry for the psychedelic show, so look past it.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/11/2015 05:53 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).
Any specific codec that must be used? I'm apparently unable to open this mp4...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 05:54 pm
Still shot I took on thermal cam used to help center frustum after an initial temp run. Note the thermal artifacts on the right side of the frame. This is simply my reflection on the copper. Learned quickly that copper acts like a thermal mirror, so any heat source several feet away can reflect off it, causing a false temp reading of the reflective surface.
Dave a suggestion for your next run. There should be enough leakage in your mesh frustum to take your S/A and a simple 1/4 wave probe and actually see if your cavity is resonating at the same frequency as your VNA measurements and also check the spectrum around the resonant area in greater detail with a higher resolution to see how stable the maggie is, especially as it heats up. It would also be interesting as well to repeat your VNA measurement with the same setup although I doubt the leakage is enough to get a decent S/N unless the VNA output is high enough and the S/A sensitive enough to get a reliable transmission measurement.
Good idea, I do plan on one more fire-up of NSF-1701 in a couple of weeks. Was planning on spec an probe from outside. Will straighten mesh and retake VNA if I have time.

One thing that has bothered my about the therm vid yesterday is the strange pattern of vertical lines I initially passed off as thermal artifacts. I am not seeing this pattern elsewhere and it does not match a weave pattern of the copper mesh. It appears to be a stronger pattern on the left side of the frustum, where the deformation (bowing) of the mesh occurs.

Speculation on these threads was that a trombone shaped frustum might generate more of an effect...well the right side of the frustum was slightly trombone shaped due to my poor storage and handling techniques after my september tests. ;)

I could be chasing ghosts, but this is the first time I've really studied the video at any length. Indications of modes or heating patterns or simply camera artifacts I have no clue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 06:02 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).
Any specific codec that must be used? I'm apparently unable to open this mp4...
No, its the raw mp4 from my Android phone, don't think any special codecs needed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Croppa on 11/11/2015 08:00 pm
Raw mp4 thermal video of NSF-1701 (first test) using a different color palette and no thermal icons. Was taken slightly further away, camera angle about 5% upwards (showing a thermal edge underneath top plate).

That certainly looks more useful for getting numbers out. Is it possible to do the same with grayscale output? Trying to convert RGB back to a temperature is next to impossible without knowing the lookup table which the software uses to produce the RGB. Also I suspect that the image is being constantly autocontrasted since the background appears to get cooler as the magnetron heats up (or is that actually cooling of the air?). Anyway I'll play around with this one and see if it's possible to plot something.
I have a grayscale option for the output, but unfortunately, all is taken down...so my wife of 37 years has a place to park ;)
I can convert the color movie to grayscale but I don't think thats what you need.

I didn't have much luck with extracting numbers based on pixel values. The grayscale would help but the autocontrast issue is more of a problem. Based on measuring various areas of the image I would conclude that the ambient room temp drops by as much as the magnetron increases in temperature (120 deg C). Hopefully that's not actually the case, otherwise you might want to think about moving somewhere where the climate is not so harsh :)

If you can find a way to turn off autoranging/autocontrasting then measuring average temps of different parts of the setup may be possible. I guess a possible physical fix would be to have two things in the image (e.g. block of ice, soldering iron) which would fix the upper and lower temps and keep the range fairly constant as well as providing objects to calibrate the temperature, assuming linear pixel values between those two points.

Anyway since I promised Glennfish some numbers I just took the first movie and manually read a temperature for each second of the movie (which I wouldn't want to do twice!). I converted the time back to real time using the 1.3x factor you mentioned. At the beginning of the movie the max temp point is not yet on the magnetron so I just filled those first few values as 21C. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 08:54 pm

Anyway since I promised Glennfish some numbers I just took the first movie and manually read a temperature for each second of the movie (which I wouldn't want to do twice!).

THANK YOU!!!

Now to see what's buried in the data....  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 09:22 pm

Anyway since I promised Glennfish some numbers I just took the first movie and manually read a temperature for each second of the movie (which I wouldn't want to do twice!).

THANK YOU!!!

Now to see what's buried in the data....  :)
Nice! Glenn, did you notice this chart may make a nice overlay to my displacement chart? Veeeeery similar. Also noted thermal spikes at initial mag on from what it appears. This SHOULD have driven the beam up faster during mag on methinks.

Well done Croppa...gold star for you today

September stuff on NSF-1701:
Data w/mag status: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=JPRBS1YF
Chart w/mag status: https://i.imgur.com/ZvdMRbH.png
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/11/2015 09:33 pm

Anyway since I promised Glennfish some numbers I just took the first movie and manually read a temperature for each second of the movie (which I wouldn't want to do twice!). I converted the time back to real time using the 1.3x factor you mentioned. At the beginning of the movie the max temp point is not yet on the magnetron so I just filled those first few values as 21C.

This preliminary report is not statistical, it's purely subjective at this time.

My first conclusion is that I will never buy a Sanyo Microwave oven.  The 50% duty cycle isn't  and the cycle intervals are kinda sorta plus minus 20%.

 8)

More in a bit... a long bit actually.  I'm trying to map Croppas data to the last data run Dave did.  It's gonna take some time and a bit 'o data majic.  Off hand it appears that thermal effects look immediate and nicely linear where as in the data run, the lift effects were not immediate or linear.  The exception being when the temp hits the asymptote at which time, something else is happening which looks more like a cock-roach search pattern than anything else, until I untangle it.  This paragraph is purely subjective at this point and there's zero statistics provided or implied, so please don't go to Reddit and report victory or defeat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/11/2015 09:57 pm

Anyway since I promised Glennfish some numbers I just took the first movie and manually read a temperature for each second of the movie (which I wouldn't want to do twice!). I converted the time back to real time using the 1.3x factor you mentioned. At the beginning of the movie the max temp point is not yet on the magnetron so I just filled those first few values as 21C.

This preliminary report is not statistical, it's purely subjective at this time.

My first conclusion is that I will never buy a Sanyo Microwave oven.  The 50% duty cycle isn't  and the cycle intervals are kinda sorta plus minus 20%.

 8)

More in a bit... a long bit actually.  I'm trying to map Croppas data to the last data run Dave did.  It's gonna take some time and a bit 'o data majic.  Off hand it appears that thermal effects look immediate and nicely linear where as in the data run, the lift effects were not immediate or linear.  The exception being when the temp hits the asymptote at which time, something else is happening which looks more like a cock-roach search pattern than anything else, until I untangle it.  This paragraph is purely subjective at this point and there's zero statistics provided or implied, so please don't go to Reddit and report victory or defeat.
I deleted my reddit account, no worries...also, Sanyo is the mag supplier, not sure who made the Kenmore microwave controller board, probably one of a half-dozen manufacturers...probably the cheapest one ;).

I have learned patience:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NaKcZwvnjWY/T5_NfDE0opI/AAAAAAAAA30/Ffk9dL0Vw_Q/s1600/patience_grasshopper.jpg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 10:29 pm
I recently found this video...not hard to image this to be a frustum on its side...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHNJR1SY8A
Too bad one needs a MATLAB license to work with that iFDTD toolbox, because I would love to have some more insight on Shawyer's 2nd generation  design.

Based on that video, I can see where the infamous curved surface resonating waves goes wrong.
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1074925)
clip

This is an extended frustum and past the cutoff but it still creates resonate modes.
Shell
PS: Sorry for the psychedelic show, so look past it.

My graphic and included text are based on the one Roger included in his peer reviewed paper as attached. Please read the lower left paragraph, especially the last sentence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/11/2015 10:45 pm
The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

Hey X-Ray that is great news.

Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/11/2015 11:38 pm
Just logged in and saw the banner headline on NSASSpaceflight.com:

Road to EM-1: NASA outlines hardware milestones
 to SLS debut flight


I must admit that for a half second I had a brain lock and skipped heartbeat, until I saw the second line...
 :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 12:48 am
Our builder friend Iulian posted his first video yesterday since his emdrive experiment was put on hold. Looks like he has a great design for a brushless hi torque electric motor. Good luck Iulian on your new project

https://youtu.be/2LNfDI3QUpQ
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/12/2015 01:04 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 01:33 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/12/2015 01:50 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

I understand they simulate a different device, was wondering if the file format was the same so I could use them to develop a visualization - it's easy to switch over to a new file set of they're the same general file layout, i.e. same number of rows, columns...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 02:05 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

I understand they simulate a different device, was wondering if the file format was the same so I could use them to develop a visualization - it's easy to switch over to a new file set of they're the same general file layout, i.e. same number of rows, columns...

I believe the number of rows columns are going to be different in this new run.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/12/2015 02:49 am
The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

Shell,

Will run those numbers when my rad treatment is finished and I get back to my laptop. The length seems short. Is it correct or a typo? What is your desired excitation mode?

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 03:31 am
The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

Shell,

Will run those numbers when my rad treatment is finished and I get back to my laptop. The length seems short. Is it correct or a typo? What is your desired excitation mode?

Phil
That's ok, you don't need to run it. You have your hands full right now.

The numbers you see are the bottom of the scale for length in the tuning chamber and adjust up a tenth of a mm at a time. I'm running TE012 in the drive at a stable inverter driven frequency of 2.5GHz 20MHz BW into a dual set of opposing wave-guides and flat endplated cavity, interior is silver electroplated. The small diameter has worked out to 167 mm with the beryllium seals and the large plate has remained the same.

I've got 3 different resonance numbers from all the different ways to calculate it, so I felt it was wiser to make it adjustable for the real world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/12/2015 03:32 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

I understand they simulate a different device, was wondering if the file format was the same so I could use them to develop a visualization - it's easy to switch over to a new file set of they're the same general file layout, i.e. same number of rows, columns...

I checked the log file posted with this image data linked by SeeShells. I still have the .h5 output data files for that run on my computer so I can make CSV files if that's what you need. I can also put the cavity boundary around the image if that would help. Or I can upload the .png of the boundary and let you put it in the image although it would only take a 15 minute h5topng run for me to do it. (Plus upload time) Let me know.
aero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 03:41 am
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

I understand they simulate a different device, was wondering if the file format was the same so I could use them to develop a visualization - it's easy to switch over to a new file set of they're the same general file layout, i.e. same number of rows, columns...

I checked the log file posted with this image data linked by SeeShells. I still have the .h5 output data files for that run on my computer so I can make CSV files if that's what you need. I can also put the cavity boundary around the image if that would help. Or I can upload the .png of the boundary and let you put it in the image although it would only take a 15 minute h5topng run for me to do it. (Plus upload time) Let me know.
aero.
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 12:23 pm
Desktop background anyone?  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/12/2015 01:47 pm
Break time from all of this.

Thought all would like to see what aero cooked up in his meep kitchen when I asked him to model my next generation, I know I'm still getting ready to do this first one soon but I like to try to think a step ahead, otherwise I fall down. ;)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tMzJkVGlvZ1ZyQ00&usp=sharing

I also enhanced the colors and reversed to see the actions in the frustum. They are very interesting... very.

I dug back and found the original post on this - there are no CSV files in this shared drive - do you have them?  I wanted to try to figure out a visualization scheme...

Edit: I have the CSV files from a meep run on or just before 9/4/2015 - are they the same size and format?
No, they are flat endplates using dual dipoles in the CE (Crazy Eddie Drive) Not truly happy with the dual-dipole actions.
I think aero would need to regenerate the waveguide simulation to extract the CSV files using the dual wave-guides. I've asked him just a few hours ago to do just that. I'll let you know when it is done.

 The z coordinate is the axis of rotation, or length coordinate.

(set! fsi 2.50E+009 )                           ; Drive frequency, in SI units, Hz.
(set! bigdia 0.2950)                            ; ID - In meters
(set! bigrad (/ bigdia 2))                   
(set! smalldia 0.1600)                          ; ID - meters
(set! smallrad (/ smalldia 2))
(set! high 0.1634)                              ; Inner length, meters

I understand they simulate a different device, was wondering if the file format was the same so I could use them to develop a visualization - it's easy to switch over to a new file set of they're the same general file layout, i.e. same number of rows, columns...

I checked the log file posted with this image data linked by SeeShells. I still have the .h5 output data files for that run on my computer so I can make CSV files if that's what you need. I can also put the cavity boundary around the image if that would help. Or I can upload the .png of the boundary and let you put it in the image although it would only take a 15 minute h5topng run for me to do it. (Plus upload time) Let me know.
aero.
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?

Also I realized that each of these files are basically only one slice through the model.  What I really want is CSV files for ALL the slices.  But if you can do that, I only need one set of slices - let's say all the Z slices (parallel to the ends).  That would be like... 258(slices)*3(x,y,z)*16(time frames)*2(E,H) is 24,768 files (guessing on the number of slices - depends on your simulation grid) - is that a reasonable (and correct count?) request and number of files to upload in a ZIP?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 03:42 pm
OK, so I made reference a few pages back to dark matter and photons. You probably wondered if I made that up. Nope...SLAC and Fermi Labs (and others) are working on some theories. Here's the article from 11/6/15:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-light-side-of-dark-matter?

Strange looking copper frustum, BTW ;)

The EMDrive effect, if proven, has some catching up to do on current experimentation in particle physics...by sound researchers not afraid to take off their blinders. Which, brings up a point, would you be more impressed with a scientist's experiment that worked and validated a long held theory, or a scientist pushing the envelope and perhaps failing? I've never been a big fan of echo-chamber scientific research...no risk, no reward.  8)



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 03:46 pm
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?
Also I realized that each of these files are basically only one slice through the model.  What I really want is CSV files for ALL the slices.  But if you can do that, I only need one set of slices - let's say all the Z slices (parallel to the ends).  That would be like... 258(slices)*3(x,y,z)*16(time frames)*2(E,H) is 24,768 files (guessing on the number of slices - depends on your simulation grid) - is that a reasonable (and correct count?) request and number of files to upload in a ZIP?
Oh my, no matter how you slice it that's a lot of time on a little home PC. I think it takes something like 4 hours to do 32 slices for 128 renderings. How about and just thinking here  ::),  if he could do 128 slices small end to large end could we use that?
Shell

Modded: Lets shorten it up a little more with  a better data set, let's do 8 slices Se>Be  for one time cycle of 16 time groups of images Se to Be, that  would keep the whole image set time managable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: chavv on 11/12/2015 04:34 pm
OK, so I made reference a few pages back to dark matter and photons.
Given how sparse is dark matter in Solar system (according to current theories), the probability that DM is responsible for em-drive effect is very very low
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 04:55 pm
OK, so I made reference a few pages back to dark matter and photons.
Given how sparse is dark matter in Solar system (according to current theories), the probability that DM is responsible for em-drive effect is very very low
There is so much we don't know or can't see. Even though the probability is very low I can't help thinking there is something starring us in the face that we're missing.
We see so little and are so tiny. http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Milky-Way.jpg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/12/2015 04:55 pm
OK, so I made reference a few pages back to dark matter and photons.
Given how sparse is dark matter in Solar system (according to current theories), the probability that DM is responsible for em-drive effect is very very low

Unless the EM Drive is generating it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/12/2015 05:16 pm
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?
Also I realized that each of these files are basically only one slice through the model.  What I really want is CSV files for ALL the slices.  But if you can do that, I only need one set of slices - let's say all the Z slices (parallel to the ends).  That would be like... 258(slices)*3(x,y,z)*16(time frames)*2(E,H) is 24,768 files (guessing on the number of slices - depends on your simulation grid) - is that a reasonable (and correct count?) request and number of files to upload in a ZIP?
Oh my, no matter how you slice it that's a lot of time on a little home PC. I think it takes something like 4 hours to do 32 slices for 128 renderings. How about and just thinking here  ::),  if he could do 128 slices small end to large end could we use that?
Shell

Modded: Lets shorten it up a little more with  a better data set, let's do 8 slices Se>Be  for one time cycle of 16 time groups of images Se to Be, that  would keep the whole image set time managable.

Works for me :)
One of these days I should just go install meep myself and get it running - my i7 3Ghz laptop sits at home all day, I'd be more than happy to have it run for a whole week on this...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: lmbfan on 11/12/2015 05:30 pm
Works for me :)
One of these days I should just go install meep myself and get it running - my i7 3Ghz laptop sits at home all day, I'd be more than happy to have it run for a whole week on this...
That's probably your best bet.  The meep runs generate .h5 files which contain all the data.  There are several tools that then extract this data into CSV or PNG files.  Generating the .h5 files is what consumes the most time, and the files generated are usually very large (a few hundred megs up to several gigs) and take prohibitively long to upload.  This is the reason why Aero uploads only a few slices.  Generating the slices from the .h5 files takes a relatively small amount of time and hard drive space.

If you were going to analyze/generate movies from the WHOLE data set, generating the .h5 and learning how to parse that would probably be the most efficient.  I would be unsurprised if there were a bunch of utilities built around the .h5 file format as it seems to be a fairly popular format.

Getting meep up and running isn't terribly difficult, although it can be time consuming.  The hard part is making the .ctl files accurately reflect reality, and Aero does that part surpassingly well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 06:18 pm
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?
Also I realized that each of these files are basically only one slice through the model.  What I really want is CSV files for ALL the slices.  But if you can do that, I only need one set of slices - let's say all the Z slices (parallel to the ends).  That would be like... 258(slices)*3(x,y,z)*16(time frames)*2(E,H) is 24,768 files (guessing on the number of slices - depends on your simulation grid) - is that a reasonable (and correct count?) request and number of files to upload in a ZIP?
Oh my, no matter how you slice it that's a lot of time on a little home PC. I think it takes something like 4 hours to do 32 slices for 128 renderings. How about and just thinking here  ::),  if he could do 128 slices small end to large end could we use that?
Shell

Modded: Lets shorten it up a little more with  a better data set, let's do 8 slices Se>Be  for one time cycle of 16 time groups of images Se to Be, that  would keep the whole image set time managable.

Works for me :)
One of these days I should just go install meep myself and get it running - my i7 3Ghz laptop sits at home all day, I'd be more than happy to have it run for a whole week on this...
Make the white background transparent? That would show what 2D can't.

Need some parts, so off to town (well a 75 mile RT is off to town). Back later.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 06:25 pm
OK, so I made reference a few pages back to dark matter and photons.
Given how sparse is dark matter in Solar system (according to current theories), the probability that DM is responsible for em-drive effect is very very low

Unless the EM Drive is generating it.
That would be a tough one to prove or even disprove, a drive accelerated by invisible particles. Fun to think of but we need to get Data first. I wouldn't even know where to start to model that.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/12/2015 06:28 pm
My graphic and included text are based on the one Roger included in his peer reviewed paper as attached. Please read the lower left paragraph, especially the last sentence.

Okay, I'll bite one more time, even though I'm absolutely aware that in this forum Traveller's impressive fortitude, dedication, faith and stubbornness have more staying power than a little E/M knowledge.

With all due respect...

Traveller, you and Shawyer could descend down from the sky together in your EmDrive powered flying car clutching your Nobel prizes in your hands and bathed in the cheers of thousand of screaming space flight fans while pompously laughing at all of the former skeptics who are now begging your forgiveness and shouting tributes to your names, and this statement would still be COMPLETELY WRONG. I'd be cheering too. It's still wrong.

"This geometry ensures that the EM wavefront propagates between the end plates with every point on the wavefront travelling along a radius line of length L1, centered at point O. This constant path length over the wavefront ensures that phase distortion over the very large number of reflections within a high Q cavity, is minimised, and the value of Q that is achieved in practice approaches the theoretical maximum. Note that this configuration ensures that there is no orthogonal component of the guide velocity reflected from the side wall, thus ensuring a zero side wall force component in the axial plane."

By pointing out that Shawyer's paper has been through peer review, you are only demonstrating the very real fallibility of human peer reviewers (something scientist are sadly already well aware of), because that statement just doesn't make sense.

You yourself have recently posted representations of what a steady-state resonant E/M field actually looks like in a conical frustum for a particular mode! So has Rodal, Shell, X_RaY, aero, VAXHeadroom, the Meepers and others. Here are some recent examples just from the last few pages:

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1078876;image)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1078820,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.BJi-34Z25l.jpg)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1078844,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.iVEGklZ-D_.jpg)

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1078265,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.M0wMKfFdC3.jpg)

Look at the differences between how it actually works and the picture in question.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/160x144xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1078561,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.w-5GaWdN_J.jpg)


The steady-state E/M field in a resonant chamber will be some superposition of different possible modes at specific frequencies, each mode of which satisfies Maxwell's equations with the given boundary conditions. It's not that obscure, although the calculation of the actual wave solutions gets complicated, as many posters have noted. The MIT paper that Shell linked looks like a really good resource.

http://web.mit.edu/22.09/ClassHandouts/Charged%20Particle%20Accel/CHAP12.PDF (http://web.mit.edu/22.09/ClassHandouts/Charged%20Particle%20Accel/CHAP12.PDF)

None of those steady-state solutions looks anything like a spherical wave propagating in a spherical wave front back and forth from the inner frustum edge to the outer frustum edge. In fact, there are no "wave fronts" in a resonant solution. Those words only make sense for a traveling wave, either in free space or a wave guide. Instead, in a resonant chamber, the solution consists of oscillating nodes (that is, there are places in the frustum with zero fields at all times, and other places where the fields oscillate as a superposition of sine waves). Each mode has a specific frequency (although multiple different modes are allowed to have the same frequency). You tell me, which mode exactly is that supposed to be with wave fronts orthogonal to the side walls? There is NO wavefront propagation in a standing wave. That's why they are called standing waves. And that's why it is so easy to dismiss that paragraph and that picture as wrong.

To be fair (as Shell pointed out in a previous post), there IS a point in time solution for the initial introduction of E/M energy that propagates from the antenna somewhere in the frustum that looks a little bit like the picture, but the first time the transmitted wave front interacts with the walls of the frustum (those are the boundary conditions applied to Maxwell's equations) and is "reflected" (an overly simplistic term for what happens) back, then the fields won't look anything like that any more. In a resonant steady state, you can't recognize spherical wave fronts, just nodes in standing waves.

Can you see now why that statement just doesn't make any sense to so many people? Can you at least understand how it hurts your scientific credibility (and by extension, that of other EmDrive enthusiasts) to defend such an obvious mistake? Instead, just fix it and move on! That's how science works. When you make an assertion and then discover that it doesn't work, keep track of what you've learned and keep investigating! This one mistake doesn't invalidate any actual experimental results.

And there IS force on the side walls for any of the modes, according to Maxwell's equations, as well as by inspection from looking at the pictures of the fields.

For the layman, an analogy would be a kiddie water pool shaped like a 2 dimensional frustum and you throw a rock into the middle. While initially there will be circular waves that emanate from the rock splash, after those waves reflect off the walls, the resulting water waves will not show any circular characteristics and won't be aligned with the circular edges for basically the same reasons as the E/M waves. Instead there will be choppy waves that rise and fall in the center of the pool. Their frequencies will be based on the medium (water) and the enclosure (boundary conditions), and the wave equation, and not on the aesthetics of a pretty picture. The water waves will also apply force to the pool side walls.

To be clear, my point is that you don't have to understand microwave theory to create an experiment that works, but it will sure help to get credibility when you talk with physicists or electrical engineers. With more credibility will come more funding, better experiments and finally answers to the questions we should all be focusing on: where does this unexplained force come from and what can we use it for?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Eer on 11/12/2015 06:36 pm
Aero I will not be using this configuration. Could you re-run the CE-2wg-epsoff-64 with the modified Drude model constants (sigma and tau) to reflect the silver electroplating I'm doing and give us a CSV file?
Also I realized that each of these files are basically only one slice through the model.  What I really want is CSV files for ALL the slices.  But if you can do that, I only need one set of slices - let's say all the Z slices (parallel to the ends).  That would be like... 258(slices)*3(x,y,z)*16(time frames)*2(E,H) is 24,768 files (guessing on the number of slices - depends on your simulation grid) - is that a reasonable (and correct count?) request and number of files to upload in a ZIP?
Oh my, no matter how you slice it that's a lot of time on a little home PC. I think it takes something like 4 hours to do 32 slices for 128 renderings. How about and just thinking here  ::),  if he could do 128 slices small end to large end could we use that?
Shell

Modded: Lets shorten it up a little more with  a better data set, let's do 8 slices Se>Be  for one time cycle of 16 time groups of images Se to Be, that  would keep the whole image set time managable.

Works for me :)
One of these days I should just go install meep myself and get it running - my i7 3Ghz laptop sits at home all day, I'd be more than happy to have it run for a whole week on this...

paraview reads the h5 files directly, can open multiples of them at a time, and lets you place multiple slices on whatever planes you care to use.  Interactive, and supports animation viewing.

Resource intensive.  And you need the h5 files, but you said you wanted ALL the data ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/12/2015 07:08 pm
The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

Hey X-Ray that is great news.

Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
Here it is.  8)
I hope there are no classification problems with the mode numbers (list at the end; please let me know). Based on the results of the calculation it's a little bit like "mode jeopardy", one gets frequencies and 3D E and H field models incl. vectors. Mode diagram (as well as spreadsheet) is needed for classification ..
I think the mesh deformation can be problematic for a definitive statement which mode we see in Dave's plot...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 07:23 pm
The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

Hey X-Ray that is great news.

Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
Here it is.  8)
I hope there are no classification problems with the mode's (list at the end; please let me know).
I think the mesh deformation can be problematic for a definitive statement which mode we see in Dave's plot...
Thank you so much for the data. TM312 or TM412 looks like the likely candidates considering the thermal still a few posts up. I noticed multiple vertical thermal "towers" which I started to believe were thermal cam artifacts. Perhaps they are not. The left side of the still has the deformation, but the highest heat concentration while the opposite side is cool by comparison, but the vertical towers are still there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: chavv on 11/12/2015 08:01 pm

Unless the EM Drive is generating it.
had someone tried to find a link with Woodward's effect ?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0 :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 08:34 pm
My graphic and included text are based on the one Roger included in his peer reviewed paper as attached. Please read the lower left paragraph, especially the last sentence.

Okay, I'll bite one more time, even though I'm absolutely aware that in this forum Traveller's impressive fortitude, dedication, faith and stubbornness have more staying power than a little E/M knowledge.

With all due respect...

Traveller, you and Shawyer could descend down from the sky together in your EmDrive powered flying car clutching your Nobel prizes in your hands and bathed in the cheers of thousand of screaming space flight fans while pompously laughing at all of the former skeptics who are now begging your forgiveness and shouting tributes to your names, and this statement would still be COMPLETELY WRONG. I'd be cheering too. It's still wrong.

...

To be clear, my point is that you don't have to understand microwave theory to create an experiment that works, but it will sure help to get credibility when you talk with physicists or electrical engineers. With more credibility will come more funding, better experiments and finally answers to the questions we should all be focusing on: where does this unexplained force come from and what can we use it for?
My 2 "sense" on this. Theory is where I've drawn the line as you noted elsewhere. Sure, a little wandering around the edges, but it is true...I think no theory is out there that can adequately explain what is interpreted as thrust. I've gone to some lengths to avoid saying "thrust" because without the theory, it could be some sort of repellant or attractive force. It could turn out to be experimental error, although I believe it is becoming less and less likely as time progresses.

All I attempted to do is build my own version, have some fun and share the data. As of yet, I cannot say what exactly occured other than an unexpected displacement as measured with a fulcrum and LDS setup. Additional statistics are being done as we speak to see if the new thermal profile data from Tuesday can be integrated with my September displacement data...it will take time.

As it sits with the majority of EMDrive builders, I do not believe it is fair to say that they all have rock-solid theories. I'd venture a guess that they are like me, not quite sure whats causing the emdrive effect yet and not jumping on any particular theory bandwagon.

I think private individuals are not as pressured to claim or form a Theory (or even address one) as we do not have an institutional or corporate entity to promote or defend. We're "just" independent experimenters...and for that, we've been called many names. One name we cannot be called is intellectually lazy. We are going to push the boundaries of comfort within the scientific community and thats fine with us (or me as I do not speak for anyone other than myself). For that, I can respectfully recommend people just deal with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 09:11 pm
My graphic and included text are based on the one Roger included in his peer reviewed paper as attached. Please read the lower left paragraph, especially the last sentence.


For the layman, an analogy would be a kiddie water pool shaped like a 2 dimensional frustum and you throw a rock into the middle. While initially there will be circular waves that emanate from the rock splash, after those waves reflect off the walls, the resulting water waves will not show any circular characteristics and won't be aligned with the circular edges for basically the same reasons as the E/M waves. Instead there will be choppy waves that rise and fall in the center of the pool. Their frequencies will be based on the medium (water) and the enclosure (boundary conditions), and the wave equation, and not on the aesthetics of a pretty picture. The water waves will also apply force to the pool side walls.

To be clear, my point is that you don't have to understand microwave theory to create an experiment that works, but it will sure help to get credibility when you talk with physicists or electrical engineers. With more credibility will come more funding, better experiments and finally answers to the questions we should all be focusing on: where does this unexplained force come from and what can we use it for?
Very well said and a good visual of what happens in an enclosed cavity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knSWGs3VAxk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 09:19 pm
I have my own ideas of what's happening but I will keep them close to my vest for data as the saying goes. It doesn't involve a steady state standing mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dasun on 11/12/2015 09:28 pm
I really have to commend the stirling efforts of rfmwguy, both as a DIY experimentalist and for taking the reins of this thread when Rodal stepped outside for a break (Did anyone hear him mutter "I might be sometime!"), I particularly miss Rodals rigour, critique and analysis - it kept the thread on target and honest.

Huge kudos to anyone that wants to take-on the emdrive DIY challenge in public - it cannot be easy - I am really looking forward to Shells results....and anyone else that is beavering away and willing to share.

Given the almost complete lack of a workable/believable theoretical framework that can explain the emdrive phenomena, I look upon these DIY efforts in the vein of 18th/19th Century gentlemen scientists - on occasion they found interesting stuff and the theory followed.

From the first, my own sciency senses told me there can be nothing there, that this is experimental or systemic error the only trouble is there is enough people/groups reporting something down in the noise that stubbornly will not go away to make me doubt my initial take as always the words of Cromwell should ring in your ears  "...I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken..."







Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/12/2015 09:41 pm
I really have to commend the stirling efforts of rfmwguy, both as a DIY experimentalist and for taking the reins of this thread when Rodal stepped outside for a break (Did anyone hear him mutter "I might be sometime!"), I particularly miss Rodals rigour, critique and analysis - it kept the thread on target and honest.

Huge kudos to anyone that wants to take-on the emdrive DIY challenge in public - it cannot be easy - I am really looking forward to Shells results....and anyone else that is beavering away and willing to share.

Given the almost complete lack of a workable/believable theoretical framework that can explain the emdrive phenomena, I look upon these DIY efforts in the vein of 18th/19th Century gentlemen scientists - on occasion they found interesting stuff and the theory followed.

From the first, my own sciency senses told me there can be nothing there, that this is experimental or systemic error the only trouble is there is enough people/groups reporting something down in the noise that stubbornly will not go away to make me doubt my initial take as always the words of Cromwell should ring in your ears  "...I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken..."

That's a great quote :)

I have, on my Kindle app,  "Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume I", by Michael Faraday, written between 1831 and 1838 (it's a free download).  I've only gotten through some of the nearly 700 pages, but (especially knowing the outcome), the process he uses is amazing.  They had no theory relating electricity and magnetism, but there were some hints of interactions.  I find the process that's happening here very similar, and quite gratifying to watch in real time :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 10:03 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 10:13 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 10:54 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.
It should show mode generation, hot spots and it has a wide thermal range which I think is important.

I used a thermal camera that the starting price was over $50,000, not that long ago. For the price, under $400 you simply can't beat it. It will do. Plus I'm trying to save a little cash for the second build and not dip into my savings as much as I have.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 10:59 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.
It should show mode generation, hot spots and it has a wide thermal range which I think is important.

I used a thermal camera that the starting price was over $50,000, not that long ago. For the price, under $400 you simply can't beat it. It will do. Plus I'm trying to save a little cash for the second build and not dip into my savings as much as I have.

Shell
2nd build? Ya lost me girl...but you have my full attention ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MikeGroovy on 11/12/2015 11:01 pm
Just curious if anyone has experimented with left-handed material especially for the purpose of slowing the microwaves in one particular direction.
http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.033110

Or to see if more bandwidth could be utilized for the trust.
http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.073102
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/12/2015 11:03 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.

Some night vision cameras still command a good price.   But we can't buy them.   I have seen a lot of tests done where 10 - 100 thermocouples were taped to the DUT and the results recorded.  A thermal camera will give you a relative view of the temperature but it is not as accurate as thermocouples because there is no traceable calibration to the emissivity of the device you are viewing.   Thermocouples would be very useful for measuring the air temperature above the fustrum and close to the top plate.  A thermal camera can't do that measurement.

Many years ago when I worked for a company that makes (they are still in business) FTIR spectrometers we would use a color comparison viewfinder to set the Globar IR source (a thick graphite rod that glowed orange)  to the right temperature.   Inside was a color wheel that went from dull red to bright orange with a readout of the temperature on the outside.   With the cost of thermal cameras today that device is no longer used.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/12/2015 11:18 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.

Some night vision cameras still command a good price.   But we can't buy them.   I have seen a lot of tests done where 10 - 100 thermocouples were taped to the DUT and the results recorded.  A thermal camera will give you a relative view of the temperature but it is not as accurate as thermocouples because there is no traceable calibration to the emissivity of the device you are viewing.   Thermocouples would be very useful for measuring the air temperature above the fustrum and close to the top plate.  A thermal camera can't do that measurement.

Many years ago when I worked for a company that makes (they are still in business) FTIR spectrometers we would use a color comparison viewfinder to set the Globar IR source (a thick graphite rod that glowed orange)  to the right temperature.   Inside was a color wheel that went from dull red to bright orange with a readout of the temperature on the outside.   With the cost of thermal cameras today that device is no longer used.
I thought about thermocouples but convinced myself any contact or near contact devices could be subject to noise introduction in high EMF. Never had experience trying this however, just a concern.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/12/2015 11:28 pm
Just ordered my thermal camera and decided on this one because it gives a clearer image and even though it's not video it will allow me to grab images to save. The iphone and FLIR one along with a data plan was just getting too costly. I need to save a little out for the next test. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262141332109

Shell
Very good choice. A single still will always give you better resolution that the video mode. Mine has both, but overall has lower resolution. Do like the video aspect to get an idea of temp and time, but you're gonna like that one.

Talk about disruptive technology...Flir and others must be sweating it out...from $1000s per copy to a few hundred bucks in a few short years. While they're different classes of equipment, the entry level class wasn't even available a few years ago.

Some night vision cameras still command a good price.   But we can't buy them.   I have seen a lot of tests done where 10 - 100 thermocouples were taped to the DUT and the results recorded.  A thermal camera will give you a relative view of the temperature but it is not as accurate as thermocouples because there is no traceable calibration to the emissivity of the device you are viewing.   Thermocouples would be very useful for measuring the air temperature above the fustrum and close to the top plate.  A thermal camera can't do that measurement.

Many years ago when I worked for a company that makes (they are still in business) FTIR spectrometers we would use a color comparison viewfinder to set the Globar IR source (a thick graphite rod that glowed orange)  to the right temperature.   Inside was a color wheel that went from dull red to bright orange with a readout of the temperature on the outside.   With the cost of thermal cameras today that device is no longer used.
I thought about being able to read heat temps in the camera but decided to use it for spotting mode generation and hot spots. I have a little temp laser pointer that I can use to spot hot areas if I need, but this has the thermal range I was looking for and I don't need to buy a data plan.  ::) With a little work it fits the bill very well.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/13/2015 12:22 am

...

Some night vision cameras still command a good price.   But we can't buy them.   I have seen a lot of tests done where 10 - 100 thermocouples were taped to the DUT and the results recorded.  A thermal camera will give you a relative view of the temperature but it is not as accurate as thermocouples because there is no traceable calibration to the emissivity of the device you are viewing.   Thermocouples would be very useful for measuring the air temperature above the fustrum and close to the top plate.  A thermal camera can't do that measurement.

Many years ago when I worked for a company that makes (they are still in business) FTIR spectrometers we would use a color comparison viewfinder to set the Globar IR source (a thick graphite rod that glowed orange)  to the right temperature.   Inside was a color wheel that went from dull red to bright orange with a readout of the temperature on the outside.   With the cost of thermal cameras today that device is no longer used.
I thought about thermocouples but convinced myself any contact or near contact devices could be subject to noise introduction in high EMF. Never had experience trying this however, just a concern.

I have never used thermocouples next to a magnetron.   The metal to metal contact does have some of the properties of a diode and with the small contact area may rectify the RF.   But it would be a low level noise source because the thermocouple impedance is very low.   Software filtering, based on recognizing the magnetron duty cycle could clear that up.   I have also used small prt (Platinum Resistance Thermometer) devices.   They have a resistance of 100 Ohms at 20 C and are directly readable with many different thermal meters, including NI interfaces   They are small, encapsulated in white BeO, with fine wires.   The temperature accuracy is very good and they would be less susceptible to emi from UHF or microwaves.

One thing I would suggest to anyone doing experiments like this is to get an evaluation copy of National Instrument's LabView.  It lasts for 45 days when registered.   One USB DAQ device can be used to acquire data from several devices simultaneously and as fast as required.    NI's GUI interface is quite easy to use.    There are a lot of applications to start off with and they are easy to locate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cee on 11/13/2015 01:04 am
Zen-in
Could one use a PTC like this to establish reference temps ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PTC-Heating-Element-50W-AC-DC-12V-Consistant-Temperature-Ceramic-Thermostatic/171322588838
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/13/2015 01:28 am
Zen-in
Could one use a PTC like this to establish reference temps ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PTC-Heating-Element-50W-AC-DC-12V-Consistant-Temperature-Ceramic-Thermostatic
...

That is some kind of Peltier device.   I'm not sure what you mean by "establish reference temps".   The RTD, which I referred to earlier as a ptr is something quite different.   It has a very linear resistance/temperature curve.   If you do an eBay search for Platinum Resistance you will see controllers by Omron, thermometer probes, etc.  A company named Omega makes the tiny ceramic sealed RTD devices I mentioned earlier.   I have used the F3105 device shown below.   It is 1/16" square with very fine wires.   I think they sell for about $5.  The accuracy is +/- .06° C.  The resistance @ 0°C is 100 Ω.  Earlier I said it was at 20 C.  The temperature coefficient is 0.00385 Ω/Ω/º from 0° to 100°, but they are usually used with data loggers that accurately measure the temperature.  The hard part is soldering leads to the wires.

http://www.omega.com/pptst/F3105_3100_W2100_2200.html

http://www.omega.com/subsection/dataloggers.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 04:05 am
The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

Hey X-Ray that is great news.

Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
Here it is.  8)
I hope there are no classification problems with the mode numbers (list at the end; please let me know). Based on the results of the calculation it's a little bit like "mode jeopardy", one gets frequencies and 3D E and H field models incl. vectors. Mode diagram (as well as spreadsheet) is needed for classification ..
I think the mesh deformation can be problematic for a definitive statement which mode we see in Dave's plot...

Thanks X-Ray for doing that. Nice to see your TE013 guide wavelength is longer at the small end and shorter at the big end. This is important to observe.

I calculated resonance in TE013 mode at 2.514GHz (in vac) versus your 2.328GHz (196MHz, 7.8% difference). Have attached a plot of the guide wavelength down the axis of the frustum. Can you do a plot of the guide wavelengths small end to big end in TE013 to compare?

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cee on 11/13/2015 06:52 am
Zen-in
Could one use a PTC like this to establish reference temps ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PTC-Heating-Element-50W-AC-DC-12V-Consistant-Temperature-Ceramic-Thermostatic
...

That is some kind of Peltier device.   I'm not sure what you mean by "establish reference temps".   The RTD, which I referred to earlier as a ptr is something quite different.   It has a very linear resistance/temperature curve.   If you do an eBay search for Platinum Resistance you will see controllers by Omron, thermometer probes, etc.  A company named Omega makes the tiny ceramic sealed RTD devices I mentioned earlier.   I have used the F3105 device shown below.   It is 1/16" square with very fine wires.   I think they sell for about $5.  The accuracy is +/- .06° C.  The resistance @ 0°C is 100 Ω.  Earlier I said it was at 20 C.  The temperature coefficient is 0.00385 Ω/Ω/º from 0° to 100°, but they are usually used with data loggers that accurately measure the temperature.  The hard part is soldering leads to the wires.

http://www.omega.com/pptst/F3105_3100_W2100_2200.html

http://www.omega.com/subsection/dataloggers.html
The thought was to vary the voltage/current on the PTC heater whose peak temp is 220 deg c for a range of reference temps to calibrate the thermal pseudo color images and ranges. Also picked up some PTC thermal sensors to check the temps as the heater is varied. Should be able to see how sensitive thermal image cams are.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/151151176084 are the ones I purchased. Nether would be used during live RF testing just for checking out the thermal imaging sensitivity, a poor mans cal system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 07:03 am
Interesting example from Aero and Shell's meep work of frustum vertex radiused spherical waves and guide wavelength elongation going from the big end to the small end. Note the 90 deg angle at the side walls.

Thanks Shell for posting the original meep output.

There are other such examples showing all three effects.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/13/2015 07:06 am

...

The thought was to vary the voltage/current on the PTC heater whose peak temp is 220 deg c for a range of reference temps to calibrate the thermal pseudo color images and ranges. Also picked up some PTC thermal sensors to check the temps as the heater is varied. Should be able to see how sensitive thermal image cams are.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/151151176084 are the ones I purchased. Nether would be used during live RF testing just for checking out the thermal imaging sensitivity, a poor mans cal system.

It's difficult to calibrate the camera because temperatures change as heat energy moves.   One way to calibrate a camera is to use a flat field blackbody emitter.   This would be a thick Copper plate coated with flat black paint so it has high emissivity.   The Copper plate's temperature is regulated with a precision PID power controller.   This can be done with Peltier devices like the one you found on eBay.   But it wouldn't be possible to use them to achieve a temperature above 40 or 50 C.  As you can see any kind of accurate calibration is difficult.   The other option is to use RTDs or some other accurate temperature sensor to measure the temperature and then compare with the camera readings.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 07:07 am
Zen-in
Could one use a PTC like this to establish reference temps ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PTC-Heating-Element-50W-AC-DC-12V-Consistant-Temperature-Ceramic-Thermostatic
...

That is some kind of Peltier device.   I'm not sure what you mean by "establish reference temps".   The RTD, which I referred to earlier as a ptr is something quite different.   It has a very linear resistance/temperature curve.   If you do an eBay search for Platinum Resistance you will see controllers by Omron, thermometer probes, etc.  A company named Omega makes the tiny ceramic sealed RTD devices I mentioned earlier.   I have used the F3105 device shown below.   It is 1/16" square with very fine wires.   I think they sell for about $5.  The accuracy is +/- .06° C.  The resistance @ 0°C is 100 Ω.  Earlier I said it was at 20 C.  The temperature coefficient is 0.00385 Ω/Ω/º from 0° to 100°, but they are usually used with data loggers that accurately measure the temperature.  The hard part is soldering leads to the wires.

http://www.omega.com/pptst/F3105_3100_W2100_2200.html

http://www.omega.com/subsection/dataloggers.html
The thought was to vary the voltage/current on the PTC heater whose peak temp is 220 deg c for a range of reference temps to calibrate the thermal pseudo color images and ranges. Also picked up some PTC thermal sensors to check the temps as the heater is varied. Should be able to see how sensitive thermal image cams are.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/151151176084 are the ones I purchased. Nether would be used during live RF testing just for checking out the thermal imaging sensitivity, a poor mans cal system.

One of the advantages of using a solid state Rf amp and being able to apply the Rf in timed duration pulses down to a few micro seconds is you can use simple thermocouples to do the temp measurements between the Rf pulse strings.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/13/2015 07:39 am
Water tends to boil at 100°C. So a similar temperature depending on air pressure. A metal object sticking out of a kettle will therefore start at a know predictable temperature, making calibration of the thermal camera possible. Avoid condensation effects.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 11:03 am
To be clear, my point is that you don't have to understand microwave theory to create an experiment that works, but it will sure help to get credibility when you talk with physicists or electrical engineers. With more credibility will come more funding, better experiments and finally answers to the questions we should all be focusing on: where does this unexplained force come from and what can we use it for?

Please read Prof Yang's 2013 paper as attached for the electrodynamics equations that model the Forces generated on the side walls and end plates of a frustum with flat end plates. For spherical end plates, you should be able to virtually eliminate the side wall radiation pressure and generated Force reductions as per Roger's statement below.

As for what happens inside the frustum when you introduce vertex radiused end plates please refer to any of the graphics of such a frustum configuration as posted here. I have attached one such example produced by meep. A stated by Roger in his peer reviewed paper, this frustum configuration virtually eliminates radiation pressure on the side walls. Please note that this effect ONLY HAPPENS when the frustum has vertex radiused end plates.

If you wish I can easily show other examples that show flat end plates generate planar waves and spherical end plates generate spherical waves.

I do apologise for my crude drawing (lowest attachment) where I attempted to explain this effect of frustum vertex radiused spherical end plates on the Em wave fronts. It seems you may have read more into that diagram than I intended. I will not be using it anymore. Instead I will be using the meep example, which shows the effect so much better than my drawing.

I do ask you to note the modified meep image also shows the increasing guide wavelength toward the small end and the reducing guide wavelength toward the big end which drive the changes in the EM wave momentum. Exactly as Roger's theory predicts. Nice job Aero and Shell. I'm sure Roger is pleased.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/13/2015 11:49 am
I'm not sure if that first image is an indication of increased wavelength...?
Couldn't it be simply due to the spatial confinement (tapered shape) of the fields squeezes them in longer shapes?
Both fields closest at the walls seems to have a higher intensity, indicating a higher energy density there.

I also do not see any (slight?) distortion due the wave guide entrance on the sides. I'd expect the field intensities to be a bit higher at the point where they enter the frustum, and cause some deformation in the resonance pattern, no?
What I've learned from these MEEP simulations so far is that the positioning of the emitter/waveguide  is of great importance on how the resonance pattern(s) develop. Also, an animation learns so much more then a still image....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 11:53 am
Consider:

As for the spacecraft being accelerated by the EmDrive A = F/M is all that is necessary.

Here the electrical energy source is in the same frame of reference as the ship, so it sees a constant energy draw as A = F/M operates.

Do we have an existing example of a device accelerating from the energy delivered by the same frame of reference energy source as the accelerating mass and that does not generate the accelerating thrust from expelling mass as energy drawn from the primary or chemical / nuclear energy source?

I think not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/13/2015 12:02 pm
I'm not sure if that first image is an indication of increased wavelength...?
Couldn't it be simply due to the spatial confinement (tapered shape) of the fields squeezes them in longer shapes?
Both fields closest at the walls seems to have a higher intensity, indicating a higher energy density there.

I also do not see any (slight?) distortion due the wave guide entrance on the sides. I'd expect the field intensities to be a bit higher at the point where they enter the frustum, and cause some deformation in the resonance pattern, no?
What I've learned from these MEEP simulations so far is that the positioning of the emitter/waveguide  is of great importance on how the resonance pattern(s) develop. Also, an animation learns so much more then a still image....

Distance is a constant. Physical length of the 2 x 1/2 waves in the meep generated image is obviously very much different.

MUCH longer in the smaller diameter end and MUCH shorted in the larger diameter end. How to do that without the guide wavelength increasing, as any microwave engineering text will show, from the reduction in diameter?

Image the 1/2 wave sine waves. 1st half wave reaching from the small end end plate to the central node point and the 2nd sine wave reaching from the central node point to the bigger end plate.

Please understand that the guide waveguide frequency does not vary. It is that of the excitation Rf. Only the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. Such is microwave black magic.

But yes you are right. The EM wave is being squeezed by the decreasing diameter and as a result it is generating a longer guide wavelength, exactly as any microwave engineering text will explain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/13/2015 12:41 pm
After checking all numbers again I found a failure in the initial dimensions of the FEM calculation (TT, my spreadsheet predicted also higher frequency value for TE013). Please look in the headline of the yesterday's file.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1445561#msg1445561
"Height=295,1mm ; Base Radius=139,85mm ; Top Radius=79,4mm"
The height of the cone was specified as 295.1mm instead of 259.1mm.Based on this the file itself is correct but not for the NSF1701 dimensions.
The corrected results are in the file just below.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/13/2015 01:00 pm

MUCH longer in the smaller diameter end and MUCH shorted in the larger diameter end. How to do that without the guide wavelength increasing, as any microwave engineering text will show, from the reduction in diameter?

Image the 1/2 wave sine waves. 1st half wave reaching from the small end end plate to the central node point and the 2nd sine wave reaching from the central node point to the bigger end plate.

Please understand that the guide waveguide frequency does not vary. It is that of the excitation Rf. Only the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. Such is microwave black magic.

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought that resonance patterns are a consequence  matching/canceling amplitudes of the waves. Zones that are white in the image have canceling amplitudes, dark colored zones are reinforcing amplitudes (E and B fields of different color). Which means there is a larger zone at the small end where amplitudes overlap then on the large side.
As I see it, when going from large to small end, you get more waves reflect on the sidewall, hence more waves cross the straight bouncing wave (plate to plate), consequently you'd get a larger zone of overlapping amplitudes.. no?
You don't get standing waves and those resonance patterns due to straight bouncing waves (from end plate to end plate) but they are the end result of a "soup" of waves coming from all sides and directions, bouncing around like mad. So basically the Q determines the intensity of the fields.
If it is indeed so that a higher Q has a relation with the (assumed) force creation, it would probably mean that there is a relation between the field intensities and generated force...
Question is then what field type (E or B) is responsible and how does it interact with the frustum to get it moving??
From the MEEP results one can see these fields move along the side walls.

I do not need to believe in black magic. I'm trying to visualize what could happening by seeing electromagnetism as a high-viscosity rippled liquid.
However, that said, I do realize my limited insight in the matter so I cant put much forward except it is a hunch, my personal way of mentally visualizing what could happen...
that is.....IF anything happens at all, cause, let's be honest, until the effect has been clearly replicated by us, the broad DIY public, or other more established labs, all these discussions are nothing more then an enjoyable pass time.
Just trying to learn here and putting questions where I think i lack understanding...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/13/2015 01:40 pm
I'm not sure if that first image is an indication of increased wavelength...?
Couldn't it be simply due to the spatial confinement (tapered shape) of the fields squeezes them in longer shapes?
Both fields closest at the walls seems to have a higher intensity, indicating a higher energy density there.

I also do not see any (slight?) distortion due the wave guide entrance on the sides. I'd expect the field intensities to be a bit higher at the point where they enter the frustum, and cause some deformation in the resonance pattern, no?
What I've learned from these MEEP simulations so far is that the positioning of the emitter/waveguide  is of great importance on how the resonance pattern(s) develop. Also, an animation learns so much more then a still image....

Distance is a constant. Physical length of the 2 x 1/2 waves in the meep generated image is obviously very much different.

MUCH longer in the smaller diameter end and MUCH shorted in the larger diameter end. How to do that without the guide wavelength increasing, as any microwave engineering text will show, from the reduction in diameter?

Image the 1/2 wave sine waves. 1st half wave reaching from the small end end plate to the central node point and the 2nd sine wave reaching from the central node point to the bigger end plate.

Please understand that the guide waveguide frequency does not vary. It is that of the excitation Rf. Only the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. Such is microwave black magic.
TT and general...

I've been considering looking at your's and Shawyer's recommended design build to use further down in my testing of the drive. This is a summary what areo and I found, I told aero to please run it as you posted it.

I'm going to assume you'd like to see what your EMDrive looks like simulated under meep from the spherical end-plates to the very narrow bandwidth of your RF source, to matching your antennas?

The spread sheet you use calculated 2.45 GHz for your dimensions, it's almost exactly mid-way between the 2.34 and 2.57 GHz the 2 resonate frequencies that meep calculates.

Running it with your narrow BW RF source at 2.5GHz yields nothing.

Running it with your narrow RF source simulating your injection method at the highest resonate frequency of 2.57GHz (which is the first animation) yields a very low energy environment and no wave mode actions. 2.34GHz is even worse.

Here is the interesting part TT, spreading out the Bandwidth to cover the .23GHz which is about 20% bandwidth between the two resonate modes dramatically increases your Q and shows an interesting high energy mode action.

General conclusion:

Meep shows two resonate peaks 2.34 and 2.57GHz. 2.57GHz being the dominate. Exciting at the dominate frequency of 2.57GHz yields a low Q, low energy but a very stable mode generation. Running at a BW of 20% covering the two resonate modes dramatically increases Q the energy and the wave mode actions.


My personal conclusion is, if I'm going to build using spherical endplates and the dimensions calculated out by your and Shawyer's spreadsheet I will be keeping the wide-band magnetron.

My thoughts on having a frustum waveguide that simply emulates a cylinder resonating will yield little or no thrust. Increasing the bandwidth to cover resonate close modes dramatically increases the Q adding to high energy mode actions, this also shows up in other stress and poynting calculations that were done by Dr. Rodal in other tests using the CSV data files. It will be interesting to see the real world differences in testing.

Shell
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/13/2015 02:16 pm
 :o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/13/2015 02:23 pm

MUCH longer in the smaller diameter end and MUCH shorted in the larger diameter end. How to do that without the guide wavelength increasing, as any microwave engineering text will show, from the reduction in diameter?

Image the 1/2 wave sine waves. 1st half wave reaching from the small end end plate to the central node point and the 2nd sine wave reaching from the central node point to the bigger end plate.

Please understand that the guide waveguide frequency does not vary. It is that of the excitation Rf. Only the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. Such is microwave black magic.

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought that resonance patterns are a consequence  matching/canceling amplitudes of the waves. Zones that are white in the image have canceling amplitudes, dark colored zones are reinforcing amplitudes (E and B fields of different color). Which means there is a larger zone at the small end where amplitudes overlap then on the large side.
As I see it, when going from large to small end, you get more waves reflect on the sidewall, hence more waves cross the straight bouncing wave (plate to plate), consequently you'd get a larger zone of overlapping amplitudes.. no?
You don't get standing waves and those resonance patterns due to straight bouncing waves (from end plate to end plate) but they are the end result of a "soup" of waves coming from all sides and directions, bouncing around like mad. So basically the Q determines the intensity of the fields.
If it is indeed so that a higher Q has a relation with the (assumed) force creation, it would probably mean that there is a relation between the field intensities and generated force...
Question is then what field type (E or B) is responsible and how does it interact with the frustum to get it moving??
From the MEEP results one can see these fields move along the side walls.

I do not need to believe in black magic. I'm trying to visualize what could happening by seeing electromagnetism as a high-viscosity rippled liquid.
However, that said, I do realize my limited insight in the matter so I cant put much forward except it is a hunch, my personal way of mentally visualizing what could happen...
that is.....IF anything happens at all, cause, let's be honest, until the effect has been clearly replicated by us, the broad DIY public, or other more established labs, all these discussions are nothing more then an enjoyable pass time.
Just trying to learn here and putting questions where I think i lack understanding...
You have good insight and it is where my visualizations end. I see the field patterns and question what it means and how it relates to any possible effect. Here are my thoughts/ramblings on the Meep simulations:

1) Axial patterns develop regardless of mode and this is the orientation of proposed thrust.
2) Rapidly changing patterns appear to "pulse" energy towards the small diameter (in Shell's design(s)).
3) This is an unproven cause of force, but the best simulation (clue) we have.
4) A mathematical theory needs to be developed that clearly states the relationship between the mode patterns and Kinetic Energy.
5) To date, there is no direct Photon to Kinetic Energy formula that could account for the levels of force that have been reported.
6) Either we all have experimental error across many designs and test stands or we are uncovering an unknown side-effect of concentrated/focused EM in a closed, asymmetrical resonant cavity.

I honestly believe that no historical scientific record or experiment exists of measuring kinetic energy in a closed, asymmetrical cavity. No one would have assumed this to be a necessary test to make.

p.s. There are many designs for tapered coaxial, or conical impedance adapters:
http://www.surplussales.com/Images/Connectors/EIA/crf-eia75-50_lg.jpg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/13/2015 02:34 pm
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/13/2015 02:57 pm
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
THIS is exactly what I am talking about...excited to await results  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/13/2015 03:18 pm
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
THIS is exactly what I am talking about...excited to await results  8)
Then you might find this interesting too.

I need to try to take some time unless someone else raises to the challenge to calculate using the CSV files, the strengths of meep's fields outside of the cavity. We used a 1/4" thick copper walls and meep still showed some fields outside of the EMDrive cavity. This is my dual waveguide 180o CE (Crazy Eddie) symmetrical RF injection with flat end plates.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions as the field strengths might be very very low but they are there anyway.

The video is of three slices Big End Center and Small end and if you look you can see the walls of the cavity. Meep's boundary is shown and where the outside RF or magnetic or a combination of even evanescent wave decays.

It seriously deserves further looking into, by analyzing the CSV's and real-world testing.

Shell
corrected misssspeelengs
https://youtu.be/1vmvAZoylyQ
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/13/2015 03:39 pm
I'm not sure if that first image is an indication of increased wavelength...?
Couldn't it be simply due to the spatial confinement (tapered shape) of the fields squeezes them in longer shapes?
Both fields closest at the walls seems to have a higher intensity, indicating a higher energy density there.

I also do not see any (slight?) distortion due the wave guide entrance on the sides. I'd expect the field intensities to be a bit higher at the point where they enter the frustum, and cause some deformation in the resonance pattern, no?
What I've learned from these MEEP simulations so far is that the positioning of the emitter/waveguide  is of great importance on how the resonance pattern(s) develop. Also, an animation learns so much more then a still image....

No wave guides. Source RF was dual 1/4 wavelength dipoles separated in the x direction by a workable distance (for resonance) located below the Z coordinate center, again, for resonance. The image is a Y view slice of the x,z plane through the center so the dipoles are well away from the plane of the view. That's why they are not visible.

And remember, this is a high Q cavity so the resonating energy in the cavity over-powers the contribution of the source at any given instant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/13/2015 03:55 pm


My thoughts on having a frustum waveguide that simply emulates a cylinder resonating will yield little or no thrust. Increasing the bandwidth to cover resonate close modes dramatically increases the Q adding to high energy mode actions, this also shows up in other stress and poynting calculations that were done by Dr. Rodal in other tests using the CSV data files. It will be interesting to see the real world differences in testing.

Shell

The intermodulation modes of the two coupled resonant modes could increase the power absorption of a wideband source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/13/2015 04:12 pm
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
THIS is exactly what I am talking about...excited to await results  8)
Then you might find this interesting too.

I need to try to take some time unless someone else raises to the challenge to calculate using the CSV files, the strengths of meep's fields outside of the cavity. We used a 1/4" thick copper walls and meep still showed some fields outside of the EMDrive cavity. This is my dual waveguide 180o CE (Crazy Eddie) symmetrical RF injection with flat end plates.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions as the field strengths might be very very low but they are there anyway.

The video is of three slices Big End Center and Small end and if you look you can see the walls of the cavity. Meep's boundary is shown and where the outside RF or magnetic or a combination of even evanescent wave decays.

It seriously deserves further looking into, by analyzing the CSV's and real-world testing.

Shell
corrected misssspeelengs
https://youtu.be/1vmvAZoylyQ
Think this is the first simulation I've seen of external forces, meaning it is no longer a closed system from an EM standpoint. So pardon me as I make a rare journey into theory...

A "magically" appearing external EM field, electrically shielded from its source (internal frustum resonances), would strike me as nothing more than an odd-shaped antenna (radiator) which to my knowledge does not have a kinetic potential.

Are the external fields of any consequence ya think?  ???

<edit> Not sure if this is redundant, but there is a 2015 issued US patent for a Magnetic Propulsion Device Using Superconductors is an M. Brady and Toyota Patent improvement.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8952773.pdf

Heres the video:

https://youtu.be/EXYbHP5bdAs
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/13/2015 04:38 pm
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
THIS is exactly what I am talking about...excited to await results  8)
Then you might find this interesting too.

I need to try to take some time unless someone else raises to the challenge to calculate using the CSV files, the strengths of meep's fields outside of the cavity. We used a 1/4" thick copper walls and meep still showed some fields outside of the EMDrive cavity. This is my dual waveguide 180o CE (Crazy Eddie) symmetrical RF injection with flat end plates.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions as the field strengths might be very very low but they are there anyway.

The video is of three slices Big End Center and Small end and if you look you can see the walls of the cavity. Meep's boundary is shown and where the outside RF or magnetic or a combination of even evanescent wave decays.

It seriously deserves further looking into, by analyzing the CSV's and real-world testing.

Shell
corrected misssspeelengs
https://youtu.be/1vmvAZoylyQ
Think this is the first simulation I've seen of external forces, meaning it is no longer a closed system from an EM standpoint. So pardon me as I make a rare journey into theory...

A "magically" appearing external EM field, electrically shielded from its source (internal frustum resonances), would strike me as nothing more than an odd-shaped antenna (radiator) which to my knowledge does not have a kinetic potential.

Are the external fields of any consequence ya think?  ???

If we're going to say that it's a totally closed frame of reference then we might be wrong if these do indeed exist outside in the real world regardless if they are strong enough to do anything useful.

I've wondered if this frustum, with even 1/4" think copper walls could act as an antenna with the currents flowing through the frustum generated by the EM fields internally. What is it we are really seeing generate these small field patterns that match the internal EM modes? Internal oscillating currents in the copper? 

I just thought of something. In the real world the frustum would be grounded, I don't think it's grounded in the meep simulation, aero do you have an answer for this? This could be the reason for the patterns outside. hmmmm?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/13/2015 04:42 pm

...

Some night vision cameras still command a good price.   But we can't buy them.   I have seen a lot of tests done where 10 - 100 thermocouples were taped to the DUT and the results recorded.  A thermal camera will give you a relative view of the temperature but it is not as accurate as thermocouples because there is no traceable calibration to the emissivity of the device you are viewing.   Thermocouples would be very useful for measuring the air temperature above the fustrum and close to the top plate.  A thermal camera can't do that measurement.

Many years ago when I worked for a company that makes (they are still in business) FTIR spectrometers we would use a color comparison viewfinder to set the Globar IR source (a thick graphite rod that glowed orange)  to the right temperature.   Inside was a color wheel that went from dull red to bright orange with a readout of the temperature on the outside.   With the cost of thermal cameras today that device is no longer used.
I thought about thermocouples but convinced myself any contact or near contact devices could be subject to noise introduction in high EMF. Never had experience trying this however, just a concern.

I have never used thermocouples next to a magnetron.   The metal to metal contact does have some of the properties of a diode and with the small contact area may rectify the RF.   But it would be a low level noise source because the thermocouple impedance is very low.   Software filtering, based on recognizing the magnetron duty cycle could clear that up.   I have also used small prt (Platinum Resistance Thermometer) devices.   They have a resistance of 100 Ohms at 20 C and are directly readable with many different thermal meters, including NI interfaces   They are small, encapsulated in white BeO, with fine wires.   The temperature accuracy is very good and they would be less susceptible to emi from UHF or microwaves.

One thing I would suggest to anyone doing experiments like this is to get an evaluation copy of National Instrument's LabView.  It lasts for 45 days when registered.   One USB DAQ device can be used to acquire data from several devices simultaneously and as fast as required.    NI's GUI interface is quite easy to use.    There are a lot of applications to start off with and they are easy to locate.

Have you considered plain old (SMD/whatever) ferrite beads, in series with the temperature sensor, for filtering HF noise?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: CW on 11/13/2015 04:51 pm
(..)
If we're going to say that it's a totally closed frame of reference then we might be wrong if these do indeed exist outside in the real world regardless if they are strong enough to do anything useful.

I've wondered if this frustum, with even 1/4" think copper walls could act as an antenna with the currents flowing through the frustum generated by the EM fields internally. What is it we are really seeing generate these small field patterns that match the internal EM modes? Internal oscillating currents in the copper? 

I just thought of something. In the real world the frustum would be grounded, I don't think it's grounded in the meep simulation, aero do you have an answer for this? This could be the reason for the patterns outside. hmmmm?

Shell

I thought that ideally, in the real world, the EM-drive would not be grounded, but flying freely through the star ocean?
:P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/13/2015 05:13 pm
...

Think this is the first simulation I've seen of external forces, meaning it is no longer a closed system from an EM standpoint. So pardon me as I make a rare journey into theory...

A "magically" appearing external EM field, electrically shielded from its source (internal frustum resonances), would strike me as nothing more than an odd-shaped antenna (radiator) which to my knowledge does not have a kinetic potential.

Are the external fields of any consequence ya think?  ???

<edit> Not sure if this is redundant, but there is a 2015 issued US patent for a Magnetic Propulsion Device Using Superconductors is an M. Brady and Toyota Patent improvement.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8952773.pdf

Heres the video:

u-toob was here

I posted this silly thing here a few weeks ago.  I am surprised this got by the US Patent Office.   It could be that because it was filed pro se the examiner was sympathetic.   I don't consider it likely they built a working model.   I know of only one supplier for YCBO shaped into a tube and have never seen it sold in an open cone shape.   Manufacturing an YBCO cone section is not something anyone could do in their garage.    It is hard enough to successfully manufacture YBCO pucks.   And of course there is also the problem of this invention being a perpetual motion machine.   Where does the energy come from to propel it?   The Toyota patent cited by the inventors, USPTO 5402021 is a type of rail gun.   Somehow they have imagined a cone shaped superconductor will do the same thing.

 I have experimented with high temperature superconductors (HTS) for several years and have a good intuitive feel for how they react to magnetic fields.   For the device shown there are two ways the magnet could be inserted into the cone: 1) with the HTS at room temperature, and 2) with it cooled down below TC.  In case 1 the magnetic field will pass through the HTS and when it is cooled the magnetic field will continue to pass through the HTS.   This is known as flux pinning.   In case 2 the magnetic field will be squished down between the HTS and the magnet.  The only force generated will be an expanding force on the HTS by the magnetic field that is trapped inside the tube section.   That might cause the magnet to be expelled, like the projectile of a rail gun.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/13/2015 05:33 pm
To be clear, my point is that you don't have to understand microwave theory to create an experiment that works, but it will sure help to get credibility when you talk with physicists or electrical engineers. With more credibility will come more funding, better experiments and finally answers to the questions we should all be focusing on: where does this unexplained force come from and what can we use it for?

Please read Prof Yang's 2013 paper as attached for the electrodynamics equations that model the Forces generated on the side walls and end plates of a frustum with flat end plates. For spherical end plates, you should be able to virtually eliminate the side wall radiation pressure and generated Force reductions as per Roger's statement below.

As for what happens inside the frustum when you introduce vertex radiused end plates please refer to any of the graphics of such a frustum configuration as posted here. I have attached one such example produced by meep. A stated by Roger in his peer reviewed paper, this frustum configuration virtually eliminates radiation pressure on the side walls. Please note that this effect ONLY HAPPENS when the frustum has vertex radiused end plates.

If you wish I can easily show other examples that show flat end plates generate planar waves and spherical end plates generate spherical waves.

I do apologise for my crude drawing (lowest attachment) where I attempted to explain this effect of frustum vertex radiused spherical end plates on the Em wave fronts. It seems you may have read more into that diagram than I intended. I will not be using it anymore. Instead I will be using the meep example, which shows the effect so much better than my drawing.

I do ask you to note the modified meep image also shows the increasing guide wavelength toward the small end and the reducing guide wavelength toward the big end which drive the changes in the EM wave momentum. Exactly as Roger's theory predicts. Nice job Aero and Shell. I'm sure Roger is pleased.
Your pic looks like something like that..
It's an illustration of seismologically waves inside and at the surface of a star.
(crude analogy!)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/13/2015 06:11 pm
...

Think this is the first simulation I've seen of external forces, meaning it is no longer a closed system from an EM standpoint. So pardon me as I make a rare journey into theory...

A "magically" appearing external EM field, electrically shielded from its source (internal frustum resonances), would strike me as nothing more than an odd-shaped antenna (radiator) which to my knowledge does not have a kinetic potential.

Are the external fields of any consequence ya think?  ???

<edit> Not sure if this is redundant, but there is a 2015 issued US patent for a Magnetic Propulsion Device Using Superconductors is an M. Brady and Toyota Patent improvement.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8952773.pdf

Heres the video:

u-toob was here

I posted this silly thing here a few weeks ago.  I am surprised this got by the US Patent Office.   It could be that because it was filed pro se the examiner was sympathetic.   I don't consider it likely they built a working model.   I know of only one supplier for YCBO shaped into a tube and have never seen it sold in an open cone shape.   Manufacturing an YBCO cone section is not something anyone could do in their garage.    It is hard enough to successfully manufacture YBCO pucks.   And of course there is also the problem of this invention being a perpetual motion machine.   Where does the energy come from to propel it?   The Toyota patent cited by the inventors, USPTO 5402021 is a type of rail gun.   Somehow they have imagined a cone shaped superconductor will do the same thing.

 I have experimented with high temperature superconductors (HTS) for several years and have a good intuitive feel for how they react to magnetic fields.   For the device shown there are two ways the magnet could be inserted into the cone: 1) with the HTS at room temperature, and 2) with it cooled down below TC.  In case 1 the magnetic field will pass through the HTS and when it is cooled the magnetic field will continue to pass through the HTS.   This is known as flux pinning.   In case 2 the magnetic field will be squished down between the HTS and the magnet.  The only force generated will be an expanding force on the HTS by the magnetic field that is trapped inside the tube section.   That might cause the magnet to be expelled, like the projectile of a rail gun.
I am surprised it got by the patent authorities if it is what you say, but my thought is things don't necessarily have to work to get a patent  :)

Somewhere back in time I studied the Meissner effect and could not connect it with emdrive. But if we play devil's advocate, lets assume an EM fields were generated in a frustum, not by a permanent magnet, but by RF energy. Three surfaces of the frustum could be HTS material; the sidewalls and the small diameter. Say the large diameter was a conductor but much less magnetic shielding thereby allowing the field to escape and propelling it in the opposite direction.

Wacky? Yes, but I've been grasping at straws on theory lately.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/13/2015 06:36 pm
...


I am surprised it got by the patent authorities if it is what you say, but my thought is things don't necessarily have to work to get a patent  :)

Somewhere back in time I studied the Meissner effect and could not connect it with emdrive. But if we play devil's advocate, lets assume an EM fields were generated in a frustum, not by a permanent magnet, but by RF energy. Three surfaces of the frustum could be HTS material; the sidewalls and the small diameter. Say the large diameter was a conductor but much less magnetic shielding thereby allowing the field to escape and propelling it in the opposite direction.

Wacky? Yes, but I've been grasping at straws on theory lately.

High temperature superconductors like YBCO don't operate very well in AC fields.   Even 60 Hz superconducting transmission lines have to be made to minimize Ohmic losses.   The Ohmic losses come from the magnetic field that passes through a section of superconductor (flux pinning) being broken.   That energy is dissipated, raising the temperature of the superconductor.   I have done experiments where an area of superconductor made up of several parallel sections of YBCO cable was suspended in LN2 with a rotating magnetic field going through it.   I have a turntable with two large ceramic magnets mounted opposite each other.  It has a hole in the middle for mounting a dewar on a base below so it won't spin with the table.   When the superconductor is fixed the LN2 bubbles, indicating heating is occurring.  When it is allowed to rotate with the magnets very little LN2 boil-off occurs.   The frequency of the magnetic field in this case is less than 1 Hz., with a magnetic field strength of about 50 Gauss.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/13/2015 07:32 pm
@SeeShells -
Meep isolates the frustum geometry from all outside influences except as I noted to you via email. That is, the energy leaving the frustum is reflected from the flat walls of the lattice. I should have added an absorbing boundary layer to the flat walls, but I didn't.

The sources, as far as I know, operate symmetrically about zero, unless the Gaussian noise disturbs the symmetry.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/13/2015 09:06 pm
@SeeShells -
Meep isolates the frustum geometry from all outside influences except as I noted to you via email. That is, the energy leaving the frustum is reflected from the flat walls of the lattice. I should have added an absorbing boundary layer to the flat walls, but I didn't.

The sources, as far as I know, operate symmetrically about zero, unless the Gaussian noise disturbs the symmetry.
I'm going to be working on the meep CSV files to see what I can extract out of them in levels. May take a bit.

So don't grab a bowl of popcorn and wait.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/13/2015 09:18 pm
As I was catching up on the last few days posts a thought occurred to me. So I am not exactly certain what goes into evaluating the Q rating on a given frustum, so this might be just worthless gibberish. Has anybody thought about creating a test setup that would allow them to vary the Q rating during a run to see how this might effect the readings? Additionally, assuming this is even allowable, has anybody thought about what happens if you have materials of different Q ratings making up the different ends and/or sides of the frustum?

In either case, could someone give a short simplistic explanation of how one goes about calculating a Q value for a given frustum? I don't need the math (I probably wouldn't understand it at the moment) I more am looking for a conceptual understanding.

Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/13/2015 09:25 pm
I see a logical mistake floating around...

It is not the case that a standing wave is "not moving".  A standing wave has a standing wavefront. In actuality this means that if you separate the whole wave and divide it at this "standing wavefront", it is composed of smaller waves (which can themselves be subdivided).  On a molecular level this means that the "compression" of its constituents is in fact migrating between the boundaries of resonance, but the image generated by interference appears not to migrate but in actuality the force-interchange is 100% migratory.

In the example given above about the pool and the rock, the most apropos analogy is to imagine that on both sides of the standing wavefront at the middle of the pool, two waves with the same frequency are traveling back and forth from side to side, but the result of their constructive interference is a force vector adding upward on the water at the pool's center (the waves are essentially battling, and both pushing slightly upward, and both bouncing off one another repeatedly instead of winning).  This sort of perfect interference is of course generated by the natural midpoints between the boundaries of almost any resonant cavity but let me repeat... standing waves are virtual descriptions not molecular motion ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/13/2015 09:59 pm
As I was catching up on the last few days posts a thought occurred to me. So I am not exactly certain what goes into evaluating the Q rating on a given frustum, so this might be just worthless gibberish. Has anybody thought about creating a test setup that would allow them to vary the Q rating during a run to see how this might effect the readings? Additionally, assuming this is even allowable, has anybody thought about what happens if you have materials of different Q ratings making up the different ends and/or sides of the frustum?

In either case, could someone give a short simplistic explanation of how one goes about calculating a Q value for a given frustum? I don't need the math (I probably wouldn't understand it at the moment) I more am looking for a conceptual understanding.

Thanks!
Q is simply a ratio of a bandwidth (frequency band) in relationship to the center frequency of resonance of the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/13/2015 11:41 pm
Thanks rfmwguy!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/14/2015 01:22 am
Couple of questions regarding TheTraveler's TTMark2 images and the 2.34 and 2.57 GHz resonant frequencies. That is, this one attached.

1 - Is it actually possible to make a power source with 500 MHz bandwidth centered at 2.45 GHz that won't burn itself out from reflected energy? I mean, only a small amount of the total energy will be injected into the cavity, most of it will go up in heat.

2- Is what we are seeing simply a beat frequency between the two resonances?

Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/14/2015 08:27 am
:o
Interesting forward pulsing/cycling of resonance patterns you got there, shell...
At 2 1/2 billion times a second building Q what can possibly happen? ::)
THIS is exactly what I am talking about...excited to await results  8)
Then you might find this interesting too.

I need to try to take some time unless someone else raises to the challenge to calculate using the CSV files, the strengths of meep's fields outside of the cavity. We used a 1/4" thick copper walls and meep still showed some fields outside of the EMDrive cavity. This is my dual waveguide 180o CE (Crazy Eddie) symmetrical RF injection with flat end plates.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions as the field strengths might be very very low but they are there anyway.

The video is of three slices Big End Center and Small end and if you look you can see the walls of the cavity. Meep's boundary is shown and where the outside RF or magnetic or a combination of even evanescent wave decays.

It seriously deserves further looking into, by analyzing the CSV's and real-world testing.

Shell
corrected misssspeelengs
https://youtu.be/1vmvAZoylyQ

One of the experiments I proposed a long while back involved holding a hall effect probe up against the base plate of the EM drive while it was in operation.  The idea being yes there is no light escaping (-dB/dt=curl E) but there is a current near by so a static magnetic field should still be present.  (light being dynamic and propagates at speed c).  What this static magnetic field is, is a dipole electric field observed by the moving electrons in the hall effect probe.  The probe observes this because the probe electrons are moving at high velocity with respect to the current in the EM drive.  The current in the EM drive (In Transverse Electric mode) moves in a circle.  The electrons observed in the EM drive moving with the observing electrons in the hall effect probe are not as slowed in time as the electrons observed in the EM drive moving against the velocity of the observing electrons in the hall effect probe.  As a result the electrons moving against the velocity of the electrons in the hall effect probe appear to slow in time and bunch up but the protons are not rotating so they do not.  The result is a dipole electric field or the magnetic field which only exists in a moving frame.  i.e. the electrons in the hall effect probe stop moving and the measurement will drop to zero.  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/hall.html 

The idea was that the observation was delayed by the speed of light so the phase of the current observed should change with probe distance from the base of the cavity.  If this exists then indeed there should be a measurable magnetic field outside the cavity.  The osculations would be at the microwave frequency on the probe and a sine wave should be able to be matched to the positive to negative voltage recorded.  I don't see why a hall effect probe wouldn't observed a relativistic redistribution of charge in the cavity base from outside. 

I proposed the test because it was this effect I was counting on to provide greater than photon propulsion between two cavities. 

...This static magnetic field should be observable outside a resonant cavity just by holding up a magnetic field sensor to the base.  A voltage should be observed to osculate at the frequency of the current in the cavity.  This is because the magnetic field sensor uses current in motion inside the sensor to sense the dipole redistribution of other currents (the magnetic field) (i.e. dipole electric fields and magnetic fields both decrease by 1/r^3) (see paper 1). 
...

I think i posted it some where in this tread too. If it works the forces achievable should be on the order of direct magnetic attraction but with with the equal and opposite forces both pointing in the same direction.  Newtons 3rd law violated by rapid manipulation of information over space time.  \

Impossible?  This very thing occurs in a phased array antenna and the photons emitted can be used for propulsion but the static electric field works against the magnetic field and so that is all the propulsion we get (photon) with a phased array antenna. 

WaiteDavid also seems to be on the same path and there are others.  One of his videos is in the link I posted above and is not quite a phase array antenna.  It should also provide greater than photon propulsion.  He also has Einstein field equations possibly connecting gravity to electromagnetic cycles so I suspect if we do get greater than photon propulsion we may observe something like a gravity pump.  video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ4Cgu92-nE

key word in his video at the end is the assymetry which I suspect means violating Newtons 3rd law. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/14/2015 01:28 pm
(..)
If we're going to say that it's a totally closed frame of reference then we might be wrong if these do indeed exist outside in the real world regardless if they are strong enough to do anything useful.

I've wondered if this frustum, with even 1/4" think copper walls could act as an antenna with the currents flowing through the frustum generated by the EM fields internally. What is it we are really seeing generate these small field patterns that match the internal EM modes? Internal oscillating currents in the copper? 

I just thought of something. In the real world the frustum would be grounded, I don't think it's grounded in the meep simulation, aero do you have an answer for this? This could be the reason for the patterns outside. hmmmm?

Shell

I thought that ideally, in the real world, the EM-drive would not be grounded, but flying freely through the star ocean?
:P
Everything is relative. Grounds are simply a return for your Betty Crocker mixer of EM waves. RF grounds are only a potential varying in time. DC is different and well behaved (most of the time).

The real world runs a little differently than meep, it was one reason we had a tough time getting a loop and snub antenna to work, no return paths, no resistors or caps that were available to model into the simulations. Starting to look at the data, it seems it's far down into the noise level, meep takes it to the extreme, here is a random sample point ,-1.881408573404179e-27

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/14/2015 01:37 pm
As I was catching up on the last few days posts a thought occurred to me. So I am not exactly certain what goes into evaluating the Q rating on a given frustum, so this might be just worthless gibberish. Has anybody thought about creating a test setup that would allow them to vary the Q rating during a run to see how this might effect the readings? Additionally, assuming this is even allowable, has anybody thought about what happens if you have materials of different Q ratings making up the different ends and/or sides of the frustum?

In either case, could someone give a short simplistic explanation of how one goes about calculating a Q value for a given frustum? I don't need the math (I probably wouldn't understand it at the moment) I more am looking for a conceptual understanding.

Thanks!
The Q will vary depending on the cavity dimensions. I've a center rod or Quartz that allows the small plate of the chamber to be adjusted (http://small plate of the chamber to be adjusted).

Pic of bottom plate (http://Pic of bottom plate)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/14/2015 02:08 pm
@SeeShells -
Meep isolates the frustum geometry from all outside influences except as I noted to you via email. That is, the energy leaving the frustum is reflected from the flat walls of the lattice. I should have added an absorbing boundary layer to the flat walls, but I didn't.

The sources, as far as I know, operate symmetrically about zero, unless the Gaussian noise disturbs the symmetry.
Gaussian noise is getting a little noisy. We might have issues with the cell sizes and how they overlay the copper simulated frustum for the boundary walls making that 1/4" of copper thinner in some areas, allowing leakage.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/14/2015 04:15 pm
Please read Prof Yang's 2013 paper as attached for the electrodynamics equations that model the Forces generated on the side walls and end plates of a frustum with flat end plates. For spherical end plates, you should be able to virtually eliminate the side wall radiation pressure and generated Force reductions as per Roger's statement below.

The first issue with Yang's paper I can find is that Yang apparently struggles with addition and subtraction. Based on the graphs, in that paper for 200 W, they calculated forces of : 500 mN on the large plate, 270 mN on the small plate, and 520 mN on the side walls (in their normal direction). The final graph uses claims a net thrust of around 260 mN towards the small plate

The large plate minus the small plate is 230 mN before accounting for the sidewalls. If the sidewalls are at an angle of asin(230/520) or about 26 degrees, there is zero net force. (note I am using the angle of the sidewall from the axis of rotation). I can't find the actual angle in the paper, but this is seems more accurate than the 70 degrees required for their final graph to be consistent. The 26 degrees seems pretty consistent with the sketches they have.

Their data contradicts their previous claim and your claim of low force on the sidewalls. It also contradicts the idea of significantly more force on the small plate than the large one. Link to post where I attached their previous claim, which also demonstrates a failure of using basic logic. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1441706#msg1441706)

As for what happens inside the frustum when you introduce vertex radiused end plates please refer to any of the graphics of such a frustum configuration as posted here. I have attached one such example produced by meep. A stated by Roger in his peer reviewed paper, this frustum configuration virtually eliminates radiation pressure on the side walls. Please note that this effect ONLY HAPPENS when the frustum has vertex radiused end plates.

If you wish I can easily show other examples that show flat end plates generate planar waves and spherical end plates generate spherical waves.

I do apologise for my crude drawing (lowest attachment) where I attempted to explain this effect of frustum vertex radiused spherical end plates on the Em wave fronts. It seems you may have read more into that diagram than I intended. I will not be using it anymore. Instead I will be using the meep example, which shows the effect so much better than my drawing.

I do ask you to note the modified meep image also shows the increasing guide wavelength toward the small end and the reducing guide wavelength toward the big end which drive the changes in the EM wave momentum. Exactly as Roger's theory predicts. Nice job Aero and Shell. I'm sure Roger is pleased.

You are displaying a lot of confirmation bias here, the picture does not support your claims. First, you are looking at a node in a standing wave, and claiming it is a wavefront. There is not a direct correlation between this and the directions of the underlying waves.

Even if it was meaningful, there is no reason to then not look at the other surfaces that represent nodes of the standing wave. You will note that these are roughly orthogonal to the node surface you pointed out. Also, the distance between these surfaces (which you seem to be calling the "guide wavelength") decreases near the small end. (Again this paragraph is irrelevant is you understand the previous one, I am just reinforcing the point that looking at the nodes of the standing wave is not relevant in a straightforward way for understanding the motion of the underlying travelling waves, which are moving in different directions.)

Traveller, you seem to be having trouble understanding the situation, so allow me to summarize:

Shawyer has a hypothesis that he claims derives from standard EM theory. Me and others have pointed out multiple issues with his calculations. Only one issue is enough to sink his claims, so you even if you defend against one of the issues, the others still stand.

On the other hand, the result of a lack of net force from EM theory has been demonstrated. If you manage to find multiple issues with those claims, then all of them would have to be defended against. So far, the only meaningful argument I have seen you put forth against these calculations is that it didn't account for momentum differences at different parts of the field, to which I pointed out that they used the definition of momentum stored in the fields, so your claim is incorrect.

A partial summary of issues with Shawyer's (and your) claims:
1. He uses results from a cylindrical waveguide for a conical resonator. Even if they do apply, a lot of math would be needed to demonstrate it.
2. He claims low to no thrust on the sidewalls, This is demonstrably false (Egan's calculations) and even Yang shows large forces on the sidewalls. It demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand how the waves are propagating in the cavity.
2.a. This claim combined with the (possibly correct) claim that the momentum in the fields changes from one end of the guide to the other contradicts conservation of momentum. This is because in order for the momentum in the fields to change, it would have to be transferred elsewhere (transferring momentum = applying a force), and the only other thing the waves could interact with is the sidewalls.
3. He claims that the EM drive obeys conservation of momentum, and at the same time accelerates its center of energy without interacting with the external world. This is the definition of not obeying conservation of momentum.
3.a. To show this he uses the special relativity velocity transformation in a completely incorrect way, and doesn't notice the issue where he creates a preferred reference frame, when the entire principle behind special relativity is that there aren't preferred reference frames.

(Note this list is specifically in reference to Shawyer's claims, and most theories here bypass these issues, generally by suggesting a way that momentum is transferred elsewhere)

As others have said, it is in your best interest to stop promoting theories that are clearly wrong. If you continue to make these claims it undermines your credibility, and will make people doubt any experiment that you perform. Unless you demonstrate a better understanding of physics even a rotary table demonstrator won't mean much, since angular momentum can be good at hiding and behaves non-intuitively if you aren't used to working with it.

Doing an experiment and saying "I have no idea why this works" is many times better than doing an experiment and saying "this works because 1+1 = 3"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/14/2015 05:15 pm
The fundamental truth is that no one is going to be able to defend or come up with a theory that not come under question until we gain more data and this includes Dr. Whites or notsosueofit's, Todd's or anyone of the 9 or so theories.

I Love to speculate and dream but it's just that, speculations and dreams. I know NASA EagleWorks and the DYiers here would like nothing better than to be able to provide data that's out of the noise and is very verifiable so that our data could be used constructively.

I have a lot of work to still get done and killing it on the keyboard isn't getting it done.

Shell   

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/14/2015 05:36 pm
The fundamental truth is that no one is going to be able to defend or come up with a theory that not come under question until we gain more data and this includes Dr. Whites or notsosueofit's, Todd's or anyone of the 9 or so theories.

I Love to speculate and dream but it's just that, speculations and dreams. I know NASA EagleWorks and the DYiers here would like nothing better than to be able to provide data that's out of the noise and is very verifiable so that our data could be used constructively.

I have a lot of work to still get done and killing it on the keyboard isn't getting it done.

Shell   
So we have a phenomena here, not just in the device itself, but of a mentality (mainly elsewhere) that appears to be vested in the device not working or cannot accept something new outside of the horizon of classical physics. I've had enough psychology training that I understand the emotional trauma that can be brought about by challenging someone's belief system (considered attacking their intelligence in some cases).

Bias can work both ways, confirmation and denial bias. Now get back to work Shell!!!!!  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/14/2015 09:47 pm
For those following along at home, here are the latest videos I've generated from meep simulations.  These are for the unit Shells is building.  These are for both E and H fields and both using the y vector components.  I'm working on a way to show all the data at once...
https://youtu.be/8qZWTwa4NU8
https://youtu.be/OSFFyF5i3kA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/14/2015 09:52 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qZWTwa4NU8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSFFyF5i3kA

Vaxheadroom has done a outstanding job showing the E and H component activity in the CE drive. This is of a copper O2 free frustum, dual opposing waveguides, flat endplates. A huge thanks goes out to areo after many many hours working late nitpicking to get it right.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/14/2015 11:34 pm
Just to note to everyone, we've moved all the EM Drive threads into a new section). All links will work as previously and most of you won't even notice - or will find it easier to find previous content.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=73.0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/15/2015 12:23 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RonM on 11/15/2015 12:46 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.

EM drive and other new physics threads are popular enough to merit their own section.

Based on the accepted understanding of conventional theory, EM drives can't work. No, really, it's impossible. Thus, if they do produce thrust, this would be considered new physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/15/2015 12:57 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.

EM drive and other new physics threads are popular enough to merit their own section.

Based on the accepted understanding of conventional theory, EM drives can't work. No, really, it's impossible. Thus, if they do produce thrust, this would be considered new physics.

I could point out others who work in physics that would disagree with you, that it is impossible.  WaiteDavidMSphysics on youtube or maybe ,

Mario Pinherio
Alexandre A. Martins
Fluidic electrodynamics: Approach to electromagnetic propulsion

and another under Pinherio:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06288


"Newton’s Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity"
by "Miron Tuval and Asher Yahaloma,b
aIsaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
20 Clarkson Road, Cambridge CB3 0EH, United Kingdom
bAriel University Center of Samaria, Ariel 40700, Israel"

or

"Propellantless Propulsion by Electromagnetic InertiaManipulation: Theory and Experiment"
by Hector Hugo Brito

This patent here at uspto.gov:
http://goo.gl/VEmZY2

I might be sort of grouped with the lot too

so just saying, I don't think everyone would agree with you, but your allowed your own opinion.  Just that, that opinion, that something is impossible has been stated before in history, only to be proven wrong later, more than once.  It is fairly standard theory but it works with the time delayed information.  On the other hand you might be right.  I don't know exactly how the EM drive fits in there yet. 

Personally, I think there are more efficient designs that could yield better propulsion if it is anyhow related to the above research. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/15/2015 01:19 am
Just to note to everyone, we've moved all the EM Drive threads into a new section). All links will work as previously and most of you won't even notice - or will find it easier to find previous content.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=73.0
Thanks Chris, will be easier to see all threads together in a new topic section  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/15/2015 01:24 am
Sooo we are now in new physics by using old physics? That's reassuring, but to me it's the same soup in a different bowl.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/15/2015 01:29 am
Sooo we are now in new physics by using old physics? That's reassuring, but to me it's the same soup in a different bowl.
Smaller bowl shell, we kept overshadowing other advanced concepts, using conventional physics. Think we just moved a step closer to our own section. P.s. get back to work  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/15/2015 01:31 am
Sooo we are now in new physics by using old physics? That's reassuring, but to me it's the same soup in a different bowl.
Smaller bowl shell, we kept overshadowing other advanced concepts, using conventional physics. Think we just moved a step closer to our own section. P.s. get back to work  ;)

I know, just came in to get a cup of coffee and a cookie and warm up my tootsies. Later...


Sehll

PS I don't have my like button anymore...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/15/2015 01:57 am
(..)
If we're going to say that it's a totally closed frame of reference then we might be wrong if these do indeed exist outside in the real world regardless if they are strong enough to do anything useful.

I've wondered if this frustum, with even 1/4" think copper walls could act as an antenna with the currents flowing through the frustum generated by the EM fields internally. What is it we are really seeing generate these small field patterns that match the internal EM modes? Internal oscillating currents in the copper? 

I just thought of something. In the real world the frustum would be grounded, I don't think it's grounded in the meep simulation, aero do you have an answer for this? This could be the reason for the patterns outside. hmmmm?

Shell

I thought that ideally, in the real world, the EM-drive would not be grounded, but flying freely through the star ocean?
:P
Everything is relative. Grounds are simply a return for your Betty Crocker mixer of EM waves. RF grounds are only a potential varying in time. DC is different and well behaved (most of the time).

The real world runs a little differently than meep, it was one reason we had a tough time getting a loop and snub antenna to work, no return paths, no resistors or caps that were available to model into the simulations. Starting to look at the data, it seems it's far down into the noise level, meep takes it to the extreme, here is a random sample point ,-1.881408573404179e-27

Pardon me but what exactly is that sample point representing and how should I read it.  Is that 1.881408573404179 * 10^-27 (really small), -1.881408573404179 * 10^-27 (really small negative number) or 1.881408573404179*10^27 (a number large enough that ducking and covering might be in order).  What is this showing?  Surely, MEEP is not saying that a zone of negative energy, no matter how small, exists outside the frustum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Andy USA on 11/15/2015 02:07 am


PS I don't have my like button anymore...

Sorry, was an extra option in admin. Corrected. Likes are back.

PS To all wondering why this is a new section, read here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38826.0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/15/2015 02:20 am


PS I don't have my like button anymore...

Sorry, was an extra option in admin. Corrected. Likes are back.

PS To all wondering why this is a new section, read here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38826.0
Thanks boss!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/15/2015 02:23 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.
If EM Drive effect is real, people will almost certainly get (a) Nobel Prize(s) for it some day.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/15/2015 02:32 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.
If EM Drive effect is real, people will almost certainly get (a) Nobel Prize(s) for it some day.
I agree. There are ad growing number of experimenters, data analysists, modelers and theorists that would make it impossible to pick just one person. In a way, its crowd-science, something Nobel I'm sure never imagined. Just think, its all primarily focused on this humble forum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/15/2015 02:44 am
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.
If EM Drive effect is real, people will almost certainly get (a) Nobel Prize(s) for it some day.
If it's real, I just want to have our children have a fighting chance somewhere other than this ball of mud.

Added:
Also I don't care if this thread is called Pixie Foofoo Dust, it's not the bowl it's the soup that has the flavor.

Was a long day today redoing a couple of things I didn't like on the setup but it was a good day. Tomorrow will be better.

Shell
Was a long day today
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/15/2015 02:45 am
It will be a pretty crowded stage, if you include all the people not represented here..  And you have to divide the prize money.

It sounds like Shell is trying to get higher Q by keeping her workshop at cold temperatures.  :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/15/2015 02:52 am
It will be a pretty crowded stage, if you include all the people not represented here..  And you have to divide the prize money.

It sounds like Shell is trying to get higher Q by keeping her workshop at cold temperatures.  :)

LMAO! Got that right. I still have a little more to insulation to glue up on the ceiling and may have some help tomorrow, that should help tons.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/15/2015 10:01 am
(..)
If we're going to say that it's a totally closed frame of reference then we might be wrong if these do indeed exist outside in the real world regardless if they are strong enough to do anything useful.

I've wondered if this frustum, with even 1/4" think copper walls could act as an antenna with the currents flowing through the frustum generated by the EM fields internally. What is it we are really seeing generate these small field patterns that match the internal EM modes? Internal oscillating currents in the copper? 

I just thought of something. In the real world the frustum would be grounded, I don't think it's grounded in the meep simulation, aero do you have an answer for this? This could be the reason for the patterns outside. hmmmm?

Shell

I thought that ideally, in the real world, the EM-drive would not be grounded, but flying freely through the star ocean?
:P
Everything is relative. Grounds are simply a return for your Betty Crocker mixer of EM waves. RF grounds are only a potential varying in time. DC is different and well behaved (most of the time).

The real world runs a little differently than meep, it was one reason we had a tough time getting a loop and snub antenna to work, no return paths, no resistors or caps that were available to model into the simulations. Starting to look at the data, it seems it's far down into the noise level, meep takes it to the extreme, here is a random sample point ,-1.881408573404179e-27

Pardon me but what exactly is that sample point representing and how should I read it.  Is that 1.881408573404179 * 10^-27 (really small), -1.881408573404179 * 10^-27 (really small negative number) or 1.881408573404179*10^27 (a number large enough that ducking and covering might be in order).  What is this showing?  Surely, MEEP is not saying that a zone of negative energy, no matter how small, exists outside the frustum?
Steve, I see you are looking at and wonder like me what the meep numbers means. I saw the same thing and like you went hmmm wth. Minus numbers would depend on how meep arrives at it,  I'm up at 3am, I couldn't sleep because of those numbers running through my dreams. Honestly I'm sure there is no negative energy.


Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/15/2015 12:26 pm
I wouldn't worry about being split off in the forum. The Kepler thread has had to be split into discussion & updates now because of one star.;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: jnet on 11/15/2015 02:21 pm
back in the 1950 1960, even it had such a direction - devices, microwave power meters based panderomotoriki - "curtain" of quartz, which is "deflected" flow microwave. It is now accepted calorimeter (on the heating load) method of measuring the power, and then - even appliances are designed with shutters. Everything new is well forgotten old. Let's just say it is necessary to pipe which receives the microwave radiation, and cover the quartz rod will become tangible.
There is no violation of the fundamental laws .. just pull an abnormally high for pandemotoriki's all ..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/15/2015 02:23 pm
Has anybody thought about creating a test setup that would allow them to vary the Q rating during a run to see how this might effect the readings?

I did a quick search and found this patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US4689459) on a way to adjust the Q of a microwave cavity.  Whether it actually works, or is applicable to EmDrive, I have no idea.  It works by adding a dummy load outside the cavity, which sounds feasible.  (A standard way to reduce the Q of an LC tuned circuit is to put a resistance across it.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/15/2015 02:30 pm
I can't help but feel that somehow, every time we turn one of these on, somewhere in a parallel universe a sock goes missing from a dryer.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/15/2015 03:49 pm
Nice find ThereIWas3!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/15/2015 04:11 pm
back in the 1950 1960, even it had such a direction - devices, microwave power meters based panderomotoriki - "curtain" of quartz, which is "deflected" flow microwave. It is now accepted calorimeter (on the heating load) method of measuring the power, and then - even appliances are designed with shutters. Everything new is well forgotten old. Let's just say it is necessary to pipe which receives the microwave radiation, and cover the quartz rod will become tangible.
There is no violation of the fundamental laws .. just pull an abnormally high for pandemotoriki's all ..

What are you taking about? Pandemotoriki is not a word that I can find, and you don't spell it consistently either. I don't actually understand what you are saying, please try again using better grammar.

To everyone who is saying that the emdrive doesn't count as new physics, you must not be understanding what you are talking about. The emdrive does not have any propellant within current accepted physics. That means it either breaks conservation of momentum, or uses some kind of invisible propellant that is new to physics. There is nothing wrong with new physics ideas. Hawking radiation is new physics, string theory is new physics, dark energy and dark matter are new physics. Some of these are well formulated theories that haven't had experimental tests to verify them, others are correction terms to make the equations match the observations of the universe, and we haven't figured out why the correction is necessary yet. (Once we do, we will possibly change how they are incorporated into the theory.) Note that depending on who you ask, things like gravity waves may not be considered new physics, since general relativity is otherwise well verified, and the difficulty in detecting them was expected. A confirmed lack of them would definitely be new physics. (Same thing with the Higg's boson, it was expected as part of the standard model to make everything fit together. If it had not been found, there were some other theories floating around to explain why it didn't exist, and these would have been new physics) While there is a grey edge in some of these cases, the emdrive is nowhere near that edge.

Please don't try to call the emdrive existing physics, it is not. In the process you demonstrate your ignorance, and taint the efforts of those who are legitimately trying to figure out what is going on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: frobnicat on 11/15/2015 04:42 pm
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.

EM drive and other new physics threads are popular enough to merit their own section.

Based on the accepted understanding of conventional theory, EM drives can't work. No, really, it's impossible. Thus, if they do produce thrust, this would be considered new physics.

I could point out others who work in physics that would disagree with you, that it is impossible.  WaiteDavidMSphysics on youtube or maybe ,

.../...

"Newton’s Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity"
by "Miron Tuval and Asher Yahaloma,b
aIsaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
20 Clarkson Road, Cambridge CB3 0EH, United Kingdom
bAriel University Center of Samaria, Ariel 40700, Israel"

.../...


May I recall you that this specific paper that I cared to "review" not so long ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1350655#msg1350655) is utterly irrelevant to propulsion (despite what the authors imply, and insist on implying that on another paper "Relativistic Engine Based on a Permanent Magnet" (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1408538#msg1408538) despite the very same shortcoming (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1408674#msg1408674)). Or have you read it again and found something new since then (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1350731#msg1350731) ?

Sorry but finding reference to this paper (again) on this thread makes me irritable. This is not new physics, this is not significant new interpretation of old physics, this is just deceptively suggestive in its conclusion but trivially inconsequential. Proof it's trivial is that I could "debunk" it, and I'm nothing near an expert.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/15/2015 08:38 pm
So have we been exiled or after five threads did we finally merit our own forum?  Not really sure this is non-conventional physics, more like an unexpected experimental results that appears replicable.  If the EMDrive/Shawyer effect is not the result of systemic error, then I expect the actual physics might turn out to be quite conventionalbut put together in a way nobody has though of before.

EM drive and other new physics threads are popular enough to merit their own section.

Based on the accepted understanding of conventional theory, EM drives can't work. No, really, it's impossible. Thus, if they do produce thrust, this would be considered new physics.

I could point out others who work in physics that would disagree with you, that it is impossible.  WaiteDavidMSphysics on youtube or maybe ,

.../...

"Newton’s Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity"
by "Miron Tuval and Asher Yahaloma,b
aIsaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
20 Clarkson Road, Cambridge CB3 0EH, United Kingdom
bAriel University Center of Samaria, Ariel 40700, Israel"

.../...


May I recall you that this specific paper that I cared to "review" not so long ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1350655#msg1350655) is utterly irrelevant to propulsion (despite what the authors imply, and insist on implying that on another paper "Relativistic Engine Based on a Permanent Magnet" (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1408538#msg1408538) despite the very same shortcoming (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1408674#msg1408674)). Or have you read it again and found something new since then (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1350731#msg1350731) ?

Sorry but finding reference to this paper (again) on this thread makes me irritable. This is not new physics, this is not significant new interpretation of old physics, this is just deceptively suggestive in its conclusion but trivially inconsequential. Proof it's trivial is that I could "debunk" it, and I'm nothing near an expert.

While this paper may not get its point across, in a way that everyone understands, they are onto the same thing as these other papers and folks I mentioned.  Obviously, if you ask them they would think it is possible for this type of propulsion.  They specifically mention the time delay in information between two loops with current.  They mention the 2nd derivative of current in one loop as opposed to the other but label both currents as I2 which is odd.  The only thing that comes to mind is that depending on the spacing of the current in the loops, maybe 1/4lambda, and the currentwas 90 degrees out of phase, then the current would appear to the loops at the time that information reaches them, that the currents are actually 180 degrees out of phase.  The 2nd derivative of a sinusoidal current, using wxmaxima code diff(diff(sin(x),x),x)=-sin(x) and all that means is that the retarded appearance of the current appears to be 180 degrees out of phase which... may be what they are trying to imply.  Reading the paper I can tell they are trying to climb the same mountain and they think it is possible that it would work. 

If your familiar with a phased array antenna then you know they work off time retarded signals.  If you figure out the magnetic force of each antenna on the other you will arrive at the conclusion that Newtons law doesn't apply to the magnetic force of a phase array antenna.  The magnetic force will all be in the same direction.  When you take into account the static electric force you will find it works against the magnetic force.  The resulting force you get is what is left over as emitted radiation.

However, the electric force doesn't have to work against the magnetic force.  There are wire configurations where the electric force works with the magnetic force instead.  WaiteDavidMSPhysics video on youtube gives one such configuration but he doesn't show you how to wind the wires so that the magnetic works with the electric.  I am pretty sure I know how.  You just wind the coil in the lower wire in reverse. 

My dual resonating cavity idea is to just eliminate the electric force all together so that there is only magnetic and no possibility for radiation. 

So what happens if we get greater than photon force from such a system?  One might suspect there would be something else that we would be using to push.  I suspect WaiteDavitMSPhysics on youtube is onto such an idea already with his discussion on gravity drives using Einsteins field equations and connecting them to electricity and magnetism.  In other word if we can achieve greater than photon propulsion and the radiation being emitted is not great enough to account for the force then we may detect something that appears to be a gravitational pump of sorts but this is just speculation.  It would need to be tested. 

The point being, I feel if I went and asked these guys that wrote this paper what they thought about this unusual form of propulsion, I highly suspect they would agree with these other folks that this is what they are trying to tell us they want to achieve in their paper. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/15/2015 09:00 pm
While walking the dog I had this idea that the way Q may be involved in how EmDrive works may be tied up with the "gravity bandwidth" concept.   Since Q relates to bandwidth.

The dummy-load Q adjuster invention would introduce losses of course, since the dummy load will be absorbing some of the power.  The question is, does the resulting propulsive force vary just in accordance with the resistive losses, or by some other additional factor?

One concern I have about the external Q-reducer is that while it may reduce the Q as seen by the microwave source, does it have any effect on what is going on inside the cavity where the magic happens?  Is coupling by just the feedline sufficient?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/16/2015 12:00 am
While walking the dog I had this idea that the way Q may be involved in how EmDrive works may be tied up with the "gravity bandwidth" concept.   Since Q relates to bandwidth.

The dummy-load Q adjuster invention would introduce losses of course, since the dummy load will be absorbing some of the power.  The question is, does the resulting propulsive force vary just in accordance with the resistive losses, or by some other additional factor?

One concern I have about the external Q-reducer is that while it may reduce the Q as seen by the microwave source, does it have any effect on what is going on inside the cavity where the magic happens?  Is coupling by just the feedline sufficient?

No one has given a definitive answer to this.   If you consider that force increases with increasing Q there is a fundamental conundrum.   A very high Q means very little energy is being removed from the cavity.   If you have an infinite Q the thrust should be at a maximum.  But that also means no energy is being removed from the cavity.    Intuitively the idea that thrust increases with increasing Q is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 12:08 am
While walking the dog I had this idea that the way Q may be involved in how EmDrive works may be tied up with the "gravity bandwidth" concept.   Since Q relates to bandwidth.

The dummy-load Q adjuster invention would introduce losses of course, since the dummy load will be absorbing some of the power.  The question is, does the resulting propulsive force vary just in accordance with the resistive losses, or by some other additional factor?

One concern I have about the external Q-reducer is that while it may reduce the Q as seen by the microwave source, does it have any effect on what is going on inside the cavity where the magic happens?  Is coupling by just the feedline sufficient?

Just in from the shop.

While you were walking your dog I was trying to get the final pieces of insulation on the ceiling and thinking as well. I'm not quite sure what to think of this.

In meep we modeled a perfect resonating Drive with a perfect conductor, and a great waveguide RF injection, just to let the cavity do what it does, resonate and make modes, a TE012 mode plus one other.  Then meep did something strange, it generated a weird crazy Q in >millions/billions, superconducting ranges. No real-word is ever going to see that kind of Q, I know this, although it was interesting that the Q went over the top.

What I'm thinking is simply Meep's Maxwell equations said it could happen. It could have been a funny fluke in meep (I don't know that's true because MIT did a good job on meep) or in a perfect situation with perfect conductors and everything else optimized allow it to happen.

Here's the catch, that I find interesting, thinking up 12 foot on a ladder. Replacing the perfect conductor frustum with copper reduced the Q to ~5000. Tune frequency stayed close to the same. What happened? Obviously the copper frustum is absorbing and manipulating a lot of energy, lowering the Q orders of magnitude, but copper is a very good conductor by itself. Eddie currents, evanescent waves, thrust? Not sure yet, but I will know, although now I'm just throwing my thoughts out here.

Yesterday I picked up some colored magic markers on sale and now I have the perfect place to write all the little red flags... on my new white insulation. This is a red flag and is going up there with the rest of the red flags.

Time for Dinner

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Vultur on 11/16/2015 12:19 am
back in the 1950 1960, even it had such a direction - devices, microwave power meters based panderomotoriki - "curtain" of quartz, which is "deflected" flow microwave. It is now accepted calorimeter (on the heating load) method of measuring the power, and then - even appliances are designed with shutters. Everything new is well forgotten old. Let's just say it is necessary to pipe which receives the microwave radiation, and cover the quartz rod will become tangible.
There is no violation of the fundamental laws .. just pull an abnormally high for pandemotoriki's all ..

What are you taking about? Pandemotoriki is not a word that I can find, and you don't spell it consistently either.

Probably "ponderomotive" force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 11/16/2015 12:38 am

.....

In meep we modeled a perfect resonating Drive with a perfect conductor, and a great waveguide RF injection, just to let the cavity do what it does, resonate and make modes, a TE012 mode plus one other.  Then meep did something strange, it generated a weird crazy Q in >millions/billions, superconducting ranges. No real-word is ever going to see that kind of Q, I know this, although it was interesting that the Q went over the top.

What I'm thinking is simply Meep's Maxwell equations said it could happen. It could have been a funny fluke in meep (I don't know that's true because MIT did a good job on meep) or in a perfect situation with perfect conductors and everything else optimized allow it to happen.

Here's the catch, that I find interesting, thinking up 12 foot on a ladder. Replacing the perfect conductor frustum with copper reduced the Q to ~5000. Tune frequency stayed close to the same. What happened? Obviously the copper frustum is absorbing and manipulating a lot of energy, lowering the Q orders of magnitude, but copper is a very good conductor by itself. Eddie currents, evanescent waves, thrust? Not sure yet, but I will know, although now I'm just throwing my thoughts out here.

.....

Shell, you just nailed this for me.  When areo started to see these Q values, everyone essentially just shrugged their shoulders and we moved on because simulation software.  But, as you point out, it turns out meep does a good job remaining faithful to Maxwells Equations - something that was not as obvious at the time.

If we are not looking at an artifact of the software but one of Maxwells Equations then this becomes very interesting indeed.   So is this another signal pointing to a novel application of old physics coming up with something new?

This actually may need 2 red flags...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/16/2015 01:01 am
back in the 1950 1960, even it had such a direction - devices, microwave power meters based panderomotoriki - "curtain" of quartz, which is "deflected" flow microwave. It is now accepted calorimeter (on the heating load) method of measuring the power, and then - even appliances are designed with shutters. Everything new is well forgotten old. Let's just say it is necessary to pipe which receives the microwave radiation, and cover the quartz rod will become tangible.
There is no violation of the fundamental laws .. just pull an abnormally high for pandemotoriki's all ..

What are you taking about? Pandemotoriki is not a word that I can find, and you don't spell it consistently either.

Probably "ponderomotive" force.

Power meters have been around for awhile.   The Varian brothers invented the klystron in the '30s: "The story is told that Russell cleverly drilled a small hole at the appropriate position in the klystron cavity wall, and positioned a fluorescent screen alongside."  (5989-6255EN.pdf)   The HP 430C, a self-balancing thermistor bridge circuit for measuring RF power was available in 1952.  The temperature compensated  circuit used in most RF power meters was developed by Steve Adam of Hewlett Packard in the 60's
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/16/2015 01:03 am
While walking the dog I had this idea that the way Q may be involved in how EmDrive works may be tied up with the "gravity bandwidth" concept.   Since Q relates to bandwidth.

The dummy-load Q adjuster invention would introduce losses of course, since the dummy load will be absorbing some of the power.  The question is, does the resulting propulsive force vary just in accordance with the resistive losses, or by some other additional factor?

One concern I have about the external Q-reducer is that while it may reduce the Q as seen by the microwave source, does it have any effect on what is going on inside the cavity where the magic happens?  Is coupling by just the feedline sufficient?
Here's my thought on this, until we can get a more significant force measurement, it would be difficult to perform this test. A load has a great match to the source and broad bandwidth meaning low Q. loading down the signal would naturally reduce signal into cavity and lower force.

A better experiment for Q is using a loop antenna that rotates internally in the cavity. It changes coupling thereby changes resonant bandwidth or Q. Look up tuned stub cavity filters for more specifics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Fugudaddy on 11/16/2015 01:42 am
Here's the catch, that I find interesting, thinking up 12 foot on a ladder. Replacing the perfect conductor frustum with copper reduced the Q to ~5000. Tune frequency stayed close to the same. What happened? Obviously the copper frustum is absorbing and manipulating a lot of energy, lowering the Q orders of magnitude, but copper is a very good conductor by itself.

*Raises hand*

So a 'perfect conductor' means one that does not lose energy to heat or magnetism. Could the magnetism be part of where that Q is getting eaten up by? I remember the child's experiment of wrapping copper in a spiral and pushing electricity through it to generate a magnetic field; I can see a copper frustum with energy swirling through it being magnetic, too.

Thanks,
Ronald
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/16/2015 02:24 am

.....

In meep we modeled a perfect resonating Drive with a perfect conductor, and a great waveguide RF injection, just to let the cavity do what it does, resonate and make modes, a TE012 mode plus one other.  Then meep did something strange, it generated a weird crazy Q in >millions/billions, superconducting ranges. No real-word is ever going to see that kind of Q, I know this, although it was interesting that the Q went over the top.

What I'm thinking is simply Meep's Maxwell equations said it could happen. It could have been a funny fluke in meep (I don't know that's true because MIT did a good job on meep) or in a perfect situation with perfect conductors and everything else optimized allow it to happen.

Here's the catch, that I find interesting, thinking up 12 foot on a ladder. Replacing the perfect conductor frustum with copper reduced the Q to ~5000. Tune frequency stayed close to the same. What happened? Obviously the copper frustum is absorbing and manipulating a lot of energy, lowering the Q orders of magnitude, but copper is a very good conductor by itself. Eddie currents, evanescent waves, thrust? Not sure yet, but I will know, although now I'm just throwing my thoughts out here.

.....

Shell, you just nailed this for me.  When areo started to see these Q values, everyone essentially just shrugged their shoulders and we moved on because simulation software.  But, as you point out, it turns out meep does a good job remaining faithful to Maxwells Equations - something that was not as obvious at the time.

If we are not looking at an artifact of the software but one of Maxwells Equations then this becomes very interesting indeed.   So is this another signal pointing to a novel application of old physics coming up with something new?

This actually may need 2 red flags...

I don't want to get too much into discussions of Q, since I know different aspects of measuring it were discussed in parts of this discussion that I didn't follow closely.

The diverging Q measurement in a simulation with a perfect conductor is completely unsurprising. Given a perfect conductor, if you keep dumping energy into it right at resonance, the energy in the cavity will keep increasing. There may be some limits from details of the simulation (energy being fed back though the antenna/waveguide that it entered from, plus possible artifacts from the discreet nature of the simulation amplified by large field gradients). In real life, superconductors break down when the magnetic field applied to them gets too large. This would probably be what limits Q for a superconductor.

Keep in mind that you are comparing a perfect conductor (infinite conductivity) to copper which has finite conductivity. If the simulation is giving less than infinite Q, it is likely due to some bounds that cut the simulation off before delivering infinite energy. A well made simulation will probably detect and stop on potentially unbounded growth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/16/2015 02:57 am
The reason focus on Q in testing, and particularly ways of varying the Q while holding everything else constant, is that WarpTech's Evanescent Wave Theory  (http://emdrive.wiki/Todd_Desiato_%28@WarpTech%29's_Evanescent_Wave_Theory) says that EmDrive thrust does not vary with Q, while it does vary with frustrum shape.   Doing experiments that hold everything constant but vary one of these parameters could help prove or disprove that theory.  Adjusting Q (by whatever means) is probably easier than adjusting shape.

Also, the theory saying that the EmDrive does something unusual with gravity but over a very narrow bandwidth suggests to me that there may be some efficiency benefits to getting that bandwidth just right.  This is all conjecture until some experiments are done where Q can be varied without changing shape or frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: aero on 11/16/2015 03:19 am
The reason focus on Q in testing, and particularly ways of varying the Q while holding everything else constant, is that WarpTech's Evanescent Wave Theory  (http://emdrive.wiki/Todd_Desiato_%28@WarpTech%29's_Evanescent_Wave_Theory) says that EmDrive thrust does not vary with Q, while it does vary with frustrum shape.   Doing experiments that hold everything constant but vary one of these parameters could help prove or disprove that theory.  Adjusting Q (by whatever means) is probably easier than adjusting shape.

Also, the theory saying that the EmDrive does something unusual with gravity but over a very narrow bandwidth suggests to me that there may be some efficiency benefits to getting that bandwidth just right.  This is all conjecture until some experiments are done where Q can be varied without changing shape or frequency.

I'm not sure that would work. The difinition of Q used in meep, which is one of several valid definitions is
"quality factor", Q, defined as -\mathrm{Re}\,\omega / 2 \mathrm{Im}\,\omega.
 That is, -Re(w)/ 2*Im(w). Given a complex frequency with real and imaginary parts, varying Q but holding frequency constant means, I guess, that one must vary the complex component of frequency. Maybe that is easy to do, I'm just not sure.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/16/2015 05:02 am
"The Shawyer Effect 101"

For those here who refuse to accept the guide wavelength and momentum varies as the EM wave propogates from one end of the frustum to the other because of the varying diameter, let's go back to Roger's 1988 patent using a constant diameter circular waveguide, with reflecting end plates and a shaped dielectric at one end as per the 1st attachment.

Note well the statement in the 2nd attachment.

Also note the information on what happens to an EM wave inside a dielectric, stating the guide wavelength decreases as per the 3rd attachment.

Roger's full 1988 patent is attached as the last attachment.

The decreasing guide wavelength inside the dielectric will increase the momentum in the EM wave and increase the bounce Force or radiation pressure on the dielectric end as compared to the non dielectric end.

In this configuration we know the guide wavelength inside the dielectric decreases from it's wavelength outside the dielectric. Of this there can be no doubt.

We also know the momentum in the EM wave alters as it's wavelength alters. Decreased wavelength = higher momentum and increased wavelength = lower momentum.

From this it should be clear the radiation pressure generated on the dielectric end plate will be larger than the radiation pressure generated on the non dielectric end plate.

Result is a Force differential, generated by the momentum change generated from the wavelength change, between the end plates.

Simple, clear and easy to understand with no tapered waveguide / frustum needed.

All this back in 1988 and no new physics needed to explain it then or now.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/16/2015 07:28 am
"The Shawyer Effect 101"...

I think this sort of a description fudges over something that I don't understand well enough to clearly point out, but it lies somewhere in the following: a light wave is not composed of distinct particles, but it's best to think about one as though it were at times like this.

Imagine for a moment that you are a photon playing follow-the-leader with your photonic friends; a waveguide is essentially changing the shape of the path that the fellas in front of you are taking, and this altered path becomes yours.

There is no situation in which any given waveguide could increase your momentum, or the total momentum of your group, just by redirecting you.  In this sense, it is improper to imagine the photons, after being fed through the waveguide, as "possessing more/less momentum".

That said, it is possible (and indeed known) that photons don't behave exactly like distinct units.  However, if there is a way that this works simply by compressing the wavelength of a photon-wave by waveguide, you're going to have to explain to all of us the "new physics" involved-- because currently, we have no way of understanding the mechanism by which this could be any different from throwing baseballs into a very bouncy cavity, and narrowing the angular path that each ball takes on its bounces.

[As a sidenote I believe that Ludwig Wittgenstein has much to say on this notion of "new physics".  The reason, I assert, that it's such a controversial topic is because all novel physics is "new;" physics is just generally the mathematical abstraction of nature, and as such, we don't ever "discover" new physics at all-- instead we just invent new physics.  Whether or not this invention requires the negation of established physics is just an artefact of the way abstraction works.  To say that we have discovered "new physics" would imply that physics can change, or that all physics is pre-existent and just waiting to be discovered (patently untrue given any reasonable understanding of what physics is).]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/16/2015 07:33 am
"The Shawyer Effect 101"...

I think this sort of a description fudges over something that I don't understand well enough to clearly point out, but it lies somewhere in the following: a light wave is not composed of distinct particles, but it's best to think about one as though it were at times like this.

Imagine for a moment that you are a photon playing follow-the-leader with your photonic friends; a waveguide is essentially changing the shape of the path that the fellas in front of you are taking, and this altered path becomes yours.

There is no situation in which any given waveguide could increase your momentum, or the total momentum of your group, just by redirecting you.  In this sense, it is improper to imagine the photons, after being fed through the waveguide, as "possessing more/less momentum".

That said, it is possible (and indeed known) that photons don't behave exactly like distinct units.  However, if there is a way that this works simply by compressing the wavelength of a photon-wave by waveguide, you're going to have to explain to all of us the "new physics" involved-- because currently, we have no way of understanding the mechanism by which this could be any different from throwing baseballs into a very bouncy cavity, and narrowing the angular path that each ball takes on its bounces.

[As a sidenote I believe that Ludwig Wittgenstein has much to say on this notion of "new physics".  The reason, I assert, that it's such a controversial topic is because all novel physics is "new;" physics is just generally the mathematical abstraction of nature, and as such, we don't ever "discover" new physics at all-- instead we just invent new physics.  Whether or not this invention requires the negation of established physics is just an artefact of the way abstraction works.]

In 1951 Cullen showed EM wave momentum and radiation pressure are decreased as guide wavelength increased relative to free guide wavelength. Cullen 15 is one of the major building blocks in Roger's theory.

See attached.

BTW EW, in testing the Cannae drives, found the dielectric plug in the constant diameter circular Rf feed pipe waveguide was what caused the thrust they measured.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Dortex on 11/16/2015 12:50 pm
Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 01:15 pm
Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.

I stood inside of one of the Saturn V engines early in my career.  Was never so gobsmacked in my life, with feelings of being inadequate. I remember reaching out and touching the walls of it and I had a hard time imagining that humans engineered and built it.   

Now, here I am 45 years later building a little Drive in my shop and I know humans are doing it, (well last time I checked I was human). If they can build this gobsmacked fire breathing behemoth then I can do this tiny Drive. Mine will not be a fire breathing behemoth but maybe like discovering fire?.... hopefully?

Thanks, my resolve just got recharged, it was needed.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/16/2015 01:34 pm
Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.

I stood inside of one of the Saturn V engines early in my career.  Was never so gobsmacked in my life, with feelings of being inadequate. I remember reaching out and touching the walls of it and I had a hard time imagining that humans engineered and built it.   

Now, here I am 45 years later building a little Drive in my shop and I know humans are doing it, (well last time I checked I was human). If they can build this gobsmacked fire breathing behemoth then I can do this tiny Drive. Mine will not be a fire breathing behemoth but maybe like discovering fire?.... hopefully?

Thanks, my resolve just got recharged, it was needed.

Shell
Random pic time Shell. Take some today...that is all  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 02:53 pm
Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.

I stood inside of one of the Saturn V engines early in my career.  Was never so gobsmacked in my life, with feelings of being inadequate. I remember reaching out and touching the walls of it and I had a hard time imagining that humans engineered and built it.   

Now, here I am 45 years later building a little Drive in my shop and I know humans are doing it, (well last time I checked I was human). If they can build this gobsmacked fire breathing behemoth then I can do this tiny Drive. Mine will not be a fire breathing behemoth but maybe like discovering fire?.... hopefully?

Thanks, my resolve just got recharged, it was needed.

Shell
Random pic time Shell. Take some today...that is all  ;)
No Drive building today, we are in for a blizzard, 60 mph winds and a foot of snow. Time to button down the hatches and get ready for it. Love the Rockies! ::)
http://mypcomlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/blizzard.jpg

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/16/2015 02:59 pm
This is probably not related, but may be.  After watching those animations of the meep simulations, especially the way the magnetic fields move asymmetrically in time, this pattern sure looks famililar...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/16/2015 03:19 pm
I stumbled on this discussion 10 days ago, more or less by accident.., a link in a popular press article to post #805 this thread, by Paul March. At first I was impressed that a member of the EW team was sharing information, but what has really impressed me is the work being done by the DIY's and all of those contributing to their efforts.

It has taken almost all of my free time since then to read Thread 5 through. More than once or twice I had to restrain myself from commenting on something earlier in the discussion.., not enough background information.., and more than once the discussion and efforts/data being shared has had me fantasizing about starting a build of my own. Not really something that is going to happen, though from what I have read I have the time, the space and the resources, just not the underlying skill set to make it an adventure...

Since I retired 10 years ago, from a totally unrelated  career, I have spent a good deal of my time as an arm chair theorist attempting to explore the relationship between inertia and gravitation. I also discovered I don't want to spend the effort that would be required to go back and relearn all that I lost in 35 years of not using any of my earlier physics... I don't even try to do the math anymore.

So as a layman, in the present tense, and primarily interested in the underlying theory, which remains obscured it seems to me...

I first heard of Shawyer's EMDrive about 4-5 years ago and dismissed it as a curiosity. I started out a skeptic, but not a critic.

Then when the 2014 EW conference paper came out, I supported further investigation since the Chinese results appeared to confirm Shawyer's claims and a test in vacuum was really needed. Still a skeptic, but in support of the need for further research.

Then mostly as a result of what I found in the DIY discussion here and the latest carrot that Dr. March dangled, about a peer reviewed paper.., while the past says I should be a skeptic.., I find myself rooting for new physics and all of the possibilities, it may deliver.

Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.

I stood inside of one of the Saturn V engines early in my career.  Was never so gobsmacked in my life, with feelings of being inadequate. I remember reaching out and touching the walls of it and I had a hard time imagining that humans engineered and built it.   

Now, here I am 45 years later building a little Drive in my shop and I know humans are doing it, (well last time I checked I was human). If they can build this gobsmacked fire breathing behemoth then I can do this tiny Drive. Mine will not be a fire breathing behemoth but maybe like discovering fire?.... hopefully?

Thanks, my resolve just got recharged, it was needed.

Shell

SeeShells, if.., and I would really like to make that when, but it must remain an if for a while longer.., the DIY dreams embodied in this discussion are realized, even in part.., the next generation's fire breathing dragon, will be the little drives you and the other DIY's are building in basements, garages and sheds today.

If ... When useable thrust is confirmed, this will be the next hot technology explored and a great deal more money will be dumped into tying down the underlying theory/mechanism of operation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 03:47 pm
This is probably not related, but may be.  After watching those animations of the meep simulations, especially the way the magnetic fields move asymmetrically in time, this pattern sure looks famililar...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html)

You and I had the same thought. Meep has the ability from what little I read even yesterday to plot out the magnetic profile(s) in time of this little drive. I may be way off base here thinking it would have any impact or even could be done. Although something that has ever been looked at from what I've read or seen and of course I'm curious.

What do you say about that challenge aero?
https://www.google.com/#q=meep+magnetic+fields

Ok, nuff said... back to getting ready for the Blizzard.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/16/2015 04:50 pm
This is probably not related, but may be.  After watching those animations of the meep simulations, especially the way the magnetic fields move asymmetrically in time, this pattern sure looks famililar...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html)

I think there is a fundamental difference between how microwaves behave inside a cavity vs magnetic phenomena in a plasma.   The magnetic reconnection described in the paper is a quasi-DC phenomena created within a plasma.     This DC magnetic line of force does not exist in a cavity that is excited with microwaves.   A close analog to this, but at a much smaller scale, is the occurrance of vortex states in high temperature superconductors that allow a magnetic field to pass through the superconductor.   Sometimes the magnetic field is broken at these sites and energy is released.   This is a quasi-DC phenomena.    Anything happening inside a cavity is not DC.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/16/2015 05:54 pm
Just had time to actually look at the cross section showing fields outside of the frustum.  I think it might be time to ask for help.  Would it be possible for either Aero or Shell to write some description of what was modeled and why, hopefully that does not make us all look like a bunch of nutters, and ask the MEEP discussion list (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss) if they can help?  If this is a bug in the program, it would seem that the MEEP list would have a vested interest in squashing it.

One other thought.  We now have simulations, potentially, showing negative energy and one team (plus the EW post that we don't want to rehash so as not to get the researchers in any more trouble) claiming possible interferrometer readings consistent with an Alcubierre drive.  Intersetingly, the simuiation shows what looks like a stronger outside field around the waveguide.  Tajmar mentioned some strange results opposite the waveguide when he put the drive verticale. While it's too early to know anything for certain, that's certainly suggestive of some kind of potential (sub-luminal) Alcubierre effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/16/2015 06:14 pm
Just thought I'd go off-topic for a moment to point out just how much simpler (https://i.sli.mg/YGK.jpg) space craft would be if this all does actually pan out.

I stood inside of one of the Saturn V engines early in my career.  Was never so gobsmacked in my life, with feelings of being inadequate. I remember reaching out and touching the walls of it and I had a hard time imagining that humans engineered and built it.   

Now, here I am 45 years later building a little Drive in my shop and I know humans are doing it, (well last time I checked I was human). If they can build this gobsmacked fire breathing behemoth then I can do this tiny Drive. Mine will not be a fire breathing behemoth but maybe like discovering fire?.... hopefully?

Thanks, my resolve just got recharged, it was needed.

Shell
Random pic time Shell. Take some today...that is all  ;)
No Drive building today, we are in for a blizzard, 60 mph winds and a foot of snow. Time to button down the hatches and get ready for it. Love the Rockies! ::)
http://mypcomlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/blizzard.jpg

Shell
Be safe and warm, girlie!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/16/2015 08:18 pm
Just had time to actually look at the cross section showing fields outside of the frustum.  I think it might be time to ask for help.  Would it be possible for either Aero or Shell to write some description of what was modeled and why, hopefully that does not make us all look like a bunch of nutters, and ask the MEEP discussion list (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss) if they can help?  If this is a bug in the program, it would seem that the MEEP list would have a vested interest in squashing it.

One other thought.  We now have simulations, potentially, showing negative energy and one team (plus the EW post that we don't want to rehash so as not to get the researchers in any more trouble) claiming possible interferrometer readings consistent with an Alcubierre drive.  Intersetingly, the simuiation shows what looks like a stronger outside field around the waveguide.  Tajmar mentioned some strange results opposite the waveguide when he put the drive verticale. While it's too early to know anything for certain, that's certainly suggestive of some kind of potential (sub-luminal) Alcubierre effect.

If I took a can and distorted space time inside it, would there be some kind of false thrust I might see? Could the thrust we seem to be observing be in fact an effect of a wrinkle in time? If I could shove myself in time even a picosecond it would appear like I moved, but it's more of an everything is somewhere else. Am I making any sense?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/16/2015 08:47 pm
This is probably not related, but may be.  After watching those animations of the meep simulations, especially the way the magnetic fields move asymmetrically in time, this pattern sure looks famililar...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_explanation_for_the_explosive_nature_of_magnetic_reconnection_999.html)

I think there is a fundamental difference between how microwaves behave inside a cavity vs magnetic phenomena in a plasma.   The magnetic reconnection described in the paper is a quasi-DC phenomena created within a plasma.     This DC magnetic line of force does not exist in a cavity that is excited with microwaves.   A close analog to this, but at a much smaller scale, is the occurrance of vortex states in high temperature superconductors that allow a magnetic field to pass through the superconductor.   Sometimes the magnetic field is broken at these sites and energy is released.   This is a quasi-DC phenomena.    Anything happening inside a cavity is not DC.
The first thermal image looking into a frustum is below. I took this last week and scratched my head a bit. There is persistence of thermal heating (?) on the frustum walls (copper mesh). OK, no big deal except the vertical patterns do not appear anywhere else in the image. I do not know what they are. Plasma or TE/TM patterns? I doubt it as it persists between mag on/off cycles. I do know the pattern does not match the 11 per inch crosshatch weave of copper which is not vertical anyway.

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/16/2015 09:08 pm
Copper oxide was used to make rectifiers back in the olden days. May be some DC currents induced in the frustrum from that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/16/2015 09:22 pm

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/16/2015 10:12 pm

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/16/2015 10:26 pm
"The Shawyer Effect 101"

For those here who refuse to accept the guide wavelength and momentum varies as the EM wave propogates from one end of the frustum to the other because of the varying diameter, let's go back to Roger's 1988 patent using a constant diameter circular waveguide, with reflecting end plates and a shaped dielectric at one end as per the 1st attachment.

Was this supposed to respond to my previous post? You are starting off with a strawman argument.

I said:
A partial summary of issues with Shawyer's (and your) claims:
1. He uses results from a cylindrical waveguide for a conical resonator. Even if they do apply, a lot of math would be needed to demonstrate it.

I am not claiming that the momentum stored in the fields can't vary across the cavity. I am stating that the equations you and Shawyer are using have not been derived for this case. I stated that math needs to be done to show that they apply, and you changed the topic to another different configuration. (We can discuss dielectrics at some other point or in another thread, but they just complicate things, since there are multiple conventions on how to determine which part of the momentum is stored in the dielectric, and which part in the fields.)

Here are the other points that you also need to respond to if you want to defend Shawyer's claims.

2. He claims low to no thrust on the sidewalls, This is demonstrably false (Egan's calculations) and even Yang shows large forces on the sidewalls. It demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand how the waves are propagating in the cavity.
2.a. This claim combined with the (possibly correct) claim that the momentum in the fields changes from one end of the guide to the other contradicts conservation of momentum. This is because in order for the momentum in the fields to change, it would have to be transferred elsewhere (transferring momentum = applying a force), and the only other thing the waves could interact with is the sidewalls.
3. He claims that the EM drive obeys conservation of momentum, and at the same time accelerates its center of energy without interacting with the external world. This is the definition of not obeying conservation of momentum.
3.a. To show this he uses the special relativity velocity transformation in a completely incorrect way, and doesn't notice the issue where he creates a preferred reference frame, when the entire principle behind special relativity is that there aren't preferred reference frames.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 10:38 pm
Brrrrrr, nasty cold out today. Just in time for a Thermal Camera from SEEK. So far it's simple easy to use design that does well at thermal imaging. Did my coffee cup with semi warm coffee @ 36c and it showed it up in good detail.

This is going to work out quite well.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/16/2015 10:42 pm
Does the camera include a time stamp function? Even if that is only in meta data, it could be useful when taking a series of stills of the drive in operation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 10:56 pm
Does the camera include a time stamp function? Even if that is only in meta data, it could be useful when taking a series of stills of the drive in operation.
The image is time stamped with the date but not on the image. It takes just a second to capture a image.

It does have a real time display that I hope to be able to video when needed but no second tracking. That I should be able to get off the video camera anyway.

It was able to capture details from a 36c coffee cup and then from a hot stove which is surprising at 293 c.

It's workable.

Shell


Added: The horizontal lines from the stove on the right of the image are a corrugated sheet metal sheet behind the stove not an artifact. 

Added: It scales very well for details.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/16/2015 11:22 pm
Does the camera include a time stamp function? Even if that is only in meta data, it could be useful when taking a series of stills of the drive in operation.
The image is time stamped with the date but not on the image. It takes just a second to capture a image.

It does have a real time display that I hope to be able to video when needed but no second tracking. That I should be able to get off the video camera anyway.

It was able to capture details from a 36c coffee cup and then from a hot stove which is surprising at 293 c.

It's workable.

Shell


Added: The horizontal lines from the stove on the right of the image are a corrugated sheet metal sheet behind the stove not an artifact. 

Added: It scales very well for details.

This is great because you will be able to determine the current modes inside the cavity as the resistance in the metal will heat it.  Even time to thermal equilibrium.  Wasn't it NASA that did this to determine if they had the correct mode for current?  TE or TM. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/16/2015 11:27 pm
.....

One other thought.  We now have simulations, potentially, showing negative energy and one team (plus the EW post that we don't want to rehash so as not to get the researchers in any more trouble) claiming possible interferrometer readings consistent with an Alcubierre drive.  Intersetingly, the simuiation shows what looks like a stronger outside field around the waveguide.  Tajmar mentioned some strange results opposite the waveguide when he put the drive verticale. While it's too early to know anything for certain, that's certainly suggestive of some kind of potential (sub-luminal) Alcubierre effect.

Can anyone think of how a DIYer could test for an field around or outside the waveguide? And if there were any external thrust some way to test for or measure that?

That would solve the CoM issue, and if either were detectable/measurable, perhaps provide a lead toward theory of operation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/16/2015 11:36 pm
Just had time to actually look at the cross section showing fields outside of the frustum.  I think it might be time to ask for help.  Would it be possible for either Aero or Shell to write some description of what was modeled and why, hopefully that does not make us all look like a bunch of nutters, and ask the MEEP discussion list (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meep-discuss) if they can help?  If this is a bug in the program, it would seem that the MEEP list would have a vested interest in squashing it.

One other thought.  We now have simulations, potentially, showing negative energy and one team (plus the EW post that we don't want to rehash so as not to get the researchers in any more trouble) claiming possible interferrometer readings consistent with an Alcubierre drive.  Intersetingly, the simuiation shows what looks like a stronger outside field around the waveguide.  Tajmar mentioned some strange results opposite the waveguide when he put the drive verticale. While it's too early to know anything for certain, that's certainly suggestive of some kind of potential (sub-luminal) Alcubierre effect.

Your post caught my attention and got me thinking a few questions.  You mention a strong field outside the wave guide.  Would this be a magnetic field outside but one that doesn't emit light?  Stronger outside than inside makes me wonder if it is real or not.  I suspect there might be such a thing in a resonant cavity as a magnetic field that is outside the cavity but is not emitting light.  One that could possibly be measured with a hall effect probe. 

Also, by negative energy do you mean that light being reflected from one surface would normally push on that surface is instead pulling but is pushing on the other surface? (i.e. non-symmetry forces)
Or, would it be like a Casimir effect where two plates are being pushed together because of a lack of energy between the plates as opposed to the outside energy or radiation.  (symmetrical forces)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/16/2015 11:58 pm
Does the camera include a time stamp function? Even if that is only in meta data, it could be useful when taking a series of stills of the drive in operation.
The image is time stamped with the date but not on the image. It takes just a second to capture a image.

It does have a real time display that I hope to be able to video when needed but no second tracking. That I should be able to get off the video camera anyway.

It was able to capture details from a 36c coffee cup and then from a hot stove which is surprising at 293 c.

It's workable.

Shell


Added: The horizontal lines from the stove on the right of the image are a corrugated sheet metal sheet behind the stove not an artifact. 

Added: It scales very well for details.

This is great because you will be able to determine the current modes inside the cavity as the resistance in the metal will heat it.  Even time to thermal equilibrium.  Wasn't it NASA that did this to determine if they had the correct mode for current?  TE or TM.
Yes EW did it coupled with COMSOL to verify modes. Impressed me I'll say.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/17/2015 12:19 am

...

The first thermal image looking into a frustum is below. I took this last week and scratched my head a bit. There is persistence of thermal heating (?) on the frustum walls (copper mesh). OK, no big deal except the vertical patterns do not appear anywhere else in the image. I do not know what they are. Plasma or TE/TM patterns? I doubt it as it persists between mag on/off cycles. I do know the pattern does not match the 11 per inch crosshatch weave of copper which is not vertical anyway.

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

From the appearance of the mesh fustrum in the visible light pictures it looks like it is made from a loose woven mesh and appears deformed from its original intended shape.   Maybe the heat energy is following the path of least resistance where the mesh has tightened against itself.   It looks like there are 2 main vertical heated lines.  They may be on opposite sides of the cone.   So it could be just a natural consequence of how the shape the mesh has adopted.   A topological solution this might be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 12:24 am

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.
Thanks Bob, ya know, I did have all overhead lights off when I ran the vid. Looks like Shells standalone cam is looking good. Its the same technology as my cellphone attachment, so low ambient light may have been the cause of the CMOS generated patterns. However, the upper part of the frustum sidewalls did gain heat.

We'll see what Shelly comes up with...as soon as she digs out ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: demofsky on 11/17/2015 02:46 am

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.

Ok, I can buy dark bands being created by a rolling shutter effect but what about the bright bands??  They really look too big for any kind of moiré effect.  Also, the bright areas at the top do blend in with the bright bands.

It's it time for another test with a tilt??

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/17/2015 03:25 am

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.

Ok, I can buy dark bands being created by a rolling shutter effect but what about the bright bands??  They really look too big for any kind of moiré effect.  Also, the bright areas at the top do blend in with the bright bands.

It's it time for another test with a tilt??
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/17/2015 08:38 am
If people suspect that calling this work 'New physics' will cause problems call it 'New engineering'. Motors based on Maxwell's equations rather than chemical combustion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 11:16 am
If people suspect that calling this work 'New physics' will cause problems call it 'New engineering'. Motors based on Maxwell's equations rather than chemical combustion.
One thing I learned on this journey is emotions are much higher than I would have ever expected from technical people. Working with EEs for decades, I never faced so much pushback to new ideas or methods as I have seen on this experimental project.
Granted, its out on a limb, unconventional and different but still am shocked by both ends of the spectrum. Even as skeptical as I was, it interested me and I was unwilling to dismiss it offhand without at least trying it for myself.
Has science become so conservative that new physics or applications literally scare people? Not sure fear is the proper term, perhaps complacency is a better one. I agree new physics might rile some people up but complacency won't result in significant breakthroughs even if EMDrive fails to be able to be scaled up.
I'm just glad we have a more focused section at nsf. Look at the views, likes and the few number of individual topics. EMDrive has been a success if nothing more than getting people excited about the possibilities. I think the vast majority of viewers are just glad people are pushing the envelope in building, analyzing and theorizing on something totally new.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/17/2015 12:34 pm
If people suspect that calling this work 'New physics' will cause problems call it 'New engineering'. Motors based on Maxwell's equations rather than chemical combustion.
One thing I learned on this journey is emotions are much higher than I would have ever expected from technical people. Working with EEs for decades, I never faced so much pushback to new ideas or methods as I have seen on this experimental project.
Granted, its out on a limb, unconventional and different but still am shocked by both ends of the spectrum. Even as skeptical as I was, it interested me and I was unwilling to dismiss it offhand without at least trying it for myself.
Has science become so conservative that new physics or applications literally scare people? Not sure fear is the proper term, perhaps complacency is a better one. I agree new physics might rile some people up but complacency won't result in significant breakthroughs even if EMDrive fails to be able to be scaled up.
I'm just glad we have a more focused section at nsf. Look at the views, likes and the few number of individual topics. EMDrive has been a success if nothing more than getting people excited about the possibilities. I think the vast majority of viewers are just glad people are pushing the envelope in building, analyzing and theorizing on something totally new.
Passions are fine. I've never been one when someone said "you can't do that" just buckle under and do nothing.

Criticism and optimism have been part of my career and in many ways I welcome it. I learn from it and become stronger. Harsh critics just make me me buckle down harder to succeed. Optimism gives me the strength to do it.

It's quite normal for me to work with it.

Today I'm reviewing again my directions with evaluating the thermal data I hope to gain from the IR camera and one piece of info is from EW.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/17/2015 12:37 pm
rfmwguy...

could you repost that picture you took of the frustum just a bit ago, I can't seem to find it. The one with the curved side wall?

Thanks,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/17/2015 01:51 pm

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.

The suggestion still stands.

A 45 degree tilt with the lines diagonal to the device itself would lend credance to teh "Rolling Shutter" concept, while lines vertical to the device would lend credance to the emergent phenomena from the device itself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 02:37 pm
rfmwguy...

could you repost that picture you took of the frustum just a bit ago, I can't seem to find it. The one with the curved side wall?

Thanks,
Shell
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1078859;image
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 02:41 pm

I can only conclude this is a camera artifact or thermal patterns created that I haven't figured out yet.

Try videotaping it with the thermal imaging camera at a 45 degree angle.  If they show up diagionally to the device, then it is the camera, it it's verticle to the device, then we've go something odd going on.
Since the device is attached to a cell phone, and relatively inexpensive, it is probably using a CMOS for the pictures. I found this:

"CMOS sensors are equipped with “rolling shutters,” which expose different parts of the frame at different points in time. This can lead to skew, wobble and partial exposure in photographs.  In well-lit conditions, the differences in shutter mechanisms do not cause any problems. However, in low-light areas, or under slow-flickering lights, a dark bar may appear rolling through your footage (in case of video recording) with a CMOS sensor."

That may be the dark vertical bars you see, which could possibly be compounded with your mesh screen creating some interference patterns that would not occur with solid metal.  Just a guess...

Edited 3:50 PST - I just went back and re-ran your vid. The vertical black bars start almost immediately and in my view also extend overlapping your PVC top an bottom mounting structures. That overlap disappears as the heat increases, which also increases the brightness of the image. I'd really bet on low-light camera effect.

The suggestion still stands.

A 45 degree tilt with the lines diagonal to the device itself would lend credance to teh "Rolling Shutter" concept, while lines vertical to the device would lend credance to the emergent phenomena from the device itself.
Just to be clear, you want a 45 degree clockwise rotation of thermal cam?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/17/2015 03:21 pm
Can you move the camera around the device at the end of the run?  Might help show if the bands are surface or internal..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 05:25 pm
Ok, now everyones got me curious on this thermal band thing...off to the shop to fire up nsf-1701 for a new thermal movie...thanks a lot peeps  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 06:34 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Static Thermal Cam Test #2 at 5X speed. At end of test, took cam off tripod, changed orientation to evaluate vertical lines appearing in first thermal cam vid.

https://youtu.be/PqVHkImmTEw

I've got another B&W thermal cam video being recorded now. No temp icons:

https://youtu.be/R__2WLlELic
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/17/2015 06:42 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Static Thermal Cam Test #2 at 5X speed. At end of test, took cam off tripod, changed orientation to evaluate vertical lines appearing in first thermal cam vid.

https://youtu.be/PqVHkImmTEw

I've got another B&W thermal cam video being recorded now. No temp icons.

Yep, looks like camera artifacts.  Glad THAT was cleared up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/17/2015 07:03 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Static Thermal Cam Test #2 at 5X speed. At end of test, took cam off tripod, changed orientation to evaluate vertical lines appearing in first thermal cam vid.

https://youtu.be/PqVHkImmTEw

I've got another B&W thermal cam video being recorded now. No temp icons.

Yep, looks like camera artifacts.  Glad THAT was cleared up.
Yes the vertical lines are camera issues and there are reflections of the IR radiation from the hot region (antenna) also.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 07:19 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Static Thermal Cam Test #2 at 5X speed. At end of test, took cam off tripod, changed orientation to evaluate vertical lines appearing in first thermal cam vid.

https://youtu.be/PqVHkImmTEw

I've got another B&W thermal cam video being recorded now. No temp icons.

Yep, looks like camera artifacts.  Glad THAT was cleared up.
Yes the vertical lines are camera issues and there are reflections of the IR radiation from the hot region (antenna) also.
Yep, got one more running now. Frustum closeup without mag. Normal color palette, no thermal icons. Get it posted soon. Interference patterns should be gone.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 07:42 pm
Last thermal vid of the day, close up of frustum only, 5X speed. Interference lines reduced.

https://youtu.be/jRIwIIvHXJ0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/17/2015 07:49 pm
FYI: Next issue of Scientific American - beamed microwave propulsion:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microwave-powered-rockets-would-slash-cost-of-reaching-orbit/

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/17/2015 07:59 pm
FYI: Next issue of Scientific American - beamed microwave propulsion:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microwave-powered-rockets-would-slash-cost-of-reaching-orbit/

It used to be said that when a fantastic idea got written up in Scientific American it was because the idea had gained acceptance by mainstream science.   That is no longer true.  Scientific American is like a print version of Wired.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 08:21 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/17/2015 08:39 pm
FYI: Next issue of Scientific American - beamed microwave propulsion:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microwave-powered-rockets-would-slash-cost-of-reaching-orbit/

It used to be said that when a fantastic idea got written up in Scientific American it was because the idea had gained acceptance by mainstream science.   That is no longer true.  Scientific American is like a print version of Wired.
They completed small scale testing of this concept recently. A lightweight reflector was pounded by a pulsed maser. Very low lift capability. Might have been an IR laser, can't recall.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/17/2015 08:44 pm
Last thermal vid of the day, close up of frustum only, 5X speed. Interference lines reduced.

https://youtu.be/jRIwIIvHXJ0
I wouldn't suspect you see much on the screen sides but more on the bottom small end if you were looking for heat patterns of mode generation.

Nice to see you got it going and resolved the vertical patterns. Great work.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/18/2015 02:45 am
Can anyone think of how a DIYer could test for an field around or outside the waveguide?

If you Google "microwave leak detector" you will find several available.  They are not very expensive.  Anyone working on EmDrives should have one of these, for safety reasons if nothing else.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/18/2015 04:41 am

...

Can anyone think of how a DIYer could test for an field around or outside the waveguide? And if there were any external thrust some way to test for or measure that?

That would solve the CoM issue, and if either were detectable/measurable, perhaps provide a lead toward theory of operation.

There should not be ANY field outside a waveguide if there are no holes in it.   The skin depth at 2.5 GHz is just 1.3 µM.  The microwave energy cannot penetrate the metal waveguide.   Microwave leak detectors, used to test the seals in microwave ovens, are made up of 4 - 6 small diodes (typically 1N914) wired in parallel and arranged in a star pattern.   The indicator is just a simple DC amplifier and meter.   A high schooler's weekend project. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/18/2015 01:37 pm

...

Can anyone think of how a DIYer could test for an field around or outside the waveguide? And if there were any external thrust some way to test for or measure that?

That would solve the CoM issue, and if either were detectable/measurable, perhaps provide a lead toward theory of operation.


There should not be ANY field outside a waveguide if there are no holes in it.   The skin depth at 2.5 GHz is just 1.3 µM.  The microwave energy cannot penetrate the metal waveguide.   Microwave leak detectors, used to test the seals in microwave ovens, are made up of 4 - 6 small diodes (typically 1N914) wired in parallel and arranged in a star pattern.   The indicator is just a simple DC amplifier and meter.   A high schooler's weekend project.

Even with my limited understanding I would not expect microwave EM leakage and the DIY's working on this have far greater understanding, of both working with microwaves and the frustum design, than I.

My question was more about the possibility of some kind of secondary EM Field around the frustum, in response to the following from SteveD's Post #1528,

" Intersetingly, the simuiation shows what looks like a stronger outside field around the waveguide."

Having only recently discovered this discussion, reading through Thread 5, I don't yet have the background of the earlier threads... My interest is mostly theory of operation, there are two possibles I have not seen mentioned in this thread. One of which would involve the QV in a description of how the momentum of the EM field inside the frustum might be transferred to the drive. While still New Physics (the QV itself as anything real is essentially New Physics), there would be no violation of CoM or a need for a mutable QV and extra dimensions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2015 01:42 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
I think you almost have a first here rfmwguy, you are the first to publish the output of your magnetron other than Dr. White sticking his SA in front of a microwave oven. It's even hard to find spectral images (who knows why) on the net.

Do you still have your heater hooked up in the system or does your microwave shut it off like some of the control circuits?  You know the issues with the heater staying on and causing  the output to become jittery, one simple way to control it is to use a vacuum relay DPDT switch to shut it off after a few seconds. http://www.surplussales.com/Relays/REVacRel-1.html There are cheaper ones out there from Russia although these aren't bad at only 100 bucks.

Just some food for your grist and my coffee thoughts.

Shell

PS: Finally got a nice path dug out to the shop through the snow so I'll be working today as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/18/2015 01:54 pm
FYI Vacuum Relays

We used to get ours from Henry Radio, they were G18's.  We paid $249.75 for 4 relays in 2011.

Specs: http://www.gigavac.com/sites/default/files/competitors/g18_4.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/18/2015 02:38 pm
Can MEEP model spherical end plates?  It might be interesting to see how that might change the field patterns.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/18/2015 02:49 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
I think you almost have a first here rfmwguy, you are the first to publish the output of your magnetron other than Dr. White sticking his SA in front of a microwave oven. It's even hard to find spectral images (who knows why) on the net.

Do you still have your heater hooked up in the system or does your microwave shut it off like some of the control circuits?  You know the issues with the heater staying on and causing  the output to become jittery, one simple way to control it is to use a vacuum relay DPDT switch to shut it off after a few seconds. http://www.surplussales.com/Relays/REVacRel-1.html There are cheaper ones out there from Russia although these aren't bad at only 100 bucks.

Just some food for your grist and my coffee thoughts.

Shell

PS: Finally got a nice path dug out to the shop through the snow so I'll be working today as well.
Yeah, the fundamental is jittery spike for sure, it is trying to hold around 2450-2460 but not too successfully. This is phase II stuff I plan to address.

Without frequency "lock" any force produced will be randomized as I think Glenn noticed on the displacement numbers.

Jitter will be addressed by modifying output ring magnet and also a serious look into power supply noise and heater issues.

If I can get a semi-stable fundamental free of spurious or sidebands, I'm beginning to think electronically adjusting magnetron F0 might be a fools errand. Just dont think these bad boys can be persuaded to slide up and down in the spectrum in a controlled fashioned. The design is for raw power, not fine tuning...but we'll see.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2015 02:59 pm
Can MEEP model spherical end plates?  It might be interesting to see how that might change the field patterns.
My current model with spherical plates, much adjusting by aero and I to get it to work, it was driven by dipoles in the bottom.


I've included TT's current layout as well.


The question is which pattern generates more thrust, a active high Q stabilized like TT's or the wave mode actions like mine? This is a big question that will be answered... hopefully in the near future.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2015 03:09 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
I think you almost have a first here rfmwguy, you are the first to publish the output of your magnetron other than Dr. White sticking his SA in front of a microwave oven. It's even hard to find spectral images (who knows why) on the net.

Do you still have your heater hooked up in the system or does your microwave shut it off like some of the control circuits?  You know the issues with the heater staying on and causing  the output to become jittery, one simple way to control it is to use a vacuum relay DPDT switch to shut it off after a few seconds. http://www.surplussales.com/Relays/REVacRel-1.html There are cheaper ones out there from Russia although these aren't bad at only 100 bucks.

Just some food for your grist and my coffee thoughts.

Shell

PS: Finally got a nice path dug out to the shop through the snow so I'll be working today as well.
Yeah, the fundamental is jittery spike for sure, it is trying to hold around 2450-2460 but not too successfully. This is phase II stuff I plan to address.

Without frequency "lock" any force produced will be randomized as I think Glenn noticed on the displacement numbers.

Jitter will be addressed by modifying output ring magnet and also a serious look into power supply noise and heater issues.

If I can get a semi-stable fundamental free of spurious or sidebands, I'm beginning to think electronically adjusting magnetron F0 might be a fools errand. Just dont think these bad boys can be persuaded to slide up and down in the spectrum in a controlled fashioned. The design is for raw power, not fine tuning...but we'll see.
I dug into the info that was on the net to do the F0 frequency sweeps of a magnetron and even tried some schemes, you have one of the old maggies that went kapoot. The older Consumer grade PS are not suited to many mods. I finally gave up the ghost on trying that direction and went to a frustum I could tune and a Inverter/Maggie combo from Panasonic that I could stabilize the inverter and control the power output with a Square wave.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vchhc7SLcaw

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/18/2015 03:19 pm
Do keep in mind that MEEP showed only a very weak, and possibly negative field.  The negative part is interesting as it could imply a reason for movement.  We already have evidence for leaks, rfmwguys leak detector went off during his tests.  Unfortunately, any leak is going to be orders of magnitude more powerful than the MEEP reading Shell posted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/18/2015 04:48 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
I think you almost have a first here rfmwguy, you are the first to publish the output of your magnetron other than Dr. White sticking his SA in front of a microwave oven. It's even hard to find spectral images (who knows why) on the net.

Do you still have your heater hooked up in the system or does your microwave shut it off like some of the control circuits?  You know the issues with the heater staying on and causing  the output to become jittery, one simple way to control it is to use a vacuum relay DPDT switch to shut it off after a few seconds. http://www.surplussales.com/Relays/REVacRel-1.html There are cheaper ones out there from Russia although these aren't bad at only 100 bucks.

Just some food for your grist and my coffee thoughts.

Shell

PS: Finally got a nice path dug out to the shop through the snow so I'll be working today as well.
Yeah, the fundamental is jittery spike for sure, it is trying to hold around 2450-2460 but not too successfully. This is phase II stuff I plan to address.

Without frequency "lock" any force produced will be randomized as I think Glenn noticed on the displacement numbers.

Jitter will be addressed by modifying output ring magnet and also a serious look into power supply noise and heater issues.

If I can get a semi-stable fundamental free of spurious or sidebands, I'm beginning to think electronically adjusting magnetron F0 might be a fools errand. Just dont think these bad boys can be persuaded to slide up and down in the spectrum in a controlled fashioned. The design is for raw power, not fine tuning...but we'll see.
I dug into the info that was on the net to do the F0 frequency sweeps of a magnetron and even tried some schemes, you have one of the old maggies that went kapoot. The older Consumer grade PS are not suited to many mods. I finally gave up the ghost on trying that direction and went to a frustum I could tune and a Inverter/Maggie combo from Panasonic that I could stabilize the inverter and control the power output with a Square wave.
Have you looked into cleaning up the magnetron RF and if so, have you made any progress?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/18/2015 05:26 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.

Can you help me understand what these readings are saying?  Without adequate training, they would seem to say that you have an 800w magnetron (getting that from earlier posts, not the readings), that 566 (-1.5 dB) watts are at the peak frequency, and that you have -11.55 dB or 39.6 watt/seconds of energy in resonance.

Further you have, at best a Q of around 821.  Am I right that Q is 2Pi*energy retained / energy lost per cycle.  So to use an approximation of Pi I get 821/6.28 = 130.  In other words your photons are completing 130 cycles i.e. bouncing 260 times (reflecting off each end of the cycle once).

Ok so I'm almost certain messing this up.  Can somebody correct these numbers?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/18/2015 05:32 pm
Shell and others, impressed that there are vid's of how to hack a MW inverter on the net. Most folks just think it's 70% cat videos. ;)

As the DIY projects here show, and the instant availability to highly technical info from MW inverters to QV discussions, we are probably witnessing the overall growth of knowledge at an ever increasing exponential rate.

I think that's a wonderful achievement. I just hope it continues and we don't destroy the world in the process.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2015 06:45 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.
I think you almost have a first here rfmwguy, you are the first to publish the output of your magnetron other than Dr. White sticking his SA in front of a microwave oven. It's even hard to find spectral images (who knows why) on the net.

Do you still have your heater hooked up in the system or does your microwave shut it off like some of the control circuits?  You know the issues with the heater staying on and causing  the output to become jittery, one simple way to control it is to use a vacuum relay DPDT switch to shut it off after a few seconds. http://www.surplussales.com/Relays/REVacRel-1.html There are cheaper ones out there from Russia although these aren't bad at only 100 bucks.

Just some food for your grist and my coffee thoughts.

Shell

PS: Finally got a nice path dug out to the shop through the snow so I'll be working today as well.
Yeah, the fundamental is jittery spike for sure, it is trying to hold around 2450-2460 but not too successfully. This is phase II stuff I plan to address.

Without frequency "lock" any force produced will be randomized as I think Glenn noticed on the displacement numbers.

Jitter will be addressed by modifying output ring magnet and also a serious look into power supply noise and heater issues.

If I can get a semi-stable fundamental free of spurious or sidebands, I'm beginning to think electronically adjusting magnetron F0 might be a fools errand. Just dont think these bad boys can be persuaded to slide up and down in the spectrum in a controlled fashioned. The design is for raw power, not fine tuning...but we'll see.
I dug into the info that was on the net to do the F0 frequency sweeps of a magnetron and even tried some schemes, you have one of the old maggies that went kapoot. The older Consumer grade PS are not suited to many mods. I finally gave up the ghost on trying that direction and went to a frustum I could tune and a Inverter/Maggie combo from Panasonic that I could stabilize the inverter and control the power output with a Square wave.
Have you looked into cleaning up the magnetron RF and if so, have you made any progress?

I was working on it today, but came in till the winds die down. We hit wind gusts (I would guess) over 70 mph here and the power is popping on and off. Makes it tough to do testing.

I'll update you when I get some results but if you look at the pdf I posted and review what he did, it's not that hard.

Shell

Not that far out of range.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/261860171927?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2015 06:50 pm
Shell and others, impressed that there are vid's of how to hack a MW inverter on the net. Most folks just think it's 70% cat videos. ;)

As the DIY projects here show, and the instant availability to highly technical info from MW inverters to QV discussions, we are probably witnessing the overall growth of knowledge at an ever increasing exponential rate.

I think that's a wonderful achievement. I just hope it continues and we don't destroy the world in the process.
Remember when I had book shelf's full of ref materials. Still use some of the old stuff, in a way it's kind of comforting to turn a real page made of paper.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: X_RaY on 11/18/2015 06:54 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.

Can you help me understand what these readings are saying?  Without adequate training, they would seem to say that you have an 800w magnetron (getting that from earlier posts, not the readings), that 566 (-1.5 dB) watts are at the peak frequency, and that you have -11.55 dB or 39.6 watt/seconds of energy in resonance.

Further you have, at best a Q of around 821.  Am I right that Q is 2Pi*energy retained / energy lost per cycle.  So to use an approximation of Pi I get 821/6.28 = 130.  In other words your photons are completing 130 cycles i.e. bouncing 260 times (reflecting off each end of the cycle once).

Ok so I'm almost certain messing this up.  Can somebody correct these numbers?
Ah no. You can't take the raw numbers (dBm) from the plot without knowledge about the measuring conditions, this would mean that the 0dBm in this spectrum is equal to the 800W(59,03dBm), is it? Antenna gain(dBi), distance(m) and so on must be known.
You could easy calculate it with a second well defined source and TX antenna (reference) and knowledge of the distance (and polarisation) of it.
Rfmwguy, can you give us a little explanation of your measuring conditions please?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/18/2015 07:52 pm
OK, since I was shamed into testing today  ;) here is a screen shot of the spectrum. It varies wildly around central spike. Any force that might have been present would not have been stable. This is why I am choosing to use a modified magnetron source in phase II testing. Note the capture of the spike was 30 mhz higher than frustum resonance, but the spike at 2460 moves all over the place, including thru resonance.

Can you help me understand what these readings are saying?  Without adequate training, they would seem to say that you have an 800w magnetron (getting that from earlier posts, not the readings), that 566 (-1.5 dB) watts are at the peak frequency, and that you have -11.55 dB or 39.6 watt/seconds of energy in resonance.

Further you have, at best a Q of around 821.  Am I right that Q is 2Pi*energy retained / energy lost per cycle.  So to use an approximation of Pi I get 821/6.28 = 130.  In other words your photons are completing 130 cycles i.e. bouncing 260 times (reflecting off each end of the cycle once).

Ok so I'm almost certain messing this up.  Can somebody correct these numbers?
Ah no. You can't take the raw numbers (dBm) from the plot without knowledge about the measuring conditions, this would mean that the 0dBm in this spectrum is equal to the 800W(59,03dBm), is it? Antenna gain(dBi), distance(m) and so on must be known.
You could easy calculate it with a second well defined source and TX antenna (reference) and knowledge of the distance (and polarisation) of it.
Rfmwguy, can you give us a little explanation of your measuring conditions please?
Well said, thanks...The test was proximity, about 6 feet, using a magnetron radome as sampling probe. I removed the LNA option (about 20dB gain or so) to get an attenuated off the air measurement of frustum leakage.

So, this was leaking signals only in conflict with other signals roaming around the airwaves (wifi stuff) and should not be used to measure power, its only relative signal strength of MW leakage outside the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/18/2015 07:59 pm
70% cat videos is a gross distortion.  I doubt it is over 50%.  :)  Hello, Maru.

Back in college I remember that the required textbook for the course on Electromagetics III was some recent, thick, expensive book full of math.  All the instructors taught from that book.  Except mine.  I really lucked out and had John Kraus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Kraus) himself as my professor.  For some lowly undergrad to get a senior professor of his international stature was unusual.  His approach was entirely different - he used the Socratic method to teach us about waveguide and antenna theory.   We would work from blackboard visualizations first, figure out which formula applied, and only then bother with math.  We quickly learned that the book he had written 20 years earlier used the same approach.  His book used to be the required text, until some committee had chosen this new fangled book.  All available copies of his book quickly were checked out from the department library.

It was refreshing in a way, turning the pages in these books, not quite yellowed with age, but still from an earlier time, that presented the concepts so clearly.  With pictures instead of integral equations.   Prof Kraus was very dissapointed on the first day of class to discover that none of us knew what 'space cloth (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/space_cloth)' was.  He was from a very 'hands on' tradition.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/18/2015 08:15 pm
70% cat videos is a gross distortion.  I doubt it is over 50%.  :)  Hello, Maru.
...
Humor break - I agree with 50% cat videos (or thereabouts)  ;)

Warning: Some cucumbers were harmed during the making of these cat videos:  8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzJQ4VFfk-g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Zeko23 on 11/18/2015 08:44 pm
Do keep in mind that MEEP showed only a very weak, and possibly negative field.  The negative part is interesting as it could imply a reason for movement.  We already have evidence for leaks, rfmwguys leak detector went off during his tests.  Unfortunately, any leak is going to be orders of magnitude more powerful than the MEEP reading Shell posted.

Somehow I keep thinking of a mw tunnelling effect on the narrow side. MW radion escapes the frustum and effectively E and H field is beeing ripped apart. This gap surely will have an effect since the symmetry of fields is broken. The higher modes as seen in Shells design probably won't have an effect because two counteracting modes would be effected and cancel each other out. I would imagine that an lower mode like Tajmars version might probably show something.

Albeit the probabilty of the wavefunction sinks exponentially the sheer number of bounces increases the likelihood to actually tunnel outside. And this might explain why a high q is needed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/18/2015 09:03 pm
If this is about those -1.2E-27 values that were reported earlier, I remind everyone that highly iterative computer calculations often do not converge to 0.000000...00 due to rounding and truncation errors.  Computers do not internally deal with decimal numbers at all, and not to infinite precision, so when values are converted on the way in and the way out, small errors can be introduced, that are only amplified by many thousands of iterations in the calculations.

On the other hand, 'skin effect' is an attenuation, not a hard cut-off.  If you pump enough power into a frustrum, no matter how thick, it is going to heat up on the outside and there will be radiation of some sort.

I'd wait for more real life experiments before getting too worked up about this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Zeko23 on 11/18/2015 09:07 pm
Meep doesn't model quantum effects. So my bet is rounding error, too.
It is clear that a closed system can't explain the effect seen. Tunneling might be a valid loophole.
Thrust from heat radiation is far too weak thats why I think the tunneled H field component might provide stronger means.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/18/2015 09:16 pm
70% cat videos is a gross distortion.  I doubt it is over 50%.  :)  Hello, Maru.

Back in college I remember that the required textbook for the course on Electromagetics III was some recent, thick, expensive book full of math.  All the instructors taught from that book.  Except mine.  I really lucked out and had John Kraus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Kraus) himself as my professor.  For some lowly undergrad to get a senior professor of his international stature was unusual.  His approach was entirely different - he used the Socratic method to teach us about waveguide and antenna theory.   We would work from blackboard visualizations first, figure out which formula applied, and only then bother with math.  We quickly learned that the book he had written 20 years earlier used the same approach.  His book used to be the required text, until some committee had chosen this new fangled book.  All available copies of his book quickly were checked out from the department library.

It was refreshing in a way, turning the pages in these books, not quite yellowed with age, but still from an earlier time, that presented the concepts so clearly.  With pictures instead of integral equations.   Prof Kraus was very dissapointed on the first day of class to discover that none of us knew what 'space cloth (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/space_cloth)' was.  He was from a very 'hands on' tradition.

Got this in senior Chemistry in High School from the best teacher I ever had. She got them for us for about $1 from the publisher because it was only 2 years out of date. I will NEVER part with my 20 lb. shelf tester. Too many memories of young discovery. Ever make Nitrogen Tri-Iodide?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/19/2015 12:21 am
 ;D OMG I wish Id known about this before.  SOOOO cool.  Maybe the EMdrive is somehow tapping into quatum gravity via manipulation of some kind of Anti-desitter spacetime teariing via quantum disentaglement inside the drive.  i'm thinking the geometry of the drive and that thinking may not be so far off. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/theory-and-experiments-suggest-space.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/19/2015 07:57 pm
If this is about those -1.2E-27 values that were reported earlier, I remind everyone that highly iterative computer calculations often do not converge to 0.000000...00 due to rounding and truncation errors.  Computers do not internally deal with decimal numbers at all, and not to infinite precision, so when values are converted on the way in and the way out, small errors can be introduced, that are only amplified by many thousands of iterations in the calculations.

On the other hand, 'skin effect' is an attenuation, not a hard cut-off.  If you pump enough power into a frustrum, no matter how thick, it is going to heat up on the outside and there will be radiation of some sort.

I'd wait for more real life experiments before getting too worked up about this.

I don't know anything about meep's source code, but I know that this should only be happening in the case that it is doing improper implicit conversions from floating point variables at some point (and meep is supposed to keep quantities finite, right?).

This should not be the case. Most programs that do very complicated math use fixed point variable numbers, and these should not have the problem of generating insignificantly tiny numbers instead of a proper zero.

To say that "computers never deal with decimal numbers" is pretty vastly incorrect, unless you mean that they operate bitwise.  There is no mathematical difference in the quantity 10 in base2 or 2 in base10; calculations using either base will always be the same.  The quirky nature of number math in programming comes from the programmer's decision to encode decimal numbers in certain ways (i.e. as a bit integer, or in the case of anything with a floating point, the number is broken up in an odd fashion into an integer and a fractional equivalent of the decimal places).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/19/2015 08:53 pm
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: MazonDel on 11/19/2015 09:11 pm
Any idea what that might mean?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/19/2015 09:15 pm
Any idea what that might mean?

This has happened months ago.  But, never for this long has that website been offline.  So, I'm betting they ran out of money.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: lmbfan on 11/19/2015 09:20 pm
If this is about those -1.2E-27 values that were reported earlier, I remind everyone that highly iterative computer calculations often do not converge to 0.000000...00 due to rounding and truncation errors.  Computers do not internally deal with decimal numbers at all, and not to infinite precision, so when values are converted on the way in and the way out, small errors can be introduced, that are only amplified by many thousands of iterations in the calculations.

On the other hand, 'skin effect' is an attenuation, not a hard cut-off.  If you pump enough power into a frustrum, no matter how thick, it is going to heat up on the outside and there will be radiation of some sort.

I'd wait for more real life experiments before getting too worked up about this.

I don't know anything about meep's source code, but I know that this should only be happening in the case that it is doing improper implicit conversions from floating point variables at some point (and meep is supposed to keep quantities finite, right?).

This should not be the case. Most programs that do very complicated math use fixed point variable numbers, and these should not have the problem of generating insignificantly tiny numbers instead of a proper zero.

To say that "computers never deal with decimal numbers" is pretty vastly incorrect, unless you mean that they operate bitwise.  There is no mathematical difference in the quantity 10 in base2 or 2 in base10; calculations using either base will always be the same.  The quirky nature of number math in programming comes from the programmer's decision to encode decimal numbers in certain ways (i.e. as a bit integer, or in the case of anything with a floating point, the number is broken up in an odd fashion into an integer and a fractional equivalent of the decimal places).

It's an unavoidable consequence of dealing with base 2 numbers represented in base 10.  There's many, many web pages devoted to this.  For example:

http://0.30000000000000004.com/

This compiles the results of .1 + .2 for many different computer languages.  Moving from float to double reduces the error by many orders of magnitude, but the problem still exist.

I doubt that meep uses fixed point numbers on two grounds: the magnitudes of the numbers involved seem to me to be too extreme, and because when I was poking around the source code (C++ for the record) I don't remember running across any specialized structures for numbers.  There were only doubles, ints, and floats as far as I can recall.  If there is a specialized struct, it's hidden well.  As far as magnitudes, for EM waves that are bouncing around potentially millions of cycles, the difference between the smallest and largest numbers would require very, very large and very, very slow fixed point numbers.  Admittedly, the magnitude argument is more of a gut feeling than anything supported with hard evidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/19/2015 09:28 pm
Any idea what that might mean?

This has happened months ago.  But, never for this long has that website been offline.  So, I'm betting they ran out of money.
I think the last post to the website was a July 2015 update talking about moving to a new test lab. It could mean a few things, first is the obvious where funds dried up, second is they are forgetful and third they may have been acquired and taken dark.

No idea which one, perhaps a combination. Regardless, it seems to have gone away without an announcement. More professional researchers can probably find the reasons if they are interested.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/19/2015 09:33 pm
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Been on and off with network service and power on and off yesterday and some today. Didn't work much yesterday in the shop. I had a neighbor record 75 mph winds yesterday. Crazy up here.

I tried cannae.com as well and find it strange it's gone as well.

Wonder what the story is with Cannae?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/19/2015 10:34 pm
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Been on and off with network service and power on and off yesterday and some today. Didn't work much yesterday in the shop. I had a neighbor record 75 mph winds yesterday. Crazy up here.

I tried cannae.com as well and find it strange it's gone as well.

Wonder what the story is with Cannae?

It might be too late, but I can send an email and track it.  I can tell if they open it.  Does anybody know what cannae's email address is?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: DnA915 on 11/19/2015 11:44 pm
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Been on and off with network service and power on and off yesterday and some today. Didn't work much yesterday in the shop. I had a neighbor record 75 mph winds yesterday. Crazy up here.

I tried cannae.com as well and find it strange it's gone as well.

Wonder what the story is with Cannae?

It might be too late, but I can send an email and track it.  I can tell if they open it.  Does anybody know what cannae's email address is?

If the domain is gone, the email will not get routed to them. Also, you cannot generally track an email unless they use an email client which automatically opens images which many modern ones do not for that very reason.
My best guess is they got silently bought out as they talked of moving to an upgraded lab in the recent past. It makes no sense to upgrade right as you go bankrupt unless funding fell through or they had clueless leadership.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 12:46 am
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Been on and off with network service and power on and off yesterday and some today. Didn't work much yesterday in the shop. I had a neighbor record 75 mph winds yesterday. Crazy up here.

I tried cannae.com as well and find it strange it's gone as well.

Wonder what the story is with Cannae?

It might be too late, but I can send an email and track it.  I can tell if they open it.  Does anybody know what cannae's email address is?

If the domain is gone, the email will not get routed to them. Also, you cannot generally track an email unless they use an email client which automatically opens images which many modern ones do not for that very reason.
My best guess is they got silently bought out as they talked of moving to an upgraded lab in the recent past. It makes no sense to upgrade right as you go bankrupt unless funding fell through or they had clueless leadership.
Good points. I never followed their design closely. Guess I got turned off by the disclosure NASA made about the special slots in one end of their cavity did not enhance and attenuate measured force. All I knew at one time was they were somewhere in Pennsylvania...that was about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 12:53 am
Good points. I never followed their design closely. Guess I got turned off by the disclosure NASA made about the special slots in one end of their cavity did not enhance and attenuate measured force. All I knew at one time was they were somewhere in Pennsylvania...that was about it.

The EW analysis (attached) indicated the measured thrust from the room temp Cannae device was generated by the dielectric in the long feed in waveguide.

Which basically confirmed Roger's 1988 patent.

Note carefully what they say about the COMSOL analysis:

Quote
E. COMSOL Multiphysics® Analysis of Cannae Cavities
Computer modeling of the electric field within the pillbox and beam pipe (using COMSOL Multiphysics® software, hereafter referred to as “COMSOL®”) illustrates the relative weakness of the electric field in the vicinity of the cavity slots and relative strength of the electric field within the beam pipe, especially in the drive antenna coaxial cable and the region around the cable within the PFTE dielectric slug as seen in Fig. 14. Consideration of the dynamic fields in the ¼ wave resonance tube shows that there is always a net Poynting vector meaning that the RF launcher tube assembly with dielectric cylinder common to both the slotted and smooth test articles is potentially a Q-thruster where the pillbox is simply a matching network.

Which shows that classical electrodynamics based FEA can show a net Force being generated despite the classic assumption that the net force inside a closed volume should be zero.

This finding supports Prof Yang's 2013 electrodynamics analysis, paper attached, which also showed net Poynting vectors are generated inside the closed volume of an EmDrive.

MEEPers please note the above. You guys and gals may be able to do likewise and measure / predict net Force being generated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: DnA915 on 11/20/2015 02:06 am
FYI - Just tried cannae.com and domain has been abandoned.
Been on and off with network service and power on and off yesterday and some today. Didn't work much yesterday in the shop. I had a neighbor record 75 mph winds yesterday. Crazy up here.

I tried cannae.com as well and find it strange it's gone as well.

Wonder what the story is with Cannae?

It might be too late, but I can send an email and track it.  I can tell if they open it.  Does anybody know what cannae's email address is?

If the domain is gone, the email will not get routed to them. Also, you cannot generally track an email unless they use an email client which automatically opens images which many modern ones do not for that very reason.
My best guess is they got silently bought out as they talked of moving to an upgraded lab in the recent past. It makes no sense to upgrade right as you go bankrupt unless funding fell through or they had clueless leadership.
Good points. I never followed their design closely. Guess I got turned off by the disclosure NASA made about the special slots in one end of their cavity did not enhance and attenuate measured force. All I knew at one time was they were somewhere in Pennsylvania...that was about it.

Upon further looking into the domain records, I think it is more likely that they simply let their domain name lapse recently. (site says  11/14/2015) This obviously could be because they got bought out, or simply because they haven't bothered to renew yet. Even if a company shut down, their website wouldn't go down until a lapse in their annual renewal. Their website was obviously not much of a priority anyway as they had stripped a lot of information from it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 02:53 am
Just a humble opinion, but superconduction technologies can drive expenses up rapidly, perhaps too fast. I'm not sure that leap is a wise one considering the questions remaining on basic design verification, but seems that's where spr is headed as well. Maybe its easier to acquire funding while talking superconducting techniques or maybe both are much further along than we know. Its dark in the private industry realm and even nasa right now.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 11/20/2015 03:00 am
Just a humble opinion, but superconduction technologies can drive expenses up rapidly, perhaps too fast. I'm not sure that leap is a wise one considering the questions remaining on basic design verification, but seems that's where spr is headed as well. Maybe its easier to acquire funding while talking superconducting techniques or maybe both are much further along than we know. Its dark in the private industry realm and even nasa right now.

I posted this way back in thread 2, but I think it got lost.  If people are starting to talk about super conducting, it may have to do with this development (http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Website&utm_campaign=InArticleReadMore).  Some physicists achieved superconducting at room temperature in a ceramic material that had a small amount of copper on it.  Granted the team only did it for a fraction of a nano-second.  However, as the EM drives thus far have all been made of copper, perhaps they are somehow tapping into this effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 03:09 am
Just a humble opinion, but superconduction technologies can drive expenses up rapidly, perhaps too fast. I'm not sure that leap is a wise one considering the questions remaining on basic design verification, but seems that's where spr is headed as well. Maybe its easier to acquire funding while talking superconducting techniques or maybe both are much further along than we know. Its dark in the private industry realm and even nasa right now.

According to attachment 1, Prof Yang has joined SPR in superconducting EmDrive research. Rumour is she is targetting 2016 to demo a floater. Apologies for the poor quality, it is a screenshot from a video.

Roger's latest Oct 2015 pdf, attached, indicates there are at least 7 EmDrive research groups in countries not yet identified / published.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: InterestedObserver on 11/20/2015 03:20 am
Please clarify "A Floater". 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 03:25 am
Please clarify "A Floater".

Float / levitate an EmDrive plus other associated mass.

Roger has stated SPR are working on an EmDrive powered wingless drone with an expected demo in 2017. A "Floater". Would imagine the world's military, police and rescue forces would be very interested in such a drone. One or two just might fund the development.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/20/2015 05:06 am
Pardon me but can somebody check me on this.  Cannae reported that they had a Q of 11,000,000 in their superconducting cavity.  My spreadsheet is showing bandwidth as Frequency/Q Factor.  (Did I do that right?)  If so the bandwidth for 1.047Ghz is 95hrz.  Is there an RF source that can produce a signal at 1.047Ghz +/- 95hrz? 

Also, with Q factor do you simply have to hit the correct frequency and you're good or do you have to maintain that frequency?  For example, that same spreadsheet estimates, roughly, that every time a photon bounces it's going to get redshifted by 3hrz.  Most of the time we don't think about the small amount of redshift due to photons being absorbed and reemitted in terrestrial applications (unlike say radio astronomy where the redshift of light going through a gas cloud might provide useful information).  Wouldn't a bandwith of 95hrz imply that a photon could only bounce a limited number of times before it redshifts out of the devices bandwidth (i.e. passes the -3 dB level).  Wouldn't this mean that the actual amount of photons in resonance at these very high Qs is going to be lower than a lower value for Q?  Am I getting something wrong here?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 05:22 am
Pardon me but can somebody check me on this.  Cannae reported that they had a Q of 11,000,000 in their superconducting cavity.  My spreadsheet is showing bandwidth as Frequency/Q Factor.  (Did I do that right?)  If so the bandwidth for 1.047Ghz is 95hrz.  Is there an RF source that can produce a signal at 1.047Ghz +/- 95hrz? 

Also, with Q factor do you simply have to hit the correct frequency and you're good or do you have to maintain that frequency?  For example, that same spreadsheet estimates, roughly, that every time a photon bounces it's going to get redshifted by 3hrz.  Most of the time we don't think about the small amount of redshift due to photons being absorbed and reemitted in terrestrial applications (unlike say radio astronomy where the redshift of light going through a gas cloud might provide useful information).  Wouldn't a bandwith of 95hrz imply that a photon could only bounce a limited number of times before it redshifts out of the devices bandwidth (i.e. passes the -3 dB level).  Wouldn't this mean that the actual amount of photons in resonance at these very high Qs is going to be lower than a lower value for Q?  Am I getting something wrong here?

Roger uses Rf pulses of approx 20% of 1 TC duration. He no longer uses continual Rf. If you read Roger's peer reviewed paper, attached, you will see this is discussed and the several ways the SPR team has developed to handle the multiple engineering challenges. Acceleration also modifies the Q and resonant freq. So there is a need for very smart software and supportive hardware.

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/20/2015 07:06 am
Pardon me but can somebody check me on this.  Cannae reported that they had a Q of 11,000,000 in their superconducting cavity.  My spreadsheet is showing bandwidth as Frequency/Q Factor.  (Did I do that right?)  If so the bandwidth for 1.047Ghz is 95hrz.  Is there an RF source that can produce a signal at 1.047Ghz +/- 95hrz? 

Also, with Q factor do you simply have to hit the correct frequency and you're good or do you have to maintain that frequency?  For example, that same spreadsheet estimates, roughly, that every time a photon bounces it's going to get redshifted by 3hrz.  Most of the time we don't think about the small amount of redshift due to photons being absorbed and reemitted in terrestrial applications (unlike say radio astronomy where the redshift of light going through a gas cloud might provide useful information).  Wouldn't a bandwith of 95hrz imply that a photon could only bounce a limited number of times before it redshifts out of the devices bandwidth (i.e. passes the -3 dB level).  Wouldn't this mean that the actual amount of photons in resonance at these very high Qs is going to be lower than a lower value for Q?  Am I getting something wrong here?

My amateur friends who build 10 GHz SSB radios use small atomic clocks as a frequency reference.  This gives them a phase accuracy of 10-8 or better.   A frequency shift of just a few hundred hertz will turn intelligiable speech into Donald Duck talk.   The same thing happens if the operator is driving and talking at the same time.   The 10 GHz radio I built in 1998 used a 400 MHz VCO from an old radio.   It drifted for 15 - 20 minutes but after that it wasn't too bad.   So an atomic clock disciplined frequency source is not needed.    A well built frequency source should be able to maintain most of the power within 1 Hz at 1 GHz..   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/20/2015 07:07 am
I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I'd love to see you float a few kilograms with the quantities of RF you get out of a microwave oven, but for forces that large, I'll believe it when I see it.  ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 08:06 am
I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I'd love to see you float a few kilograms with the quantities of RF you get out of a microwave oven, but for forces that large, I'll believe it when I see it.  ???

The Wright brothers would probably say the same thing if shown the specs for a A380.

100N/kWrf or greater is just an exercise in engineering hours and R&D funds applied to achieve the desired end goal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 09:27 am
........

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I've always been skeptic regarding the high Q claims producing high forces as there is something contradictory with that way of thinking.
A high Q means that you are increasing the energy "density" in the resonance patterns, but it also means that very little energy is transferred to the frustum. Basically a high Q means you're storing energy without putting to "work"...
And how do you get a transfer of moment without energy transfer? iow, a high Q would mean very small momentum transfer, resulting in a less effective EMdrive, no?

The only possibility I can see atm, is that the high field intensity itself is causing something that makes the frustum move. I can more or less see how the suggestions of altered gravity field would fit in that picture.
But it still remains very sketchy where the assumed (we're still not sure, are we?) forces come from.

To clear up that dilemma and at the same time help to orient theoretical research, i think researching the effects of a high Q is an absolute priority, AFTER it has been established that there is indeed a force.

So far the only replicated tests do not show the very convincing forces that are claimed by Shawyer and Yang. Not saying that those tests are worthless, but they most definitely need to be replicated, to get acceptance...So we're still waiting for the 2nd/3rd/4rth/5th replication that is able to generate 0.1-0.3N/kW.
Having only 1 replicated test by prof Yang just doesn't cut it... yet...

And until proven by a physical high Q test, all theories of extreme high forces generated by extreme high Q remain very hypothetical...

We just need to be carefully not to take our dreams and hopes for real before a certain degree of reality has been achieved. It doesn't help with credibility to say/dream that 100N/kW is doable, when until now nobody (except shawyer and Yang) has been able to even achieve 0.1N/kW...
To be reasonable means to be conservative with assumptions. Touting efficiencies of 3 magnitudes higher is not very credible...

....
The Wright brothers would probably say the same thing if shown the specs for a A380.
....
True to a certain extend, but it was not possible with the achievements they made. In those days, even the 10year older Fokker drI was a pipe dream and needed a world war as catalyst.

The development of a A380 need a such vast amount of new technologies compared to the Wright Flyer, that it is simply impossible to foresee with the technologies they knew in those days.

Looking with through the eyes of 1903, an A380 is pure science fiction. The fact the A380 flies today does not change the fact that in 1903 it was unachievable in their near future.(let's  say...1913/1923/1933)
and then we only speak of technical achievability, not even about the economical feasibility that also plays an important role...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 09:59 am
........

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I've always been skeptic regarding the high Q claims producing high forces as there is something contradictory with that way of thinking.
A high Q means that you are increasing the energy "density" in the resonance patterns, but it also means that very little energy is transferred to the frustum. Basically a high Q means you're storing energy without putting to "work"...
And how do you get a transfer of moment without energy transfer? iow, a high Q would mean very small momentum transfer, resulting in a less effective EMdrive, no?

The only possibility I can see atm, is that the high field intensity itself is causing something that makes the frustum move. I can more or less see how the suggestions of altered gravity field would fit in that picture.
But it still remains very sketchy where the assumed (we're still not sure, are we?) forces come from.

To clear up that dilemma and at the same time help to orient theoretical research, i think researching the effects of a high Q is an absolute priority, AFTER it has been established that there is indeed a force.

So far the only replicated tests do not show the very convincing forces that are claimed by Shawyer and Yang. Not saying that those tests are worthless, but they most definitely need to be replicated, to get acceptance...So we're still waiting for the 2nd/3rd/4rth/5th replication that is able to generate 0.1-0.3N/kW.
Having only 1 replicated test by prof Yang just doesn't cut it... yet...

And until proven by a physical high Q test, all theories of extreme high forces generated by extreme high Q remain very hypothetical...

We just need to be carefully not to take our dreams and hopes for real before a certain degree of reality has been achieved. It doesn't help with credibility to say/dream that 100N/kW is doable, when until now nobody (except shawyer and Yang) has been able to even achieve 0.1N/kW...
To be reasonable means to be conservative with assumptions. Touting efficiencies of 3 magnitudes higher is not very credible...

If you do a careful analysis of all the data Prof Yang has published you may find several measured examples of ~4N/kWrf at a loaded / measured Q (using Roger's method) of ~1,500.

Roger has shown, from his work and that of others that specific Force/kWrf does scale with Q as attached.

Taking Prof Yang's 4N/kWrf at a loaded Q of 1,500 and adjusting for a Q of 50,000 generates a specific Force of 133N/kWrf.

And YES as the frustum's stored energy does work supporting A = F/M, the stored energy drops, Q drops as does Force generated. Almost every paper Roger has published makes this effect very clear.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/20/2015 10:52 am
FYI

Pretty much ruled out the "creation of axions" idea, I could only get it to nearly match, but not exceed, the photon rocket.  Oh well,  on to the next thought.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ScottD on 11/20/2015 11:15 am
<scott - leading portion of post put back in>
Roger uses Rf pulses of approx 20% of 1 TC duration. He no longer uses continual Rf. If you read Roger's peer reviewed paper, attached, you will see this is discussed and the several ways the SPR team has developed to handle the multiple engineering challenges. Acceleration also modifies the Q and resonant freq. So there is a need for very smart software and supportive hardware.
<scott - leading portion of post put back in>

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I've always been skeptic regarding the high Q claims producing high forces as there is something contradictory with that way of thinking.
A high Q means that you are increasing the energy "density" in the resonance patterns, but it also means that very little energy is transferred to the frustum. Basically a high Q means you're storing energy without putting to "work"...
And how do you get a transfer of moment without energy transfer? iow, a high Q would mean very small momentum transfer, resulting in a less effective EMdrive, no?

The only possibility I can see atm, is that the high field intensity itself is causing something that makes the frustum move. I can more or less see how the suggestions of altered gravity field would fit in that picture.
But it still remains very sketchy where the assumed (we're still not sure, are we?) forces come from.

...

Is it possible it is something like this:
Power on - a high Q being used to store energy in the frustum cavity (no or little energy transfer to the frustum as heat or momentum), followed by Power off - allowing the high Q/stored energy to collapse and get converted into whatever it is that causes the frustum to move.  This could be why Shawyer is powered on only 20% of each TC.  Each "pulse" provides a loading of the cavity of potential work during the first 1/5 of the cycle, followed by 4/5 of the cycle resting phase when the energy gets dissipated as momentum. Do this many-many times per second and you have observable "thrust".  If you don't put in those resting phases, the frustum gets over-saturated with energy and dumps it out as heat into the frustum walls.

I don't think this is an original idea of mine on this thread.  I believe that I had read something about this on here before, some number of threads ago.  I also think I remember reading about this engine having problems with build up acceleration while undergoing acceleration.  This would imply that a pulsed mode of operation could help.  Build up your energy while coasting, then discharge to accelerate. Quickly repeat many times.

Scott
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 11:24 am
........

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

I've always been skeptic regarding the high Q claims producing high forces as there is something contradictory with that way of thinking.
A high Q means that you are increasing the energy "density" in the resonance patterns, but it also means that very little energy is transferred to the frustum. Basically a high Q means you're storing energy without putting to "work"...
And how do you get a transfer of moment without energy transfer? iow, a high Q would mean very small momentum transfer, resulting in a less effective EMdrive, no?

The only possibility I can see atm, is that the high field intensity itself is causing something that makes the frustum move. I can more or less see how the suggestions of altered gravity field would fit in that picture.
But it still remains very sketchy where the assumed (we're still not sure, are we?) forces come from.

...

Is it possible it is something like this:
Power on - a high Q being used to store energy in the frustum cavity (no or little energy transfer to the frustum as heat or momentum), followed by Power off - allowing the high Q/stored energy to collapse and get converted into whatever it is that causes the frustum to move.  This could be why Shawyer is powered on only 20% of each TC.  Each "pulse" provides a loading of the cavity of potential work during the first 1/5 of the cycle, followed by 4/5 of the cycle resting phase when the energy gets dissipated as momentum. Do this many-many times per second and you have observable "thrust".  If you don't put in those resting phases, the frustum gets over-saturated with energy and dumps it out as heat into the frustum walls.

I don't think this is an original idea of mine on this thread.  I believe that I had read something about this on here before, some number of threads ago.  I also think I remember reading about this engine having problems with build up acceleration while undergoing acceleration.  This would imply that a pulsed mode of operation could help.  Build up your energy while coasting, then discharge to accelerate. Quickly repeat many times.

Scott

Takes 5 x TC to fully charge / discharge any L, C, LC combo or resonant cavity.

20% of 1 TC gives about 25% of max charge and does it very quickly.

Note Force continues to be generated well after the short excitation pulse has terminated.

BTW Roger told me his Force equation is only for continually applied Rf.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/20/2015 12:16 pm
...

We just need to be carefully not to take our dreams and hopes for real before a certain degree of reality has been achieved. It doesn't help with credibility to say/dream that 100N/kW is doable, when until now nobody (except shawyer and Yang) has been able to even achieve 0.1N/kW...
To be reasonable means to be conservative with assumptions. Touting efficiencies of 3 magnitudes higher is not very credible...

If you do a careful analysis of all the data Prof Yang has published you may find several measured examples of ~4N/kWrf at a loaded / measured Q (using Roger's method) of ~1,500.

Roger has shown, from his work and that of others that specific Force/kWrf does scale with Q as attached.

Taking Prof Yang's 4N/kWrf at a loaded Q of 1,500 and adjusting for a Q of 50,000 generates a specific Force of 133N/kWrf.

And YES as the frustum's stored energy does work supporting A = F/M, the stored energy drops, Q drops as does Force generated. Almost every paper Roger has published makes this effect very clear.

Before citing or relying too much on Shawyer and Yang's results, you probably should consider that there are some basic issues in any paper I have seen by either of them. Papers with experimental results pretty much always have calculations that aren't explicitly shown. This is normal since otherwise scientific papers would come with 50 pages of raw data and intermediate calculations. When the calculations that are shown (mostly in their theory sections) are completely wrong and demonstrate a failure to understand basic physics, it is hard to believe that they managed to accurately report their experimental results or control for sources of error.

My post summarizing some of the issues is here. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1446004#msg1446004) If you were already preparing to respond to it, and just hadn't had the time to get through all of the points, then I apologize for bringing it up again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 12:30 pm
...

We just need to be carefully not to take our dreams and hopes for real before a certain degree of reality has been achieved. It doesn't help with credibility to say/dream that 100N/kW is doable, when until now nobody (except shawyer and Yang) has been able to even achieve 0.1N/kW...
To be reasonable means to be conservative with assumptions. Touting efficiencies of 3 magnitudes higher is not very credible...

If you do a careful analysis of all the data Prof Yang has published you may find several measured examples of ~4N/kWrf at a loaded / measured Q (using Roger's method) of ~1,500.

Roger has shown, from his work and that of others that specific Force/kWrf does scale with Q as attached.

Taking Prof Yang's 4N/kWrf at a loaded Q of 1,500 and adjusting for a Q of 50,000 generates a specific Force of 133N/kWrf.

And YES as the frustum's stored energy does work supporting A = F/M, the stored energy drops, Q drops as does Force generated. Almost every paper Roger has published makes this effect very clear.

Before citing or relying too much on Shawyer and Yang's results, you probably should consider that there are some basic issues in any paper I have seen by either of them. Papers with experimental results pretty much always have calculations that aren't explicitly shown. This is normal since otherwise scientific papers would come with 50 pages of raw data and intermediate calculations. When the calculations that are shown (mostly in their theory sections) are completely wrong and demonstrate a failure to understand basic physics, it is hard to believe that they managed to accurately report their experimental results or control for sources of error.

My post summarizing some of the issues is here. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1446004#msg1446004) If you were already preparing to respond to it, and just hadn't had the time to get through all of the points, then I apologize for bringing it up again.

So EW also failed to understand basic physics when they reported net Pointing Vectors when doing their electrodynamics COMSOL analysis of the Rf feed in waveguide with the inserted dielectric that generated the Force they measured?

Before that Prof Yang also reported net Poynting Vectors and claimed her net results closely matched the measured thrust.

Yet you claim both are wrong as they do not understand physics? What I suggest is continually saying it can't work because it is against physics is getting very old.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 12:42 pm
Besides bold statements, there is NO evidence at this moment, that a higher Q results in a higher specific force. As long there is no proof , from field experiments, that this is really the case, i consider that empty claims. We do NOT understand the real relations on how electromagnetic waves converts into a force.
What we have are a large number of theories and possible explanations, that's all.

Getting REAL evidence on the relation between Q and generated forces will eliminate a good number of theories and speculations. But stating bold claims , well before there is any real world evidence is just plain silly...

I really do not see any evidence to bolster the bold claims and linear extrapolations.
Dr Yang's results might be interesting on itself, but are of no meaning, if those results can't be replicated.

btw, not sure where you get the 133N/kW from, if her best result was 728mN for 2.5kW....

As for the Poynting vectors, I learned from dr Rodal's explanations that these vectors have nothing to do with force/thrust vectors, but that in that context, vectors are used to give a value to the energy stored in an electromagnetic field per time unit and per surface unit.
So unless an explanation can be formulated on how the amount of energy stored in these fields is related to the generated forces, Poynting vectors say nothing about the supposedly detected thrust forces.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: meberbs on 11/20/2015 12:57 pm
So EW also failed to understand basic physics when they reported net Pointing Vectors when doing their electrodynamics COMSOL analysis of the Rf feed in waveguide with the inserted dielectric that generated the Force they measured?

Before that Prof Yang also reported net Poynting Vectors and claimed her net results closely matched the measured thrust.

Yet you claim both are wrong as they do not understand physics? What I suggest is continually saying it can't work because it is against physics is getting very old.

What the definition of Poynting vectors should be is not actually clear for dielectrics. There are at least 2 conventions, that account for the material contributions differently. I don't know much about the setup they modeled, but it looks like RF is fed in from one end, so a small net Poynting vector towards the other end (where there is some loss from the dielectric, and finite conductivity of the metal) would not be unreasonable. This is irrelevant to the current discussion, and I would appreciate it if you stopped changing the subject anytime you ran out of arguments to support your point.

I will continue to point out that Shawyer's theory is wrong as long as you continue to claim that his theory is in any way consistent with our current understanding of physics.

To highlight one of my points from that previous post, showing how obviously self-contradictory Shawyer's theory is:

3. He claims that the EM drive obeys conservation of momentum, and at the same time accelerates its center of energy without interacting with the external world. This is the definition of not obeying conservation of momentum.

Supporting such a claim kills your credibility. If you have an interpretation of Shawyer's theory that doesn't break the definition of conservation of momentum you a free to share it. Otherwise, I recommend you stop quoting Shawyer and Yang so much if you want to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 01:09 pm
I'd prefer to look at original reports from dr Yang, instead of summaries of Shawyer's pitch talk powerpoint presentations...
so, if you could point me to that ? I definitely recall me 728mN / 2.5kW...   and ...138N/kW not so much.

As said before, I'm not saying that Shawyer's or Yangs results are incorrect.
But as long they're not replicated it is simply not possible to accept them as being 100% truthful and accurate. Consequently, any further extrapolations based upon their claims also misses the same degree of credibility.

I poked you before TT....
Prove your claims by building and replicating those projected results and I'll be the first to give you the thumbs up.
But until then...it nothing more then (cheap) talk....
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Star One on 11/20/2015 01:12 pm
FYI

Pretty much ruled out the "creation of axions" idea, I could only get it to nearly match, but not exceed, the photon rocket.  Oh well,  on to the next thought.

Did someone mention Axions.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830473-500-the-higgs-mass-mystery-why-is-everything-so-light/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 01:15 pm
So EW also failed to understand basic physics when they reported net Pointing Vectors when doing their electrodynamics COMSOL analysis of the Rf feed in waveguide with the inserted dielectric that generated the Force they measured?

Before that Prof Yang also reported net Poynting Vectors and claimed her net results closely matched the measured thrust.

Yet you claim both are wrong as they do not understand physics? What I suggest is continually saying it can't work because it is against physics is getting very old.

It is not actually clear what the definition of Poynting vectors should be is not actually clear for dielectrics. There are at least 2 conventions, that account for the material contributions differently. I don't know much about the setup they modeled, but it looks like RF is fed in from one end, so a small net Poynting vector towards the other end (where there is some loss from the dielectric, and finite conductivity of the metal) would not be unreasonable. This is irrelevant to the current discussion, and I would appreciate it if you stopped changing the subject anytime you ran out of arguments to support your point.

I will continue to point out that Shawyer's theory is wrong as long as you continue to claim that his theory is in any way consistent with our current understanding of physics.

To highlight one of my points from that previous post, showing how obviously self-contradictory Shawyer's theory is:

3. He claims that the EM drive obeys conservation of momentum, and at the same time accelerates its center of energy without interacting with the external world. This is the definition of not obeying conservation of momentum.

Supporting such a claim kills your credibility. If you have an interpretation of Shawyer's theory that doesn't break the definition of conservation of momentum you a free to share it. Otherwise, I recommend you stop quoting Shawyer and Yang so much if you want to be taken seriously.

Bottom line is the EmDrive generates the Thrust that both Roger's and Prof Yang's models predict.

Saying it doesn't work because it is against physics is just plain silly as it does work. You need to start accepting the experimental data and get on with understand how EWs, Roger and Prof Yang used existing physics to model the thrust generated.

I tried to make this easier for you by the elimination of doubt over EM wave momentum alterations driven by waveguide diameter change to the simpler to understand dielectric used by Roger in his 1988 patent. That same dielectric driven guide wavelength shorting and momentum increasing effect was observed by EW during their Cannae testing.

Note the external Force vector is generated toward the longer wavelength end being the non dielectric end.

In the EW frustum case the dielectric at the small end is shortening the guide wavelength, when rhe frustum diameter drop is trying to lengthen it and generating a Force in the opposite direction to the tapered waveguide direction, which is why I believe their measured Force is low.

But as you believe all this is against physics, it would seem we have little to discuss.

Cu.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Corlock Striker on 11/20/2015 01:38 pm
So EW also failed to understand basic physics when they reported net Pointing Vectors when doing their electrodynamics COMSOL analysis of the Rf feed in waveguide with the inserted dielectric that generated the Force they measured?

Before that Prof Yang also reported net Poynting Vectors and claimed her net results closely matched the measured thrust.

Yet you claim both are wrong as they do not understand physics? What I suggest is continually saying it can't work because it is against physics is getting very old.

TT, meberbs is not denying the measured results of any of the published papers.  What meberbs is debating with you about is the theory behind what causes the EM Drive to work.  Namely meberbs is saying that Shawyer's theory really doesn't make any sense.  Honestly, I'm just an Industrial Designer and I just finished getting my degree, so I don't have much experience out in the field yet.  However, I took AP Physics and AP Chemistry and a fair amount of other science classes in high school and a few more in college.  To be honest, even I can tell, that to say that this drive functions without relying on some as of yet undiscovered principles of physics is ridiculous.  Something very strange is going on.  Something that shouldn't be happening.  Shawyer thinks he has an explanation for it, but everyone but you is saying, "That theory is nonsense."

Now, just because Shawyer's theory of how the EM Drive works is wrong, doesn't mean the drive doesn't work.  You don't always have to know how something works to invent something new.  Industrial Designers create new products all the time without understanding how the individual components work.  For example, I can design a brand new cell phone based on some new technology I read about.  I don't really need to know everything about that technology.  Making my design work is the job of the engineers.  In this sense, Shawyer came up with an idea and executed it, his idea seems to work.  His theory of why it works is most likely wrong.  That doesn't mean that the EM Drive doesn't work; however, it just means he doesn't know how it works.  And that's okay.  He still created something revolutionary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2015 02:11 pm
Every theory out there can be shot full of holes, it's like target practice for physicists, you put up your theory on a piece of paper put it on a stick, run it up and watch the world shoot holes in it.

I have some favorites and some of my own but they are still fledgling thoughts and by no means ready for the shooting gallery.

We have such little data to work with.  I know this is what rfmwguy, TT and even me along with EagleWorks are after. Data. This thing is so weird providing a thrust that goes in the face of physics and our crude understanding of the 5% of the worlds we see is going to have a tough time explaining it.

I'm going to put my roof back together today (blew up in the 75 mph winds) and fire up the heater and get back to work simply getting something we all can grasp and hold onto... data.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 02:13 pm
Trust me the 4N/kWrf data is there. I have detailed it here before. Maybe you missed it? You see I don't make up data. I do have a really good ability to remember a lot of data and the details. Sort of a pictorial memory.
Trust or thrust, no matter how you write that, is far overrated......

The best specific thrust value i can distinguish on yang's performance tables is around 275mN/250W, which is still only 25% of the specific thrust you're claiming, and still very very far away from the 138N/kW of specific thrust you're projecting...
And mind you, we're talking about specific thrust here, which is an indication for "engine efficiency". The actual power output will most likely be less due to the increased power input and losses it causes due to thermal effects.
No way you'll achieve 4N/kW (let alone 138N/kW) with an input power of 100kW or more... no way...
I regard claims of tons of thrust with Q's that go in the 10^10's with a pretty skeptical eye, as I have yet to see evidence that the specific thrust efficiency ramps up so well. Linear extrapolations are so wrong in this case...

Unless you can prove me that with a supercooled EMdrive that's able to absorb large amount of generated heat. The bad thing is that the negative thermal side effects tend to grow exponentially.
Usually, the more energy you put in something, the less efficient it starts to get...

Claiming performances based on napkin calculations is easy to do, even I can do that without engineering degree....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/20/2015 03:13 pm
I've got to run but I had a thought last night.  Some of the research says that the EMDrive might generate more thrust with a lower frequency signal.  This got me to thinking.  Say you had a CAD file of a frustum design that you could scale an output to any size you wanted.  Say also that, no matter what size you built it, a photon would average only 100 cycles before going to heat.  The larger the frustum, the longer each cycle takes.  That means for the same mode more energy is in resonant at a lower frequency.  If you double the size of the frustum, and yet keep the same resonance mode by decreasing the frequency of the signal, the photons in question are still all moving at the same speed of light.  More energy is being held in resonance.  Which gets me back to wondering if some part of the resonance pattern isn't focusing that energy into a small area with a very high energy densisty.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/20/2015 04:00 pm
I'd prefer to look at original reports from dr Yang, instead of summaries of Shawyer's pitch talk powerpoint presentations...
so, if you could point me to that ? I definitely recall me 728mN / 2.5kW...   and ...138N/kW not so much.

As said before, I'm not saying that Shawyer's or Yangs results are incorrect.
But as long they're not replicated it is simply not possible to accept them as being 100% truthful and accurate. Consequently, any further extrapolations based upon their claims also misses the same degree of credibility.

I poked you before TT....
Prove your claims by building and replicating those projected results and I'll be the first to give you the thumbs up.
But until then...it nothing more then (cheap) talk....

Trust me the 4N/kWrf data is there. I have detailed it here before. Maybe you missed it? You see I don't make up data. I do have a really good ability to remember a lot of data and the details. Sort of a pictorial memory.

You keep posting the same graphics over and over again.  The "2015 Summary of Published.." table has posted twice by you on the prvious page and again on this page.   I have seen it many times on this thread.    And now you are claiming someone has measured 4N/kW from an em-drive.   Well instead of posting old stuff over and over again why don't you post a link to a paper that discloses this fantastic result?   You should realize your credibility suffers greatly when you make these claims but have no exidence to back them up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 04:16 pm
I've got to run but I had a thought last night.  Some of the research says that the EMDrive might generate more thrust with a lower frequency signal.  This got me to thinking.  Say you had a CAD file of a frustum design that you could scale an output to any size you wanted.  Say also that, no matter what size you built it, a photon would average only 100 cycles before going to heat.  The larger the frustum, the longer each cycle takes.  That means for the same mode more energy is in resonant at a lower frequency.  If you double the size of the frustum, and yet keep the same resonance mode by decreasing the frequency of the signal, the photons in question are still all moving at the same speed of light.  More energy is being held in resonance.  Which gets me back to wondering if some part of the resonance pattern isn't focusing that energy into a small area with a very high energy densisty.
I've had thoughts, carry-overs, from my ham radio days that would fit into this nicely. Power at lower freqs is much easier but frustums would become monsters...high mass. Perhaps if I choose a UHF frequency someday I'll see what size the frustum turns out to be. Rough guess is a 6 times lower freq would mean a roughly 6 times larger size. Measuring a small displacement of such a large mass is much more difficult. Any displacement would be really "down in the noise" so to speak.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2015 04:50 pm
Vax, having any luck with that 3D CSV data?

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/20/2015 04:56 pm
Pardon me but can somebody check me on this.  Cannae reported that they had a Q of 11,000,000 in their superconducting cavity.  My spreadsheet is showing bandwidth as Frequency/Q Factor.  (Did I do that right?)  If so the bandwidth for 1.047Ghz is 95hrz.  Is there an RF source that can produce a signal at 1.047Ghz +/- 95hrz? 

Also, with Q factor do you simply have to hit the correct frequency and you're good or do you have to maintain that frequency?  For example, that same spreadsheet estimates, roughly, that every time a photon bounces it's going to get redshifted by 3hrz.  Most of the time we don't think about the small amount of redshift due to photons being absorbed and reemitted in terrestrial applications (unlike say radio astronomy where the redshift of light going through a gas cloud might provide useful information).  Wouldn't a bandwith of 95hrz imply that a photon could only bounce a limited number of times before it redshifts out of the devices bandwidth (i.e. passes the -3 dB level).  Wouldn't this mean that the actual amount of photons in resonance at these very high Qs is going to be lower than a lower value for Q?  Am I getting something wrong here?

Roger uses Rf pulses of approx 20% of 1 TC duration. He no longer uses continual Rf. If you read Roger's peer reviewed paper, attached, you will see this is discussed and the several ways the SPR team has developed to handle the multiple engineering challenges. Acceleration also modifies the Q and resonant freq. So there is a need for very smart software and supportive hardware.

Roger is targeting specific Thrusts of between 100 - 300N/kWrf or approx 10-30kg/kWrf of levitation. Seems a very high cavity Q, with a very low acceleration limit is used for the vertical thrust lift engine and a lower cavity Q with higher acceleration limit is used for the lateral thrust orbital velocity engine.

I believe 100N/kWrf is doable without going cryo.

What's the definition of a TC?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/20/2015 05:19 pm
Vax, having any luck with that 3D CSV data?

Shell
Work kicked my butt this week, but what I did try didn't really work.  I need to write a custom program to deal with the data sets and did get most of a development environment installed, but needed one more piece so it will generate the kinds of executables I want/need to run with POVRay.  Hopefully will get something by the end of the weekend...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2015 05:32 pm
Vax, having any luck with that 3D CSV data?

Shell
Work kicked my butt this week, but what I did try didn't really work.  I need to write a custom program to deal with the data sets and did get most of a development environment installed, but needed one more piece so it will generate the kinds of executables I want/need to run with POVRay.  Hopefully will get something by the end of the weekend...
Please no pressure Vax, you're other videos opened up my eyes to the internal actions inside of the drive, I was getting antsy. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 06:05 pm
In an attempt to finalize the discussion on specific thrust generation, I took some time to "reverse engineer" the chart  by dr.YANG  and plot the extracted data as specific thrust to show the efficiency loss that emerges  when you increase power to the cavity.

To calculate the values I took averages of the 2 tests, so my maximum result (704mN) is lower then the 728mN that dr.Yang announced as max thrust performance. She took the max achieved, where i took the max averaged value.

The best cavity efficiency result is at 1.16N/kW for a rather weak 200W resulting in "only" 232mN force.
As you can see, the efficiency declines rapidly with added power...

This brings up an engineering problem as to get the most efficient propulsion for, let us say for a satellite or deep-space probe, you will also need to add extra mass to achieve the same level of thrust...

It is interesting to see that at the very end of increased power, efficiency is rising again. It would be interesting to see how that would pan out with even higher power input... like 10 to 100kW...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/20/2015 06:13 pm
As you can see, the efficiency declines rapidly with added power...

Was Yang using the same pulsed power as Shawyer?  Whether pulsed or not, it might be that a given size device can only convert power into thrust at a certain rate before it starts heating up, which would show up as decreased efficiency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/20/2015 06:27 pm
As you can see, the efficiency declines rapidly with added power...

Was Yang using the same pulsed power as Shawyer?  Whether pulsed or not, it might be that a given size device can only convert power into thrust at a certain rate before it starts heating up, which would show up as decreased efficiency.

I think each test was done at certain power level and then measured.
Step by step and not in one continuous sweep.
If it were a pure heat problem, the efficiency would not rise starting at 2200W, but would further degrade...
It seems to be a rather complex problem with several counteracting parameters...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2015 08:16 pm
In for the day. Got the roof fixed and I'm wet and cold and cranky. :)

Reading on the Chinese tests I had to look again at a very nice paper Frank Davies did in April of 2014.

I'll attach it and the one they did for the Brady.

A couple of things I've gleaned from it. We know the Chinese sought TE012 for the mode of choice and that mode has shown the apparent highest thrust/Kw ratios. One other thing and I've seen it it my meep analysis is my drive showing inter-modal actions of not only a TE012 but of a TM014.

Nasa did the Brady Cone and tried with limited success to get the TE012 mode to work. This is what I think was missed and one main reason I'm pushing to keep the inter-modal actions in my design.

Where I'm going with this is I'm beginning to suspect that you need at least two interactive modes to make the drive work at the higher thrust/Kw levels.

The NASA EagleWorks Brady cavity in mode TE012 had no other mode close to it and they struggled to get thrust at all (once got a little). Look at the chart.


I've had aero run some simulations where only one mode was excited in another cavity (thanks areo, nice work) where he narrowed the bandwidth to only excite one mode and the simulation looked horrible, the Q dropped and the energy within the cavity was decreased dramatically.

This is where it's leading me to make sure I can have the adjustable cavity to research the the tuning of the F0 through the two TE &TM modes and see where the sweet spot is in thrust levels.


Shell

Added the correct pdf paper.

If anyone is interested here is my cavity excited with a 100 HZ BW at the resonate frequency.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tOGtxcVpuMVlRUXM&usp=sharing&tid=0B1XizxEfB23tdTVmVXk5MTIwUU0

And here is the E in a broad +-30MHz BW
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1XizxEfB23teWpBSkFMSGw5eWM



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 08:47 pm
What's the definition of a TC?

TC = (2 Qloaded) / (2 Pi Freq)

1 way propogation time = # 1/2 waves at resonance freq / (2 resonant freq)

Qunloaded = 2 Qloaded (measured at 3db down from rtn loss peak).

Freq inside frustum = freq outside frustum. Only guide wavelength, group velocity and EM wave monentum vary inside the frustum at resonance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 09:25 pm
I would like to beat the drum and remind everyone of my humble suggestion to unify Q measurments by stating Qr, not just Q.

This is a simple ratio of Q1 (ctr freq/3dB BW off baseline) divided by Q2 (ctr freq/3dB BW at return loss peak). What this requires is 2 Q measurements and also will indicate the quality of the overall return loss curve. A steeper shape factor (perfect would be 1:1 just like VSWR) will confirm a sharp resonance of the frustum. My Qr was rather shallow at about 1.87:1

Only reason I "invented" Qr was to avoid the confusion where Q was referenced from (peak or baseline) which plagued earlier test reports.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 09:30 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2015 09:42 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/fix-it-with-hammer.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 09:42 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)

It should be possible to build an adjustable Q frustum.

Insert a sample port with antenna on the side wall. Run the output of the sample port through a variable attenuator and then to a Rf dummy load.

As the attenuation is varied, so to is the added frustum loss varied.

When the attenuation is high, cavity loss is low and Q is not reduced much. As attenuation is reduced, more cavity energy is drained off and thermalised in the Rf dummy load and cavity Q drops.

Plan to try this with my S band thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/20/2015 09:48 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/fix-it-with-hammer.html

Very true.

Most microwave ovens waveguides, next to where the maggie bolts to it, have a dent in them for impedance matching.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/20/2015 11:06 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/fix-it-with-hammer.html

Very true.

Most microwave ovens waveguides, next to where the maggie bolts to it, have a dent in them for impedance matching.
Correct. When I looked closely, it appears to be a match to the small slot that enters the cooking area. in my design, radome enters directly with no other impedance match. Turns out to be about 1.7:1 vswr match if I recall. What I'm trying this weekend might help that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SteveD on 11/21/2015 01:01 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

Can somebody help on this.  Before I can say anything useful I want to make sure I have the concept right.  A photon rocket emits a photon to produce thrust.  Since the photon needs to be preserved in this application, the energy for the momentum has to come from redshifting the photon.  This becomes even more apparent with Bae's reflected photon rocket.  The photons are being reused.  The motive force has to come from somewhere, the photons are being resued.  Surely this mean that they have to be reshifted with each bounce?

And I can't find anything really on this.  At best, I've come across a reference to the effect that "engineers are trained to ignore this form of redshift as it is too small to have an effect in the real world" and some acknowledgment of a reddening effect.  What I am not finding is a clearly stated systematic set of equations relating to this phenomena.  Which is interesting because the EMDrive may well involve something that's being overlooked. 

If photons are bouncing around, imparting momentum with each bounce and not being redshifted then where is the energy coming from?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/21/2015 01:15 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

Can somebody help on this.  Before I can say anything useful I want to make sure I have the concept right.  A photon rocket emits a photon to produce thrust.  Since the photon needs to be preserved in this application, the energy for the momentum has to come from redshifting the photon.  This becomes even more apparent with Bae's reflected photon rocket.  The photons are being reused.  The motive force has to come from somewhere, the photons are being resued.  Surely this mean that they have to be reshifted with each bounce?

And I can't find anything really on this.  At best, I've come across a reference to the effect that "engineers are trained to ignore this form of redshift as it is too small to have an effect in the real world" and some acknowledgment of a reddening effect.  What I am not finding is a clearly stated systematic set of equations relating to this phenomena.  Which is interesting because the EMDrive may well involve something that's being overlooked. 

If photons are bouncing around, imparting momentum with each bounce and not being redshifted then where is the energy coming from?

The re-emitted photon wavelengths are red shifted / lengthened as they lose momentum. See attachment for equation.

However guide wavelength changes, driven by either dielectric or diameter change can cause a far greater effect on photon wavelength.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/21/2015 01:43 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/21/2015 03:10 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
The strangeness in this biz plan seems to be moving too fast without validation of basic effect. Maybe vcs want razzle dazzle but a small controlled effect, validated by independant labs seems like a much better step than a rush to upscale. While I have no biz interest, I feel obligated to stay small and build up to a widely approved consensus. Seems a couple of steps are missing with cannae imo. could be wrong but seems more like a fishing expedition for capital rather than scientific methodology. No offense to them, just my opinion having nothing other than their website, patent apps and a brief mention by nasa.

Lots of funds spent on far less interesting topics. Look at websites listing strange studies on earth science and animal behaviour. my view only...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 03:21 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
The strangeness in this biz plan seems to be moving too fast without validation of basic effect. Maybe vcs want razzle dazzle but a small controlled effect, validated by independant labs seems like a much better step than a rush to upscale. While I have no biz interest, I feel obligated to stay small and build up to a widely approved consensus. Seems a couple of steps are missing with cannae imo. could be wrong but seems more like a fishing expedition for capital rather than scientific methodology. No offense to them, just my opinion having nothing other than their website, patent apps and a brief mention by nasa.

Lots of funds spent on far less interesting topics. Look at websites listing strange studies on earth science and animal behaviour. my view only...

Remember when the dot com was taking off? I heard of a guy who set up a website to sell just balls, any kind of ball you wanted. He received something like 5 mill (memory is weak here), burned through it in a year and went belly up after he paid himself over the top wages of course.

Anything is fair game although if your very interested you can get his phone number, not that hard and call.

Shell

PS: The sad thing is doing this he sets the credibility into question of us who are trying so very hard with so little to find out if this works and be a viable technology. That makes me upset.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/21/2015 03:34 am
My health is improving so much, I've started to order stuff for my build.

Will be joining Dave & Shell with a "miniVNA Tiny" USB VNA.
http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/

Frustum will be the original S band thruster as should be able to get it working quicker and with less unknowns than the smaller X band thruster, which will follow the bigger S band unit.

Spherical end plates will be clip on as Mulletron proposed. Intend to try to get good VSWR without using an external inline coax 2 or 3 pot tuner. Think it is better to tune the frustum directly by adjusting the antenna orientation. To do that I need easy assess to inside the frustum.

The clip on end plates will also allow me to try spherical and flat end plates as well as the stepped back end plate version Prof Yang reported on.

The VNA should be able to handle the physical tuning for lowest TE013 resonance VSWR as can observe the tuning effects in real time.

Can also heat the frustum to observe resonance, Q and VSWR changes that my auto tracking resonance freq system will need to be able to handle.

For sure 2016 will be an interesting year.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Justabookworm on 11/21/2015 03:59 am
Higgs interaction differential
Drive is pulling/pushing itself through space via Higgs field differential
solve e=mc2 for mass.
Mass = energy/speed of light 2

These are questions I've had for a while. Maybe someone can clarify for me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: glennfish on 11/21/2015 10:50 am
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
The strangeness in this biz plan seems to be moving too fast without validation of basic effect. Maybe vcs want razzle dazzle but a small controlled effect, validated by independant labs seems like a much better step than a rush to upscale. While I have no biz interest, I feel obligated to stay small and build up to a widely approved consensus. Seems a couple of steps are missing with cannae imo. could be wrong but seems more like a fishing expedition for capital rather than scientific methodology. No offense to them, just my opinion having nothing other than their website, patent apps and a brief mention by nasa.

Lots of funds spent on far less interesting topics. Look at websites listing strange studies on earth science and animal behaviour. my view only...

Remember when the dot com was taking off? I heard of a guy who set up a website to sell just balls, any kind of ball you wanted. He received something like 5 mill (memory is weak here), burned through it in a year and went belly up after he paid himself over the top wages of course.

Anything is fair game although if your very interested you can get his phone number, not that hard and call.

Shell

PS: The sad thing is doing this he sets the credibility into question of us who are trying so very hard with so little to find out if this works and be a viable technology. That makes me upset.

Don't think the website was oversight

from:  https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/doylestown-pa/41827561-cannae-llc

(http://www.greenerific.com/cannae.JPG)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/21/2015 01:22 pm
FYI: Looking for the application of the elusive graviton

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604099v1.pdf

"The problem of motion in general relativity has shed
its seeming academic nature due to pending gravity wave
experiments. Both LIGO [1] and LISA [2] expect to detect
radiation from inspiralling binaries, and thus building
templates for these events has become increasingly
important. While for late stages of the inspirals numerical
techniques are needed, for the early stages one may
calculate in the Post-Newtonian approximation (PN) for
small velocities. In relativistic cases one may also calculate
analytically when deviations from the Schwarzschild
geometry are small. A complicating factor in the building
of these templates is the fact that there are multiple
scales involved. In particular, the finite size of
the object, leads to tidal deformations and dissipation
which can then in turn affect potentials as well as radiation.
These effects make an exact analytical solution
intractable."

The trick will be to try to use the photon-graviton ideas from:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5572.pdf

"As has been recognized many years ago [1, 2] the quantized Einstein-Maxwell
theory predicts the process of photon-graviton conversion in an electromagnetic
field."

"It should be mentioned, though, that there is also a qualitative difference
to the tree-level amplitude. As has been stressed in [10], the tree level
photon-graviton conversion does, contrary to the photon-axion case, not
lead to a dichroism effect for photon beams."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 01:57 pm
FYI: Looking for the application of the elusive graviton

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604099v1.pdf

"The problem of motion in general relativity has shed
its seeming academic nature due to pending gravity wave
experiments. Both LIGO [1] and LISA [2] expect to detect
radiation from inspiralling binaries, and thus building
templates for these events has become increasingly
important. While for late stages of the inspirals numerical
techniques are needed, for the early stages one may
calculate in the Post-Newtonian approximation (PN) for
small velocities. In relativistic cases one may also calculate
analytically when deviations from the Schwarzschild
geometry are small. A complicating factor in the building
of these templates is the fact that there are multiple
scales involved. In particular, the finite size of
the object, leads to tidal deformations and dissipation
which can then in turn affect potentials as well as radiation.
These effects make an exact analytical solution
intractable."

The trick will be to try to use the photon-graviton ideas from:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5572.pdf

"As has been recognized many years ago [1, 2] the quantized Einstein-Maxwell
theory predicts the process of photon-graviton conversion in an electromagnetic
field."
I thought we were still looking for that elusive graviton. Wasn't there some studies that were looking at the CMB for the polarizing effects in that early universe from the stochastic  background of gravitational waves. Did that ever pan out?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/21/2015 02:27 pm
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
The strangeness in this biz plan seems to be moving too fast without validation of basic effect. Maybe vcs want razzle dazzle but a small controlled effect, validated by independant labs seems like a much better step than a rush to upscale. While I have no biz interest, I feel obligated to stay small and build up to a widely approved consensus. Seems a couple of steps are missing with cannae imo. could be wrong but seems more like a fishing expedition for capital rather than scientific methodology. No offense to them, just my opinion having nothing other than their website, patent apps and a brief mention by nasa.

Lots of funds spent on far less interesting topics. Look at websites listing strange studies on earth science and animal behaviour. my view only...

Dr Rodal just sent me this information on Cannae's company:

********************************************
Company Details

Founded:
2006
Aliases:
CANNAE LLC
Contact:
[email protected]
Employees:
1 in CrunchBase

Cannae LLC is a Pennsylvania, limited-liability company formed to develop,
test, and commercialize the Cannae Drive technology. Cannae LLC paid for the
development and testing of the Cannae Drive with private funding. Cannae
continues to fund company operations and develop the Cannae Drive technology
with private-placement capital.

Last SEC form

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1453351/000145335110000001/xslFormDX0
1/primary_doc.xml


Funding Received
$403k in 2 Rounds
Most Recent Funding
$225k Venture on August 8, 2012

Funding Rounds (2) - $403k
UPDATE
Date        Amount / Round        Valuation        Lead Investor        Investors
Aug, 2012        $225k / Venture        -        -        0
Mar, 2010        $178k / Venture       

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/cannae#/entity


Cannae on twitter:

https://twitter.com/CannaeQDrive

******************************

I think the company facts speak for themselves.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/21/2015 03:21 pm

I thought we were still looking for that elusive graviton. Wasn't there some studies that were looking at the CMB for the polarizing effects in that early universe from the stochastic  background of gravitational waves. Did that ever pan out?

Plenty of theory around, but as far as I know, nothing verified as yet.  Last I heard, those guys are trying to clean up the data.

Anyone hear more recent ?

---------------------

Anyway, you can use Maxwell to get the particle representation of the boundary charges at the walls of the cavity. (a classical duality - Schwebel was big on this)  Then you try to use the holographic principle to go back to the volume using the "Gauge/gravity duality" (new stuff) to see if you are able to map low energy (say EMDrive microwave levels) into classical gravity potentials.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/21/2015 03:31 pm
FYI: Looking for the application of the elusive graviton

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604099v1.pdf

"The problem of motion in general relativity has shed
its seeming academic nature due to pending gravity wave
experiments. Both LIGO [1] and LISA [2] expect to detect
radiation from inspiralling binaries, and thus building
templates for these events has become increasingly
important. While for late stages of the inspirals numerical
techniques are needed, for the early stages one may
calculate in the Post-Newtonian approximation (PN) for
small velocities. In relativistic cases one may also calculate
analytically when deviations from the Schwarzschild
geometry are small. A complicating factor in the building
of these templates is the fact that there are multiple
scales involved. In particular, the finite size of
the object, leads to tidal deformations and dissipation
which can then in turn affect potentials as well as radiation.
These effects make an exact analytical solution
intractable."

The trick will be to try to use the photon-graviton ideas from:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5572.pdf

"As has been recognized many years ago [1, 2] the quantized Einstein-Maxwell
theory predicts the process of photon-graviton conversion in an electromagnetic
field."
I thought we were still looking for that elusive graviton. Wasn't there some studies that were looking at the CMB for the polarizing effects in that early universe from the stochastic  background of gravitational waves. Did that ever pan out?

As I was reading through Thread 5, Bernard Haisch's theory of inertia is one of the things that came to mind. Based on an imperfect understanding of the referenced theoretical work and with a heavy dose of personal speculation, some might say imagination...

If one were to extend Bernard Hairch's theory of inertia to Machian origins, as I believe he has at least implied is possible, inertia and gravitation could be unified as more than just equivalent and the very short wave length EM spectrum of the zero-point field, he associates with the zitterbewgun motions of fundamental particles, would become the graviton.., and the underlying quantum origin of both inertia and gravitation. (It could also do away with the need of a fifth dimension as a sink hole or drain, for the VP as suggested in some of the discussion re Dr. White's QV-VP theory... But that is a far longer and more highly speculative discussion.., if that is possible...

Keep in mind that his (Haisch's) theoretical work, as best as I can understand it is restricted.., essentially to calculating the boundary conditions of an accelerating charged particle and an immutable QV, or rather a specific portion of the EM spectrum of the QV/zero-point field (ZPF), associated with the zitterbewgun motion. It seem primarily Newtonian but is claimed to apply to relativistic accelerations.

If his theory is on the right track, the background momentum potential of the ZPF, in a Newtonian limit, would appear isotropic from an inertial frame and anisotropic from an accelerating frame, thus explain inertial resistance to accelerations.

Some of the difficulties include: A Machian origin might suggest that at relativistic velocities even an inertial velocity might experience the background momentum potential as anisotropic and ionizing with respect to atomic structure.., think an extreme case of Unruh radiation... And would involve a change in the idea that the QV is immutable. It would also require that GR and spacetime be thought of as a description of a gravitational field, instead of spacetime being the field. In other words the geometry is a description not a cause... And many many other issues...

What it might mean for the EMDrive is that the internal boundary conditions of the drives frustum are anisotropically altered in a manner that creates an inertial bias. If Haisch's theory is accurate there would be no CoM issue since inertia itself would be Machian and the drive would just be altering the inertial bias of the frustum.

Not the only crazy randomly associated idea that came to mind and as hard a pill to swallow as any of the theories I have seen. Just food for thought in a different direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/21/2015 03:37 pm
Hum, I've been thinking a bit about the idea that Cannae might have gotten in trouble because they ratcheted the Q up high enough that redshift from the photons bouncing off the endplate became an issue with the narrow bandwidth.

...


It's easy to read too much in these minor events.   I noticed Go-Daddy has acquired the domain name.   That usually happens when the owner lets their owership lapse by not paying their yearly fee.   The reason for that could be that Fetta's company just wasn't bringing in any money.   I don't know if that is the case but it is a very likely possibility.    No investors are lining up to invest in this em-drive thing.   It's hard enough to get investment money for more credible things.   VC want to invest in software that can be scaled up and will give them a quick exit with a good roi.  Maybe someone can get on the Shark Tank some night and prove me wrong.   Cannaes' experiments have not been replicated as far as I know.   One thing I remember is his assertion there was no out-gassing of cryogens (liquid Helium and liquid Nitrogen) when he ran his tests.   I have worked with cryogens since 1978 and have to question that statement.   It doesn't take very much outgassing to create some thrust.   One lab I worked in had a topped up dewar take off and hit the ceiling after a techie opened the vacuum valve.   Fortunately no one was hurt.
The strangeness in this biz plan seems to be moving too fast without validation of basic effect. Maybe vcs want razzle dazzle but a small controlled effect, validated by independant labs seems like a much better step than a rush to upscale. While I have no biz interest, I feel obligated to stay small and build up to a widely approved consensus. Seems a couple of steps are missing with cannae imo. could be wrong but seems more like a fishing expedition for capital rather than scientific methodology. No offense to them, just my opinion having nothing other than their website, patent apps and a brief mention by nasa.

Lots of funds spent on far less interesting topics. Look at websites listing strange studies on earth science and animal behaviour. my view only...

Remember when the dot com was taking off? I heard of a guy who set up a website to sell just balls, any kind of ball you wanted. He received something like 5 mill (memory is weak here), burned through it in a year and went belly up after he paid himself over the top wages of course.

Anything is fair game although if your very interested you can get his phone number, not that hard and call.

Shell

PS: The sad thing is doing this he sets the credibility into question of us who are trying so very hard with so little to find out if this works and be a viable technology. That makes me upset.

Don't think the website was oversight

from:  https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/doylestown-pa/41827561-cannae-llc

(http://www.greenerific.com/cannae.JPG)
Thanks Glenn, it does look residential. Which is no problem but perhaps only a sideline project and not a viable business. As I say, I have no idea, but a website does not a real corporation make.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/21/2015 03:46 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)

It should be possible to build an adjustable Q frustum.

Insert a sample port with antenna on the side wall. Run the output of the sample port through a variable attenuator and then to a Rf dummy load.

As the attenuation is varied, so to is the added frustum loss varied.

When the attenuation is high, cavity loss is low and Q is not reduced much. As attenuation is reduced, more cavity energy is drained off and thermalised in the Rf dummy load and cavity Q drops.

Plan to try this with my S band thruster.
Thanks Phil, must admit, never heard of something like this being able to vary the bandwidth characteristics of a cavity filter. But you know me, I take nothing for granted with black magic microwave frequencies  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/21/2015 04:16 pm
That Q-degrading technique using an external dummy load off a port is pretty much the same method as outlined in that patent claim I linked to a few pages back.  So much for being non-obvious.  :)

The only other method I could think of would require opening up the cavity and spraying different substances on the interior.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheUberOverLord on 11/21/2015 04:57 pm
NSF-1701 update - Forgot to mention I'll be working on a mechanical frustum tuning scheme this weekend. Of course, its never been tried before. No reason to get all safe and secure just yet   8)

It should be possible to build an adjustable Q frustum.

Insert a sample port with antenna on the side wall. Run the output of the sample port through a variable attenuator and then to a Rf dummy load.

As the attenuation is varied, so to is the added frustum loss varied.

When the attenuation is high, cavity loss is low and Q is not reduced much. As attenuation is reduced, more cavity energy is drained off and thermalised in the Rf dummy load and cavity Q drops.

Plan to try this with my S band thruster.
Thanks Phil, must admit, never heard of something like this being able to vary the bandwidth characteristics of a cavity filter. But you know me, I take nothing for granted with black magic microwave frequencies  ;)

Hey Dave,

Looks like there are new uses for black magic lasers as well ;) Just proves that new uses of old technology are being discovered and proven more and more with each passing day:

UW team refrigerates liquids with a laser for the first time

http://www.washington.edu/news/2015/11/16/uw-team-refrigerates-liquids-with-a-laser-for-the-first-time/

With all the perseverance of all the hard working contributors to these threads and building of EM Drives. I'm personally sure that in the end. Space flight applications will benefit. Even when it takes the time it has, like all things do. As the above also took many years of work to prove, that the above was more than just a possibility. That it also could be solidly ("Pun Intended  :D") demonstrated as well.

Don
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 05:33 pm
FYI: Looking for the application of the elusive graviton

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604099v1.pdf

"The problem of motion in general relativity has shed
its seeming academic nature due to pending gravity wave
experiments. Both LIGO [1] and LISA [2] expect to detect
radiation from inspiralling binaries, and thus building
templates for these events has become increasingly
important. While for late stages of the inspirals numerical
techniques are needed, for the early stages one may
calculate in the Post-Newtonian approximation (PN) for
small velocities. In relativistic cases one may also calculate
analytically when deviations from the Schwarzschild
geometry are small. A complicating factor in the building
of these templates is the fact that there are multiple
scales involved. In particular, the finite size of
the object, leads to tidal deformations and dissipation
which can then in turn affect potentials as well as radiation.
These effects make an exact analytical solution
intractable."

The trick will be to try to use the photon-graviton ideas from:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5572.pdf

"As has been recognized many years ago [1, 2] the quantized Einstein-Maxwell
theory predicts the process of photon-graviton conversion in an electromagnetic
field."
I thought we were still looking for that elusive graviton. Wasn't there some studies that were looking at the CMB for the polarizing effects in that early universe from the stochastic  background of gravitational waves. Did that ever pan out?

As I was reading through Thread 5, Bernard Haisch's theory of inertia is one of the things that came to mind. Based on an imperfect understanding of the referenced theoretical work and with a heavy dose of personal speculation, some might say imagination...

If one were to extend Bernard Hairch's theory of inertia to Machian origins, as I believe he has at least implied is possible, inertia and gravitation could be unified as more than just equivalent and the very short wave length EM spectrum of the zero-point field, he associates with the zitterbewgun motions of fundamental particles, would become the graviton.., and the underlying quantum origin of both inertia and gravitation. (It could also do away with the need of a fifth dimension as a sink hole or drain, for the VP as suggested in some of the discussion re Dr. White's QV-VP theory... But that is a far longer and more highly speculative discussion.., if that is possible...

Keep in mind that his (Haisch's) theoretical work, as best as I can understand it is restricted.., essentially to calculating the boundary conditions of an accelerating charged particle and an immutable QV, or rather a specific portion of the EM spectrum of the QV/zero-point field (ZPF), associated with the zitterbewgun motion. It seem primarily Newtonian but is claimed to apply to relativistic accelerations.

If his theory is on the right track, the background momentum potential of the ZPF, in a Newtonian limit, would appear isotropic from an inertial frame and anisotropic from an accelerating frame, thus explain inertial resistance to accelerations.

Some of the difficulties include: A Machian origin might suggest that at relativistic velocities even an inertial velocity might experience the background momentum potential as anisotropic and ionizing with respect to atomic structure.., think an extreme case of Unruh radiation... And would involve a change in the idea that the QV is immutable. It would also require that GR and spacetime be thought of as a description of a gravitational field, instead of spacetime being the field. In other words the geometry is a description not a cause... And many many other issues...

What it might mean for the EMDrive is that the internal boundary conditions of the drives frustum are anisotropically altered in a manner that creates an inertial bias. If Haisch's theory is accurate there would be no CoM issue since inertia itself would be Machian and the drive would just be altering the inertial bias of the frustum.

Not the only crazy randomly associated idea that came to mind and as hard a pill to swallow as any of the theories I have seen. Just food for thought in a different direction.
You could also make an argument that out entire universe is simply wrapped around a massive black hole. And all we see and feel is encoded in a 2d brane like membrane wrapped and encoded holographic like, spread over the event horizon, the underlying BH would set the characteristics of all matter and quantum actions. Even dark matter and energy could be nothing but leakage from the hole.



 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/21/2015 05:52 pm
Hey Shell can you give a todo list for all of us getting antsy about your upcoming tests? I, for one, would really appreciate that a lot.  Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 05:55 pm
Hey Shell can you give a todo list for all of us getting antsy about your upcoming tests? I, for one, would really appreciate that a lot.  Thanks.
Sure but a little later today, have wood to cut... sigh.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Blaine on 11/21/2015 07:25 pm
I just got Guido Fetta on the phone.   Anyone have any they want to ask him? So, I just called back and got an answering machine this time.  But, I left a message letting him know about his website going down if he did not already know so.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/21/2015 08:07 pm
I just got Guido Fetta on the phone.   Anyone have any they want to ask him? So, I just called back and got an answering machine this time.  But, I left a message letting him know about his website going down if he did not already know so.
1. Status of project
2. Explain status in detail
3. Next steps
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Ric Capucho on 11/21/2015 08:49 pm
You could also make an argument that out entire universe is simply wrapped around a massive black hole. And all we see and feel is encoded in a 2d brane like membrane wrapped and encoded holographic like, spread over the event horizon, the underlying BH would set the characteristics of all matter and quantum actions. Even dark matter and energy could be nothing but leakage from the hole.

Or this is what it looks like *inside* a massive black hole. Meaning the inner 2d surface.

Ric
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 09:30 pm
You could also make an argument that out entire universe is simply wrapped around a massive black hole. And all we see and feel is encoded in a 2d brane like membrane wrapped and encoded holographic like, spread over the event horizon, the underlying BH would set the characteristics of all matter and quantum actions. Even dark matter and energy could be nothing but leakage from the hole.

Or this is what it looks like *inside* a massive black hole. Meaning the inner 2d surface.

Ric
Time will tell. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/21/2015 10:16 pm
Hey Shell can you give a todo list for all of us getting antsy about your upcoming tests? I, for one, would really appreciate that a lot.  Thanks.

I'll be running the inverter and magnetron together before attaching to the waveguides on the frustum. For the load on the magnetron I'm using a microwave oven.

 
My first tests will be just videoing and double checking all the profiling, digital Scales, beam travel and acceleration, VNA on the frustum, EMI survey, dampening bath, thermal profiling the frustum with a light, power settings and distribution.

The basic thermal effect profiling of the frustum is one of the more critical tests. I'll be using a simple light bulb ~100 watts and running the frustum Be down, Se down and parallel to the beam using both acceleration profile and then the digital scale for force.

I'll be using a VNA to set the tuning of the frustum and recording the profile of the tuning cavity as I adjust it with the micrometer. Record the resonate frequencies.

Hook everything up for primary testing and record with video and keep running notes and entering data in a spreadsheet for evaluation.

Log
Time
Date
Apx location
Temperature
Humidity
A compass close by to view
Digital Stop Watch
Video set-up and explain items

The first power on tests will be first parallel to the beam to get and sum the thermal rise and any other effect that may show up different than the lamp.

Second tests will be with the Be down in a acceleration mode
180 for Se down and in acceleration mode

I plan on 10 runs of each with 50/50 duty cycle.

I'll take thermal images of the frustum to show the mode generation.

The first tests will be very basic to simply iron out the DUT and test stand and get a feel what has to change to get better data. The second series of runs will be a little more complicated in testing the tuning of the cavity through resonance and multi-mode interactions and mostly be reading on a digital scales which will be videoed.

Tired from chopping wood and time for a foamy beverage and hot tub.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/21/2015 10:43 pm
Tired from chopping wood and time for a foamy beverage and hot tub.

Shell

Shell,

Just to compare notes may I ask / confirm what equipment you will be using for the VNA scans and for the spectrum scans? Assuming you are using stainless SMA connectors? What type coax and coax lengths? Sure small details but sometime small details can be important.

Would suggest there is value in you, Dave and myself (plus any others) using the same VNA and spectrum scan gear, SMA connectors, coax and coax length if at all possible.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/21/2015 10:46 pm
I just got Guido Fetta on the phone.   Anyone have any they want to ask him? So, I just called back and got an answering machine this time.  But, I left a message letting him know about his website going down if he did not already know so.

I would be interested to hear what Mr. Fetta has to say and we should all invite him to join this discussion.  Things are getting a little dull here.   However considering the two possible outcomes of his experiments I don't see that happening.    If he has a skill for writing he could publish a book on the life of his company, experiments, etc.   It would make interesting reading and could become a cult best seller.

His patent application has been published on the USPTO web site, filing date Mar. 22, 2012, with a provisional application the previous year.  It can take 2-3 years after filing an application for a patent to get published, sometimes much longer if the examiner sees more than one patent in the application or has other objections.   The application is 106 pages long.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=Fetta.IN.&OS=IN/%28Fetta%29&RS=IN/Fetta
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 12:03 am
...Things are getting a little dull here...

Dull?

Shortly the combined efforts of Dave's NSF-1701B, Shell and myself will forever put to bed any doubts the EmDrive does work as claimed. Which will of course validate the 30+ years of work Roger and his team at SPR have put into making this happen.

My real concern is a future filled with silent and heat signatureless flying devices, in many forms and shapes, that are easy, quick and very low cost to make, yet very difficult to detect and track.

Could just cause a bit of concern / see an advantage to various military and other organisations around the planet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 12:10 am
Tired from chopping wood and time for a foamy beverage and hot tub.

Shell

Shell,

Just to compare notes may I ask / confirm what equipment you will be using for the VNA scans and for the spectrum scans? Assuming you are using stainless SMA connectors? What type coax and coax lengths? Sure small details but sometime small details can be important.

Would suggest there is value in you, Dave and myself (plus any others) using the same VNA and spectrum scan gear, SMA connectors, coax and coax length if at all possible.

Phil
Sure.

The magnetron will be inside of a separate Faraday cage about 1 meter from the frustum feed into a waveguide to antenna probe down the beam to the splitters to the waveguides on the frustum in another Faraday cage.

Yes, I'll be using SMA stainless connectors. The coax run will be just over 1.5 meters.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-RF-Spectrum-Analyzer-3-3GHZ-/281858666481?hash=item41a015eff1
(Great little SA)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
(Not truly happy with this SMA and have been looking at the other one you both got, but it's almost 600 bucks)

RG142 Coax Cable

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pce-N-male-plug-to-RP-SMA-female-plug-center-RF-coaxial-adapter-connector-/320847616931?hash=item4ab4021ba3

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 12:12 am
...Things are getting a little dull here...

Dull?

Shortly the combined efforts of Dave's NSF-1701B, Shell and myself will forever put to bed any doubts the EmDrive does work as claimed. Which will of course validate the 30+ years of work Roger and his team at SPR have put into making this happen.

My real concern is a future filled with silent and heat signatureless flying devices, in many forms and shapes, that are easy, quick and very low cost to make, yet very difficult to detect and track.

Could just cause a bit of concern / see an advantage to various military and other organisations around the planet.
Let's just get this puppy off the ground first then we can worry about MIB and Big Brother.
 ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/22/2015 12:15 am
I just got Guido Fetta on the phone.   Anyone have any they want to ask him? So, I just called back and got an answering machine this time.  But, I left a message letting him know about his website going down if he did not already know so.

I would be interested to hear what Mr. Fetta has to say and we should all invite him to join this discussion.  Things are getting a little dull here.   However considering the two possible outcomes of his experiments I don't see that happening.    If he has a skill for writing he could publish a book on the life of his company, experiments, etc.   It would make interesting reading and could become a cult best seller.

His patent application has been published on the USPTO web site, filing date Mar. 22, 2012, with a provisional application the previous year.  It can take 2-3 years after filing an application for a patent to get published, sometimes much longer if the examiner sees more than one patent in the application or has other objections.   The application is 106 pages long.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=Fetta.IN.&OS=IN/%28Fetta%29&RS=IN/Fetta
C'mon zen, we're trying not to be dull  ;) I do admit a fist full of greenbacks would make this a faster project but we do what we can do. Appreciate you following this with a critical yet polite series of posts. It is important to have challenges to make our experiments better...this is what is keeping me in this realm, the hope that a modest project can make even a skeptic want to learn more. You have done this without name-calling and arrogance, for that, you should be congratulated. Wish us luck and keep a critical eye on our progress. I for one would like to provide results that make you sit up and take notice. With cannae apparently out of the game, there's fewer of us still poking at this anomaly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 12:27 am
Tired from chopping wood and time for a foamy beverage and hot tub.

Shell

Shell,

Just to compare notes may I ask / confirm what equipment you will be using for the VNA scans and for the spectrum scans? Assuming you are using stainless SMA connectors? What type coax and coax lengths? Sure small details but sometime small details can be important.

Would suggest there is value in you, Dave and myself (plus any others) using the same VNA and spectrum scan gear, SMA connectors, coax and coax length if at all possible.

Phil
Sure.

The magnetron will be inside of a separate Faraday cage about 1 meter from the frustum feed into a waveguide to antenna probe down the beam to the splitters to the waveguides on the frustum in another Faraday cage.

Yes, I'll be using SMA stainless connectors. The coax run will be just over 1.5 meters.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-RF-Spectrum-Analyzer-3-3GHZ-/281858666481?hash=item41a015eff1
(Great little SA)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
(Not truly happy with this SMA and have been looking at the other one you both got, but it's almost 600 bucks)

RG142 Coax Cable

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pce-N-male-plug-to-RP-SMA-female-plug-center-RF-coaxial-adapter-connector-/320847616931?hash=item4ab4021ba3

A good VNA is critical to developing resonance, low VSWR and impedance matching. Take the plunge. Get the miniVNA tiny. It will quickly pay for itself as it eliminates going down blind alleys. Can also easily test various frustum and feed ideas.

As an idea of the power of a VNA, I see  at least 4 weeks work with the VNA, frustum and antenna variances to not only get good VSWR, max Q but to see how this changes as I vary different bits. This should add to my gut feel on how the dynamics of this tech works and how changes alter how it works.

All before firing up the Rf amp as I expect no real surprises when the development gets to that stage.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/22/2015 01:01 am
...Things are getting a little dull here...

Dull?

Shortly the combined efforts of Dave's NSF-1701B, Shell and myself will forever put to bed any doubts the EmDrive does work as claimed. Which will of course validate the 30+ years of work Roger and his team at SPR have put into making this happen.

My real concern is a future filled with silent and heat signatureless flying devices, in many forms and shapes, that are easy, quick and very low cost to make, yet very difficult to detect and track.

Could just cause a bit of concern / see an advantage to various military and other organisations around the planet.

I was thinking, maybe a backpack model with a 100 kilo payload +/- and maybe 1 hour run time... Might have to be a dual drive for maneuverability?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: julian_becker on 11/22/2015 01:48 am
My first post in this forum: I got quite interested in the work of Professor David Pares from the University of Omaha regarding his claims that he has developed a Warp Drive or at least a device that shows some interesting properties when an electrical current is applied. He claims to compress spacetime and currently refits an aluminium mini craft with his device.

Your thoughts on this? Tinfoil UFO junk science or is he onto something? Maybe something related to the EM-drive?

The tests and the videos posted on youtube and FB seem to be quite promising....

My thoughts: While the EM drive creates a space distortion within the copper cone, this approach creates a space distortion around the entire object (a bubble) and thus it is actually moves space around the object instead of the object itself.

Your thoughts please....

Julian
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/22/2015 02:03 am
My first post in this forum: I got quite interested in the work of Professor David Pares from the University of Omaha regarding his claims that he has developed a Warp Drive or at least a device that shows some interesting properties when an electrical current is applied. He claims to compress spacetime and currently refits an aluminium mini craft with his device.

Your thoughts on this? Tinfoil UFO junk science or is he onto something? Maybe something related to the EM-drive?

The tests and the videos posted on youtube and FB seem to be quite promising....

My thoughts: While the EM drive creates a space distortion within the copper cone, this approach creates a space distortion around the entire object (a bubble) and thus it is actually moves space around the object instead of the object itself.

Your thoughts please....

Julian

Welcome to this discussion Julian.   Full disclosure here: I am one of the long-term skeptics.   There was some talk about this gentleman a while back, maybe on an earlier thread.   But you know there are all kinds of unexplained phenomena shown on u-toob videos.   I think it is more productive to look at the data, if it exists.   Has the experiment or phenomena been duplicated by someone else?   How traceable is their data?   Researchers have been known to "fudge" their data, so some validation of their methods should be done.

My personal belief (not shared by all) is that no exotic explanation is required for the em-drive because all we are seeing are thermal effects.   The problem with these notions about space distortion, etc is that these ideas fall out of what is generally known and accepted.  You might as well say there are magical spirits involved because that idea is no less wrong.   Also it is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.   

Here's an analogy:  Let's say I get the idea that $100 is missing from my wallet.   I decide that someone has picked my pocket, taken $100 out and then just as surreptitiously put my wallet back in my pocket.   Or I can come up with some other theory about how the $100 disappeared.   Now if up until that point I have not looked in my wallet to actually see how much money is in it then my theories about how the $100 disappeared are all kind of silly.   Wouldn't you agree?    So first we have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt that this anomalous force is actually there.   So far that has not happened.   Some say an anomalous force has been measured in several experiments but I, of course, do not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Emmett Brown on 11/22/2015 03:13 am
Hi Everyone,
I've followed this forum for awhile now, but first time posting.

I hope there's room for another DIY builder, as I'm ramping one up myself.
It won't be quite as elaborate as the setups I've read about here, but hopefully it will at least be another data point.  I just couldn't sit back and wait for other's results any longer!  And if this effect is real, I want to see it with my own eyes.

So far I've got a horizontal test platform setup.  Initial measurements show it's sensitive down to about 1mN of force.

I've torn apart my old microwave, prepared & tested the stripped down circuit to drive the magnetron.

I'm planning the frustum now.  I was thinking of going with these dimensions:

Big End Diameter 40cm
Small End 16
Center Length 24

(Thanks to TT for that spreadsheet)

Shell - these dimensions were listed with your name on the spreadsheet, is this one you built before, or the one you are working on now?

For a first test, I was going to mount the magnetron right into the frustum.  Any advice on where to best position it?

Thanks and good luck to all the other builders!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 03:42 am
Hi Everyone,
I've followed this forum for awhile now, but first time posting.

I hope there's room for another DIY builder, as I'm ramping one up myself.
It won't be quite as elaborate as the setups I've read about here, but hopefully it will at least be another data point.  I just couldn't sit back and wait for other's results any longer!  And if this effect is real, I want to see it with my own eyes.

So far I've got a horizontal test platform setup.  Initial measurements show it's sensitive down to about 1mN of force.

I've torn apart my old microwave, prepared & tested the stripped down circuit to drive the magnetron.

I'm planning the frustum now.  I was thinking of going with these dimensions:

Big End Diameter 40cm
Small End 16
Center Length 24

(Thanks to TT for that spreadsheet)

Shell - these dimensions were listed with your name on the spreadsheet, is this one you built before, or the one you are working on now?

For a first test, I was going to mount the magnetron right into the frustum.  Any advice on where to best position it?

Thanks and good luck to all the other builders!

Hi Emmett,

Welcome on board,

Those dimensions seem to be taken from my spherical end plate build. Would not recommend using them with flat end plates or with a maggie. Would suggest you follow NSF-1701 as Dave has VNA data to support resonance with-in the maggies freq output range and thrust data to support Force generation.

Would also highly recommend obtaining a miniVNA Tiny USB powered VNA device, plus the chopped maggie antenna to SMA adapter Dave is using to emulate the maggie antenna, to do S11 rtn loss resonance scans and to be sure your frustum resonance, bandwidth and VSWR are OK.

Add to that list the spectrum scanner Shell uses.

There is a lot of data to be obtained and possibly adjustments made, from the VNA scans BEFORE firing up the maggie.

Attached are Dave's VNA scan, his spectrum scan and my modified Yellow possible bandwidth curve from possible maggie freq pulling to the frustum bandwidth. The maggies does have a resonant cavity after all and with the maggie antenna inside another resonant cavity it is natural for the two to try to lock resonant frequencies.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/22/2015 06:39 am
My first post in this forum: I got quite interested in the work of Professor David Pares from the University of Omaha regarding his claims that he has developed a Warp Drive or at least a device that shows some interesting properties when an electrical current is applied. He claims to compress spacetime and currently refits an aluminium mini craft with his device.

Your thoughts on this? Tinfoil UFO junk science or is he onto something? Maybe something related to the EM-drive?

The tests and the videos posted on youtube and FB seem to be quite promising....

My thoughts: While the EM drive creates a space distortion within the copper cone, this approach creates a space distortion around the entire object (a bubble) and thus it is actually moves space around the object instead of the object itself.

Your thoughts please....

Julian

Welcome to this discussion Julian.   Full disclosure here: I am one of the long-term skeptics.   There was some talk about this gentleman a while back, maybe on an earlier thread.   But you know there are all kinds of unexplained phenomena shown on u-toob videos.   I think it is more productive to look at the data, if it exists.   Has the experiment or phenomena been duplicated by someone else?   How traceable is their data?   Researchers have been known to "fudge" their data, so some validation of their methods should be done.

My personal belief (not shared by all) is that no exotic explanation is required for the em-drive because all we are seeing are thermal effects.   The problem with these notions about space distortion, etc is that these ideas fall out of what is generally known and accepted.  You might as well say there are magical spirits involved because that idea is no less wrong.   Also it is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.   

Here's an analogy:  Let's say I get the idea that $100 is missing from my wallet.   I decide that someone has picked my pocket, taken $100 out and then just as surreptitiously put my wallet back in my pocket.   Or I can come up with some other theory about how the $100 disappeared.   Now if up until that point I have not looked in my wallet to actually see how much money is in it then my theories about how the $100 disappeared are all kind of silly.   Wouldn't you agree?    So first we have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt that this anomalous force is actually there.   So far that has not happened.   Some say an anomalous force has been measured in several experiments but I, of course, do not.

Honestly fella, with my background firmly rooted in logic, I find this to be very disingenuous. You are alluding to something called the "principle of parsimony" but it is more than a bit improper for the context.

Modern science isn't capable of fully explaining particle-wave duality or the origins of gravity or the fact that photons sporadically appear in a vacuum; given this, it is logically invalid to assume that our theories of electromagnetism and photodynamics explain with proper parsimony any given phenomena. Instead we work out segregated ways to explain these phenomena (QF mechanics, general relativity, et cetera).  The state of modern science is not a logically valid analogy to the $100 in the wallet.

(Take this from someone who is a skeptic about the EMdrive but sees the logical necessity of momentum transfer between electromagnetic events.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: guckyfan on 11/22/2015 07:02 am
Honestly fella, with my background firmly rooted in logic, I find this to be very disingenuous. You are alluding to something called the "principle of parsimony" but it is more than a bit improper for the context.

Modern science isn't capable of fully explaining particle-wave duality or the origins of gravity or the fact that photons sporadically appear in a vacuum; given this, it is logically invalid to assume that our theories of electromagnetism and photodynamics explain with proper parsimony any given phenomena. Instead we work out segregated ways to explain these phenomena (QF mechanics, general relativity, et cetera).  The state of modern science is not a logically valid analogy to the $100 in the wallet.

(Take this from someone who is a skeptic about the EMdrive but sees the logical necessity of momentum transfer between electromagnetic events.

Seriously I don't get your point at all. The valid request put forward is let's first determine that those 100 $ are missing, or that the EM-drive produces thrust. Then, once this is established beyond reasonable doubt, then you can ask the question, where that thrust comes from. In the meantime I check this thread almost daily in the hope that thrust is established.

Both the claims by Roger Shawyer and the Chinese claims don't convince me yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: oliverio on 11/22/2015 07:14 am
Honestly fella, with my background firmly rooted in logic, I find this to be very disingenuous. You are alluding to something called the "principle of parsimony" but it is more than a bit improper for the context.

Modern science isn't capable of fully explaining particle-wave duality or the origins of gravity or the fact that photons sporadically appear in a vacuum; given this, it is logically invalid to assume that our theories of electromagnetism and photodynamics explain with proper parsimony any given phenomena. Instead we work out segregated ways to explain these phenomena (QF mechanics, general relativity, et cetera).  The state of modern science is not a logically valid analogy to the $100 in the wallet.

(Take this from someone who is a skeptic about the EMdrive but sees the logical necessity of momentum transfer between electromagnetic events.

Seriously I don't get your point at all. The valid request put forward is let's first determine that those 100 $ are missing, or that the EM-drive produces thrust. Then, once this is established beyond reasonable doubt, then you can ask the question, where that thrust comes from. In the meantime I check this thread almost daily in the hope that thrust is established.

Both the claims by Roger Shawyer and the Chinese claims don't convince me yet.

My whole point is that the analogy does not apply. Here is a more valid analogy:

You find a wallet with $100 dollars in it.  Try to form a hypothesis about the occupation of the owner without any more information. (We lack a theory of the origins of the wallet, whether it was discarded on purpose, et cetera.  Because of this, saying "let's assume the owner of this wallet is a high-salary earner given our data about income" is irrelevant because it could have been found in a soup kitchen, or the owner may be currently unemployed. The principle of parsimony only applies given the equal explanatory weight of both theories; given the fact that a emdrive effect has higher explanatory power than the theories of thermal artifacts it would actually weigh in against skepticism in this case.)  We do not know enough about photon physics to say that the currently verified data has more weight than experimental data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/22/2015 07:38 am
Honestly fella, with my background firmly rooted in logic, I find this to be very disingenuous. You are alluding to something called the "principle of parsimony" but it is more than a bit improper for the context.

Modern science isn't capable of fully explaining particle-wave duality or the origins of gravity or the fact that photons sporadically appear in a vacuum; given this, it is logically invalid to assume that our theories of electromagnetism and photodynamics explain with proper parsimony any given phenomena. Instead we work out segregated ways to explain these phenomena (QF mechanics, general relativity, et cetera).  The state of modern science is not a logically valid analogy to the $100 in the wallet.

(Take this from someone who is a skeptic about the EMdrive but sees the logical necessity of momentum transfer between electromagnetic events.

Seriously I don't get your point at all. The valid request put forward is let's first determine that those 100 $ are missing, or that the EM-drive produces thrust. Then, once this is established beyond reasonable doubt, then you can ask the question, where that thrust comes from. In the meantime I check this thread almost daily in the hope that thrust is established.

Both the claims by Roger Shawyer and the Chinese claims don't convince me yet.

My whole point is that the analogy does not apply. Here is a more valid analogy:

You find a wallet with $100 dollars in it.  Try to form a hypothesis about the occupation of the owner without any more information. (We lack a theory of the origins of the wallet, whether it was discarded on purpose, et cetera.  Because of this, saying "let's assume the owner of this wallet is a high-salary earner given our data about income" is irrelevant because it could have been found in a soup kitchen, or the owner may be currently unemployed. The principle of parsimony only applies given the equal explanatory weight of both theories; given the fact that a emdrive effect has higher explanatory power than the theories of thermal artifacts it would actually weigh in against skepticism in this case.)  We do not know enough about photon physics to say that the currently verified data has more weight than experimental data.
If you don't think my analogy applies there is probably nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.   My understanding of the scientific method is that first scientists have to observe a phenomena.  For example Oersted then Faraday observed the interaction between a current-carrying wire and a compass.  Faraday probably spent several weeks doing experiments to discover any unknown subtleties.   It all started with the unambiguous observation of an interesting phenomena.   In the case of the em-drive the effect that has been observed is a movement of 1.8µm  (1.8 x 10-6 meters), which is indistinguisable from a thermal effect because it is so small.  There is also no consistent replication of observations of this em-drive "thrust" by the different experimenters.   Even the EW tests in air vs in a vacuum were very different.  You talk about "equal explanatory weight of both theories".   The problem is we are not at the stage to discuss theories because it is uncertain that any effect has been observed.    Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: guckyfan on 11/22/2015 07:59 am
Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.

Actually it does. In recent decades science formed models and then tried to verify them by building devices like CERN and experiment.

The notable exception is the EM-drive force. It started out with an experimental setup and a theory is needed to explain it. It is my uneducated position though that at this time we don't have a valid theory and should therefore concentrate on validation of the force. Once we have it validated and experimental data on how the force changes with different setup we will have data that help forming a theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 09:46 am
Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.

Actually it does. In recent decades science formed models and then tried to verify them by building devices like CERN and experiment.

The notable exception is the EM-drive force. It started out with an experimental setup and a theory is needed to explain it. It is my uneducated position though that at this time we don't have a valid theory and should therefore concentrate on validation of the force. Once we have it validated and experimental data on how the force changes with different setup we will have data that help forming a theory.

Which is exactly what my rotary test rig is designed to do. Provide continual data as acceleration is occurring.

I did ask Roger if he would release his 2006 rotary test data. He said only available under NDA, so no good to me or you as I already have too many constraints placed on stuff I know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/22/2015 11:24 am

If you don't think my analogy applies there is probably nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.   My understanding of the scientific method is that first scientists have to observe a phenomena.  For example Oersted then Faraday observed the interaction between a current-carrying wire and a compass.  Faraday probably spent several weeks doing experiments to discover any unknown subtleties.   It all started with the unambiguous observation of an interesting phenomena.   In the case of the em-drive the effect that has been observed is a movement of 1.8µm  (1.8 x 10-6 meters), which is indistinguisable from a thermal effect because it is so small.  There is also no consistent replication of observations of this em-drive "thrust" by the different experimenters.   Even the EW tests in air vs in a vacuum were very different.  You talk about "equal explanatory weight of both theories".   The problem is we are not at the stage to discuss theories because it is uncertain that any effect has been observed.    Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.
Hmmm...being skeptic does not mean that you can put aside those elements that contradict your own personal opinion.. I do not know where you got that 1.8µm from, but the video below surely gives more displacement then those few µm....

It is incorrect to say the effect (in the video) is barely distinguishable from a thermal effect....
However, that said, what is really lacking here is the ability to replicate the demonstrated effect...   But that also applies for the 1.8µm test results...

There have been a few test that produced remarkable results and there have been a few tests that show extremely poor results (hardly to not visible in all the background noise).
To call a judgement at this date is still too early as both sides of the fence have ammunition to support their "cause". And then- sadly- it seems to boil down to personal opinions, which sometimes borders to fanatic believes...Let's NOT go there...

IF (=conditional hypothesis) it is so that internal moving resonance patterns are linked with the creation of a force, then it has become obvious to me (thanks to the work of Aero, dr Rodal and Shell) how extremely difficult it is to create an optimal situation that would maximize a force output.

It is really not a matter of just filling up a conical cavity with some microwaves...

The slightest change or imperfection will cause the resonance patterns to behave differently. Quite possible some might even reverse direction?
My guess is that until we fully understand and master the behavior of those resonance patterns, we will be unable to tell if this is truly a new way of travel, or a simple (innocent?) observation/measurement error.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/22/2015 11:55 am
FYI

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5049v2.pdf

"We show that the universal physics of recent holographic non-Fermi liquid models
is captured by a semi-holographic description, in which a dynamical boundary field
is coupled to a strongly coupled conformal sector having a gravity dual."

Just following this train of thought....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/22/2015 01:41 pm
Lots of great points here pro and con. Think what's fascinated me is photonic physics, including EM. An honest scientist would never claim we know everything about photons. These packets or particles remain enough of a mystery that I think the door has been left open for us to continue with unconventional experiments like the emdrive. Welcome to the new diy builder...we could all use more data. Now off to the shop to test out a new frustum tuning method.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 01:57 pm
Bit the bullet and ordered the miniVNA Tiny today! It was getting frustrating trying to work with the software and cheap VNA. It's going to make it so much easier!

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/22/2015 03:36 pm
Bit the bullet and ordered the miniVNA Tiny today! It was getting frustrating trying to work with the software and cheap VNA. It's going to make it so much easier!

Shell
Its pretty easy to seek and use. A little quirky when selecting the model in the pulldown menu. If you run into issues let me know. Back to the shop...another vna run soon.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 04:10 pm
Bit the bullet and ordered the miniVNA Tiny today! It was getting frustrating trying to work with the software and cheap VNA. It's going to make it so much easier!

Shell
Its pretty easy to seek and use. A little quirky when selecting the model in the pulldown menu. If you run into issues let me know. Back to the shop...another vna run soon.

When you have some time and maybe some data I'd love to see how you would like to tune your drive.

If I do run into issues you bet I'll be picking your brain. Thanks.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/22/2015 04:22 pm
Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.

Actually it does. In recent decades science formed models and then tried to verify them by building devices like CERN and experiment.

The notable exception is the EM-drive force. It started out with an experimental setup and a theory is needed to explain it. It is my uneducated position though that at this time we don't have a valid theory and should therefore concentrate on validation of the force. Once we have it validated and experimental data on how the force changes with different setup we will have data that help forming a theory.

Yes, I should have qualified my statement more.   When there is no theoretical basis for a proposed physical effect or if the claimed theoretical basis is at odds with accepted science, the effect needs to be produced by experiment first.    If it can't be shown with an experiment or if the effect can't be distinguished from noise then the effect does not scientifically exist.   

Which is exactly what my rotary test rig is designed to do. Provide continual data as acceleration is occurring.

I did ask Roger if he would release his 2006 rotary test data. He said only available under NDA, so no good to me or you as I already have too many constraints placed on stuff I know.

Just a clarification: This rotary test rig you mention has not been built yet.

I find it odd that Mr. Shawyer would ask for an NDA before showing you his 2006 test data.   After all doesn't he already hold a patent?   And wasn't there a lot of talk on thread 4 about Mr. Shawyer's peer-reviewed paper and how it would answer all the outstanding questions many of us have had concerning his experiment and claims?

Hmmm...being skeptic does not mean that you can put aside those elements that contradict your own personal opinion.. I do not know where you got that 1.8µm from, but the video below surely gives more displacement then those few µm....

It is incorrect to say the effect (in the video) is barely distinguishable from a thermal effect....
However, that said, what is really lacking here is the ability to replicate the demonstrated effect...   But that also applies for the 1.8µm test results...

EW apparatus measured a deflection of the TP of 1.8µm, which according to their force calibration was equivalent to 30-40 µN.  I have posted the EW graph that shows that here at least twice.   You can see it in their Aug. 2014 paper.

As for Mr Shawyer's famous rotating u-toob, I believe the rotation is a result of the torque from the coolant being pumped.   We only see the first part - just the acceleration.   What happens when the RF and the coolant pump is switched off?  Does it swing back in the opposite direction, demonstrating conservation of momentum?   No on has seen that part of the demo.   I have not seen any experimental data that would refute this explanation.    Asking people to sign an NDA before releasing his data, as TT states Mr Shawyer has requested, does not allow an open and free discussion of his results.   If he really had a working em-drive and wanted to convince the world of that he would demonstrate it freely and in the open to qualified scientists.   Richard Feynman was sometimes asked to investigate these sorts of things. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: rfmwguy on 11/22/2015 05:21 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Success!

Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
I
Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr.

Another note here...the compression of the frustum by the tuning bands shapes the frustum from linear side wall angle to logrithmic. Translation...its more trombone shaped.than a cone. Interesting...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/22/2015 05:38 pm
Science does not begin by assuming some phenomena is happening before it is actually observed.

Actually it does. In recent decades science formed models and then tried to verify them by building devices like CERN and experiment.

The notable exception is the EM-drive force. It started out with an experimental setup and a theory is needed to explain it. It is my uneducated position though that at this time we don't have a valid theory and should therefore concentrate on validation of the force. Once we have it validated and experimental data on how the force changes with different setup we will have data that help forming a theory.

Yes, I should have qualified my statement more.   When there is no theoretical basis for a proposed physical effect or if the claimed theoretical basis is at odds with accepted science, the effect needs to be produced by experiment first.    If it can't be shown with an experiment or if the effect can't be distinguished from noise then the effect does not scientifically exist.   

Which is exactly what my rotary test rig is designed to do. Provide continual data as acceleration is occurring.

I did ask Roger if he would release his 2006 rotary test data. He said only available under NDA, so no good to me or you as I already have too many constraints placed on stuff I know.

Just a clarification: This rotary test rig you mention has not been built yet.

I find it odd that Mr. Shawyer would ask for an NDA before showing you his 2006 test data.   After all doesn't he already hold a patent?   And wasn't there a lot of talk on thread 4 about Mr. Shawyer's peer-reviewed paper and how it would answer all the outstanding questions many of us have had concerning his experiment and claims?

Hmmm...being skeptic does not mean that you can put aside those elements that contradict your own personal opinion.. I do not know where you got that 1.8µm from, but the video below surely gives more displacement then those few µm....

It is incorrect to say the effect (in the video) is barely distinguishable from a thermal effect....
However, that said, what is really lacking here is the ability to replicate the demonstrated effect...   But that also applies for the 1.8µm test results...

EW apparatus measured a deflection of the TP of 1.8µm, which according to their force calibration was equivalent to 30-40 µN.  I have posted the EW graph that shows that here at least twice.   You can see it in their Aug. 2014 paper.

As for Mr Shawyer's famous rotating u-toob, I believe the rotation is a result of the torque from the coolant being pumped.   We only see the first part - just the acceleration.   What happens when the RF and the coolant pump is switched off?  Does it swing back in the opposite direction, demonstrating conservation of momentum?   No on has seen that part of the demo.   I have not seen any experimental data that would refute this explanation.    Asking people to sign an NDA before releasing his data, as TT states Mr Shawyer has requested, does not allow an open and free discussion of his results.   If he really had a working em-drive and wanted to convince the world of that he would demonstrate it freely and in the open to qualified scientists.   Richard Feynman was sometimes asked to investigate these sorts of things.

NDAs are not always under the control of an individual or research group. They can be contractual conditions imposed by a venture capitalist or corporate invester, who in either case for all practical purposes have purchased the rights to all physical and intellectual products resulting from the research and or development. They can even be something as simple as a corporation or other employer, owning all rights to both physical and intellectual property developed by an employee.

We have seen in this thread the effects of employer owned intellectual property rights, in NASA's restrictions on just what Paul March has been able to share, without the official approval and go a head of NASA's oversight process.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: keithpickering on 11/22/2015 05:58 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Success!

Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
I
Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr

Yet-another first time poster here. And congratulations on your success. I note with interest that your frustum does not have straight sides, which has always struck me as the way to go. We have centuries of experience building frustum-shaped resonant cavities called "bells", and they invariably have expanding sides; no miniVNA needed to test, just use your ears. It's also no coincidence that the wavelength of soundwaves in a bell this size will be the same as the wavelength of MW photons. In fact, one wonders: why not start with a magnetron of known frequency, determine the wavelength of said frequency, convert to the frequency of a soundwave, and buy a known-resonant handbell pre-tuned to the proper note?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/22/2015 06:22 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Success!

Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
I
Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr

Yet-another first time poster here. And congratulations on your success. I note with interest that your frustum does not have straight sides, which has always struck me as the way to go. We have centuries of experience building frustum-shaped resonant cavities called "bells", and they invariably have expanding sides; no miniVNA needed to test, just use your ears. It's also no coincidence that the wavelength of soundwaves in a bell this size will be the same as the wavelength of MW photons. In fact, one wonders: why not start with a magnetron of known frequency, determine the wavelength of said frequency, convert to the frequency of a soundwave, and buy a known-resonant handbell pre-tuned to the proper note?

Trombone-shaped cavities have been discussed here before, under the name Riker Drive (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438638#msg1438638).   Musical instruments have their bells shaped like that in order to provide a smooth 'impedance match' between the cylindrical- or conical-shaped main instrument tube and the free air.  There may be something in that...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: Flyby on 11/22/2015 06:55 pm

EW apparatus measured a deflection of the TP of 1.8µm, which according to their force calibration was equivalent to 30-40 µN.  I have posted the EW graph that shows that here at least twice.   You can see it in their Aug. 2014 paper.
I'm fine with that, but why only take the EW test into account? Agreed, of all the tests performed i know of, EW did provide the best data so far, but does that invalidate all the others ? (Shawyer, Yang, Tijmar, Iullian, rfmwguy,..) It gives the other tests a greater uncertainty, but it doesn't render them automatically invalid...

As for Mr Shawyer's famous rotating u-toob, I believe the rotation is a result of the torque from the coolant being pumped.   We only see the first part - just the acceleration.   What happens when the RF and the coolant pump is switched off?  Does it swing back in the opposite direction, demonstrating conservation of momentum?   No on has seen that part of the demo.   I have not seen any experimental data that would refute this explanation.    Asking people to sign an NDA before releasing his data, as TT states Mr Shawyer has requested, does not allow an open and free discussion of his results.   If he really had a working em-drive and wanted to convince the world of that he would demonstrate it freely and in the open to qualified scientists.   Richard Feynman was sometimes asked to investigate these sorts of things.
It is quite possible that the table turns due to the coolant momentum, but we are not sure are we? There is currently no way you can either denounce or confirm that theory. You only "BELIEVE" it is wrong, but there is no factual data to prove your point...
That is why multiple replicated experiments are absolutely needed at this moment.

Believing is not a scientific attitude but a pure emotional state of mind.
If the "conviction of believing" turns out wrong, it was "only a hunch", if it pans out to be right, it was "intuition" ?

As Shells says often, it is all about gathering data.. lots of data, before you can conclude something.
Until the assessment, whether or not there is a force generated inside that cavity, it might be prudent to stay away of preconceived opinions.. well, at least that's my opinion.. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: cee on 11/22/2015 07:20 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Success!

Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
I
Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr.


Another note here...the compression of the frustum by the tuning bands shapes the frustum from linear side wall angle to logrithmic. Translation...its more trombone shaped.than a cone. Interesting...

Great idea for the tuning  Dave, Tuning the cavity to the maggie should reduce your heating considerably and with a improved match let's hope you have more observable thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 07:45 pm
Hi Everyone,
I've followed this forum for awhile now, but first time posting.

I hope there's room for another DIY builder, as I'm ramping one up myself.
It won't be quite as elaborate as the setups I've read about here, but hopefully it will at least be another data point.  I just couldn't sit back and wait for other's results any longer!  And if this effect is real, I want to see it with my own eyes.

So far I've got a horizontal test platform setup.  Initial measurements show it's sensitive down to about 1mN of force.

I've torn apart my old microwave, prepared & tested the stripped down circuit to drive the magnetron.

I'm planning the frustum now.  I was thinking of going with these dimensions:

Big End Diameter 40cm
Small End 16
Center Length 24

(Thanks to TT for that spreadsheet)

Shell - these dimensions were listed with your name on the spreadsheet, is this one you built before, or the one you are working on now?

For a first test, I was going to mount the magnetron right into the frustum.  Any advice on where to best position it?

Thanks and good luck to all the other builders!
There is always room, welcome to the DYIers or as I call them The Crazy Eddie's, from the book "The Mote in God's Eye".

No, sorry those are not my measurements in the spreadsheet. Unless you are going to do spherical endplates I'd recommend another size. Iulian Berca  had some success with a very basic design and quick and dirty build. He used direct magnetron injection and you may want to look at his build. I'll include his results and his link to his web page.

(I don't care for the angle he used to inject into the cavity as being unsymmetrical it could lead to deformed propagating modes.)

For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

Large diameter   0.280 m
Small diameter   0.160 m
Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

Your end plate diameters are not quite as size critical (so I rounded them off) as the center distance and being able to make sure you can build center to center to at least .1 cm (better than .040" of an inch) which is about the thickness of 10 sheets of paper. That's hard to do and hope you can match your jittery output of the magnetron you selected somewhere in the center of the F0 and harmonic of the frustum.

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg

Those are just my thoughts if I was going to do a real quick drive just to see if it could get thrust.

YMMV


Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 07:58 pm
NSF-1701 Update - Success!

Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
I
Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr.

Another note here...the compression of the frustum by the tuning bands shapes the frustum from linear side wall angle to logrithmic. Translation...its more trombone shaped.than a cone. Interesting...

What a genius idea. Dang Dave have a bubbly on me.

I first thought you were going to change the side vertical support rods with threaded rods to tune the length but wasn't sure how you were going to clean up the funky shape in the cone walls. Symmetrical, easy and best of all works. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: zen-in on 11/22/2015 08:53 pm

EW apparatus measured a deflection of the TP of 1.8µm, which according to their force calibration was equivalent to 30-40 µN.  I have posted the EW graph that shows that here at least twice.   You can see it in their Aug. 2014 paper.
I'm fine with that, but why only take the EW test into account? Agreed, of all the tests performed i know of, EW did provide the best data so far, but does that invalidate all the others ? (Shawyer, Yang, Tijmar, Iullian, rfmwguy,..) It gives the other tests a greater uncertainty, but it doesn't render them automatically invalid...

You are not understanding what I wrote.  The EW test was the only one so far that has been so well instrumented.   What they showed was that any em-drive force of 20-30 µN was equivalent to a 1.8µm displacement of the TP.  The same can be assumed for other tests that were not so well instrumented.   They are all suppose to be doing the same thing.   


As for Mr Shawyer's famous rotating u-toob, I believe the rotation is a result of the torque from the coolant being pumped.   We only see the first part - just the acceleration.   What happens when the RF and the coolant pump is switched off?  Does it swing back in the opposite direction, demonstrating conservation of momentum?   No on has seen that part of the demo.   I have not seen any experimental data that would refute this explanation.    Asking people to sign an NDA before releasing his data, as TT states Mr Shawyer has requested, does not allow an open and free discussion of his results.   If he really had a working em-drive and wanted to convince the world of that he would demonstrate it freely and in the open to qualified scientists.   Richard Feynman was sometimes asked to investigate these sorts of things.
It is quite possible that the table turns due to the coolant momentum, but we are not sure are we? There is currently no way you can either denounce or confirm that theory. You only "BELIEVE" it is wrong, but there is no factual data to prove your point...
That is why multiple replicated experiments are absolutely needed at this moment.

Believing is not a scientific attitude but a pure emotional state of mind.
If the "conviction of believing" turns out wrong, it was "only a hunch", if it pans out to be right, it was "intuition" ?
...


I will agree with you this far:  We won't know if Mr. Shawyer's rotary table turns because of coolant being pumped or some other reason until it is independently examined.   Earlier you stated there are good reasons for requiring an NDA and thereby suppressing any possible criticism that might result from an independent investigation.   Now you are saying we don't know what's happening but we should take the position Mr. Shawyer's experiment does what he claims..   I don't think you can with any credibility argue these two positions since one is at odds with the other.   If others want to do their own experiments they should.   It will make interesting reading.  But so far no one has come close to the precision of the work done by EW.   I have looked at the results they released in quite a bit of detail, initially with an open mind.   My conclusion is that there is no em-drive thrust being produced.   You can scroll back through these 5 threads and read what I have said if you think I am wrong.   If you seriously believe the em-drive does work you can build one yourself and do the tests.   I am still waiting to see these flying cars we have all been promised.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 09:37 pm

EW apparatus measured a deflection of the TP of 1.8µm, which according to their force calibration was equivalent to 30-40 µN.  I have posted the EW graph that shows that here at least twice.   You can see it in their Aug. 2014 paper.
I'm fine with that, but why only take the EW test into account? Agreed, of all the tests performed i know of, EW did provide the best data so far, but does that invalidate all the others ? (Shawyer, Yang, Tijmar, Iullian, rfmwguy,..) It gives the other tests a greater uncertainty, but it doesn't render them automatically invalid...

You are not understanding what I wrote.  The EW test was the only one so far that has been so well instrumented.   What they showed was that any em-drive force of 20-30 µN was equivalent to a 1.8µm displacement of the TP.  The same can be assumed for other tests that were not so well instrumented.   They are all suppose to be doing the same thing.   


As for Mr Shawyer's famous rotating u-toob, I believe the rotation is a result of the torque from the coolant being pumped.   We only see the first part - just the acceleration.   What happens when the RF and the coolant pump is switched off?  Does it swing back in the opposite direction, demonstrating conservation of momentum?   No on has seen that part of the demo.   I have not seen any experimental data that would refute this explanation.    Asking people to sign an NDA before releasing his data, as TT states Mr Shawyer has requested, does not allow an open and free discussion of his results.   If he really had a working em-drive and wanted to convince the world of that he would demonstrate it freely and in the open to qualified scientists.   Richard Feynman was sometimes asked to investigate these sorts of things.
It is quite possible that the table turns due to the coolant momentum, but we are not sure are we? There is currently no way you can either denounce or confirm that theory. You only "BELIEVE" it is wrong, but there is no factual data to prove your point...
That is why multiple replicated experiments are absolutely needed at this moment.

Believing is not a scientific attitude but a pure emotional state of mind.
If the "conviction of believing" turns out wrong, it was "only a hunch", if it pans out to be right, it was "intuition" ?
...


I will agree with you this far:  We won't know if Mr. Shawyer's rotary table turns because of coolant being pumped or some other reason until it is independently examined.   Earlier you stated there are good reasons for requiring an NDA and thereby suppressing any possible criticism that might result from an independent investigation.   Now you are saying we don't know what's happening but we should take the position Mr. Shawyer's experiment does what he claims..   I don't think you can with any credibility argue these two positions since one is at odds with the other.   If others want to do their own experiments they should.   It will make interesting reading.  But so far no one has come close to the precision of the work done by EW.   I have looked at the results they released in quite a bit of detail, initially with an open mind.   My conclusion is that there is no em-drive thrust being produced.   You can scroll back through these 5 threads and read what I have said if you think I am wrong.   If you seriously believe the em-drive does work you can build one yourself and do the tests.   I am still waiting to see these flying cars we have all been promised.

Simplicity in design and simplicity in the tests. One reason I designed my DUT test stand was to evaluate both the force with a digital scale and using the same test rig do a acceleration test for up to 200mm of travel.
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=3&page=1

Account for and log all the thermal data from the device as well as any other forces that could have an effect.

Will I get thrust above the thresh hold of your qualifications or others for noise and error? We will have to see and look at the data. But I've planed to keep it simple and apply solid engineering to negate the thermal issues as well as account for the Lorentz forces.

I was heartened this morning watching a video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jw29g

What impressed me was the labs and the physicists  looking for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, not one was I've got the real deal, it was I'll run the tests and evaluate what I see and if it's not what I'm theorizing then so be it, on to the next thing. Some of the pieces of equipment were the most complicated pieces of engineering man/woman has ever built (CERN) and others were very simple and basic and each and every one received my admiration.

The one main difference is I don't have a theory (yet), I'll just present data. Right now data is needed and there is no bad data.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: AG4D on 11/22/2015 09:43 pm
Hi everyone.

Do you think chroming your EMdriver can yield better results ?

Like this:

(http://www.chrometech.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/spa-fittings-after-chroming.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/22/2015 10:11 pm
The similarities between the whole EmDrive story and that of Cold Fusion are striking.  We must be careful not to make the same mistakes that Pons and Fleischmann made.

Here (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01) is an interesting recounting of the story, and the mistakes that were made.

The important aspects of the scientific method, outlined in the article:
Quote
  • The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
  • Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
  • Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
  • Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
  • Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
  • In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
  • Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.
  • Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 10:26 pm
    The similarities between the whole EmDrive story and that of Cold Fusion are striking.  We must be careful not to make the same mistakes that Pons and Fleischmann made.

    Here (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01) is an interesting recounting of the story, and the mistakes that were made.

    The important aspects of the scientific method, outlined in the article:
    Quote
  • The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
  • Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
  • Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
  • Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
  • Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
  • In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
  • Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.

  • You do realise P&F have now been replicated many times?

    Early replication issues were several. The recipe is more complex than early on believed. Biggest issue was not allowing enough time for metal matrix loading of H.

    Patents are being issued and many peer reviewed papers have been published.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 11:08 pm
    Bit the bullet and ordered the miniVNA Tiny today! It was getting frustrating trying to work with the software and cheap VNA. It's going to make it so much easier!

    Shell

    Shell,

    Excellent news.

    The feedback you will get from the VNA will help you to work through your idea list fairly quickly and then to arrive at a place that when you fire up the maggie you will have a very good idea of that to expect. More importantly you will be VNA experience with a good reliable tool to use with the thrust data to tune for even better thrust.

    Like Dave measured with his spectrum scanner, I would expect the raw maggie freq range of your maggie to pull toward the combined resonance of both the frustum's high Q cavity and that of the maggie's lower Q cavity.

    I fully expect to see thrust into the 2 digit mN range, once you get your feed and frustum setup delivering a high Q and low VSWR. This is VNA power.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 11:22 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - Success!

    Looks like my wacky idea worked to tune the frustum without a mechanical tuning plate moving in and out. I took advantage of the copper mesh's flexibility and installed 3 tuning bands around it. The results are great. Was able to slide the resonance up 30 MHz and increase return loss spike by about 6dB. This is perfect, as I can now stabilize my new magnetron and tune the cavity to match it. Pics are test stand, shot of 3 tuning bands and new VNA sweep. Oddball ideas sometimes work. Miller time...
    I
    Wait...new Ctr Freq 2.464342 GHz, Q off return loss peak = 1630.9...bigtime improvement. Also went from 1.8:1 to 1.3:1 vswr.

    Another note here...the compression of the frustum by the tuning bands shapes the frustum from linear side wall angle to logrithmic. Translation...its more trombone shaped.than a cone. Interesting...

    Excellent news Dave.

    Might be interesting to fire up the maggie and spectrum scanner to see if this new arrangement caused more maggie freq pulling to the higher Q frustum's resonant bandwidth or not.

    Might just be an optimal frustum Q that will cause the max maggie freq pulling and going higher may result in less freq pulling.

    I do note that in Roger's Experimental EmDrive there was a sample port  on the frustum side wall, even though there was no active freq tracking system using it. Just maybe Roger also tuned his frustum Q, via loading the sample port, to obtain max maggie freq pulling into the frustum's bandwidth?

    This ability to tune frustum Q for max maggie freq pulling could be why Roger was able to use a maggie with his spherical end plate, high Q rotary Demonstrator EmDrive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/22/2015 11:45 pm
    Bit the bullet and ordered the miniVNA Tiny today! It was getting frustrating trying to work with the software and cheap VNA. It's going to make it so much easier!

    Shell

    Shell,

    Excellent news.

    The feedback you will get from the VNA will help you to work through your idea list fairly quickly and then to arrive at a place that when you fire up the maggie you will have a very good idea of that to expect. More importantly you will be VNA experience with a good reliable tool to use with the thrust data to tune for even better thrust.

    Like Dave measured with his spectrum scanner, I would expect the raw maggie freq range of your maggie to pull toward the combined resonance of both the frustum's high Q cavity and that of the maggie's lower Q cavity.

    I fully expect to see thrust into the 2 digit mN range, once you get your feed and frustum setup delivering a high Q and low VSWR. This is VNA power.
    I know, my ex was a Ham, not that kind of ham, well maybe just a little ham it up, but he was a very accomplished ham operator and I got exposed to this night and day. I have used a VNA in the past with ASW work in profiling out the antennas on the bouys and the acoustics of active and towed arrays. Although never used it for anything quite like this TT. Reading Chinese isn't my 2nd language in using menus in the $80 cheap one I had. Plus the bad thing was I was getting funny readings that were not the same from time to time. Just wasn't worth it trying to be frugal and I'd like to thank a NSFer for helping make it happen.

    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/22/2015 11:54 pm
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 12:22 am
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/silver-plating-kits.html?p=2

    This is what to use, it does a very nice job. Just be slow and constant when applying and you'll get a great finish. Make sure your copper is spotless clean (use a degreaser in the process if you can) and make sure your copper has no large scratches because any little tiny scratch will really show up.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 01:03 am
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/silver-plating-kits.html?p=2

    This is what to use, it does a very nice job. Just be slow and constant when applying and you'll get a great finish. Make sure your copper is spotless clean (use a degreaser in the process if you can) and make sure your copper has no large scratches because any little tiny scratch will really show up.

    Shell

    Shell,

    Are you tank electopolishing or using the rub on product?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 01:07 am
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/silver-plating-kits.html?p=2

    This is what to use, it does a very nice job. Just be slow and constant when applying and you'll get a great finish. Make sure your copper is spotless clean (use a degreaser in the process if you can) and make sure your copper has no large scratches because any little tiny scratch will really show up.

    Shell

    Shell,

    Are you tank electopolishing or using the rub on product?
    The rub on applicator with the power adapter, lays down a thicker plating of silver.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 01:22 am
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/silver-plating-kits.html?p=2

    This is what to use, it does a very nice job. Just be slow and constant when applying and you'll get a great finish. Make sure your copper is spotless clean (use a degreaser in the process if you can) and make sure your copper has no large scratches because any little tiny scratch will really show up.

    Shell

    Shell,

    Are you tank electopolishing or using the rub on product?
    The rub on applicator with the power adapter, lays down a thicker plating of silver.

    Will definitely try this not so much to boost Q, which is only a very small effect, but to reduce the surface oxidation rate.

    Found another rub on source with good info and examples. Very interesting.

    http://www.hollandhallmark.com/en/products/silver-plater/examples/

    Thanks for sharing the intel.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 02:07 am
    Today I was working on getting my silver electroplating down and I must say once you have the knack it looks great. (pssst my first try on scrap looked horrable lol)

    Shell

    Shell,

    Have some experience with copper electroplating. Found there was a way to electropolish that produced a polished surface that normally required manual polishing to achieve.

    Don't know if that is possible with silver, as I never did any silver electroplating but might be worth researching as the out of the tank electropolishing result with copper was very impressive.
    http://www.caswellplating.com/electroplating-anodizing/silver-plating-kits.html?p=2

    This is what to use, it does a very nice job. Just be slow and constant when applying and you'll get a great finish. Make sure your copper is spotless clean (use a degreaser in the process if you can) and make sure your copper has no large scratches because any little tiny scratch will really show up.

    Shell

    Shell,

    Are you tank electopolishing or using the rub on product?
    The rub on applicator with the power adapter, lays down a thicker plating of silver.

    Will definitely try this not so much to boost Q, which is only a very small effect, but to reduce the surface oxidation rate.

    Found another rub on source with good info and examples. Very interesting.

    http://www.hollandhallmark.com/en/products/silver-plater/examples/

    Thanks for sharing the intel.
    Thanks for the pointer too. It's important to be able to open up the frustum and keep it bright and shinny because every little bit helps.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 02:33 am
    Thanks for the pointer too. It's important to be able to open up the frustum and keep it bright and shinny because every little bit helps.

    We know from Prof Tajmar's experience that once the frustum starts getting heated, oxidation quickly follows as his later vac Q was only 50% of his earlier atmo Q, due to interior oxidation.

    Suspect the pure rub on silver finishes may be wax based with silver as a component.

    For sure the power based silver plating wands should do a good job but would still manually polish the surface. Pre polishing and cleaning the copper would be critical to getting a good result.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 02:54 am
    Thanks for the pointer too. It's important to be able to open up the frustum and keep it bright and shinny because every little bit helps.

    We know from Prof Tajmar's experience that once the frustum starts getting heated, oxidation quickly follows as his later vac Q was only 50% of his earlier atmo Q, due to interior oxidation.

    Suspect the pure rub on silver finishes may be wax based with silver as a component.

    For sure the power based silver plating wands should do a good job but would still manually polish the surface. Pre polishing and cleaning the copper would be critical to getting a good result.

    A couple of things on Tajmar's. If he excited it the way he showed with the magnetron stuck into the sidewall the broad bandwidth of the directly injected microwaves at that angle would assure a Betty Crocker melting pot of hot spots and maybe creating ionized ozone. I would expect it to discolor and oxidize in those hot spots.

    I guess after each run I'll just disassemble the drive to see what it looks like. If it is a issue I'll gold flash electroplate it but that's costly and I'll forgo it for now if I can.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tetrakis on 11/23/2015 03:04 am
    The similarities between the whole EmDrive story and that of Cold Fusion are striking.  We must be careful not to make the same mistakes that Pons and Fleischmann made.

    Here (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01) is an interesting recounting of the story, and the mistakes that were made.

    The important aspects of the scientific method, outlined in the article:
    Quote
  • The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
  • Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
  • Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
  • Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
  • Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
  • In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
  • Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.

  • You do realise P&F have now been replicated many times?

    Early replication issues were several. The recipe is more complex than early on believed. Biggest issue was not allowing enough time for metal matrix loading of H.

    Patents are being issued and many peer reviewed papers have been published.

    The value of this thread is based on the stimulating discussion of experimental and theoretical work regarding the EMdrive. Both aspects have been fairly productive, with trusted experimental work currently supporting the null hypothesis and theoretical work guiding future hypothesis testing. That stimulating discussion hinges on the participation of individuals with credibility. When LENR and other snake-oil type pathological science is supported without comment, it serves as a red flag that discourages the participation of those individuals.

    The long and sorry history of LENR research is well documented elsewhere. Wikipedia is a good primer, as is the link in ThereIWas3's post. I won't go into its details because it would be beyond the scope of this thread, and others have already done such a good job describing them.

    In science fiction terms: LENR's history is a cautionary tale of good scientists led to the Dark Side, not heroic Rebels fighting the Science Empire.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 03:08 am
    In science fiction terms: LENR's history is a cautionary tale of good scientists led to the Dark Side, not heroic Rebels fighting the Science Empire.

    2016 will be an interesting year for you then.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 03:19 am
    I guess after each run I'll just disassemble the drive to see what it looks like. If it is a issue I'll gold flash electroplate it but that's costly and I'll forgo it for now if I can.

    Seems at one time EW had the funding to do it all with their Flight Thruster like Alum frustum. Is not a SPR Flight Thruster replication. Too big. But still interesting.

    This Alum frustum, as I understand it, predates Paul's home built copper frustum that is the current workhorse.

    Paul did say EW were planning to drive this Alum frustum with a 1.2kW maggie and test it on a Roger like Teeter Totter test rig. Maybe one day Paul can give us an update and maybe an image or 2?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/23/2015 03:24 am
    Thanks for the pointer too. It's important to be able to open up the frustum and keep it bright and shinny because every little bit helps.

    We know from Prof Tajmar's experience that once the frustum starts getting heated, oxidation quickly follows as his later vac Q was only 50% of his earlier atmo Q, due to interior oxidation.

    Suspect the pure rub on silver finishes may be wax based with silver as a component.

    For sure the power based silver plating wands should do a good job but would still manually polish the surface. Pre polishing and cleaning the copper would be critical to getting a good result.

    Not likely wax based. It is still electroplating. You're just brushing the charged solution over an oppositely charged surface with a saturated brush or pad. The advantage is the ability to plate a specific area. The disadvantage is it is far more likely to wind up with a non uniform thickness. I am not sure that variations in thickness, would be any real problem in these early test designs. It should be small. Especially if you plan the coating properly. Work from a high point down and corners out.

    In Shells' frustum with one end plate already been epoxied together, it might be a little tough. you do not want to let it run on the surface as the streaks would wind up a thicker build up, that might change surface conductivity. Haven't really done any plating but I have done some electrostatic painting, similar but different.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/23/2015 03:29 am
    The point I was trying to make in mentioning P+F was that their unwillingness to share the details of their experiments greatly delayed the community's ability to either confirm or refute P+F's conclusions.  The University of Utah was partly to blame.  I see similar things happening with some EmDrive experimenters, whether it is NASA, SPR, or China.   I can see risk-averse NASA not wanting to get embarassed like they were with the "arsenic-loving bacteria" fiasco.   SPR has a financial interest.  Who knows what China is up to.  None of this is doing anybody any good.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/23/2015 03:29 am
    Thanks for the pointer too. It's important to be able to open up the frustum and keep it bright and shinny because every little bit helps.

    We know from Prof Tajmar's experience that once the frustum starts getting heated, oxidation quickly follows as his later vac Q was only 50% of his earlier atmo Q, due to interior oxidation.

    Suspect the pure rub on silver finishes may be wax based with silver as a component.

    For sure the power based silver plating wands should do a good job but would still manually polish the surface. Pre polishing and cleaning the copper would be critical to getting a good result.

    A couple of things on Tajmar's. If he excited it the way he showed with the magnetron stuck into the sidewall the broad bandwidth of the directly injected microwaves at that angle would assure a Betty Crocker melting pot of hot spots and maybe creating ionized ozone. I would expect it to discolor and oxidize in those hot spots.

    I guess after each run I'll just disassemble the drive to see what it looks like. If it is a issue I'll gold flash electroplate it but that's costly and I'll forgo it for now if I can.

    The silver plating should be good enough. I don't think silver tarnish is actually oxidisation the way copper would... But I would have to look that up.

    If you can get a reasonable even silver finish, it should hold up... But then again when was the last time cooked silver plated copper in a microwave?

    EDIT: OK so silver can tarnish through oxidation, but over a longer time frame than copper.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 03:40 am
    I guess after each run I'll just disassemble the drive to see what it looks like. If it is a issue I'll gold flash electroplate it but that's costly and I'll forgo it for now if I can.

    Seems at one time EW had the funding to do it all with their Flight Thruster like Alum frustum. Is not a SPR Flight Thruster replication. Too big. But still interesting.

    This Alum frustum, as I understand it, predates Paul's home built copper frustum that is the current workhorse.

    Paul did say EW were planning to drive this Alum frustum with a 1.2kW maggie and test it on a Roger like Teeter Totter test rig. Maybe one day Paul can give us an update and maybe an image or 2?
    Do we have the dims on the drive? even with the plug insert?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 03:42 am
    The point I was trying to make in mentioning P+F was that their unwillingness to share the details of their experiments greatly delayed the community's ability to either confirm or refute P+F's conclusions.  The University of Utah was partly to blame.  I see similar things happening with some EmDrive experimenters, whether it is NASA, SPR, or China.   I can see risk-averse NASA not wanting to get embarassed like they were with the "arsenic-loving bacteria" fiasco.   SPR has a financial interest.  Who knows what China is up to.  None of this is doing anybody any good.

    All so true.

    However Roger does, from time to time, create a bread crumb trail to follow so as to try to avoid us DIYers going down so many dead end pathway that we give up.

    I see a good, clever and very experienced aerospace engineer, who tries to walk a thin line between NDAs, shareholder and IP licensee best intentions, while trying to offer helpful directional hints to DIYers.

    Of course there are those here who have a very different opinion of Roger. For them, 2016 will be a very interesting year.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 03:46 am
    I guess after each run I'll just disassemble the drive to see what it looks like. If it is a issue I'll gold flash electroplate it but that's costly and I'll forgo it for now if I can.

    Seems at one time EW had the funding to do it all with their Flight Thruster like Alum frustum. Is not a SPR Flight Thruster replication. Too big. But still interesting.

    This Alum frustum, as I understand it, predates Paul's home built copper frustum that is the current workhorse.

    Paul did say EW were planning to drive this Alum frustum with a 1.2kW maggie and test it on a Roger like Teeter Totter test rig. Maybe one day Paul can give us an update and maybe an image or 2?

    Do we have the dims on the drive? even with the plug insert?

    As the Alum frustum it is old tech, maybe Paul can share the dimensions?

    Paul you there?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/23/2015 04:23 am

    The silver plating should be good enough. I don't think silver tarnish is actually oxidisation the way copper would... But I would have to look that up.

    If you can get a reasonable even silver finish, it should hold up... But then again when was the last time cooked silver plated copper in a microwave?

    EDIT: OK so silver can tarnish through oxidation, but over a longer time frame than copper.

    I don't know what kind of Silver plate Shell is using.   I used a cyanide-based solution for Silver plating a long time ago.   It may not be an improvement over polished Copper because it could have cavities and a microstructure that would give it a higher bulk resistivity.   It's worth a try though.  It can be easily taken off with polishing. if need be.    I don't know what is required to make Silver oxidize.    The blackish tarnish you see on sterling silver is from the Copper content oxidizing and from any Silver Sulphide that forms on the surface.   Pure Silver, generally referred to as Fine Silver, will only tarnish if it is exposed to Sulphur, like H2S from rotting eggs, etc.   It can be heated until it melts at a bright orange temperature and when it cools it will be white.   This can be done without having to use flux.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/23/2015 04:50 am

    The silver plating should be good enough. I don't think silver tarnish is actually oxidisation the way copper would... But I would have to look that up.

    If you can get a reasonable even silver finish, it should hold up... But then again when was the last time cooked silver plated copper in a microwave?

    EDIT: OK so silver can tarnish through oxidation, but over a longer time frame than copper.

    I don't know what kind of Silver plate Shell is using.   I used a cyanide-based solution for Silver plating a long time ago.   It may not be an improvement over polished Copper because it could have cavities and a microstructure that would give it a higher bulk resistivity.   It's worth a try though.  It can be easily taken off with polishing. if need be.    I don't know what is required to make Silver oxidize.    The blackish tarnish you see on sterling silver is from the Copper content oxidizing and from any Silver Sulphide that forms on the surface.   Pure Silver, generally referred to as Fine Silver, will only tarnish if it is exposed to Sulphur, like H2S from rotting eggs, etc.   It can be heated until it melts at a bright orange temperature and when it cools it will be white.   This can be done without having to use flux.   

    It is not a Cyanide based solution. But still fine silver in solution. I suspect it is the same solution they use for a dip tank, just an alternate brush on technique and still requires a charge on the applicator and the item being plated.

    The sulphur based tarnish is what I had remembered but a Google search came up with a less likely long term tarnish through oxidation. That may have referred to sterling instead of fine silver?

    Shells' large end plate is epoxied to the frustum, which would make polishing the silver off difficult.

    If it gets to the point she would be considering a gold plating, the plating company could easily remove and replace the silver to spec.. But that would be expensive... And you would have to insulate the exterior surface to plate just the inside and reduce cost.

    I don't think most of this concern is really an issue until and unless she kicks the power up into the Kws.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 11/23/2015 05:39 am
    TT / Shell - Thanks for the warm welcome and all the tips!

    Re: miniVNA - That does look like a sweet device and would eliminate the guesswork.  I'm still teetering on how much $$ to dedicate to this investigation, as I keep flip-flopping from skeptical to optimistic that a) this thrust is real, and b) that, if it is, it can reliably be demonstrated on a low budget.

    I suppose that's what led me to a quick and dirty first build..  If there's an inkling of positive results, I'm sure it would drive me to further refine and pursue more experiments.

    Shell - thanks for suggesting dimensions.  I'll likely go with those for a first try as I can tell (from the forum posts) you've spent a lot of time considering and simulating the resonance modes of these cavities.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 11/23/2015 05:40 am
    Greetings!
    First post and another DIYer here. I didn’t want to post anything until having some real results with a frustum, but it is hard to resist, especially seeing some continuous skepticism… I was inspired by EagleWorks report, and so my approach kind of follows their lead. I am not using any magnetrons. The first test is going to be low-powered (~30W), coaxial coupled. However, the entire RF power system (battery, generator, amplifier and control module) will be mounted on a pendulum, having no electrical connection to anything at all. Control is going to be via a simple wireless link. As of today I can only report on the first test of the pendulum platform itself, it was a very successful test though. Test force is generated electrostatically, applying 1 kV to a pair of parallel PCB plates. Platform position is measured with a laser sensor with resolution up to 1 micron. Both position data and control signal are sampled and collected by a DAQ. Platform is suspended to the ceiling on 3 meters of thin tungsten wire. Platform weight is about 3.3 kg. This setup translates to platform displacement of 1 micron per ~ 11 uN of applied test force. I was able to easily detect differences in the mid-point of platform oscillation all the way down to 17 microns, that is, ~190 uN of test force. This could likely be further improved up to a noise floor of around ~50 uN. Based on EagleWorks report, these values seem good enough to enable detecting frustum-produced force from as low as 30W of applied RF power.
    I have also got a few grand worth of RF/microwave stuff and now have pretty much everything for the real test, expect for the frustum itself. I have also got access to COMSOL and am now doing my best trying to learn how to model the proper feeding to the cavity. I will definitely report what I find during the first real frustum test. It will likely take at least another month to get there.
    A few pictures of the test platform and the electrostatic test with 1.25 mN of force attached. Note the sledge hammer working as dummy weight :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 06:15 am
    ...I suppose that's what led me to a quick and dirty first build...

    Wish you luck going in blind.

    From everything I know publicly and privately, building a successful EmDrive is not quick, simple nor easy even if you follow someone elses plans. Microwave black magic gets in the way.

    Sure applying the Rf and measuring thrust seems simple. But there are many steps along the way to avoid trying to find thrust in a sea of noise.

    The VNA is your magic spy glass to cut through the microwave black magic as you work to obtain resonance in the desired mode, high Q, knowing your bandwidth and VSWR.

    With respect to Dave, I'm sure knowing what he now knows, his pathway would have been to do the VNA analysis he is now doing BEFORE firing up his Maggie. He is now on the pathway to multi digit mN thrust production thanks to what his VNA taught him about his frustum and Maggie setup.

    The next step is to use waveguide feed, use an inline tuner and real time monitoring of forward and reflected power plus using a circulator and Rf dummy load to thermalise the reflected power in a way to not induce unwanted thernal effects in rhe thrust measurement.

    Note how Prof Yang's system works. This is a good model to follow as both the magnetron waste heat and the thermalised reflected Rf are arranged in such a way so to NOT cause thermal effects in the thrust measurements from these 2 heat sources.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Flyby on 11/23/2015 09:18 am

    I will agree with you this far:  We won't know if Mr. Shawyer's rotary table turns because of coolant being pumped or some other reason until it is independently examined.   Earlier you stated there are good reasons for requiring an NDA and thereby suppressing any possible criticism that might result from an independent investigation.   Now you are saying we don't know what's happening but we should take the position Mr. Shawyer's experiment does what he claims..   I don't think you can with any credibility argue these two positions since one is at odds with the other.   If others want to do their own experiments they should.   It will make interesting reading.  But so far no one has come close to the precision of the work done by EW.   I have looked at the results they released in quite a bit of detail, initially with an open mind.   My conclusion is that there is no em-drive thrust being produced.   You can scroll back through these 5 threads and read what I have said if you think I am wrong.   If you seriously believe the em-drive does work you can build one yourself and do the tests.   I am still waiting to see these flying cars we have all been promised.
    I'm a bit perplexed, to be honest... Maybe it is because English is not my native language? Or didn't I explain it enough, but I DO NOT BELIEVE anything.

    All addition I made to the topic are always preceded with "IF we assume that..." or sort a like. That is because I'm still very much aware this could be a hoax after all. I've been critical to both EMdrive believers as well towards diehard nay-sayers.

    From my point of view there is enough puzzling information/observation that warrants further investigation. And that is exactly what is needed : to replicate the experiments done so far. If they all show EW like signatures, then it is what it is.

    But right now you got tests that show "something" and you got tests that show nearly "nothing". You clearly took sides well before any further investigation is done, but I could just as well say the same about  TT's attitude, who is without any doubt certain that it does work.

    My point of view is that we do not know for sure yet if there is something happening or not and that further investigation is justified to reach final conclusions.....
    I'm sitting on the fence and I'll stay there until more replication tests are done.

    Fact remains that there were tests done that resulted in a bigger displacement then 1.8µm.
    And even if it seriously lacks public data it still warrants replication to investigate where it comes from.
    It might be vibrations combined with air bearings, it might be the circulating coolant but it also might be an EMdrive effect...we simply do not know...YET.

    One additional test from EW, although performed with superior scientific rigor, is not enough to conclude something from. You'll need 4-5-6.. tests, all confirming it is a fluke.
    And for those claiming it does work (like TT), they need to present very convincing results, way above that background noise. Also, on multiple different tests...

    Dismissing an option before seriously investigating, because it is in apparent conflict with our current understanding of physics is understandable and very human, but not good science.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Flyby on 11/23/2015 10:00 am

    Note how Prof Yang's system works. This is a good model to follow as both the magnetron waste heat and the thermalised reflected Rf are arranged in such a way so to NOT cause thermal effects in the thrust measurements from these 2 heat sources.
    I'm puzzled then to why the performance of Yang's system has a serious performance drop, once it gets past the 300-400w? Most probably it could be a thermal  issue, no?
    So how do you match that with the claim of it doesn't have a thermal effect?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 10:19 am

    Note how Prof Yang's system works. This is a good model to follow as both the magnetron waste heat and the thermalised reflected Rf are arranged in such a way so to NOT cause thermal effects in the thrust measurements from these 2 heat sources.
    I'm puzzled then to why the performance of Yang's system has a serious performance drop, once it gets past the 300-400w? Most probably it could be a thermal  issue, no?
    So how do you match that with the claim of it doesn't have a thermal effect?

    This has been discussed before. It is the result of a narrower frustum input bandwidth to wider magnetron output bandwidth.

    Prof Yang did produce a paper covering this apparent drop.

    Turns out you need to do a frustum input spectrum adjusted power analysis and not use raw magnetron output. Just more microwave black magic to deal with.

    You do understand how they adapted a standard inverted pendulum Ion thruster test stand to do their EmDrive thrust measurements? If not see attached. The magneton, with it's waste heat load, and reflected Rf dummy load are not on the test stand.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/23/2015 12:20 pm
    Control is going to be via a simple wireless link.

    You did not mention what RF frequency you are using for your EmDrive, only that you are not using a magnetron.  Watch out for interference between that and your control link.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 12:27 pm
    Control is going to be via a simple wireless link.

    You did not mention what RF frequency you are using for your EmDrive, only that you are not using a magnetron.  Watch out for interference between that and your control link.

    2.4GHz for frustum. 5GHz upper high power band for the comms link.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Stormbringer on 11/23/2015 12:38 pm
    Sounds like modem or phone frequencies. Be careful your EM drive doesn't start downloading internet smut. ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 01:56 pm
    Greetings!
    First post and another DIYer here. I didn’t want to post anything until having some real results with a frustum, but it is hard to resist, especially seeing some continuous skepticism… I was inspired by EagleWorks report, and so my approach kind of follows their lead. I am not using any magnetrons. The first test is going to be low-powered (~30W), coaxial coupled. However, the entire RF power system (battery, generator, amplifier and control module) will be mounted on a pendulum, having no electrical connection to anything at all. Control is going to be via a simple wireless link. As of today I can only report on the first test of the pendulum platform itself, it was a very successful test though. Test force is generated electrostatically, applying 1 kV to a pair of parallel PCB plates. Platform position is measured with a laser sensor with resolution up to 1 micron. Both position data and control signal are sampled and collected by a DAQ. Platform is suspended to the ceiling on 3 meters of thin tungsten wire. Platform weight is about 3.3 kg. This setup translates to platform displacement of 1 micron per ~ 11 uN of applied test force. I was able to easily detect differences in the mid-point of platform oscillation all the way down to 17 microns, that is, ~190 uN of test force. This could likely be further improved up to a noise floor of around ~50 uN. Based on EagleWorks report, these values seem good enough to enable detecting frustum-produced force from as low as 30W of applied RF power.
    I have also got a few grand worth of RF/microwave stuff and now have pretty much everything for the real test, expect for the frustum itself. I have also got access to COMSOL and am now doing my best trying to learn how to model the proper feeding to the cavity. I will definitely report what I find during the first real frustum test. It will likely take at least another month to get there.
    A few pictures of the test platform and the electrostatic test with 1.25 mN of force attached. Note the sledge hammer working as dummy weight :)
    Welcome to the forum and the investigation. While I've logged the emdrive effect already, I'm already moving towards more robust data for next year.

    Just a word of advice. Use critical data positively. It helps build a better experiment. This is far different that naysayers who offer nothing but their opinions without data. Critical data and opinions separate good posters from trolls.

    Critical data helped me mitigate potential experimental errors and NSF is widely known for that kind of helpful critique. A lot of other places are not. Welcome aboard.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/23/2015 02:19 pm

    I will agree with you this far:  We won't know if Mr. Shawyer's rotary table turns because of coolant being pumped or some other reason until it is independently examined.   Earlier you stated there are good reasons for requiring an NDA and thereby suppressing any possible criticism that might result from an independent investigation.   Now you are saying we don't know what's happening but we should take the position Mr. Shawyer's experiment does what he claims..   I don't think you can with any credibility argue these two positions since one is at odds with the other.   If others want to do their own experiments they should.   It will make interesting reading.  But so far no one has come close to the precision of the work done by EW.   I have looked at the results they released in quite a bit of detail, initially with an open mind.   My conclusion is that there is no em-drive thrust being produced.   You can scroll back through these 5 threads and read what I have said if you think I am wrong.   If you seriously believe the em-drive does work you can build one yourself and do the tests.   I am still waiting to see these flying cars we have all been promised.
    I'm a bit perplexed, to be honest... Maybe it is because English is not my native language? Or didn't I explain it enough, but I DO NOT BELIEVE anything.

    All addition I made to the topic are always preceded with "IF we assume that..." or sort a like. That is because I'm still very much aware this could be a hoax after all. I've been critical to both EMdrive believers as well towards diehard nay-sayers.

    From my point of view there is enough puzzling information/observation that warrants further investigation. And that is exactly what is needed : to replicate the experiments done so far. If they all show EW like signatures, then it is what it is.

    But right now you got tests that show "something" and you got tests that show nearly "nothing". You clearly took sides well before any further investigation is done, but I could just as well say the same about  TT's attitude, who is without any doubt certain that it does work.

    My point of view is that we do not know for sure yet if there is something happening or not and that further investigation is justified to reach final conclusions.....
    I'm sitting on the fence and I'll stay there until more replication tests are done.

    Fact remains that there were tests done that resulted in a bigger displacement then 1.8µm.
    And even if it seriously lacks public data it still warrants replication to investigate where it comes from.
    It might be vibrations combined with air bearings, it might be the circulating coolant but it also might be an EMdrive effect...we simply do not know...YET.

    One additional test from EW, although performed with superior scientific rigor, is not enough to conclude something from. You'll need 4-5-6.. tests, all confirming it is a fluke.
    And for those claiming it does work (like TT), they need to present very convincing results, way above that background noise. Also, on multiple different tests...

    Dismissing an option before seriously investigating, because it is in apparent conflict with our current understanding of physics is understandable and very human, but not good science.
    Let me repost something ...

    DEGRASSE TYSON: How did we, tiny creatures living on that speck of dust, ever manage to figure out how to send spacecraft out among the stars of the Milky Way? Only a few centuries ago, a mere second of cosmic time, we knew nothing of where or when we were.
    Oblivious to the rest of the cosmos, we inhabited a kind of prison-- a tiny universe bounded by a nutshell.

    How did we escape from the prison? It was the work of generations of searchers who took five simple rules to heart.

    Question authority.

    No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

    Think for yourself.

    Question yourself.

    Don't believe anything just because you want to.

    Believing something doesn't make it so.

    Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment.

    If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong! Get over it.

    Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

    If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

    And perhaps the most important rule of all Remember, you could be wrong.

    Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history, they all made mistakes.
    Of course they did-- they were human.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 03:05 pm
    Roger Shawyer made a recent appearance at a UK propulsion event about 3 weeks ago and gave a talk. I did not see anything new in his slides, but haven't seen recent press about SPR:

    https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/space/article-view/-/blogs/vibrant-uk-space-propulsion-community-gathers-for-annual-event
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/23/2015 05:27 pm

    I'm sitting on the fence and I'll stay there until more replication tests are done.

    Fact remains that there were tests done that resulted in a bigger displacement then 1.8µm.
    And even if it seriously lacks public data it still warrants replication to investigate where it comes from.
    It might be vibrations combined with air bearings, it might be the circulating coolant but it also might be an EMdrive effect...we simply do not know...YET.

    One additional test from EW, although performed with superior scientific rigor, is not enough to conclude something from. You'll need 4-5-6.. tests, all confirming it is a fluke.
    And for those claiming it does work (like TT), they need to present very convincing results, way above that background noise. Also, on multiple different tests...

    Dismissing an option before seriously investigating, because it is in apparent conflict with our current understanding of physics is understandable and very human, but not good science.

    I was sitting on the fence at one time.  That was over a year ago when there were discussions on this forum with Paul March, who works in the EW lab.    A couple of times I suggested they run an experiment where the fustrum would be heated with a DC power source.   There was no response and so far no one has run this experiment on their apparatus.   The pattern I have seen with all the em-drive builds is the results have all been ambiguous and no experiments have been done to attempt to measure the errors caused by thermal effects.   The same science mistakes that happened during the cold fusion fiasco are happening again.   

    Cold Fusion:  U. of Utah and Pons refused to supply the information needed for other scientists to replicate their experiment
    EM-Drive:  Mr Shawyer requests an NDA before releasing any experimental data.  This is more restrictive than the cold fusion experience.   No detailed drawings of his apparatus have been disclosed, even though it has been patented.

    Cold Fusion: After much pressure from the scientific community, U. of Utah and Pons allowed a double blind test of Palladium rods to see if nuclear products were produced.   This test was sabotaged and later Pons threatened legal action when the true results were publicized.
    EM-Drive:  No double blind tests or independent investigations of Mr. Shawyer's experiment have been done yet.

    The above information about the cold fusion fiasco comes from a UC Berkeley website:
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01
    This was posted earlier and is a very good case study of when science goes bad.

    Granted investigating Cold Fusion cost over $100M in 1989-1990 (almost $200M today) before the whole issue was resolved.  There were top labs investigating this  - Brookhaven, MIT, and others.

    There are a lot of similarities between the cold fusion claims of 1989 and the em-drive claims.
    1) Both could not be consistently reproduced.
    2) Both violate the generally accepted laws of physics.
    3) Both involve errors in estimating thermal effects.
    4) Both are examples of science done the wrong way.

    If I was not convinced beyond any doubt that the em-drive does not work as claimed I would build one and test out the idea for myself.   I like reading about others who have done this and I applaud their efforts.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/23/2015 05:33 pm
    Help.  I have a conceptual error in some equations, perhaps compounded by a floating point error in excel.  Can the collective tell me how to fix this? 

    I want to figure out how much bouncing around inside the can will redshift the photons (to see if redshift might cause a problem with bandwidth).  So to start with I want to find out how much a photon is redshifted each time it imparts momentum to its surroundings by being absorbed and reemitted.

    I think I know that emission of a photon, a photon rocket, will transfer W/C (watts/speed of light) momentum in Newtons.  I should be able to use this to tell how much a photon is redshifted when it’s emitted.  So 299792458 Watts / 299792458 = 1 Newton of force.  Since a Joule is defined as the energy needed to move a 1 kg object with 1 Newton of force over one second and 1 joule = 1 watt/second, if I make that 299792458 Watt/seconds, it seems like all the units will line up nicely.  I start with 299792458 watt/seconds of energy and end with 299792457 watt/seconds.  (Perhaps I’ve made an error here.)

    Ok, next I need to know how much energy each photon has.  Since I’m interested in redshift at 2,400,000,000 hrz (2.4 Ghz) I take the frequency and multiply it by the plank constant  (6.6260755 * 10^-34).  This gives me 1.59026*10^-24 Joules of energy per photon.  That’s a pretty straightforward and classic equation, so unless I’ve got the constant wrong or excel has died, I’ve got a high confidence in that number.

    Now that I know how much energy each individual photon has I can divide 299792458/1.59026*10^-24 (total energy in joules/joules per photon) and find that I have 1.8851811*10^32 photons (I now know both frequency, in joules, and amplitude, in photons). 

    So I take 299792457 (the number of watts after redshift) and divide it by the number of photons.  Here’s where I think I get an excel error.  The difference between the energy per photon before and after redshift is so small that it can’t simply be modeled in seven decimal places.  Instead, I have to trust the program, take the answer, and divide it by a plank constant to get be to a frequency.  I get 2,399,999,991.9944600 hrz.  So, ok floating point error.  It looks like I have a redshift of 8 hrz.  Believable. 

    Here’s the thing, if I put in a starting frequency of 2,250,000,000 hrz I get a final frequency of 2,249,999,992.4948100 hrz.  The decimal goes down as I go up in frequency and up as frequency gets lower. 

    Then I stopped and realized that this approach would almost always give me a decimal for an answer.  I’m dividing a number by a slightly smaller number.  Further, if redshift has to happen in full hrz increments, what happens if instead of using a 2.4ghz signal, you used an ELF signal at 100hrz?  Wouldn’t that mean that 1% of the total energy would have to go to momentum?

    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 11/23/2015 05:57 pm
    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    There is nothing special about 1 Hertz.  It just means one cycle per second, and seconds are a completely arbitrary number made up by humans.  Fractional Hz are fine.  I'm not sure about the rest of your post, I'll have to re-read it some other time.

    EDIT:
    For example, the earth's spin can be measured in Hz, it's about .00001 cycles per second.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/23/2015 06:07 pm

    If I was not convinced beyond any doubt that the em-drive does not work as claimed I would build one and test out the idea for myself.   I like reading about others who have done this and I applaud their efforts.
    I really liked the Li's (potomacneuron's) testing and the Lorentz effect. While it did show a few micronewtons, it helped me understand potential error sources. I wish he would continue to pursue more robust error tests, particulary thermal, which if there is an error in all this, I'd lay money on it. Right now though, its been all speculation, no testing.

    The test apparatus and DUT design is not for the average home builder. Electromechanical skills and knowledge of microwave freqs tends to put it out of reach, not to mention the lethal voltages and BeO. That being said, I did take the plunge to replicate and was pleasantly surprised any type of unusual force was logged after a few initial attempts.

    Would welcome you or any other skeptics to help us out by demonstrating the 100+ micronewton data as experimental error. Even though I've switched to "the dark side", I am still open to slapping my forehead and shouting "how could I have missed this". So far, my hand and forehead haven't been introduced to each other...well, not for a few years anyway.  ;)

    My suggestion to you is to cut several round holes in the horizontal FR4 plate above the fustrum so hot air can escape.    That may be difficult to do at this stage because you will have to partially disassemble your experiment.    Tape the pieces you cut out back in, sealing any air holes.   Run your experiment again and measure the thrust.   Now remove the plugs, put leave them and the tape, etc on so the weight is the same.   Run your test again and measure the thrust.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 06:10 pm
    I have a few questions about the experiments in which you claim to have measured thrust.

    What steps did you take to quantify and eliminate differences in atmospheric conditions between your various test runs?

    Were those atmospheric conditions correlated to your measurements in any way, in an attempt to identify possible thermal effects or changes in device performance which might have corresponded with those differing atmospheric conditions?

    Did you formalize a testing procedure? For instance, how many identical runs did you make to produce the data which you based your conclusions on? I'm assuming you made numerous test runs using an identical testing configuration and then analyzed the data from those identically configured runs to perform error analysis.

    Were you able to identify any thermal effects or sources of possible measurement error in your testing rig?

    These are the questions I've had of your flight tests for a while. Nothing as technical as locking into the proper resonating frequency and numerous other things which are beyond my skillset. Just the basic, run of the mill questions of experimental rigour. Thanks for welcoming this opportunity to pose these questions!

    If you read carefully what the reddit/emdrive naysayers post you will find little that specifically addresses a specific experimental method. Unlike here, where skeptics have been polite and provide useful areas to watch out for (see zen's) critiques, reddit/emdrive has become a troll magnet that will not be allowed here. It is the reason I deleted my account and I encourage others to do so as well. Its a joke IMHO...but you brought it up.

    Now to your questions, if you have read my test report and watched my videos, then you know all ambient temp and humidity notes were made. Fortunately, they were all similar. The 20 videos will also guide you through the testing and test stand improvements. You will note that galinstan was scrapped based on critiques here on NSF. Same with the laser pointer when I moved to the LDS. Same with the oil bath and guide wires on horizontal beam to significantly reduce all oscillations

    This is all in my videos and test report. If you have any more questions regarding the professional statistical analysis done for me, the statistician has given me permission to forward you his contact info. One caveat, it cannot be to an anonymous or fictious person. You can PM me with your information.

    Note: A good number of NSF members are not anomyous. I think this can separate good posters from bad ones as well.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 06:17 pm

    If I was not convinced beyond any doubt that the em-drive does not work as claimed I would build one and test out the idea for myself.   I like reading about others who have done this and I applaud their efforts.
    I really liked the Li's (potomacneuron's) testing and the Lorentz effect. While it did show a few micronewtons, it helped me understand potential error sources. I wish he would continue to pursue more robust error tests, particulary thermal, which if there is an error in all this, I'd lay money on it. Right now though, its been all speculation, no testing.

    The test apparatus and DUT design is not for the average home builder. Electromechanical skills and knowledge of microwave freqs tends to put it out of reach, not to mention the lethal voltages and BeO. That being said, I did take the plunge to replicate and was pleasantly surprised any type of unusual force was logged after a few initial attempts.

    Would welcome you or any other skeptics to help us out by demonstrating the 100+ micronewton data as experimental error. Even though I've switched to "the dark side", I am still open to slapping my forehead and shouting "how could I have missed this". So far, my hand and forehead haven't been introduced to each other...well, not for a few years anyway.  ;)

    My suggestion to you is to cut several round holes in the horizontal FR4 plate above the fustrum so hot air can escape.    That may be difficult to do at this stage because you will have to partially disassemble your experiment.    Tape the pieces you cut out back in, sealing any air holes.   Run your experiment again and measure the thrust.   Now remove the plugs, put leave them and the tape, etc on so the weight is the same.   Run your test again and measure the thrust.
    Good idea, the airholes could change the resonance but more importantly, I could measure little to no heat rise in the frustum with the thermal cam. All the heat, or I'd guess about 98% of it was from the topside of the magnetron. Thermal movies are here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R__2WLlELic
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: tchernik on 11/23/2015 06:48 pm

    If you read carefully what the reddit/emdrive naysayers post you will find little that specifically addresses a specific experimental method. Unlike here, where skeptics have been polite and provide useful areas to watch out for (see zen's) critiques, reddit/emdrive has become a troll magnet that will not be allowed here. It is the reason I deleted my account and I encourage others to do so as well. Its a joke IMHO...but you brought it up.

    Now to your questions, if you have read my test report and watched my videos, then you know all ambient temp and humidity notes were made. Fortunately, they were all similar. The 20 videos will also guide you through the testing and test stand improvements. You will note that galinstan was scrapped based on critiques here on NSF. Same with the laser pointer when I moved to the LDS. Same with the oil bath and guide wires on horizontal beam to significantly reduce all oscillations

    This is all in my videos and test report. If you have any more questions regarding the professional statistical analysis done for me, the statistician has given me permission to forward you his contact info. One caveat, it cannot be to an anonymous or fictious person. You can PM me with your information.

    Note: A good number of NSF members are not anomyous. I think this can separate good posters from bad ones as well.

    Lately, my feeling of people being there while promoting a serious consideration of Emdrive sometimes felt like watching the science geek organizing experiments and science fairs in a school on a particularly nasty neighborhood.

    The overall response isn't very enthusiastic (with a few honorable exceptions), and the science geek would most likely earn a severe bullying for his trouble, because on that school the biggest and meanest shark of them all is the one who wins, not the scientific and moral merit of the evangelizing science guy.

    My point here is that, without some authority backing up the right approach, actions and discipline, the enthusiasm and good intentions are lost.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 11/23/2015 07:19 pm
    2.4GHz for frustum. 5GHz upper high power band for the comms link.

    I'll go with either a simple 434MHz link or with a 900 Mhz XBee. Only need 2 bits of command data (main rail power on and RF power on).

    What's the latest w.r.t. the dielectric insert in the frustum? Is it absolutely needed or not? Does the most recent EMDriveCalc20150809a spreadsheet assume such an insert?

    What's the latest with feeding coax port placement, configuration (quarter-wave half dipole or magnetic loop), and most importantly, its impedance value at the target frequency? Does this part still remain black magic and is up to individual COMSOL simulation? Pardon my ignorance, as I have only now been through 2 months of microwave engineering crush course, but it seems like we are dealing with a resonant cavity here and not just a waveguide, and so the feeder impedance will be either growing very large (or very small?) around the resonant frequency, and hence a simple unmatched coax connection will just produce a large S11, thus reflecting most of the power away from the cavity. I recall EagleWorks mentioning that they have only got 13W of power in while using a 25W amplifier...  This is my major concern at the moment.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 07:39 pm

    If you read carefully what the reddit/emdrive naysayers post you will find little that specifically addresses a specific experimental method. Unlike here, where skeptics have been polite and provide useful areas to watch out for (see zen's) critiques, reddit/emdrive has become a troll magnet that will not be allowed here. It is the reason I deleted my account and I encourage others to do so as well. Its a joke IMHO...but you brought it up.

    Now to your questions, if you have read my test report and watched my videos, then you know all ambient temp and humidity notes were made. Fortunately, they were all similar. The 20 videos will also guide you through the testing and test stand improvements. You will note that galinstan was scrapped based on critiques here on NSF. Same with the laser pointer when I moved to the LDS. Same with the oil bath and guide wires on horizontal beam to significantly reduce all oscillations

    This is all in my videos and test report. If you have any more questions regarding the professional statistical analysis done for me, the statistician has given me permission to forward you his contact info. One caveat, it cannot be to an anonymous or fictious person. You can PM me with your information.

    Note: A good number of NSF members are not anomyous. I think this can separate good posters from bad ones as well.

    Lately, my feeling of people being there while promoting a serious consideration of Emdrive sometimes felt like watching the science geek organizing experiments and science fairs in a school on a particularly nasty neighborhood.

    The overall response isn't very enthusiastic (with a few honorable exceptions), and the science geek would most likely earn a severe bullying for his trouble, because on that school the biggest and meanest shark of them all is the one who wins, not the scientific and moral merit of the evangelizing science guy.

    My point here is that, without some authority backing up the right approach, actions and discipline, the enthusiasm and good intentions are lost.
    I haven't been back to read anything there, but never came away with any sound advice, or very little. I just think its a typical, common public forum where anonymous people can pretend to be something they are not.

    Doubt if many people there read NSF, but if they do, I'd honestly recommend they follow NSF for better scientific discussions. Actually, skeptics here are usually top notch and legitimate scientists or academians, not imposters. Its worth going back to thread one and read the thousands of posts they will understand the difference.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Carl G on 11/23/2015 08:36 pm
    This is not a discussion about social media sites where people sometimes hide behind the anonymity it provides them. This is a messageboard attached to a news site. Thread trimmed.

    1) Stick with the topic.
    2) Quote posts corrrectly or lose your post (because bad quoting is open to edits which misrepresent and are very dangerous.
    3) No personal comments are allowed, because this ISN'T social media, where you are more likely to get points for insults. You can write a long post, headed by an insult and you will lose your entire post. It is a deterrent.

    Questioning is welcomed, but in a civil and formed manner. Not in a "I couldn't troll you on social media any longer, so I'll troll you here" because that won't work here.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/23/2015 08:47 pm
    Help.  I have a conceptual error in some equations, perhaps compounded by a floating point error in excel.  Can the collective tell me how to fix this? 

    I want to figure out how much bouncing around inside the can will redshift the photons (to see if redshift might cause a problem with bandwidth).  So to start with I want to find out how much a photon is redshifted each time it imparts momentum to its surroundings by being absorbed and reemitted.

    ...

    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    The short answer is no, red-shifting won't cause bandwidth problems.

    (Also, as others noted, there is nothing special about a fractional frequency and electomagnetic waves can have any decimal frequency.)

    You may have a misunderstanding in how photon frequency changes with a reflection, however.

    Photons only change frequency when the object they strike moves by a significant amount because of the collision.  That is, if you had perfectly reflective mirrors that are held in place a set distance from each other, you can bounce a photon back and forth an infinite number of times, exerting a force on both mirrors, but the frequency of the light would NEVER change and the mirrors would not move and no work would be performed.  (It's the same idea as having a brick on a table exerting gravitational force downwards.  The force is constant, but no work is done because the brick and the table do not move.)  You can't transfer momentum without moving the target.

    Microwaves are such low energy photons, that normally it is safe to ignore their frequency shift when they reflect off of anything.  They do not change measurably in frequency when resonating in any chamber, or when reflecting off any surface.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering)

    If the surface the photons reflect off has a low enough mass to move, then the scattering is called Compton scattering.  Normally this is only measurable with high energy photons (like X-rays) and light surfaces (like electrons).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering)

    This would basically be unmeasurable for microwaves.  In addition, note that in an enclosed space, the miniscule momentum the microwave imparts to one end of the space would normally be transferred (on average) back to the photon on the other side of the enclosed space as it reflects back and forth (excepting theoretical and still controversial assertions about changing wavelengths in a frustum).

    The equation for the change in wavelength:

    lambda'-lambda = h(1-cos theta)/mc

    The energy of the photon after the collision is calculated as:

    E'=Emc²/[E(1-cos theta)+mc²]

    m = mass of mirror or sail that is moving

    Plug in some numbers and you can see that the change in microwave wavelength is very very small for the type of reflections we are discussing (even after many thousands of reflections) if the end of the chamber actually moved and zero if it doesn't. 

    In fact, at microwave frequencies the whole concept of "photons" doesn't provide that much value since describing the energy as waves provides a much more useful model of their interactions than describing it as photon particles.

    However, since there are vast numbers of microwave photons in a high-Q resonant chamber, the total momentum imparted to an unattached sail could potentially be measurable by this effect (perfect photon rocket), even though the change in wavelength for each individual photon is not significant.

    Hope that helps.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 09:02 pm
    2.4GHz for frustum. 5GHz upper high power band for the comms link.

    I'll go with either a simple 434MHz link or with a 900 Mhz XBee. Only need 2 bits of command data (main rail power on and RF power on).

    What's the latest w.r.t. the dielectric insert in the frustum? Is it absolutely needed or not? Does the most recent EMDriveCalc20150809a spreadsheet assume such an insert?

    What's the latest with feeding coax port placement, configuration (quarter-wave half dipole or magnetic loop), and most importantly, its impedance value at the target frequency? Does this part still remain black magic and is up to individual COMSOL simulation? Pardon my ignorance, as I have only now been through 2 months of microwave engineering crush course, but it seems like we are dealing with a resonant cavity here and not just a waveguide, and so the feeder impedance will be either growing very large (or very small?) around the resonant frequency, and hence a simple unmatched coax connection will just produce a large S11, thus reflecting most of the power away from the cavity. I recall EagleWorks mentioning that they have only got 13W of power in while using a 25W amplifier...  This is my major concern at the moment.
    Hello, I might jump in w/my 2 cents. Yes, its a very specific type of resonance cavity. For UHF, it will have to be scaled up which will create more difficulty in mass displacement as the emdrive force is so low. More so with power levels below 500 W.

    I almost went this way myself, lower power, but digging into it made me take the brute force method, about 900 W input at 2.45 GHz. Certainly, a different approach would be welcomed as the more data the merrier.

    Be sure to look at mass displacement and your test stand resolution. a few miligrams versus Kgs of DUT can make measurements a, well, pain in the you-know-what. Plan on milligram weight measurement on a low Kg device.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/23/2015 09:11 pm
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/23/2015 09:24 pm
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.
    Directional force without fuel consumption (only electrical energy) is a real benefit. Think thats what makes this project so interesting. Unintended consequences/results have lead to some remarkable products and discoveries. I would agree, lets say its a new form of thermal propulsion...still worthwhile.

    Several threads back, there was discussion of the Pioneer Anomaly, a thermal-induced slowing of the pioneer spacecraft that was not anticipated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 11/23/2015 11:45 pm
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.

    If it produces any thrust that is useful for propulsion in space, then there it must be making use of something outside our current understanding of physics. If it produces a net force measurement consistently in hard vacuum, but is explained by existing physics, that means the explanation involves something such as thermal expansion of the cavity throwing off the balance of the measurement device, or force being transferred back through the waveguide/coax cable to the RF source. These explanations would not be in any way useful for in space propulsion.

    Other than TheTraveller, who points to Shawyer's theory (which is completely wrong and inconsistent on a fundamental level, see my previous posts for details) I have not seen anyone recently in this thread provide any theories of the emdrive producing a useful force that would not be considered new physics. (Some are smaller departures from current theory than others, but they would all be significant discoveries even without the space propulsion application)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/23/2015 11:54 pm
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.

    If it produces any thrust that is useful for propulsion in space, then there it must be making use of something outside our current understanding of physics. If it produces a net force measurement consistently in hard vacuum, but is explained by existing physics, that means the explanation involves something such as thermal expansion of the cavity throwing off the balance of the measurement device, or force being transferred back through the waveguide/coax cable to the RF source. These explanations would not be in any way useful for in space propulsion.

    Other than TheTraveller, who points to Shawyer's theory (which is completely wrong and inconsistent on a fundamental level, see my previous posts for details) I have not seen anyone recently in this thread provide any theories of the emdrive producing a useful force that would not be considered new physics. (Some are smaller departures from current theory than others, but they would all be significant discoveries even without the space propulsion application)

    Yea, I thought of that too! Which leaves me a "hopefully optimistic skeptic" watching from the sidelines.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/23/2015 11:58 pm
    2.4GHz for frustum. 5GHz upper high power band for the comms link.

    I'll go with either a simple 434MHz link or with a 900 Mhz XBee. Only need 2 bits of command data (main rail power on and RF power on).

    What's the latest w.r.t. the dielectric insert in the frustum? Is it absolutely needed or not? Does the most recent EMDriveCalc20150809a spreadsheet assume such an insert?

    What's the latest with feeding coax port placement, configuration (quarter-wave half dipole or magnetic loop), and most importantly, its impedance value at the target frequency? Does this part still remain black magic and is up to individual COMSOL simulation? Pardon my ignorance, as I have only now been through 2 months of microwave engineering crush course, but it seems like we are dealing with a resonant cavity here and not just a waveguide, and so the feeder impedance will be either growing very large (or very small?) around the resonant frequency, and hence a simple unmatched coax connection will just produce a large S11, thus reflecting most of the power away from the cavity. I recall EagleWorks mentioning that they have only got 13W of power in while using a 25W amplifier...  This is my major concern at the moment.

    Spreadsheet can handle atmo or vac inside the frustum.

    EW can adjust the Rf power level as required. They use an inline coax 3 pot tuner to ensure a very good match and very low VSWR with their frustum. I believe they also now monitor forward and reflected power. Freq can be adjusted to obtain resonance in the desired excitation mode.

    These early examples were done in atmo at just under 17Wrf. You can see the pre and post calibration force measurements that surround every Rf excitation measurement. Note the Rf on and off rise and fall times are very quick. Much quicker than a thermal effect could generate. The Rf on and off rise & fall tines are more like the very quick rise & fall times of the electrostatically generated calibration forces.

    The measurement system is intentionally underdamped, so while it measures quick rise and fall times, it also oscillates for a short time after a rapid rise or fall time force change.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 11/24/2015 12:01 am
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.

    If it produces any thrust that is useful for propulsion in space, then there it must be making use of something outside our current understanding of physics. If it produces a net force measurement consistently in hard vacuum, but is explained by existing physics, that means the explanation involves something such as thermal expansion of the cavity throwing off the balance of the measurement device, or force being transferred back through the waveguide/coax cable to the RF source. These explanations would not be in any way useful for in space propulsion.

    Other than TheTraveller, who points to Shawyer's theory (which is completely wrong and inconsistent on a fundamental level, see my previous posts for details) I have not seen anyone recently in this thread provide any theories of the emdrive producing a useful force that would not be considered new physics. (Some are smaller departures from current theory than others, but they would all be significant discoveries even without the space propulsion application)

    Test. Measure. Critique. Retest. Verify. Repeat.

    Plenty of time for theory later, after data is confirmed.  Nobel prizes are overrated anyway. Once you guest star on the Simpsons or Star Trek like Hawking, you'll have made the big time.  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 01:06 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 01:10 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    Did you ever check into the copper trash can?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 01:13 am
    I have only been following this discussion for about three weeks now. I read through Thread 5 and parts of the earlier threads. What I begin to understand of the design and proposed operation of the EMDrive is from what I have read in this discussion. I began as a skeptic and am not yet convinced, but I would label myself today "hopefully optimistic".., mostly because if useable thrust is ultimately proven reproducible, it would be one of the most exciting events in my lifetime. But I am still not sure...

    So, let me ask those of you with better knowledge and background the following...

    Say sometime in the, hopefully "near future" a perfect design is produced, that reproducibly develops just double digit mN thrust, from a 100 or so watts, in a hard vacuum.., but it winds up completely explainable as the result of heat (or any other source consistent with our current understanding of the physics)...

    Would that not wind up being a remarkable step forward in low gravity propulsion? It would seem to me that any directional thrust whether it is from new physics or not, would be useful for satellites and even propulsion within the solar system.

    If it produces any thrust that is useful for propulsion in space, then there it must be making use of something outside our current understanding of physics. If it produces a net force measurement consistently in hard vacuum, but is explained by existing physics, that means the explanation involves something such as thermal expansion of the cavity throwing off the balance of the measurement device, or force being transferred back through the waveguide/coax cable to the RF source. These explanations would not be in any way useful for in space propulsion.

    Other than TheTraveller, who points to Shawyer's theory (which is completely wrong and inconsistent on a fundamental level, see my previous posts for details) I have not seen anyone recently in this thread provide any theories of the emdrive producing a useful force that would not be considered new physics. (Some are smaller departures from current theory than others, but they would all be significant discoveries even without the space propulsion application)
    meberbs,

    Theories are going to be debated for years and if there is a front runner it will be picked apart for decades.
    Truth? After a hundred years we just are understanding the why and how the Wright Brothers flew.
    Truth? Ask Einstein on his theories
    Truth? What is a Black Hole... really?

    Theories right now are simply open for debate and the time is for clear concise data. We have 4 tests of the drive on the way, Mine, rfmwguys, Thetraveler and EagleWorks. These tests should help give a better idea of what's happening.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 01:17 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.
    If you're going to use the microwave box as the load, here is a tip... put some water into a covered bowl to heat in it, it will help absorb the microwaves and lower the load on the maggie.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 11/24/2015 01:29 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    I've been sucked dry lately (I work for a living), but based on the thermal data, which I will provide ASAP, provided many days ago, your thermal characteristics are absolutely not consistant with your "lift" data.   Thermal is immediate, like, right now.  Since the propogation time of air is close to 340 m/s your thermal effects should be immediate unless you have some kind of dampening in your system.  Current data suggests a 3 second delay between thermal onset and lift onset.

    I'm sorry for not providing detailed analysis, but please be patient.  I'll provide the analysis and details ASAP.

    A proper analysis would demand your hysteresis balance characteristics, i.e. once you pushed on the scale, how long does it take the scale to show movement.

    The thermals at this time do not match the "lift" characteristics.  i.e. It's not behaving like a hot air balloon would behave.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/24/2015 01:29 am

    ...

    These early examples were done in atmo at just under 17Wrf. You can see the pre and post calibration force measurements that surround every Rf excitation measurement. Note the Rf on and off rise and fall times are very quick. Much quicker than a thermal effect could generate. The Rf on and off rise & fall tines are more like the very quick rise & fall times of the electrostatically generated calibration forces.

    The measurement system is intentionally underdamped, so while it measures quick rise and fall times, it also oscillates for a short time after a rapid rise or fall time force change.

    These tests that EW did in mid 2014 all contained a Lorentz error force.   The underdamped response is the expected step response of the EW Torque Pendulum when momentum is added to it.   It can be seen in the calibration pulses and in their "null" test where a dummy load was used and no RF sent into the cavity.   These are both cases where a force has acted on the TP, imparting momentum.   They did a lot of work to eliminate the Lorentz force error, according to a Paul March, in Jan. 2015.  This was done in the preparation for the vacuum tests.   It would be very interesting to see their data from this effort but unfortunately they have not made that public.    When you look at the "thrust" waveform recorded during the vacuum test the underdamped response is not there.  Instead there is an exponential function, that is very similar to the step response of an incandescent light bulb.  (temp. vs time)   This has all been discussed before.   The step response of the em-drive (when RF is switched on) is an exponential function, indicating a slowly changing thermal response and not momentum transfer from a force acting on the TP.


    I don't think this is an original idea of mine on this thread.  I believe that I had read something about this on here before, some number of threads ago.  I also think I remember reading about this engine having problems with build up acceleration while undergoing acceleration.  This would imply that a pulsed mode of operation could help.  Build up your energy while coasting, then discharge to accelerate. Quickly repeat many times.

    Scott

    Takes 5 x TC to fully charge / discharge any L, C, LC combo or resonant cavity.

    20% of 1 TC gives about 25% of max charge and does it very quickly.

    Note Force continues to be generated well after the short excitation pulse has terminated.

    BTW Roger told me his Force equation is only for continually applied Rf.

    Above is your earlier statement where you say just that.    A step response cannot be two different waveforms at the same time.   In the earlier post your explanation of why the em-drive step response is an exponential is wrong, but we both agree the graph shows an exponential waveform.   It is an exponential because the response is solely from heating.  No momentum has been imparted to the TP.    Below is the data EW released in Jan 2014.   The calibration force waveform, from a HV capacitor device still shows the underdamped response while the "thrust" waveform does not.  Below that is a graph with the rising edge of the "thrust" waveform (in green) superimposed on the step response of an incandescent light (in blue).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 02:02 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    Did you ever check into the copper trash can?
    Yes, found out they can make any copper shape within reason. Think I'll wait until I have final shape confirmed. Looking more trombone shaped than cone right now. Will decide soon.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/24/2015 02:04 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    Did you ever check into the copper trash can?
    Yes, found out they can make any copper shape within reason. Think I'll wait until I have final shape confirmed. Looking more trombone shaped than cone right now. Will decide soon.

    Standard cone will work fine.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 02:05 am

    ...

    These early examples were done in atmo at just under 17Wrf. You can see the pre and post calibration force measurements that surround every Rf excitation measurement. Note the Rf on and off rise and fall times are very quick. Much quicker than a thermal effect could generate. The Rf on and off rise & fall tines are more like the very quick rise & fall times of the electrostatically generated calibration forces.

    The measurement system is intentionally underdamped, so while it measures quick rise and fall times, it also oscillates for a short time after a rapid rise or fall time force change.

    These tests that EW did in mid 2014 all contained a Lorentz error force.   The underdamped response is the expected step response of the EW Torque Pendulum when momentum is added to it.   It can be seen in the calibration pulses and in their "null" test where a dummy load was used and no RF sent into the cavity.   These are both cases where a force has acted on the TP, imparting momentum.   They did a lot of work to eliminate the Lorentz force error, according to a Paul March, in Jan. 2015.  This was done in the preparation for the vacuum tests.   It would be very interesting to see their data from this effort but unfortunately they have not made that public.    When you look at the "thrust" waveform recorded during the vacuum test the underdamped response is not there.  Instead there is an exponential function, that is very similar to the step response of an incandescent light bulb.  (temp. vs time)   This has all been discussed before.   The step response of the em-drive (when RF is switched on) is an exponential function, indicating a slowly changing thermal response and not momentum transfer from a force acting on the TP.


    I don't think this is an original idea of mine on this thread.  I believe that I had read something about this on here before, some number of threads ago.  I also think I remember reading about this engine having problems with build up acceleration while undergoing acceleration.  This would imply that a pulsed mode of operation could help.  Build up your energy while coasting, then discharge to accelerate. Quickly repeat many times.

    Scott

    Takes 5 x TC to fully charge / discharge any L, C, LC combo or resonant cavity.

    20% of 1 TC gives about 25% of max charge and does it very quickly.

    Note Force continues to be generated well after the short excitation pulse has terminated.

    BTW Roger told me his Force equation is only for continually applied Rf.

    Above is your earlier statement where you say just that.    A step response cannot be two different waveforms at the same time.   In the earlier post your explanation of why the em-drive step response is an exponential is wrong, but we both agree the graph shows an exponential waveform.   It is an exponential because the response is solely from heating.  No momentum has been imparted to the TP.    Below is the data EW released in Jan 2014.   The calibration force waveform, from a HV capacitor device still shows the underdamped response while the "thrust" waveform does not.  Below that is a graph with the rising edge of the "thrust" waveform (in green) superimposed on the step response of an incandescent light (in blue).

    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 02:08 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    Did you ever check into the copper trash can?
    Yes, found out they can make any copper shape within reason. Think I'll wait until I have final shape confirmed. Looking more trombone shaped than cone right now. Will decide soon.

    That's good! Maybe even one fixed spherical endplate?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 02:22 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    I've been sucked dry lately (I work for a living), but based on the thermal data, which I will provide ASAP, provided many days ago, your thermal characteristics are absolutely not consistant with your "lift" data.   Thermal is immediate, like, right now.  Since the propogation time of air is close to 340 m/s your thermal effects should be immediate unless you have some kind of dampening in your system.  Current data suggests a 3 second delay between thermal onset and lift onset.

    I'm sorry for not providing detailed analysis, but please be patient.  I'll provide the analysis and details ASAP.

    A proper analysis would demand your hysteresis balance characteristics, i.e. once you pushed on the scale, how long does it take the scale to show movement.

    The thermals at this time do not match the "lift" characteristics.  i.e. It's not behaving like a hot air balloon would behave.
    Thanks Glenn. If there are any suggestions you have for the next data runs next hear, your wish is my command...well as long as the money holds out  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 03:02 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.
    If you're going to use the microwave box as the load, here is a tip... put some water into a covered bowl to heat in it, it will help absorb the microwaves and lower the load on the maggie.

    Shell
    Yep, had planned to measure any frequency pulling when I placed a water load in microwave with spec an. Should be a few MHz I would think. So final tune will have to be made in frustum as its load will vary from cooking box. Should be fun.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 03:13 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    Did you ever check into the copper trash can?
    Yes, found out they can make any copper shape within reason. Think I'll wait until I have final shape confirmed. Looking more trombone shaped than cone right now. Will decide soon.

    That's good! Maybe even one fixed spherical endplate?
    Maybe, my goal is 100x improvement or about 17.5 millinewtons. If I fall short after mag stabilization and tuned frustum, spherical endplates may help...I'll try with first 2 steps first.

    I think 17.5 mN is more than enough robust data above system noise that only ideological skeptics would dismiss it. Most skeptics here are not that way IMO and my project can wrap up at that point...but that is down the road a bit. First things first.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/24/2015 03:31 am
    I was mistaken in my earlier statement about how the bell of a trombone works.  It's more important role is to create a controlled impedance mismatch with the body of the horn (which is cylindrical), which has the effect first of reflecting acoustic energy back toward the mouthpiece, setting up standing waves!   It has to be open of course so that the air and sound can get out.  Not needed for the EmDrive since no air needs to get out, we would rather everything stay inside (I think - see below), and the closed end makes an excellent impedance mismatch as well.

    The other thing it does is enhance certain favorable harmonics, which allow the instrument to have a musically useful overtone series.  This article (http://www.virtualtrumpetstudio.com/how.htm) explains it very clearly.  It will get you thinking.

    I can't help but wonder if any of this information would prove useful in making more efficient EmDrives.  Microwaves are not entirely like sound waves.  But the thought that an open end can cause reflections too makes me wonder...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/24/2015 04:03 am
    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.
    It also looks almost exactly like the charge/discharge curve of a capacitor.  If the effect is caused by the 'charging' of the frustum with microwaves, this is exactly the characteristics of the curve I would expect to see.
    Example page: http://www.michaelsharris.com/electronics/week2/capacitorchargedischarge.htm

    And besides, if you're talking about infrared vs microwaves, it's still EM radiation just at different frequencies, so I would expect the curves to have the same characteristics.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/24/2015 04:40 am

    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.

    In the graph above with the superimposed waveforms there are a lot of differences.   They both have the same general shape but there are a lot of bumps in different places.   Also the units for vertical axis of the light bulb step response would be in degrees C.   The "thrust" waveform's vertical scale is in micrometers.   I had to stretch the "thrust" waveform, in the X and Y directions so it would have the same X and Y dimensions as the light bulb step response.   There is nothing nefarious about that.   If I did a numerical curve fit I would be doing the same operations.   What the graph shows is that both step responses are exponentials.   You may not understand these concepts so I would suggest reading the following Wikipedia page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_response


    It also looks almost exactly like the charge/discharge curve of a capacitor.  If the effect is caused by the 'charging' of the frustum with microwaves, this is exactly the characteristics of the curve I would expect to see.
    Example page: http://www.michaelsharris.com/electronics/week2/capacitorchargedischarge.htm

    Yes it does look the same as a capacitor charge curve because both are exponential functions.   But that doesn't mean the em-drive acts like a capacitor as you are imagining.   For one thing the time constant is much too long.   A close analogy to what you are imagining is an integrating sphere used for optical calibration tasks.   If all the lights inside the sphere are switched on full at the same time (this isn't usually done), it takes a few nanoSec (maybe even lesstime) for the light to fully integrate and reach maximum brightness inside the sphere.   The integrating sphere, with its highly efficient interior coating reflects each photon many times before it gets converted to heat.   The same sort of thing happens inside a microwave cavity.   The time constant in a cavity is very short, even if the Q is very high.  If it was not very short cellphones, and radios would not work.



    And besides, if you're talking about infrared vs microwaves, it's still EM radiation just at different frequencies, so I would expect the curves to have the same characteristics.

    In the case of the incandescent light's step function it is not radiation intensity on the Y axis but temperature.   In the em-drive all the microwave energy is converted to heat.   If the temperature was recorded, using precision temp sensors mounted at different locations on the cavity the same exponential waveform would be seen.   This heating step response is what drives the displacement of the em-drive in a vacuum.   So in one sense the microwave energy does do the same thing in the cavity as light energy does in an incandescent light bulb.  The both heat everything up.   The light bulb will expand a little as well and probably moves as much as the em-drive.    But we can't with any practicality use either to change a spacecraft's natural Keplerian orbit.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 04:42 am
    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.
    It also looks almost exactly like the charge/discharge curve of a capacitor.  If the effect is caused by the 'charging' of the frustum with microwaves, this is exactly the characteristics of the curve I would expect to see.
    Example page: http://www.michaelsharris.com/electronics/week2/capacitorchargedischarge.htm

    And besides, if you're talking about infrared vs microwaves, it's still EM radiation just at different frequencies, so I would expect the curves to have the same characteristics.

    Similar perhaps... But the EW data was time (in seconds) and microns.., yes?

    The incandescent bulb time and temperature?.. With no scale provided. No time, no temperature, no comparable wattage....

    Hold the DIY and EW feet to the fire and ask for the data, that is good constructive criticism. That graph without the same kind of rigorous detail, is sloppy... And the near exact coincidental fit of the two different data sets, doesn't seem right...

    It is not a comparison of microwaves and infrared, it is a comparison of displacement in microns amd temperature in C or F?, of two different systems.

    Edit: you are right I don't understand some of the things being dealt with here, but unless you at least match the time scales, or fully explain how you went about matching the X & Y scales, it winds up a shell game. I have done enough data presentations to know I can make almost anything look however I want it to if i don't have to disclose the details of how I got there.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: mwvp on 11/24/2015 04:45 am
    ...I want to figure out how much bouncing around inside the can will redshift the photons (to see if redshift might cause a problem with bandwidth)....

    A problem? LOL. I think that's the operational principle! Inertial ratcheting (unbalanced momentum) as a consequence of asymmetrical dissipation of doppler-shifted sidebands in a vibrating (accelerating), dispersive waveguide.

    My theory anyways, which I've stated here prior, more and less well, which I'm trying to figure out how to model. Wish me luck. And brains.

    ...Since a Joule is defined as the energy needed to move a 1 kg object with 1 Newton of force over one second and 1 joule = 1 watt/second...

    I kinda thought (a watt) was 1 Newton (100 grams weight-force) moved 1 meter (a Joule) in 1 second.

    ...I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    I concur wit da Gargoyle; photons can be doppler-shifted to any frequency, and if space-time itself is quantized at the Planck-scale, then, with the help of Heisenberg, at one point it will have a bit less quantized value, at the next point a bit more, such that it can have an average energy of  a fractional quantized value if it likes.

    And I concur with a couple previous comments, that this problem is best solved with waves and fields and not photons and ray tracings. Just my gut instinct.

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    Why be sorry? I think you are on the right track (great minds think alike  ;D ). But I suspect more than a few here want to find new physics, and not a novel heat-engine at the end of the day, so don't expect much applause if you figure it out and write about it.

    Also, remember you're putting energy into the frustrum cavity in the same inertial-frame, and the top and bottom are also in the same inertial frame, so doppler-shifted sidebands don't result from the velocity, but the acceleration of the cavity.

    And remember that the vacuum is a perfect capacitor, the frustrum is a lossy  inductor, the bottom is bigger and has more momentum-absorbing loss than the top.

    It follows (to me, anyways) that the cavity should exhibit negative inertial resistance, and will want to vibrate if attached to a spring. Shawyer discusses such.

    It is interesting Shawyer pulses his latest design. Give the frustrum time to dissipate heat? Perhaps he's planning to mount the frustrum on a sping?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 11/24/2015 04:48 am
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    If you're going to use the microwave box as the load, here is a tip... put some water into a covered bowl to heat in it, it will help absorb the microwaves and lower the load on the maggie.

    Shell

    Instead of water, some Doritos with cheese and salsa would work also. Helps to cogitate with the results.  ;D

    Sorry, Shell!  One of my favorite snacks.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/24/2015 04:50 am
    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.
    It also looks almost exactly like the charge/discharge curve of a capacitor.  If the effect is caused by the 'charging' of the frustum with microwaves, this is exactly the characteristics of the curve I would expect to see.
    Example page: http://www.michaelsharris.com/electronics/week2/capacitorchargedischarge.htm

    And besides, if you're talking about infrared vs microwaves, it's still EM radiation just at different frequencies, so I would expect the curves to have the same characteristics.

    I've avoided this question because I don't want to tutor anyone on heat transfer, but I really want to suggest that it is no surprise that the curves look the same. They are not scaled, and since the math of heat transfer shows that all are described by linear equations, why would anyone expect the shape of the solution curves to differ.

    You are using a light bulb example, in which the filament glows white hot (steady state) within about 5 cycles of the 60 Hz wall power, that is less than one-tenth second from cold to white hot. (I watched a slow-motion video of a light bulb being turned on while in college, the point of which was to show the reversal of the magnetic fields every half cycle.)

    And you are using heating of air as the other example, in which the temperature never really reaches any steady state in many seconds. Then, these two examples are plotted, stretched/compressed vertically/horizontally/clipped until they overlay.

    There is nothing at all surprising that these solution curves plotted this way overlay each other. Now, if you were to put scales, using real physical units on the axes, and they still overlay, that would be worth a discussion. The curves will always look the same, they have to fit on a page after all, it is the scaling that tells the difference.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 05:00 am

    Except that the frustum is not a light bulb. It would be one thing to find a similar plot, another to find that close a match. Coincidence?

    When two dissimilar mechanisms wind up matching that closely, it is time to find out why. Even if the effects observed with the frustum are all thermal, it should not be an exact match to the light bulb. That implies an exact match in energy to heat conversion in two very different systems.

    In the graph above with the superimposed waveforms there are a lot of differences.   They both have the same general shape but there are a lot of bumps in different places.   Also the units for vertical axis of the light bulb step response would be in degrees C.   The "thrust" waveform's vertical scale is in micrometers.   I had to stretch the "thrust" waveform, in the X and Y directions so it would have the same X and Y dimensions as the light bulb step response.   There is nothing nefarious about that.   If I did a numerical curve fit I would be doing the same operations.   What the graph shows is that both step responses are exponentials.   You may not understand these concepts so I would suggest reading the following Wikipedia page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_response

    OK I understand what you are saying here. But the coincidence between a displacement curve in one system, matching the thermal curve of another is not in itself enough to proclaim the displacement is a thermal artifact. It does support the need to make sure that it's not. But that is part of what is being done in testing isn't it? Attempting to prove one way or the other were the apparent thrust is coming from.

    Edit spelling or some of it at least.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/24/2015 05:32 am

    Similar perhaps... But the EW data was time (in seconds) and microns.., yes?

    The incandescent bulb time and temperature?.. With no scale provided. No time, no temperature, no comparable wattage....

    Hold the DIY and EW feet to the fire and ask for the data, that is good constructive criticism. That graph without the same kind of rigorous detail, is sloppy... And the near exact coincidental fit of the two different data sets, doesn't seem right...

    It is not a comparison of microwaves and infrared, it is a comparison of displacement in microns amd temperature in C or F?, of two different systems.

    Edit: you are right I don't understand some of the things being dealt with here, but unless you at least match the time scales, or fully explain how you went about matching the X & Y scales, it winds up a shell game. I have done enough data presentations to know I can make almost anything look however I want it to if i don't have to disclose the details of how I got there.

    I did a graphical curve fit of the two waveforms.   The em-drive "thrust" waveform was stretched in the X and Y directions so it had the same size as the light bulb step response.   It also means the two will start and end together.  It's what happens in between that matters.   If I had used the capacitive force step response most of the graph would not have lined up.    I was only trying to show the two graphs were both exponentials.   If I had done it numerically you would have found it even more confusing.

    There is nothing at all surprising that these solution curves plotted this way overlay each other. Now, if you were to put scales, using real physical units on the axes, and they still overlay, that would be worth a discussion. The curves will always look the same, they have to fit on a page after all, it is the scaling that tells the difference.

    All that I am trying to do is to show the so-called thrust of the EW em-drive in vacuum has the same step response as a thermal effect - an exponential.   But we already know the step response of their TP when the driving force is an actual force is an underdamped step.   Look at what happens when the capacitive force device is switched on.   That is not an exponential curve.


    Below is the same graphical curve fit with the capacitive force step response added (turquise).   I did the same scaling so the end points line up.   You can see how little this curve overlaps with the others.   That's because it is not an exponential function - it's a second order differential equation.  I could add a straight line, Y = mX + b to this.   You should be able to imagine what would happen.   The start and end points would line up with the other graphs but the rest of the straight line would lie under the exponential functions.   That demonstrates the straight line is not the same function as an exponential.   The first two curves I threw together are both exponentials.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 12:08 pm

    Similar perhaps... But the EW data was time (in seconds) and microns.., yes?

    The incandescent bulb time and temperature?.. With no scale provided. No time, no temperature, no comparable wattage....

    Hold the DIY and EW feet to the fire and ask for the data, that is good constructive criticism. That graph without the same kind of rigorous detail, is sloppy... And the near exact coincidental fit of the two different data sets, doesn't seem right...

    It is not a comparison of microwaves and infrared, it is a comparison of displacement in microns amd temperature in C or F?, of two different systems.

    Edit: you are right I don't understand some of the things being dealt with here, but unless you at least match the time scales, or fully explain how you went about matching the X & Y scales, it winds up a shell game. I have done enough data presentations to know I can make almost anything look however I want it to if i don't have to disclose the details of how I got there.

    I did a graphical curve fit of the two waveforms.   The em-drive "thrust" waveform was stretched in the X and Y directions so it had the same size as the light bulb step response.   It also means the two will start and end together.  It's what happens in between that matters.   If I had used the capacitive force step response most of the graph would not have lined up.    I was only trying to show the two graphs were both exponentials.   If I had done it numerically you would have found it even more confusing.

    There is nothing at all surprising that these solution curves plotted this way overlay each other. Now, if you were to put scales, using real physical units on the axes, and they still overlay, that would be worth a discussion. The curves will always look the same, they have to fit on a page after all, it is the scaling that tells the difference.

    All that I am trying to do is to show the so-called thrust of the EW em-drive in vacuum has the same step response as a thermal effect - an exponential.   But we already know the step response of their TP when the driving force is an actual force is an underdamped step.   Look at what happens when the capacitive force device is switched on.   That is not an exponential curve.


    Below is the same graphical curve fit with the capacitive force step response added (turquise).   I did the same scaling so the end points line up.   You can see how little this curve overlaps with the others.   That's because it is not an exponential function - it's a second order differential equation.  I could add a straight line, Y = mX + b to this.   You should be able to imagine what would happen.   The start and end points would line up with the other graphs but the rest of the straight line would lie under the exponential functions.   That demonstrates the straight line is not the same function as an exponential.   The first two curves I threw together are both exponentials.
    This is a very interesting conversation, curve fitting is fascinating. Why I am so interested is this is it could be the key to data extraction in ambient air testing. A really smart guy is working on this right now. The thermal lift characteristics of my flight test is being analyzed statistically for mag on/off comparisons. What I witnessed and what the data seems to indicate is a disruption in the lift profile. Attenuation, reversal or negating the lift during mag on is the way I describe it. Statistically, this data must be analyzed professionally and that is underway.

    Its good to see it with your eyes, much better to do a rigorous stat analysis. I am stat-lite, so best leave it to the pros from my perspective  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 02:25 pm

    Similar perhaps... But the EW data was time (in seconds) and microns.., yes?

    The incandescent bulb time and temperature?.. With no scale provided. No time, no temperature, no comparable wattage....

    Hold the DIY and EW feet to the fire and ask for the data, that is good constructive criticism. That graph without the same kind of rigorous detail, is sloppy... And the near exact coincidental fit of the two different data sets, doesn't seem right...

    It is not a comparison of microwaves and infrared, it is a comparison of displacement in microns amd temperature in C or F?, of two different systems.

    Edit: you are right I don't understand some of the things being dealt with here, but unless you at least match the time scales, or fully explain how you went about matching the X & Y scales, it winds up a shell game. I have done enough data presentations to know I can make almost anything look however I want it to if i don't have to disclose the details of how I got there.

    I did a graphical curve fit of the two waveforms.   The em-drive "thrust" waveform was stretched in the X and Y directions so it had the same size as the light bulb step response.   It also means the two will start and end together.  It's what happens in between that matters.   If I had used the capacitive force step response most of the graph would not have lined up.    I was only trying to show the two graphs were both exponentials.   If I had done it numerically you would have found it even more confusing.

    There is nothing at all surprising that these solution curves plotted this way overlay each other. Now, if you were to put scales, using real physical units on the axes, and they still overlay, that would be worth a discussion. The curves will always look the same, they have to fit on a page after all, it is the scaling that tells the difference.

    All that I am trying to do is to show the so-called thrust of the EW em-drive in vacuum has the same step response as a thermal effect - an exponential.   But we already know the step response of their TP when the driving force is an actual force is an underdamped step.   Look at what happens when the capacitive force device is switched on.   That is not an exponential curve.


    Below is the same graphical curve fit with the capacitive force step response added (turquise).   I did the same scaling so the end points line up.   You can see how little this curve overlaps with the others.   That's because it is not an exponential function - it's a second order differential equation.  I could add a straight line, Y = mX + b to this.   You should be able to imagine what would happen.   The start and end points would line up with the other graphs but the rest of the straight line would lie under the exponential functions.   That demonstrates the straight line is not the same function as an exponential.   The first two curves I threw together are both exponentials.
    This is a very interesting conversation, curve fitting is fascinating. Why I am so interested is this is it could be the key to data extraction in ambient air testing. A really smart guy is working on this right now. The thermal lift characteristics of my flight test is being analyzed statistically for mag on/off comparisons. What I witnessed and what the data seems to indicate is a disruption in the lift profile. Attenuation, reversal or negating the lift during mag on is the way I describe it. Statistically, this data must be analyzed professionally and that is underway.

    Its good to see it with your eyes, much better to do a rigorous stat analysis. I am stat-lite, so best leave it to the pros from my perspective  :)

    Keep in mind the EW chart data referenced in this conversation is date stamped Dec. 2014 and indicates it is from a test performed in vacuum.., and the displacement curve corresponds closely to the on/off cycle. As meberbs pointed out, when correcting my idealized speculation about a thermal thruster, in a hard vacuum the thermal affects, in my words not his, would be affecting measurement through thermal expansion and its affect on the mechanism of measurement, not as thrust.

    If the displacement curve in the EW chart was solely the result of thermal expansion, it should not have been so closely tied to the on/off cycle. There should have been some delay...

    The situation with your in atmosphere results are more complex and should involve some thermal lift, which needs to be extracted, to determine if there is any thrust of unknown origin... But even then if it is a thermal effect, there should be some lag relative to the on/off cycle. It takes time for things to heat up.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/24/2015 02:49 pm
    If the displacement curve in the EW chart was solely the result of thermal expansion, it should not have been so closely tied to the on/off cycle. There should have been some delay...

    There is a thermal delay.  It is the same kind of thermal delay we see with an incandescent light bullb.  Heat  travels at the speed of sound through a metal object.    It has a time constant though.   It doesn't reach the maximum value instantaneously.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 02:59 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video

    1. Frustum tuning methodology and results
    2. Testing out new screen recording software

    https://youtu.be/bRxnci324FE
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: DaCunha on 11/24/2015 03:07 pm

    If I was not convinced beyond any doubt that the em-drive does not work as claimed I would build one and test out the idea for myself.   I like reading about others who have done this and I applaud their efforts.
    I really liked the Li's (potomacneuron's) testing and the Lorentz effect. While it did show a few micronewtons, it helped me understand potential error sources. I wish he would continue to pursue more robust error tests, particulary thermal, which if there is an error in all this, I'd lay money on it. Right now though, its been all speculation, no testing.

    The test apparatus and DUT design is not for the average home builder. Electromechanical skills and knowledge of microwave freqs tends to put it out of reach, not to mention the lethal voltages and BeO. That being said, I did take the plunge to replicate and was pleasantly surprised any type of unusual force was logged after a few initial attempts.

    Would welcome you or any other skeptics to help us out by demonstrating the 100+ micronewton data as experimental error. Even though I've switched to "the dark side", I am still open to slapping my forehead and shouting "how could I have missed this". So far, my hand and forehead haven't been introduced to each other...well, not for a few years anyway.  ;)

    My suggestion to you is to cut several round holes in the horizontal FR4 plate above the fustrum so hot air can escape.    That may be difficult to do at this stage because you will have to partially disassemble your experiment.    Tape the pieces you cut out back in, sealing any air holes.   Run your experiment again and measure the thrust.   Now remove the plugs, put leave them and the tape, etc on so the weight is the same.   Run your test again and measure the thrust.
    Good idea, the airholes could change the resonance but more importantly, I could measure little to no heat rise in the frustum with the thermal cam. All the heat, or I'd guess about 98% of it was from the topside of the magnetron. Thermal movies are here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R__2WLlELic

    I think this is a very important finding rfmwguy!
     
    I have a question. Is it actually important to have the magnetron in direct contact with the frustrum.

    Could you use a long hollow metal coated tube as a waveguide to direct the microwave input inside the frustrum?

    Could not you rule out thermal effects like this?

     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 03:19 pm

    If I was not convinced beyond any doubt that the em-drive does not work as claimed I would build one and test out the idea for myself.   I like reading about others who have done this and I applaud their efforts.
    I really liked the Li's (potomacneuron's) testing and the Lorentz effect. While it did show a few micronewtons, it helped me understand potential error sources. I wish he would continue to pursue more robust error tests, particulary thermal, which if there is an error in all this, I'd lay money on it. Right now though, its been all speculation, no testing.

    The test apparatus and DUT design is not for the average home builder. Electromechanical skills and knowledge of microwave freqs tends to put it out of reach, not to mention the lethal voltages and BeO. That being said, I did take the plunge to replicate and was pleasantly surprised any type of unusual force was logged after a few initial attempts.

    Would welcome you or any other skeptics to help us out by demonstrating the 100+ micronewton data as experimental error. Even though I've switched to "the dark side", I am still open to slapping my forehead and shouting "how could I have missed this". So far, my hand and forehead haven't been introduced to each other...well, not for a few years anyway.  ;)

    My suggestion to you is to cut several round holes in the horizontal FR4 plate above the fustrum so hot air can escape.    That may be difficult to do at this stage because you will have to partially disassemble your experiment.    Tape the pieces you cut out back in, sealing any air holes.   Run your experiment again and measure the thrust.   Now remove the plugs, put leave them and the tape, etc on so the weight is the same.   Run your test again and measure the thrust.
    Good idea, the airholes could change the resonance but more importantly, I could measure little to no heat rise in the frustum with the thermal cam. All the heat, or I'd guess about 98% of it was from the topside of the magnetron. Thermal movies are here:



    I think this is a very important finding rfmwguy!
     
    I have a question. Is it actually important to have the magnetron in direct contact with the frustrum.

    Could you use a long hollow metal coated tube as a waveguide to direct the microwave input inside the frustrum?

    Could not you rule out thermal effects like this?
    Thank you for the question. No, the magnetron can be remotely located with a waveguide or coax feed, which is what seeshell is doing to mitigate thermal plumes and lift. She will still see some, but quite a bit reduced. I chose this as the simpliest configuration and lowest weight possible. Coax, waveguide, stub tuners, etc all add weight so my thought was to keep weight of assembly as low as possible since just a few milligrams of force were expected. Turned out I measured about 18 mg of force against an overall frustum assembly of about 2.5 kg. This was balanced by another equal weight on the opposite end of the beam plus the beam itself, so total mass balancing/displacing was about 10 kg including balance beam assembly. Quite a big mass to discern such a small force. Heavier assemblies will make the small measurement more difficult I believe, but it can be done and shell is a smart engineer.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: DaCunha on 11/24/2015 03:56 pm
    Thank you for the question. No, the magnetron can be remotely located with a waveguide or coax feed, which is what seeshell is doing to mitigate thermal plumes and lift. She will still see some, but quite a bit reduced. I chose this as the simpliest configuration and lowest weight possible. Coax, waveguide, stub tuners, etc all add weight so my thought was to keep weight of assembly as low as possible since just a few milligrams of force were expected. Turned out I measured about 18 mg of force against an overall frustum assembly of about 2.5 kg. This was balanced by another equal weight on the opposite end of the beam plus the beam itself, so total mass balancing/displacing was about 10 kg including balance beam assembly. Quite a big mass to discern such a small force. Heavier assemblies will make the small measurement more difficult I believe, but it can be done and shell is a smart engineer.

    I understand...

    you are saying you can place the magnetron remotely, but in any case it has to be located on the integrated test article.

    Probably because of external, random shock and vibration.

    I have a question. What if you leave a small gap between the entrance hole of the cavity and the waveguide?

    Then there will be no shocks / thrust noise transfered to the frustrum right? Could you then place the magnetron plus waveguide on the ground beside the test article?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 04:03 pm
    Thank you for the question. No, the magnetron can be remotely located with a waveguide or coax feed, which is what seeshell is doing to mitigate thermal plumes and lift. She will still see some, but quite a bit reduced. I chose this as the simpliest configuration and lowest weight possible. Coax, waveguide, stub tuners, etc all add weight so my thought was to keep weight of assembly as low as possible since just a few milligrams of force were expected. Turned out I measured about 18 mg of force against an overall frustum assembly of about 2.5 kg. This was balanced by another equal weight on the opposite end of the beam plus the beam itself, so total mass balancing/displacing was about 10 kg including balance beam assembly. Quite a big mass to discern such a small force. Heavier assemblies will make the small measurement more difficult I believe, but it can be done and shell is a smart engineer.

    I understand...

    you are saying you can place the magnetron remotely, but in any case it has to be located on the integrated test article.

    Probably because of external, random shock and vibration.

    I have a question. What if you leave a small gap between the entrance hole of the cavity and the waveguide?

    Then there will be no shocks / thrust noise transfered to the frustrum right?
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: DaCunha on 11/24/2015 04:19 pm
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.

    I don't think that coupling efficiency is influenced by the fact that waveguide is in direct contact or not.

    If you leave a gap that is considerably smaller than the wavelength of your RF/microwave input, e.g. in the order of a millimeter then there won't be a problem with coupling efficiency but you will isolate shock/vibrations.

    What is important is the angle between the normal of the hole and your waveguide symmetry axis.

    I think it is worth a try.

    As to the waveguide I think it could actually be built from very cheap components.

    You could clad a large diameter sleeve or flexible tube with aluminum foil from inside.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 04:26 pm
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.

    I don't think that coupling efficiency is influenced by the fact that waveguide is in direct contact or not.

    If you leave a gap that is considerably smaller than the wavelength of your RF/microwave input, e.g. in the order of a millimeter then there won't be a problem with coupling efficiency but you will isolate shock/vibrations.

    What is important is the angle between the normal of the hole and your waveguide axis.

    I think it is worth a try.
    Perhaps but there should be ground continuity somewhere I would think. Another point to realize is balance beam would be moving. Acoustic or mechanical vibration could be lessened but radome would have to mechanically track balance beam or waveguide displacement.

    You might want to do a rough sketch and post it here. I'm always scoping out new ideas...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 04:52 pm
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.

    I don't think that coupling efficiency is influenced by the fact that waveguide is in direct contact or not.

    If you leave a gap that is considerably smaller than the wavelength of your RF/microwave input, e.g. in the order of a millimeter then there won't be a problem with coupling efficiency but you will isolate shock/vibrations.

    What is important is the angle between the normal of the hole and your waveguide symmetry axis.

    I think it is worth a try.

    As to the waveguide I think it could actually be built from very cheap components.

    You could clad a large diameter sleeve or flexible tube with aluminum foil from inside.

    Just came in for a bit from the shop and catching up with the posts.

    Maybe a review of why I designed my drive and test bed the way I did and why I decided not to do it another way can help the discussion.

    I seriously considered on putting the magnetron onto the frustum but the heat and thermal effects was something I wanted to leave out of the equation as much as possible.

    So that left me to do it one of three ways to do it.
    To position the magnetron off the test bed by transmitting the microwaves to the frustum across a air gap. That was scary to do if the frustum moved up and down and I'd have to track it with the transmitter. To much of an engineering issue for keeping it simple.

    To position the magnetron and waveguide in the center of the fulcrum beam with a waveguide to the drive. That sounded good but several issues I didn't like started to appear in that design. Weight was one. As I'd have a waveguide traveling down the beam and I'd have to beef up the beam to handle it. The second reason was I couldn't rotate the drive easily enough 180 and come up with a thermal profile. Also I'd have to design other test bed layouts  to test other drives and even doing antennas the whole rig would have to be changed.

    That left me with putting the magnetron under the center pivot of the beam and injecting into a waveguide > coax > to waveguides on the drive or even to an antenna on the drive. It would allow me to position the drive in about any position I wanted to quantify thermals and the effects and even change the drive to another design to test using everything in the test bed. It also kept the weight down and removed the magnetron away from the drive and put it into another Faraday cage. I've lost some power into the drive but I know it will be worth it because of the magnetron isolation and the ability to move and change the Drive when other tests are needed.

    Hope it helps.

    Shell

    Added: One more thing. I designed the beam to be able to test not only pressure into a digital scale but the move the scale stand and with a laser measure acceleration and it would allow me to dovetail these two test in together for  better data analysis after testing was done.

    In this shot you can see the alignment laser for the beam and the digital scales that are adjustable. The stand can be removed to test the acceleration profile of the drive.

    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20014_zpsbdcxseni.jpg.html?sort=2&o=12

    In this shot you can see the laser target area with the window that will be used for the graph paper with the laser from the fulcrum beam that will shine on it.

    http://imgur.com/a/hDkTG

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: DaCunha on 11/24/2015 06:36 pm
    One more thing. I designed the beam to be able to test not only pressure into a digital scale but the move the scale stand and with a laser measure acceleration and it would allow me to dovetail these two test in together for  better data analysis after testing was done.

    In this shot you can see the alignment laser for the beam and the digital scales that are adjustable. The stand can be removed to test the acceleration profile of the drive.

    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20014_zpsbdcxseni.jpg.html?sort=2&o=12

    In this shot you can see the laser target area with the window that will be used for the graph paper with the laser from the fulcrum beam that will shine on it.

    http://imgur.com/a/hDkTG

    Thank you for this review. I needed it because I haven't been to this thread and forum for a while.

    I have seen the photographs of your setup and now I finally understand your idea. It is great!

    But I do not understand why you consider the first option (magnetron and waveguide off the test bed and gap between entrance and waveguide) to be impractical.

    Since the forces will not exceed the gravity force of the frustrum there won't be any relative movement between waveguide and entrance hole of your frustrum.

    If you choose the gap width to be considerably smaller then the wavelength of your magnetron output the gap will not disturb the propagation of the microwaves in the waveguide. (the critical value is lambda /4) Here in Europe the standard wavelength is approx. 12 cm (critical value = 3 cm!) corresponding to 2,4 GHz , I don't know the US american standard frequency but it should not be too different.

    If you choose the gap width to be approximately 1 cm or below the first option will work perfectly.
    You will have isolated the frustrum from heat and vibrations of the magnetron.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 06:43 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video

    Baseline spectrum sweep of new magnetron prior to stabilization attempts:

    https://youtu.be/lgcY5JrzU_M
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 07:12 pm
    One more thing. I designed the beam to be able to test not only pressure into a digital scale but the move the scale stand and with a laser measure acceleration and it would allow me to dovetail these two test in together for  better data analysis after testing was done.

    In this shot you can see the alignment laser for the beam and the digital scales that are adjustable. The stand can be removed to test the acceleration profile of the drive.

    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20014_zpsbdcxseni.jpg.html?sort=2&o=12

    In this shot you can see the laser target area with the window that will be used for the graph paper with the laser from the fulcrum beam that will shine on it.

    http://imgur.com/a/hDkTG

    Thank you for this review. I needed it because I haven't been to this thread and forum for a while.

    I have seen the photographs of your setup and now I finally understand your idea. It is great!

    But I do not understand why you consider the first option (magnetron and waveguide off the test bed and gap between entrance and waveguide) to be impractical.

    Since the forces will not exceed the gravity force of the frustrum there won't be any relative movement between waveguide and entrance hole of your frustrum.

    If you choose the gap width to be considerably smaller then the wavelength of your magnetron output the gap will not disturb the propagation of the microwaves in the waveguide. (the critical value is lambda /4) Here in Europe the standard wavelength is approx. 12 cm (critical value = 3 cm!) corresponding to 2,4 GHz , I don't know the US american standard frequency but it should not be too different.

    If you choose the gap width to be approximately 1 cm or below the first option will work perfectly.
    You will have isolated the frustrum from heat and vibrations of the magnetron.
    I see your point but what will I do when the drive moves up and down 250mm?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: bprager on 11/24/2015 07:16 pm
    I see your point but what will I do when the drive moves up and down 250mm?

    Then you will open a bottle of champaign!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 07:38 pm
    Have to pause here to consider the challenge ahead of me. As expected, the spectrum is a spurious mess. AM and sidebands all over the place. Square wave pulses due to power supply. I've seen outputs like this before when repairing old tube amplifiers but the challenge is a big one. Hmmmm, better go back and review some papers on this. Fortunately the vapor deposition industry has some valuable insights.

    Speaking of which, I'm relatively certain dr tajmar's q degradation was due to deposition not oxidation on the near proximity walls of his smaller frustum. Why that popped into my head I have no idea.  :o
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/24/2015 08:27 pm
    One more thing. I designed the beam to be able to test not only pressure into a digital scale but the move the scale stand and with a laser measure acceleration and it would allow me to dovetail these two test in together for  better data analysis after testing was done.

    In this shot you can see the alignment laser for the beam and the digital scales that are adjustable. The stand can be removed to test the acceleration profile of the drive.

    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20014_zpsbdcxseni.jpg.html?sort=2&o=12

    In this shot you can see the laser target area with the window that will be used for the graph paper with the laser from the fulcrum beam that will shine on it.

    http://imgur.com/a/hDkTG

    Thank you for this review. I needed it because I haven't been to this thread and forum for a while.

    I have seen the photographs of your setup and now I finally understand your idea. It is great!

    But I do not understand why you consider the first option (magnetron and waveguide off the test bed and gap between entrance and waveguide) to be impractical.

    Since the forces will not exceed the gravity force of the frustrum there won't be any relative movement between waveguide and entrance hole of your frustrum.

    If you choose the gap width to be considerably smaller then the wavelength of your magnetron output the gap will not disturb the propagation of the microwaves in the waveguide. (the critical value is lambda /4) Here in Europe the standard wavelength is approx. 12 cm (critical value = 3 cm!) corresponding to 2,4 GHz , I don't know the US american standard frequency but it should not be too different.

    If you choose the gap width to be approximately 1 cm or below the first option will work perfectly.
    You will have isolated the frustrum from heat and vibrations of the magnetron.
    I see your point but what will I do when the drive moves up and down 250mm?

    You are feeding the waveguide/antenna into the sidewall of the frustum, yes?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 11/24/2015 08:29 pm
    Thank you for the question. No, the magnetron can be remotely located with a waveguide or coax feed, which is what seeshell is doing to mitigate thermal plumes and lift. She will still see some, but quite a bit reduced. I chose this as the simpliest configuration and lowest weight possible. Coax, waveguide, stub tuners, etc all add weight so my thought was to keep weight of assembly as low as possible since just a few milligrams of force were expected. Turned out I measured about 18 mg of force against an overall frustum assembly of about 2.5 kg. This was balanced by another equal weight on the opposite end of the beam plus the beam itself, so total mass balancing/displacing was about 10 kg including balance beam assembly. Quite a big mass to discern such a small force. Heavier assemblies will make the small measurement more difficult I believe, but it can be done and shell is a smart engineer.

    I understand...

    you are saying you can place the magnetron remotely, but in any case it has to be located on the integrated test article.

    Probably because of external, random shock and vibration.

    I have a question. What if you leave a small gap between the entrance hole of the cavity and the waveguide?

    Then there will be no shocks / thrust noise transfered to the frustrum right?
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.

    How about making the wavequide ALSO the balance beam, with the magnetron at one end and the frustum at the other? Even better, make two identical units, side by side, on a common fulcrum, with the magnetron and frustums swapped. This might tend to cancel thermal effects, if one frustum was thrusting "up" and the other "down". Then swap the frustum thrust directions. If the movement direction reversed, I'd say you have clear evidence of...something not thermal.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: DaCunha on 11/24/2015 09:00 pm
    I see your point but what will I do when the drive moves up and down 250mm?

    If so, you will have a simple and reliable safety mechanism that will prevent your EMDrive from lifting off and tearing a hole in your faraday cage.

    But more importantly, since you use a similar cavity geometry as Eagleworks and since your input power will be comparable, I think we can be sure that the forces will also be in the range of Micro- and Millinewtons thus they will not exceed the weight of your frustrum.

    Thus I think you should start with a first proof of principle test that is as simple as possible therefore leaving the least room for errors.

    When I worked on my thesis at the university in a nano-optics lab I had a supervisor who was quite a motherly friend to me and whom I owe a lot.

    She constantly told me and one morning I came into my office and saw a printed sheet on the wall saying make your damn setup as simple as possible. (It was not in english of course so more or less like that) This was actually what helped me finish the thesis.

    Because you just have no clue how many sources of systematic errors you can have in your setup.

    So make it as simple as possible. Not simpler, not more difficult.

    If you place the magnetron off your test bed you will have definitely excluded it as an error source, and it is possibly a big one.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 09:05 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/24/2015 09:24 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 09:43 pm
    Thank you for the question. No, the magnetron can be remotely located with a waveguide or coax feed, which is what seeshell is doing to mitigate thermal plumes and lift. She will still see some, but quite a bit reduced. I chose this as the simpliest configuration and lowest weight possible. Coax, waveguide, stub tuners, etc all add weight so my thought was to keep weight of assembly as low as possible since just a few milligrams of force were expected. Turned out I measured about 18 mg of force against an overall frustum assembly of about 2.5 kg. This was balanced by another equal weight on the opposite end of the beam plus the beam itself, so total mass balancing/displacing was about 10 kg including balance beam assembly. Quite a big mass to discern such a small force. Heavier assemblies will make the small measurement more difficult I believe, but it can be done and shell is a smart engineer.

    I understand...

    you are saying you can place the magnetron remotely, but in any case it has to be located on the integrated test article.

    Probably because of external, random shock and vibration.

    I have a question. What if you leave a small gap between the entrance hole of the cavity and the waveguide?

    Then there will be no shocks / thrust noise transfered to the frustrum right?
    I would say the match to the waveguide would be poor, if nothing else than lack of ground continuity. Not sure on shells placement but I would put magnetron assemble right over central balancing point, that way thermals will have less effect on one momentum arm or the other. Don't know a way around a solid mounting to a transmission line though.

    How about making the wavequide ALSO the balance beam, with the magnetron at one end and the frustum at the other? Even better, make two identical units, side by side, on a common fulcrum, with the magnetron and frustums swapped. This might tend to cancel thermal effects, if one frustum was thrusting "up" and the other "down". Then swap the frustum thrust directions. If the movement direction reversed, I'd say you have clear evidence of...something not thermal.
    Not a bad idea and it has much going for it. But I need to keep in a strict budget as well. Let's see.
    For 2



    Ceramic plates .... 500.00
    Copper Sheets .... 375.00
    Cutting .....          400.00
    Silver Solders....    60.00
    Misc ......              200.00 Cables, coax, connectors
                             
    Get costly now....
    Waveguides
    Magic T
    WR430's
    Tuning 2-3 ports

    Love to do it but the funding isn't quite there but I believe I can make just one work.

    Shell

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: cee on 11/24/2015 09:44 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 09:49 pm
    I see your point but what will I do when the drive moves up and down 250mm?

    If so, you will have a simple and reliable safety mechanism that will prevent your EMDrive from lifting off and tearing a hole in your faraday cage.

    But more importantly, since you use a similar cavity geometry as Eagleworks and since your input power will be comparable, I think we can be sure that the forces will also be in the range of Micro- and Millinewtons thus they will not exceed the weight of your frustrum.

    Thus I think you should start with a first proof of principle test that is as simple as possible therefore leaving the least room for errors.

    When I worked on my thesis at the university in a nano-optics lab I had a supervisor who was quite a motherly friend to me and whom I owe a lot.

    She constantly told me and one morning I came into my office and saw a printed sheet on the wall saying make your damn setup as simple as possible. (It was not in english of course so more or less like that) This was actually what helped me finish the thesis.

    Because you just have no clue how many sources of systematic errors you can have in your setup.

    So make it as simple as possible. Not simpler, not more difficult.

    If you place the magnetron off your test bed you will have definitely excluded it as an error source, and it is possibly a big one.
    We call it KISS "Keep It Simple Stupid" engineering.
    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20003%20-%20Copy_zpsosjefkct.jpg.html?sort=2&o=1
    The magnetron is off the beam and away from the frustum]The magnetron is off the beam and away from the frustum. Looking from inside of the Drive Faraday cage you can see where the magnetron is being placed. The magnetron inside of the secondary Faraday cage feeds into a waveguide which feeds into a coax which feeds the coax down the beam to where the picture was taken from and the drive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 09:58 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 11/24/2015 10:36 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/24/2015 11:05 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 11:16 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Dave, seriously consider an inverter to drive your maggie, with a few simple mods you can get a clean signal to drive youe maggie.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H1.TRS5&_nkw=PANASONIC+F606Y8X00AP+INVERTER+OEM+ORIGINAL+PART&_sacat=0
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 11/24/2015 11:34 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Dave, seriously consider an inverter to drive your maggie, with a few simple mods you can get a clean signal to drive youe maggie.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H1.TRS5&_nkw=PANASONIC+F606Y8X00AP+INVERTER+OEM+ORIGINAL+PART&_sacat=0

    Shell, do you have a schematic for this "inverter". I suspect it's just a high efficiency, high frequency power supply, which will only make the magnetron output even more problematic, since it won't be switching at 60 Hz, but maybe 20KHz or perhaps much more. The magnetron won't care, but you probably will. As I've said before, unless you can control the RF, you can't control the experiment. With any modulation whatsoever on the magnetron power supplies (there are two, cathode and anode), there is literally no way to reliably control the spectral output of the magnetron, other than the output based on the magnetron's intrinsic design (it's internal physical dimensions). Yes, you can shift it's center frequency by manipulating the magnetic field that cause the electron circulation across the internal cavities, but otherwise a magnetron is basically an "electron whistle". If you blow across the neck of a bottle with pulsed air, you'll get a spectrally nasty tone. With smooth air, you'll get a spectrally pure tone.

    Probably a bad anology, but the best I can do.

    Then again, it may be important that the microwave source actually be pulsed. As far as I know, Shawyer's were. But we don't know. Being able to vary the duty cycle of the source from 0 to 100 percent would seem to be critical, at least to me. And this would involve the incorporation of a high voltage DC supply for the magnetron that could be turned on and off appropriately, and also able to provide continuous CLEAN DC when not pulse width modulated.

    A magnetron has a design "ignition" voltage, below which it will not resonate at all, and above which it will wildly vary in frequency and phase. That voltage is pretty tight, but in kitchen magnetrons the upper limit is ignored, as it has no appreciable effect on the end result (making things hot as fast as possible).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/24/2015 11:46 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Dave, seriously consider an inverter to drive your maggie, with a few simple mods you can get a clean signal to drive youe maggie.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H1.TRS5&_nkw=PANASONIC+F606Y8X00AP+INVERTER+OEM+ORIGINAL+PART&_sacat=0

    Shell, do you have a schematic for this "inverter". I suspect it's just a high efficiency, high frequency power supply, which will only make the magnetron output even more problematic, since it won't be switching at 60 Hz, but maybe 20KHz or perhaps much more. The magnetron won't care, but you probably will. As I've said before, unless you can control the RF, you can't control the experiment. With any modulation whatsoever on the magnetron power supplies (there are two, cathode and anode), there is literally no way to reliably control the spectral output of the magnetron.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vchhc7SLcaw
    And
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iX1rkJ53Ck

    And
    pdf attached.

    You can apply some mods to the inverter to filter out the components you don't want.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/25/2015 12:12 am
    It may be that scrounged kitchen microwaves are the wrong way to go for this.  Amateur radio microwave enthusiasts use much cleaner sources as mentioned earlier, boosting power with Traveling Wave Amplifiers, just like comm satellites and terrestrial microwave links.   They typically use surplus ones to keep costs down.   A bit of googling may provide sources, or perhaps some local hams who are into this.

    Ham microwave operations are usually around 10 GHz.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 11/25/2015 12:16 am
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:

    https://youtu.be/I4tlVcTq__k

    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Dave, seriously consider an inverter to drive your maggie, with a few simple mods you can get a clean signal to drive youe maggie.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H1.TRS5&_nkw=PANASONIC+F606Y8X00AP+INVERTER+OEM+ORIGINAL+PART&_sacat=0

    Shell, do you have a schematic for this "inverter". I suspect it's just a high efficiency, high frequency power supply, which will only make the magnetron output even more problematic, since it won't be switching at 60 Hz, but maybe 20KHz or perhaps much more. The magnetron won't care, but you probably will. As I've said before, unless you can control the RF, you can't control the experiment. With any modulation whatsoever on the magnetron power supplies (there are two, cathode and anode), there is literally no way to reliably control the spectral output of the magnetron.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vchhc7SLcaw
    And
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iX1rkJ53Ck

    And
    pdf attached.

    You can apply some mods to the inverter to filter out the components you don't want.

    Shell

    Ahhhh, just as I thought. It's a 30 KHz high voltage supply with 100% line frequency ripple. It's pulse width modulated to control the average power to the magnetron. Other than being a (perhaps) more efficient power supply, it's no different than any other magnetron power supply. It's only made the fourier frequencies of the magnetron output shift from 60 Hz to 30 KHz.

    I haven't seen any spectral plot on this site that has a resolution bandwidth at the 30 KHz level, let alone 60 Hz. You get what you pay for, but the spectral analysis, VSWR, and Q values you folks are looking for doesn't come from Ebay. It comes from an 8510 or its modern ilk.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/25/2015 12:30 am
    It may be that scrounged kitchen microwaves are the wrong way to go for this.  Amateur radio microwave enthusiasts use much cleaner sources as mentioned earlier, boosting power with Traveling Wave Amplifiers, just like comm satellites and terrestrial microwave links.   They typically use surplus ones to keep costs down.   A bit of googling may provide sources, or perhaps some local hams who are into this.

    Ham microwave operations are usually around 10 GHz.

    Make that 10 to 250 MHz, everything above 300 GHz is open to hams also.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/25/2015 12:41 am
    If I was designing with a maggie, I would source a suitable voltage rated neon sign transformer, feed it from a variac (to control the output DC) and full wave rectify the output with enough filter caps to clean up the mains ripple.

    Would also install bypass caps at the feed in point of the maggie and use suitable freq rated ferrite filters to eliminate any high freq stuff.

    Can't see why it would be difficult or expensive to supply the maggie with relatively clean DC to both the heater and anode/cathode and be able to control the DC voltage as desired.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/25/2015 01:22 am
    If I was designing with a maggie, I would source a suitable voltage rated neon sign transformer, feed it from a variac (to control the output DC) and full wave rectify the output with enough filter caps to clean up the mains ripple.

    Would also install bypass caps at the feed in point of the maggie and use suitable freq rated ferrite filters to eliminate any high freq stuff.

    Can't see why it would be difficult or expensive to supply the maggie with relatively clean DC to both the heater and anode/cathode and be able to control the DC voltage as desired.

    Varying the magnetron supply voltage with a variac and neon tube transformer adds a big weight penalty and it may not work at all.   

    The mods by the Australian ham are to so the supply can be used with some other HV RF amplifying device like a TWT.   A power supply modified that way may no longer work with a magnetron.   That kind of power is lethal.   Anyone who messes with a bare magnetron should be really careful.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/25/2015 01:36 am
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1449246#msg1449246
    [/quote]

    Ahhhh, just as I thought. It's a 30 KHz high voltage supply with 100% line frequency ripple. It's pulse width modulated to control the average power to the magnetron. Other than being a (perhaps) more efficient power supply, it's no different than any other magnetron power supply. It's only made the fourier frequencies of the magnetron output shift from 60 Hz to 30 KHz.

    I haven't seen any spectral plot on this site that has a resolution bandwidth at the 30 KHz level, let alone 60 Hz. You get what you pay for, but the spectral analysis, VSWR, and Q values you folks are looking for doesn't come from Ebay. It comes from an  or its modern ilk.


    I can filter out and rectify the 30KHz to give me a clean output. You're right some nice equipment would be better as we are trying to do a entry level $100,000 experiment with a few thousand bucks and dang it, we are trying our very best to make it work. And you bet I looked at the power supplies for the magnetrons that are used in the semi industry for sputtering (my business was in that field) but even one that worked still sacked my budget.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Agilent-HP-8510C-8517B-45-MHz-50-GHz-Vector-Network-Analyzer
    -no-sweeper-/221434846422?hash=item338e8b9cd6:g:KIEAAOxyOalTakV~

    This one hasn't a sweeper and it's only $5,950.00 us

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Dortex on 11/25/2015 02:00 am
    Anyone else curious to see if we get similar effects with radio waves?  As far as I've seen, lower frequencies would give us more thrust. Is this just a microwave thing or would an old EM field do?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/25/2015 02:11 am
    Anyone else curious to see if we get similar effects with radio waves?  As far as I've seen, lower frequencies would give us more thrust. Is this just a microwave thing or would an old EM field do?

    Photon momentum increases as wavelength decreases.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/25/2015 03:07 am
    If the effect is due to photon momentum.  Word is still out on that..

    My own hunches are that a stable microwave source is required, and that cavity Q matters.  These things are related.

    Hams used to use vacuum tube amplifiers operating in 'Class C'.  This was efficient power-wise, but with the introduction of Single Sideband modulation (SSB) in 1946 the messy output of a Class C amp, suitable for Morse Code and AM modulation, was no longer adequate.  So you started seeing class A and B amplifiers.   These were less efficient from a raw power point of view, but the efficiencies of the new modulation methods more than made up for it.

    Today things are even more extreme and the emphasis is on getting useful  information through as narrow a bandwidth as possible and extremely weak signals.  Sort of getting 'more wood behind the arrowhead'.  Modern ham digital communication uses signals only 16 Hz wide and so require a frequency stability of only a couple Hz at a carrier frequency of 14 MHz.  And this has to be maintained during a continuous transmission lasting nearly 60 seconds, as all the transmitter components heat up.  As the carrier shifts frequency ever so slightly to represent the data (you can barely hear it), it does so with 'phase coherent' transitions that minimize splatter and sidebands.  (The modulation technique was devised by Joe Taylor, a Nobel Prize winner.)   Radios capable of meeting these stability specifications are easily ordered from catalogs and cost between $1000 and $2000, including receiver.   

    Of course, this is at HF frequencies, not microwave.  But the effects are dramatic.  With my own such radio, using 3 watts of input power and a really lousy antenna, I communicated from Florida with a guy in Moscow, bouncing signals off the ionosphere - a very dodgy way of communicating.  All the wood behind the arrowhead.  In particularly good propagation conditions and better antennas, such things have been done with under 1 watt.

    My gut feel is concentrating the energy in that way will make for greater thrust in an EmDrive.  Maybe this is why Shawyer got such large results, whether or not you agree with his theory about how it works.

    Magnetrons are cheaper than what he used, and if they can be made to do it too, that would be good.  Here (http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/) is an interesting article about how some hams tried to get a magnetron to be stable, using a pure DC power supply (linear, not switching) and a PLL, with suggestions on power supply construction.  They almost made it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Corlock Striker on 11/25/2015 03:34 am
    Um, just a thought for you all, but I've built a few computers in my day, and one of the more important components to purchase is a power supply to run the CPU, the HDDs, the Optical Drives and all that other good stuff.  That's all really precise electronics that require a stable conversion of AC power to DC power to operate.  So, the good computer power supplies might be able to fit your needs.  Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Power-Supplies/SubCategory/ID-58) has a pretty good selection of them, and they're not terribly expensive.  I don't know if they'll put out the type of power people would need for things, but I thought it might be worth a mention.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RotoSequence on 11/25/2015 04:45 am
    Um, just a thought for you all, but I've built a few computers in my day, and one of the more important components to purchase is a power supply to run the CPU, the HDDs, the Optical Drives and all that other good stuff.  That's all really precise electronics that require a stable conversion of AC power to DC power to operate.  So, the good computer power supplies might be able to fit your needs.  Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Power-Supplies/SubCategory/ID-58) has a pretty good selection of them, and they're not terribly expensive.  I don't know if they'll put out the type of power people would need for things, but I thought it might be worth a mention.

    A personal computer power supply, typically designed for 12V DC and less, is an unfortunate distance from the 2,000 volt beasts needed to drive magnetrons.  :(
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Corlock Striker on 11/25/2015 05:32 am
    A personal computer power supply, typically designed for 12V DC and less, is an unfortunate distance from the 2,000 volt beasts needed to drive magnetrons.  :(

    Had a feeling they wouldn't have enough juice.  Oh, well, was worth a shot.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 12:00 pm
    A personal computer power supply, typically designed for 12V DC and less, is an unfortunate distance from the 2,000 volt beasts needed to drive magnetrons.  :(

    Had a feeling they wouldn't have enough juice.  Oh, well, was worth a shot.
    Yes it was corlock. Keep your ideas flowing. As you saw, people here appreciate the ideas and will respond politely and correctly nearly 100% of the time. Going back over the extensive thread posts here, its pretty obvious to me that nsf has a great tone and content...sometimes hard to dig out the data but its worth it.

    The spec an I bought is a great tool for visualizing waveforms. The poorly filted, pulsed dc output adds too much noise to the signal to get the effect I want. A single unmodulated rf spike is what I'm after to take my testing to the next level. I think shell has a head start on me with a better power supply and know she would share her data instantly. We all seem to have each others back covered.

    Thanks again for the ideas.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 01:35 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - New Video #2

    "Fun" with first stabilization attempt. Mag went over temp, spectrum cleaned up a bit, not successful overall but thats experiments for you:


    Impressive progress Dave. Excellent now you can tell if you have maggie resonance lock or not, because if no lock, no energy in frustum and no "Shawyer Effect" thrust generation potentual, just a lot of thermal effects as the maggie gets really hot from all the reflected Rf.

    Your spectrum analyser is really earning it's keep and showing how valuable it is.
    Dave , what steps are you taking to stabilize the maggie ?
    I tried this patented technique:
    http://www.google.com/patents/US6921890

    A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related.
    Thanks. It appears the magnet ring modifications will not solve the issue. Could you point me to some schematics for a stable supply. Been a while since I've built my own, but the winters are cold up here  8)
    Dave, seriously consider an inverter to drive your maggie, with a few simple mods you can get a clean signal to drive youe maggie.
    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H1.TRS5&_nkw=PANASONIC+F606Y8X00AP+INVERTER+OEM+ORIGINAL+PART&_sacat=0

    Shell, do you have a schematic for this "inverter". I suspect it's just a high efficiency, high frequency power supply, which will only make the magnetron output even more problematic, since it won't be switching at 60 Hz, but maybe 20KHz or perhaps much more. The magnetron won't care, but you probably will. As I've said before, unless you can control the RF, you can't control the experiment. With any modulation whatsoever on the magnetron power supplies (there are two, cathode and anode), there is literally no way to reliably control the spectral output of the magnetron.

    And


    And
    pdf attached.

    You can apply some mods to the inverter to filter out the components you don't want.

    Shell

    Ahhhh, just as I thought. It's a 30 KHz high voltage supply with 100% line frequency ripple. It's pulse width modulated to control the average power to the magnetron. Other than being a (perhaps) more efficient power supply, it's no different than any other magnetron power supply. It's only made the fourier frequencies of the magnetron output shift from 60 Hz to 30 KHz.

    I haven't seen any spectral plot on this site that has a resolution bandwidth at the 30 KHz level, let alone 60 Hz. You get what you pay for, but the spectral analysis, VSWR, and Q values you folks are looking for doesn't come from Ebay. It comes from an 8510 or its modern ilk.
    8510, that takes me back  :)

    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: CW on 11/25/2015 02:28 pm
    (...)

    8510, that takes me back  :)

    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.

    I can tell you that my power rating is not half bad ;D .

    BR
    CW
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/25/2015 02:31 pm
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1449449#msg1449449
    [/quote]
    8510, that takes me back  :)

    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.
    [/quote]

    The magnetron is nothing but a tube (us old timers remember those). And it's prone to GIGO (garbage in garbage out).


    TheTraveler is correct when he stated in this thread.

    "A HUGE amount of the spectral crap you see from an oven magnetron is due to the roughly 50% duty cycle from the single diode rectified high voltage supply. With a perfect spectrum analyzer looking at a perfect square wave (of whatever carrier frequency), the spectrum will extend from "DC to daylight", as we say in the microwave engineering world.

    While a magnetron has nasty phase noise, they WILL easily mode lock IF provided with clean and stable true DC cathode and anode voltages. The cathode is not so critical, since it is basically a thermionic emitter with a lot of thermal inertia, but is generally floated from the anode high voltage, so the two are intimately related."

    First you supply the magnetron with a clean DC voltage. The old iron cored single HV diode that throws out a 50% duty cycle is the first of the offenders that needs to go. It's simple to replace it with a slightly modified Inverter to give you clean DC and the cathode only needs to be on for a few seconds and then it can be turned off and the garbage it adds to the magnetron output disappears because it becomes self sustaining. The cathode can be switched off with a simply vacuum style switch after a few seconds to clean up the magnetron output even more.

    <quote>
    Magnetron
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/Magnetron.en.html

    Figure 1: Magnetron MI 29G (МИ 29Г) of the old Russian Radar “Bar Lock”
    The magnetron is a high-powered vacuum tube, that works as self-excited microwave oscillator. Crossed electron and magnetic fields are used in the magnetron to produce the high-power output required in radar equipment. These multi-cavity devices may be used in radar transmitters as either pulsed or cw oscillators at frequencies ranging from approximately 600 to 30,000 megahertz. The relatively simple construction has the disadvantage that the Magnetron usually can work only on a constructively fixed frequency.<end>

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JonathanD on 11/25/2015 03:01 pm

    Irrespective of cost, would there be a more ideal microwave source like a klystron or TWT, or does that really not make a difference?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 03:21 pm
    (...)

    8510, that takes me back  :)

    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.

    I can tell you that my power rating is not half bad ;D .

    BR
    CW
    No QRP for you!  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/25/2015 03:23 pm

    Irrespective of cost, would there be a more ideal microwave source like a klystron or TWT, or does that really not make a difference?

    Cost!

    Tearing apart an old kitchen microwave is cheap! And it keeps the DIYs efforts in the same 2.45Ghz range that Shawyer and the Chinese team used. These are DIY attempts to replicate and hopefully even improve on past reports of generated thrust...

    There are cleaner tunable microwave generators, but they run close to (or even exceed) the total cost some of these DIYs are working with for the whole design.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 03:37 pm

    Irrespective of cost, would there be a more ideal microwave source like a klystron or TWT, or does that really not make a difference?

    Cost!

    Tearing apart an old kitchen microwave is cheap! And it keeps the DIYs efforts in the same 2.45Ghz range that Shawyer and the Chinese team used. These are DIY attempts to replicate and hopefully even improve on past reports of generated thrust...

    There are cleaner tunable microwave generators, but they run close to (or even exceed) the total cost some of these DIYs are working with for the whole design.
    Yep, this is beyond home budget for most of us. However, the latest trend in commercial MW design is solid state devices for cooking. A phased array (4) of the below devices to equate to the 1kW or so needed. Benefit is ~30VDC operation and no tube. Problem is, they are just now being introduced:

    http://www.freescale.com/products/rf/rf-cooking/2450-mhz-250-w-cw-32-v-rf-ldmos-transistor-for-consumer-and-commercial-cooking:MHT1003N

    Here is the end product:

    http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/chinese-giant-patents-technology-behind-world-s-first-solid-state-rf-microwave-oven.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222913006#
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/25/2015 03:56 pm

    Irrespective of cost, would there be a more ideal microwave source like a klystron or TWT, or does that really not make a difference?

    Cost!

    Tearing apart an old kitchen microwave is cheap! And it keeps the DIYs efforts in the same 2.45Ghz range that Shawyer and the Chinese team used. These are DIY attempts to replicate and hopefully even improve on past reports of generated thrust...

    There are cleaner tunable microwave generators, but they run close to (or even exceed) the total cost some of these DIYs are working with for the whole design.
    Yep, this is beyond home budget for most of us. However, the latest trend in commercial MW design is solid state devices for cooking. A phased array (4) of the below devices to equate to the 1kW or so needed. Benefit is ~30VDC operation and no tube. Problem is, they are just now being introduced:

    http://www.freescale.com/products/rf/rf-cooking/2450-mhz-250-w-cw-32-v-rf-ldmos-transistor-for-consumer-and-commercial-cooking:MHT1003N

    Here is the end product:

    http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/chinese-giant-patents-technology-behind-world-s-first-solid-state-rf-microwave-oven.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222913006#

    Any idea what the cost is.., or not yet generally available? And is the power tunable or tuned through pulse cycling?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/25/2015 03:58 pm
    That article I linked earlier (http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/) had photos of their setup, including the non-switched brute-force high voltage power supply.  It was made out of scrounged parts and took up several shelves.  It probably weighed a few hundred pounds.  Even if you could get the parts for free, it might be impractical.

    They show the resulting magnetron output spectrum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 05:22 pm
    OK, going out on a limb here and might need a safety net. Actually need some help. The solid state microwave ovens are just hitting the maket are made by a chinese manufacturer Midea who helped develope the freescale device. They MIGHT be availble to us now cheaply in a microwave, but not sure. Here's what I think:

    1. Not marketed as solid state, but as space saving (corner of counter) design.
    2. Available as a Whirlpool branded device model WMC20005YD (750 watts = 3 freescale chips?):

    https://www.google.com/shopping/product/11051147466307104896/specs?safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&q=WMC20005YD+weight&oq=WMC20005YD+weight&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlm9iWlKzJAhWLJh4KHfnuDpAQuC8IsQE

    The weight seems heavy, but the mechanical design doesn't seem to allow for a normal size magnetron which someone posted in a Brittish forum is supposedly UNDER the cooking surface.

    This could be answered by further digging on the net, which I cannot do right now OR buying one and looking at the spectrum or simply tearing into it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/25/2015 05:27 pm
    A plate transformer from a tube type broadcast transmitter would give you plenty of voltage and oomph, and with a full wave rectifier would make for a clean source for the Maggie. One might find a surplus pole peg for cheep, hooked up backwards makes a good step up transformer as well, but most have pcb in the oil....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 05:36 pm
    That article I linked earlier (http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/) had photos of their setup, including the non-switched brute-force high voltage power supply.  It was made out of scrounged parts and took up several shelves.  It probably weighed a few hundred pounds.  Even if you could get the parts for free, it might be impractical.

    They show the resulting magnetron output spectrum.
    Dude...I totally missed this! Brilliant and cheap best I could tell.

    OK, looking thru it, they did have trouble with it and could not obtain constant lock, but great find.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 06:13 pm
    A plate transformer from a tube type broadcast transmitter would give you plenty of voltage and oomph, and with a full wave rectifier would make for a clean source for the Maggie. One might find a surplus pole peg for cheep, hooked up backwards makes a good step up transformer as well, but most have pcb in the oil....
    Old westinghouse transformers...yep used to be made in Bloomington Indiana...a superfund site I think.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/25/2015 06:47 pm
    Broadcast shortwave transmitters are being decommisioned all over the world.  About the only people still in that business are religous broadcasters and the Voice of America.  So some really odd stuff might turn up on surplus markets.  It might not be in a place where you can get to it though.  I bet there is a web site known to broadcast engineers where this sort of thing can be found.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/25/2015 07:01 pm
    Broadcast shortwave transmitters are being decommisioned all over the world.  About the only people still in that business are religous broadcasters and the Voice of America.  So some really odd stuff might turn up on surplus markets.  It might not be in a place where you can get to it though.  I bet there is a web site known to broadcast engineers where this sort of thing can be found.
    I was going to pull out my secret weapon, a long-time broadcast engineer and fellow ham. He eats 4kV in his sleep and several thousand watts is his comfort zone. My challenge to him would be to engineer a stable power supply for me, but I'm stubborn enough to try my hand at it first. Yes, hes got access to lots of transformers ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/25/2015 07:05 pm
    Got to be a lot of this stuff out there 4KV / 500 mA supply

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ham-Radio-Power-supply-rack-Thordarson-T-19P68-AM-transmitter-Transformer-/262153855075?hash=item3d09966063:g:lckAAOSw585WUIDv
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/25/2015 08:05 pm
    OK, looking thru it, they did have trouble with it and could not obtain constant lock, but great find.

    They think their problem was the PLL not having a wide enough capture bandwidth to track the magnetron's gyrations.  So it should not be a hard problem to fix - they were using scrounged parts.

    I think the bit about using a constant current power supply instead of constant voltage was a helpful insight.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/25/2015 08:28 pm
    Just want to point out that there are products that, at least, claim to be able to produce a highly tunable digitally defined sinusoidal wave.  https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/ (https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/).  The main issues I see are that 1. most DIY builders have limited experience with using software defined radio for broadcast applications, 2. skepticism that the broadcast devices will perform adequately, 3. the fact that the only 100w amps I've been able to find to date have been in the $3000+ range (and that legal restrictions apply to amplifiers of this or higher power level).

    Unless thrust starts getting clearly out of the noise, I don't think many DIYers are going to drop that kind of money on an amplifier.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/25/2015 08:40 pm
    Just want to point out that there are products that, at least, claim to be able to produce a highly tunable digitally defined sinusoidal wave.  https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/ (https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/).  The main issues I see are that 1. most DIY builders have limited experience with using software defined radio for broadcast applications, 2. skepticism that the broadcast devices will perform adequately, 3. the fact that the only 100w amps I've been able to find to date have been in the $3000+ range (and that legal restrictions apply to amplifiers of this or higher power level).

    Unless thrust starts getting clearly out of the noise, I don't think many DIYers are going to drop that kind of money on an amplifier.
    I've no problem working with software, although I dislike programming I can do it. I believe if that was the only thing I was looking for was a clean sinusoidal class A amp with a decent power out  figure and a $$$ figure I'd be going that route.

    But that's not all I'm looking for, I have some ideas of in this device that it's more than just one TxMode that provides thrust.

    I'll repost it because I believe it's an important piece of my build/test.

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1447835#msg1447835
    In for the day. Got the roof fixed and I'm wet and cold and cranky. :)

    Reading on the Chinese tests I had to look again at a very nice paper Frank Davies did in April of 2014.

    I'll attach it and the one they did for the Brady.

    A couple of things I've gleaned from it. We know the Chinese sought TE012 for the mode of choice and that mode has shown the apparent highest thrust/Kw ratios. One other thing and I've seen it it my meep analysis is my drive showing inter-modal actions of not only a TE012 but of a TM014.

    Nasa did the Brady Cone and tried with limited success to get the TE012 mode to work. This is what I think was missed and one main reason I'm pushing to keep the inter-modal actions in my design.

    Where I'm going with this is I'm beginning to suspect that you need at least two interactive modes to make the drive work at the higher thrust/Kw levels.

    The NASA EagleWorks Brady cavity in mode TE012 had no other mode close to it and they struggled to get thrust at all (once got a little). Look at the chart.


    I've had aero run some simulations where only one mode was excited in another cavity (thanks areo, nice work) where he narrowed the bandwidth to only excite one mode and the simulation looked horrible, the Q dropped and the energy within the cavity was decreased dramatically.

    This is where it's leading me to make sure I can have the adjustable cavity to research the the tuning of the F0 through the two TE &TM modes and see where the sweet spot is in thrust levels.


    Shell

    Added the correct pdf paper.

    If anyone is interested here is my cavity excited with a 100 HZ BW at the resonate frequency.
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tOGtxcVpuMVlRUXM&usp=sharing&tid=0B1XizxEfB23tdTVmVXk5MTIwUU0

    And here is the E in a broad +-30MHz BW
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1XizxEfB23teWpBSkFMSGw5eWM
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: mwvp on 11/25/2015 10:29 pm
    ...the good computer power supplies might be able to fit your needs...I don't know if they'll put out the type of power people would need for things, but I thought it might be worth a mention.

    A thousand watt computer supply, if hacked, might well do. Would have to re-wrap the transformer for setup-up 180V to ~ 2 or 4 kV, use high-speed high voltage rectifiers and low-loss high voltage filter caps. When your supply is switching at 40kHz to 400 kHz, its very important to use quality high-speed diodes and capacitors if you don't want prompt failure.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: mwvp on 11/25/2015 10:42 pm
    ...
    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.

    Yes, the magnetron is designed for pulse operation. As the link I provided and post again describes, the heater should be throttled for CW, the voltage maintained and current throttled for the operating point. Three factors set the tuning; cavity dimensions, magnetic field and forward voltage, which set the cyclotron resonance point. The heater will determine the emissivity of the cathode and forward current. No experience, just what I've read. See:

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1402366#msg1402366
    http://www.coultersmithing.com/AuxCP/uWaveIon.html

    See Vol. 6, more than you want to know...
    https://www.jlab.org/ir/MITSeries.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 11/25/2015 11:40 pm
    NSF-1701 Update - Since frustum tuning succeeded faster than I expected, thought I'd push ahead with magnetron stabilization tests originally scheduled for next month.

    Tomorrow, I'll get started by bolting the new magnetron into the microwave box, not the frustum. I'll need a stable mount for the magnetron as I tweak on it. Will try and video the before and after spec an tests.

    I've been sucked dry lately (I work for a living), but based on the thermal data, which I will provide ASAP, provided many days ago, your thermal characteristics are absolutely not consistant with your "lift" data.   Thermal is immediate, like, right now.  Since the propogation time of air is close to 340 m/s your thermal effects should be immediate unless you have some kind of dampening in your system.  Current data suggests a 3 second delay between thermal onset and lift onset.

    I'm sorry for not providing detailed analysis, but please be patient.  I'll provide the analysis and details ASAP.

    A proper analysis would demand your hysteresis balance characteristics, i.e. once you pushed on the scale, how long does it take the scale to show movement.

    The thermals at this time do not match the "lift" characteristics.  i.e. It's not behaving like a hot air balloon would behave.

    Hysteresis doesn't sound like the proper term, just "inertia" may be better, and actually what is needed is the parameters of the transfer function that relates displacements (what is measured, output) to excitation force (what is driving the system, input). Probably 2 parameters suffice if we indeed have a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Those can be evaluated from the mechanical pulse response posted earlier by rfmwguy, that does look like a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Short of that, followed by assessment of the phase shifting at the excitation frequency (the on/off periods of the magnetron) any conclusion about "direction of thrust" is premature.

    If excitation period (on/off cycles) is significantly shorter than natural (undriven) mechanical oscillation periods of the balance, then the driven system will tend to a 180° phase shifted response : raising less when force upward applied (and more when upward force relieved). This can be counter intuitive so we must be careful with interpretations beyond statistical tests. On the experimental front, one answer could be to excite the balance with a small electromagnet, at same on/off period as the magnetron (kept unplugged obviously), and measure phase shift in displacement.

    p.s. Still no time nor neurons left after work to tackle it numerically myself
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/26/2015 12:56 am
    I have setup a Google Group to continue my discussions on the EmDrive and my build.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch

    Best of luck to the other DIY EmDrive builders.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/26/2015 01:59 am

    Hysteresis doesn't sound like the proper term, just "inertia" may be better, and actually what is needed is the parameters of the transfer function that relates displacements (what is measured, output) to excitation force (what is driving the system, input). Probably 2 parameters suffice if we indeed have a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Those can be evaluated from the mechanical pulse response posted earlier by rfmwguy, that does look like a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Short of that, followed by assessment of the phase shifting at the excitation frequency (the on/off periods of the magnetron) any conclusion about "direction of thrust" is premature.

    If excitation period (on/off cycles) is significantly shorter than natural (undriven) mechanical oscillation periods of the balance, then the driven system will tend to a 180° phase shifted response : raising less when force upward applied (and more when upward force relieved). This can be counter intuitive so we must be careful with interpretations beyond statistical tests. On the experimental front, one answer could be to excite the balance with a small electromagnet, at same on/off period as the magnetron (kept unplugged obviously), and measure phase shift in displacement.

    p.s. Still no time nor neurons left after work to tackle it numerically myself

    The balance beam rfmwguy uses is a second order system just like the EW TP.   The step responses look similar.   From what I have seen I could make a rough estimate of the damping parameter,  ζ = .4   and frequency ω = .42.  I'm estimating it takes approx. 15 Sec. for the balance beam to settle down to it's new position after a small weight has been placed on it.

    One way of visualizing the balance beam is to consider it to be a low pass filter.   If it is driven by a sinusoid of frequency f, where f >  .07 Hz  the response will be negligiable.   The response of any higher frequency sinusoids will also be negligiable.   If it is driven by a square wave with a frequency near to or greater than f = .07Hz, then the same applies because a square wave is just the summation of sinusoids composed of the fundamental frequency and odd-integer harmonic components.    The magnetron RF output envelope can be modeled as a high frequency square wave with a DC offset.   So when the magnetron is switched on and is delivering a PWM output with a frequency f >> .07 Hz the system response should be the same as the step response of a second order system.  This is true because only the DC offset part of the RF envelope would affect the balance beam or torque pendulum.   Note:  the exponential risetime seen with the EW vacuum test is the step response of a first order system.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/26/2015 05:56 am
    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    There is nothing special about 1 Hertz.  It just means one cycle per second, and seconds are a completely arbitrary number made up by humans.  Fractional Hz are fine.  I'm not sure about the rest of your post, I'll have to re-read it some other time.

    EDIT:
    For example, the earth's spin can be measured in Hz, it's about .00001 cycles per second.

    I thought that, for EM radiation. 1hrz = 1 plank constant which was an indivisible quanta of energy?  If you could release only one photon (in fictionless space) so that it provided momentum, could that be redshifted by a fractional amount?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/26/2015 06:47 am
    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    There is nothing special about 1 Hertz.  It just means one cycle per second, and seconds are a completely arbitrary number made up by humans.  Fractional Hz are fine.  I'm not sure about the rest of your post, I'll have to re-read it some other time.

    EDIT:
    For example, the earth's spin can be measured in Hz, it's about .00001 cycles per second.

    I thought that, for EM radiation. 1hrz = 1 plank constant which was an indivisible quanta of energy?  If you could release only one photon (in fictionless space) so that it provided momentum, could that be redshifted by a fractional amount?

    I don't think you it's reasonable to ask this question. A single photon has momentum?  Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem.  Moreover, I believe (as in please correct me if I am mistaken, not on faith) that the reason we say that the Planck length is the quantum of action is because it looks discrete. However it's much better to think of it as a sort of coefficient for how densely packed the units of spacetime that serve as a medium for the photon specifically. This isn't to say that it's a magic number -- for example, the density of water is how densely packed water is, and in virtue of this, one could never skip a stone across water and have its quantized-rate of h20-molecules-pertime be higher than the density of water. It simply makes no sense. In the same way, photons have to hop along Planck lengths; that does not imply that the "resolution of photons" is the Planck constant any more than the density of h20, in the forementioned analogy, somehow sets the "resolution of stone hops".  It's just a physical constraint on the way a photon navigates spacetime but is more significant of a figure metaphysically than the gravitational acceleration at sea level 9.81... m/s/s) is: it's just a mathematical derivative of how objects move over an arbitrary time series, and as such, invokes the typical problems of applying (particularly infinitesimal variety) to reality. We must always be conscious that mathematics can model and predict reality, but only in the same way we can reconstruct 3d depths from the contrast of a digital photo... Mathematics works as a reflection, not mechanism, of the way reality works.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/26/2015 06:50 am
    Just some thoughts because it's late and I'm more than a bit sick.

    Rfmwguy - are you sure you are not missing heat?  I know your setup was mean to minimize heat gain but that thermal cam feels, intuitively, a bit cool for putting 1kw into a copper container.  It strikes me that missing heat, if any exists, would tend to agree with energy going to movement and not heat.

    According to TT,one TC is 2*Qloaded / 2Pi * Freq.  I believe Sawyer was reporting his unloaded Q value so according to TT a TC = Qunloaded / 2pi * freq

    So for Shawyers flight thrust we get TC = 0.000002 (= (60000) / (2*3.14*3850000000))

    Now I'm going to make the very big leap that TC is time constant and that's 1 = 1 second.

    A flight thrust is 0.1386 meters so length/c means it take 4.6232*10^-10 seconds for light to get from one end of the frustum to another.  So one TC is enough time for light to bounce around the frustum 5,300 times.  From reading some of the laser literature, that's a lot of bounces for a photon.  Injecting energy for only 20% of a TC would be consistent with dumping energy in and letting an effect play itself out.

    So then I got to thinking about this little gem for TT:

    Quote
    Takes 5 x TC to fully charge / discharge any L, C, LC combo or resonant cavity.

    20% of 1 TC gives about 25% of max charge and does it very quickly.

    If it takes 5 x TC to max charge then you're getting diminishing returns with time.  On the other hand if you get 25% of total possible stored power in 20% of one TC, and you can start with any initial value of power you desired, and build up a charge in the other 4/5 of a TC in a capacitor with less loss, then that's interesting.

    Question to TT: how much of total stored energy is loaded in the first TC?  With the difference between loaded and unloaded Q does Shawyers system ever give you a higher energy density than if you simply dumped in power for 5 TC?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/26/2015 07:10 am
    While I believe I understand quite a lot about the EmDrive, I have no doubt that there are microwave black arts secrets I'm yet to uncover and understand. Anyone of which could spoil my high performance rotary EmDrive thruster plans.

    So I plan to backtrack and follow Rogers development trail from his 1st Experimental EmDrive, to the Demonstrator EmDrive to the Flight Thruster to the rotary test rig.

    Along the way I plan to replicate the designs and efforts of Iulian, SA Paul, Dave, Shell and Prof Yang because I believe each is different enough to teach me something I don't know.

    To start I will buy a standard kitchen microwave and use it as my 1st experimental device.

    While I don't expect it to develop thrust, it is a known test device that I can use to measure Q (via an maggie antenna adapter for my VNA), maggie freq spectrum spread, maggie freq pulling to the cavity resonance bandwidth and variances with different loads in the oven.

    With this test rig I can also monitor and record Dc output variance, maggie current drawn, high freq ripple, and the effects of going full wave rectification and using a variac to vary the maggie's Dc voltage has on maggie freq spread and maggie freq pulling to the cavity resonance.

    It may be that it is possible to sharpen a maggie freq spread tight enough to allow it to power a high Q cavity as this is what Roger did in his Demonstrator EmDrive with a loaded Q of 45,000 and using spherical end plates. So it is doable it one knows all the microwave black arts secrets.

    Roger told me the Flight Thruster was designed to use coax Rf as that was a Boeing requirement but he prefers a waveguide feed with a choke and impedance tuners in the waveguide as can be seen in all this latest papers and patents.

    When this 1st phase is completed and I have the techniques to narrow the maggie freq range and do a rough freq adjustment close to the middle of the VNA resonance freq of the frustum, it is time to engage applying that technology to build a range of known frustums and use a very rigid Teeter Totter balance test rig on a digital scale to start doing preliminary thrust measurements as Roger has done in the past, Prof Tajmar did for his atmo tests and Paul indicated EW were planning to do with the Alum frustum.

    The rotary table test rig will happen but as it is the most complex measurement rig, I wish to avoid Murphy visiting that project until I have a lot more build and microwave technique experience to make his visit not so enjoyable for him.

    As each stage is completed, I'll post and update to NSF but will not be making regular posts on others comments or presenting other than my test data. Those who may wish to keep in touch as each step is progressed or wish to ask me question please join the discussion forum. Lurking is fine as the messages posted there are not available to non members.

    The forum will also become the most compressive collection of EmDrive data that is available on the net.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch

    Bye for now.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Flyby on 11/26/2015 08:07 am
    TT,

    I do not understand your motivation to pull back to a private forum. You'll be missing the self-correcting criticism received from others. Pulling back into isolation is going to do you more harm then good.
    Granted , you got your fair share of flak, so I can understand your reluctance to stay, but that's mainly due to the unnuanced way you bring your vision forward.

    Shame... but it is your call, nothing I can do about it...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/26/2015 08:29 am
    TT,

    I do not understand your motivation to pull back to a private forum. You'll be missing the self-correcting criticism received from others. Pulling back into isolation is going to do you more harm then good.
    Granted , you got your fair share of flak, so I can understand your reluctance to stay, but that's mainly due to the unnuanced way you bring your vision forward.

    Shame... but it is your call, nothing I can do about it...

    Not pulling back at all. Just clearing the air.

    Anyone can join. Members will not have their content altered, posts deleted nor told what they can't post. Insulting and/or defamatory posts however may be, after discussion, subjected to being deleted.

    I'm done here. Play nice. Have fun. Bye.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 11/26/2015 10:13 am

    Hysteresis doesn't sound like the proper term, just "inertia" may be better, and actually what is needed is the parameters of the transfer function that relates displacements (what is measured, output) to excitation force (what is driving the system, input). Probably 2 parameters suffice if we indeed have a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Those can be evaluated from the mechanical pulse response posted earlier by rfmwguy, that does look like a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Short of that, followed by assessment of the phase shifting at the excitation frequency (the on/off periods of the magnetron) any conclusion about "direction of thrust" is premature.

    If excitation period (on/off cycles) is significantly shorter than natural (undriven) mechanical oscillation periods of the balance, then the driven system will tend to a 180° phase shifted response : raising less when force upward applied (and more when upward force relieved). This can be counter intuitive so we must be careful with interpretations beyond statistical tests. On the experimental front, one answer could be to excite the balance with a small electromagnet, at same on/off period as the magnetron (kept unplugged obviously), and measure phase shift in displacement.

    p.s. Still no time nor neurons left after work to tackle it numerically myself

    The balance beam rfmwguy uses is a second order system just like the EW TP.   The step responses look similar.   From what I have seen I could make a rough estimate of the damping parameter,  ζ = .4   and frequency ω = .42.  I'm estimating it takes approx. 15 Sec. for the balance beam to settle down to it's new position after a small weight has been placed on it.


    Ok, thanks. From the data posted earlier by glennfish (as file raw2.zip) for the latest NSF1701 "flight test" I see an excitation period of 25s with 15s on and 10s off (not strictly square). That gives us f=.04 Hz compared to f0=.067 Hz for the mechanical filter according to your estimation.

    Quote
    One way of visualizing the balance beam is to consider it to be a low pass filter.   If it is driven by a sinusoid of frequency f, where f >  .07 Hz  the response will be negligiable.   The response of any higher frequency sinusoids will also be negligiable.

    Yes but remember that the signal (for a thrust) was looked for at .04Hz, we are deriving conclusions from the remaining ripples that go through the filter(s) (we are talking of the mechanical aspect now but in the end we also have thermal filtering between power input and mechanical excitation...). "Negligible" is relative since we are precisely looking at the amplitude and phase of the remaining .04Hz ripples, even if this amplitude is low.

    Anyway, the excitation frequency .04 Hz is actually lower than the .067 Hz cutoff of the mechanical filter, the mechanical system is excited below cutoff, with little attenuation (or small resonant amplification), and phase shifting less that -90° for sure (that is, between 0° and -90°)

    Quote
       If it is driven by a square wave with a frequency near to or greater than f = .07Hz, then the same applies because a square wave is just the summation of sinusoids composed of the fundamental frequency and odd-integer harmonic components.    The magnetron RF output envelope can be modeled as a high frequency square wave with a DC offset.   So when the magnetron is switched on and is delivering a PWM output with a frequency f >> .07 Hz the system response should be the same as the step response of a second order system.  This is true because only the DC offset part of the RF envelope would affect the balance beam or torque pendulum.   Note:  the exponential risetime seen with the EW vacuum test is the step response of a first order system.

    The wave is not square (duty cycle != 50%) but assuming the system is linear yes it can be decomposed... which means that out of the filter(s) we will see (a recomposed) smoothed out ripple, with the deviation in shape from sinusoidal response slightly smeared to the right (more phase shifted toward lagging). Maybe this is not clear...
    Anyway we don't have f >> .07 Hz, so what looks like a first order exponential response to the overall 10minutes step (within which the signal is PWMed at f=.04 Hz) can't be due to the mechanical system.


                 _______                              __________
    MagPower -> |Thermal| -> temp. driven Newtons -> |Mechanical| -> measured displacements


    I suspect the Thermal filter is (can be modeled with some accuracy as) a summation of first order filters, in parallel and in series, with widely varying time constants. A large time constant heat capacity somewhere is likely responsible for the typical long term rising response to the 10 minute "DC" step overall (still talking about NSF1701 results)

    At .04Hz the mechanical contribution to phase shifting (in the analysed remaining output ripples) is likely around -45°. Sorry about the imprecision, this is just a rough estimation from the attached plots.
    Couldn't find pre-cooked plots at zeta=.4, those ones shows zeta=.2 in blue and zeta=1.0 in red, .4 will be in between, the added pink vertical line shows .04Hz relative to .067Hz (approx) and projects on a range of phases around -45°. Image edited : original source bottom of this page (http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?example=Introduction&section=SystemAnalysis).

    Now since rfmwguy has videoed the thermal response we could perhaps derive the thermal filter parameters and get a (rough) clearer picture of the whole system, as far as phase shifting is concerned. Do we have data with time stamps and a column indicating on/off with reasonably accurate timing in conjunction to temperature ? Any thermal induced phase shift > 45° at f=.04Hz excitation would add to the ~45° mechanical phase shift, and beyond that ( >90° total) let the response actually inverse from the implicit assumption in the first claim of downward thrust linked to the on half-periods.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 12:18 pm
    ...
    Though not an expert in magnetron theory, I have a couple of thoughts and questions. Suppose we supply a stable, filtered 4 kV source: Seems to me that this will overheat the mag at 100% duty cycle, so the pulsing is designed to provide a duty cycle suitable for the tube.

    That being said (or assumed), would a lower voltage to the tube (non-pulsed) be enough to excite the mag at a lower power level? Lets say its CW power rating was half that of pulsed operation.

    I'm beginning to think there might be a minimum threshold voltage to get the mag to fire up and I have no idea what that is.

    Secondly, the high current low voltage filament power appears to be coupled through an RLC network at the mag itself. Does the filament voltage need to remain on, or is the mag capable of self-sustaining with anode voltage? Seems someone mentioned filament noise was also a factor in this.

    Yes, the magnetron is designed for pulse operation. As the link I provided and post again describes, the heater should be throttled for CW, the voltage maintained and current throttled for the operating point. Three factors set the tuning; cavity dimensions, magnetic field and forward voltage, which set the cyclotron resonance point. The heater will determine the emissivity of the cathode and forward current. No experience, just what I've read. See:

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1402366#msg1402366
    http://www.coultersmithing.com/AuxCP/uWaveIon.html

    See Vol. 6, more than you want to know...
    https://www.jlab.org/ir/MITSeries.html
    There's never more than I want to know, it's getting it to stick to the gray matter, that's the problem.  :P

    I remember reading this after I first joined NSF and I'm glad you posted it again.  Terrific information in this read from a real hands on kind of guy. Thanks for posting this nice piece of work again.  Highly recommended for builders.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 12:51 pm

    Hysteresis doesn't sound like the proper term, just "inertia" may be better, and actually what is needed is the parameters of the transfer function that relates displacements (what is measured, output) to excitation force (what is driving the system, input). Probably 2 parameters suffice if we indeed have a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Those can be evaluated from the mechanical pulse response posted earlier by rfmwguy, that does look like a second order slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator. Short of that, followed by assessment of the phase shifting at the excitation frequency (the on/off periods of the magnetron) any conclusion about "direction of thrust" is premature.

    If excitation period (on/off cycles) is significantly shorter than natural (undriven) mechanical oscillation periods of the balance, then the driven system will tend to a 180° phase shifted response : raising less when force upward applied (and more when upward force relieved). This can be counter intuitive so we must be careful with interpretations beyond statistical tests. On the experimental front, one answer could be to excite the balance with a small electromagnet, at same on/off period as the magnetron (kept unplugged obviously), and measure phase shift in displacement.

    p.s. Still no time nor neurons left after work to tackle it numerically myself

    The balance beam rfmwguy uses is a second order system just like the EW TP.   The step responses look similar.   From what I have seen I could make a rough estimate of the damping parameter,  ζ = .4   and frequency ω = .42.  I'm estimating it takes approx. 15 Sec. for the balance beam to settle down to it's new position after a small weight has been placed on it.


    Ok, thanks. From the data posted earlier by glennfish (as file raw2.zip) for the latest NSF1701 "flight test" I see an excitation period of 25s with 15s on and 10s off (not strictly square). That gives us f=.04 Hz compared to f0=.067 Hz for the mechanical filter according to your estimation.

    Quote
    One way of visualizing the balance beam is to consider it to be a low pass filter.   If it is driven by a sinusoid of frequency f, where f >  .07 Hz  the response will be negligiable.   The response of any higher frequency sinusoids will also be negligiable.

    Yes but remember that the signal (for a thrust) was looked for at .04Hz, we are deriving conclusions from the remaining ripples that go through the filter(s) (we are talking of the mechanical aspect now but in the end we also have thermal filtering between power input and mechanical excitation...). "Negligible" is relative since we are precisely looking at the amplitude and phase of the remaining .04Hz ripples, even if this amplitude is low.

    Anyway, the excitation frequency .04 Hz is actually lower than the .067 Hz cutoff of the mechanical filter, the mechanical system is excited below cutoff, with little attenuation (or small resonant amplification), and phase shifting less that -90° for sure (that is, between 0° and -90°)

    Quote
       If it is driven by a square wave with a frequency near to or greater than f = .07Hz, then the same applies because a square wave is just the summation of sinusoids composed of the fundamental frequency and odd-integer harmonic components.    The magnetron RF output envelope can be modeled as a high frequency square wave with a DC offset.   So when the magnetron is switched on and is delivering a PWM output with a frequency f >> .07 Hz the system response should be the same as the step response of a second order system.  This is true because only the DC offset part of the RF envelope would affect the balance beam or torque pendulum.   Note:  the exponential risetime seen with the EW vacuum test is the step response of a first order system.

    The wave is not square (duty cycle != 50%) but assuming the system is linear yes it can be decomposed... which means that out of the filter(s) we will see (a recomposed) smoothed out ripple, with the deviation in shape from sinusoidal response slightly smeared to the right (more phase shifted toward lagging). Maybe this is not clear...
    Anyway we don't have f >> .07 Hz, so what looks like a first order exponential response to the overall 10minutes step (within which the signal is PWMed at f=.04 Hz) can't be due to the mechanical system.


                 _______                              __________
    MagPower -> |Thermal| -> temp. driven Newtons -> |Mechanical| -> measured displacements


    I suspect the Thermal filter is (can be modeled with some accuracy as) a summation of first order filters, in parallel and in series, with widely varying time constants. A large time constant heat capacity somewhere is likely responsible for the typical long term rising response to the 10 minute "DC" step overall (still talking about NSF1701 results)

    At .04Hz the mechanical contribution to phase shifting (in the analysed remaining output ripples) is likely around -45°. Sorry about the imprecision, this is just a rough estimation from the attached plots.
    Couldn't find pre-cooked plots at zeta=.4, those ones shows zeta=.2 in blue and zeta=1.0 in red, .4 will be in between, the added pink vertical line shows .04Hz relative to .067Hz (approx) and projects on a range of phases around -45°. Image edited : original source bottom of this page (http://ctms.engin.umich.edu/CTMS/index.php?example=Introduction&section=SystemAnalysis).

    Now since rfmwguy has videoed the thermal response we could perhaps derive the thermal filter parameters and get a (rough) clearer picture of the whole system, as far as phase shifting is concerned. Do we have data with time stamps and a column indicating on/off with reasonably accurate timing in conjunction to temperature ? Any thermal induced phase shift > 45° at f=.04Hz excitation would add to the ~45° mechanical phase shift, and beyond that ( >90° total) let the response actually inverse from the implicit assumption in the first claim of downward thrust linked to the on half-periods.

    Did I miss it in reading this nice evaluation? Looking at RFMWGUY's videos it seems like there looks to be a ~13 second delay before his magnetron achieves lock and outputs RF into his cavity. Could we assume that during those 13 seconds that there is no heating and no thrust and could the profile start at that point and would it change what what we see in thrust values?

    Stats are not my strong suit but I couldn't help but wondering.

    Shell
     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Dortex on 11/26/2015 12:53 pm
    Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem. 

    Then why can individual photons interfere with themselves?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 01:10 pm
    Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem. 

    Then why can individual photons interfere with themselves?

    This debate has been thrown around for years but the best shortest explanation is this.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

    And a little more in depth.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.r.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 11/26/2015 01:24 pm
    Have to pause here to consider the challenge ahead of me. As expected, the spectrum is a spurious mess. AM and sidebands all over the place. Square wave pulses due to power supply. I've seen outputs like this before when repairing old tube amplifiers but the challenge is a big one. Hmmmm, better go back and review some papers on this. Fortunately the vapor deposition industry has some valuable insights.

    Speaking of which, I'm relatively certain dr tajmar's q degradation was due to deposition not oxidation on the near proximity walls of his smaller frustum. Why that popped into my head I have no idea.  :o

    bandpass filters
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 11/26/2015 01:46 pm


    Did I miss it in reading this nice evaluation? Looking at RFMWGUY's videos it seems like there looks to be a ~13 second delay before his magnetron achieves lock and outputs RF into his cavity. Could we assume that during those 13 seconds that there is no heating and no thrust and could the profile start at that point and would it change what what we see in thrust values?

    Stats are not my strong suit but I couldn't help but wondering.

    Shell

    Shells, how do you come up with 13 seconds?  Which videos are you refering to?

    In the thermal video that I have data for, heating starts as soon as the mag is on.  Fraction of a second.  The atmospheric effects should be immediate, albeit there is an ongoing debate regarding how long it should take the system to respond...   are your 13 seconds onset for heating or for resonance or ... ???

    Which video please.  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 01:54 pm


    Did I miss it in reading this nice evaluation? Looking at RFMWGUY's videos it seems like there looks to be a ~13 second delay before his magnetron achieves lock and outputs RF into his cavity. Could we assume that during those 13 seconds that there is no heating and no thrust and could the profile start at that point and would it change what what we see in thrust values?

    Stats are not my strong suit but I couldn't help but wondering.

    Shell

    Shells, how do you come up with 13 seconds?  Which videos are you refering to?

    In the thermal video that I have data for, heating starts as soon as the mag is on.  Fraction of a second.  The atmospheric effects should be immediate, albeit there is an ongoing debate regarding how long it should take the system to respond...   are your 13 seconds onset for heating or for resonance or ... ???

    Which video please.  :)
    This is the only one rfmwguy has a SA attached to the magnetron and we can see where it starts to produce microwaves and then lock.
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1449178#msg1449178

    I should have linked it, sorry, also cooking for Thanksgiving as well as reading and posting here.

     Shell
    added.
    You can see in his video where it takes about 13 seconds to stabilize any kind of signal out from the magnetron. I believe it will be close to the same for an unaltered magnetron as rfmwguy simply modified the magnets around the magnetron and that doesn't control the heating of the heater to give you electrons to control.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Dortex on 11/26/2015 02:04 pm
    This debate has been thrown around for years but the best shortest explanation is this.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

    And a little more in depth.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.r.html

    That was a rhetorical question. Unless I'm misunderstanding oli, he seems to be saying photons only act as waves when they're in groups, when in reality every individual photon acts as a wave all on its own. On top of this, I was making reference to the double slit experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 02:26 pm
    This debate has been thrown around for years but the best shortest explanation is this.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

    And a little more in depth.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.r.html

    That was a rhetorical question. Unless I'm misunderstanding oli, he seems to be saying photons only act as waves when they're in groups, when in reality every individual photon acts as a wave all on its own. On top of this, I was making reference to the double slit experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc).
    I think Brian Greene nailed it in this video and it's about the best non-technical explanation I've seen.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoQYnhHQ95U
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/26/2015 02:48 pm
    I’m pretty sure physics says you can’t have photons with a fractional frequency (1 hrz is a plank constant).  Am I wrong on this? Can anyone help explain the conceptual error?

    Sorry for all of this.  Please help.

    There is nothing special about 1 Hertz.  It just means one cycle per second, and seconds are a completely arbitrary number made up by humans.  Fractional Hz are fine.  I'm not sure about the rest of your post, I'll have to re-read it some other time.

    EDIT:
    For example, the earth's spin can be measured in Hz, it's about .00001 cycles per second.

    I thought that, for EM radiation. 1hrz = 1 plank constant which was an indivisible quanta of energy?  If you could release only one photon (in fictionless space) so that it provided momentum, could that be redshifted by a fractional amount?

    I don't think you it's reasonable to ask this question. A single photon has momentum?  Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem.  Moreover, I believe (as in please correct me if I am mistaken, not on faith) that the reason we say that the Planck length is the quantum of action is because it looks discrete. However it's much better to think of it as a sort of coefficient for how densely packed the units of spacetime that serve as a medium for the photon specifically. This isn't to say that it's a magic number -- for example, the density of water is how densely packed water is, and in virtue of this, one could never skip a stone across water and have its quantized-rate of h20-molecules-pertime be higher than the density of water. It simply makes no sense. In the same way, photons have to hop along Planck lengths; that does not imply that the "resolution of photons" is the Planck constant any more than the density of h20, in the forementioned analogy, somehow sets the "resolution of stone hops".  It's just a physical constraint on the way a photon navigates spacetime but is more significant of a figure metaphysically than the gravitational acceleration at sea level 9.81... m/s/s) is: it's just a mathematical derivative of how objects move over an arbitrary time series, and as such, invokes the typical problems of applying (particularly infinitesimal variety) to reality. We must always be conscious that mathematics can model and predict reality, but only in the same way we can reconstruct 3d depths from the contrast of a digital photo... Mathematics works as a reflection, not mechanism, of the way reality works.

    Sigh, perhaps wikipedia is a bad place to look anything detailed up but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant):

    Quote
    The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action, central in quantum mechanics.

    First recognized by Max Planck in 1900, it was originally the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, E, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation, and the frequency, f, of its associated electromagnetic wave. In 1905 the value E, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Einstein with a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called the photon.

    and

    Quote
    The Planck constant is named after Max Planck, the instigator of quantum theory, who discovered it in 1900. Classical statistical mechanics requires the existence of h (but does not define its value).[2] Planck discovered that physical action could not take on an arbitrary value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck constant). This inherent granularity is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to "make things a little bit hotter" or "move things a little bit faster". This is because the quanta of action are very, very small in comparison to everyday macroscopic human experience. Hence, the granularity of nature appears smooth to us.

    Thus, on the macroscopic scale, quantum mechanics and classical physics converge at the classical limit. Nevertheless, it is impossible, as Planck discovered, to explain some phenomena without accepting the fact that action is quantized. In many cases, such as for monochromatic light or for atoms, this quantum of action also implies that only certain energy levels are allowed, and values in between are forbidden.[3] In 1923, Louis de Broglie generalized the Planck–Einstein relation by postulating that the Planck constant represents the proportionality between the momentum and the quantum wavelength of not just the photon, but the quantum wavelength of any particle. This was confirmed by experiments soon afterwards.

    Quote
    Einstein's explanation for these observations was that light itself is quantized; that the energy of light is not transferred continuously as in a classical wave, but only in small "packets" or quanta. The size of these "packets" of energy, which would later be named photons, was to be the same as Planck's "energy element", giving the modern version of the Planck–Einstein relation:

    E = hf .
    Einstein's postulate was later proven experimentally: the constant of proportionality between the frequency of incident light (f) and the kinetic energy of photoelectrons (E) was shown to be equal to the Planck constant (h).[14]

    The energy in a EM wave is, of course, Frequency * Plank constant.  It certainly doesn't sound like a photon can lose energy in anything but full plank constants.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/26/2015 02:57 pm
    Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem. 

    Then why can individual photons interfere with themselves?

    This debate has been thrown around for years but the best shortest explanation is this.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

    And a little more in depth.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.r.html

    This quote from your second link, tells the story of much of the ongoing theoretical debate, and interpretations seen in discussions involving EMDrives,

    "The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read on the internet. Even this posting since it is just the opinion of one physicist. We all have slightly different training, different backgrounds and have often inherited the prejudices of our teachers.".

    My inherited prejudices tell me that microwaves inside a closed cavity cannot result in a change of momentum between the cavity and any external frame of reference. The possibility that some significant new insight into the physics of our world, that is contrary to that prejudice, has me rooting for new physics.., even while I remain reluctant to let go of those prejudices.

    In the abscence of solid reproducible results and a fair but rigorous peer review, which will likely still be debated.., we are all just guessing and defending our prejudices or (as in my case) hopes.., while we wait for significant replication or/and peer reviewed results.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/26/2015 03:33 pm
    I think the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave (speed of light divided by frequency) has nothing to do with the 'wavelength' of a photon when considering the photon as a wave instead of a particle.  The former is a macro-scale physical concept while the latter is a quantum-scale concept.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 11/26/2015 03:39 pm
    Quote
    Einstein's explanation for these observations was that light itself is quantized; that the energy of light is not transferred continuously as in a classical wave, but only in small "packets" or quanta. The size of these "packets" of energy, which would later be named photons, was to be the same as Planck's "energy element", giving the modern version of the Planck–Einstein relation:

    E = hf .
    Einstein's postulate was later proven experimentally: the constant of proportionality between the frequency of incident light (f) and the kinetic energy of photoelectrons (E) was shown to be equal to the Planck constant (h).[14]

    The energy in a EM wave is, of course, Frequency * Plank constant.  It certainly doesn't sound like a photon can lose energy in anything but full plank constants.

    E is the quantum, the smallest packet of energy (i.e. one photon) at a given frequency, Planck's constant is just the conversion factor between energy and frequency.  Please note, Planck's constant IS NOT the same as the Planck length (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length) - it is a constant, not a theoretical lower bound of some kind.  From Wikipedia's EM spectrum page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum):

    Quote
    Electromagnetic waves are typically described by any of the following three physical properties: the frequency f, wavelength λ, or photon energy E. Frequencies observed in astronomy range from 2.4×1023 Hz (1 GeV gamma rays) down to the local plasma frequency of the ionized interstellar medium (~1 kHz). Wavelength is inversely proportional to the wave frequency,[6] so gamma rays have very short wavelengths that are fractions of the size of atoms, whereas wavelengths on the opposite end of the spectrum can be as long as the universe.

    (bolded for emphasis)

    Let's not go to the length of the universe, let's just see how long a 1 Hz signal is (lambda is wavelength):


    f = c/lambda
    lambda = c/f
    f = 1 Hz
    lambda = c

    So, a 1 Hz wave would be 299,792,458 meters.  Much less than the length of the universe.  Necessarily, a wavelength the length of the universe would be fractional.  A wave with a length of the distance between the sun and earth would have a fractional wavelength.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 03:44 pm
    Sure, of course. Wavelength though?  A photon wave apparently is the emergent property of photons propogating in tandem. 

    Then why can individual photons interfere with themselves?

    This debate has been thrown around for years but the best shortest explanation is this.
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae480.cfm

    And a little more in depth.

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-02/1077201223.Ph.r.html

    This quote from your second link, tells the story of much of the ongoing theoretical debate, and interpretations seen in discussions involving EMDrives,

    "The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read on the internet. Even this posting since it is just the opinion of one physicist. We all have slightly different training, different backgrounds and have often inherited the prejudices of our teachers.".

    My inherited prejudices tell me that microwaves inside a closed cavity cannot result in a change of momentum between the cavity and any external frame of reference. The possibility that some significant new insight into the physics of our world, that is contrary to that prejudice, has me rooting for new physics.., even while I remain reluctant to let go of those prejudices.

    In the abscence of solid reproducible results and a fair but rigorous peer review, which will likely still be debated.., we are all just guessing and defending our prejudices or (as in my case) hopes.., while we wait for significant replication or/and peer reviewed results.

    Where this will all lead is anyone's guess Mother Nature isn't making this one easy but, that's where science becomes fun.

    Will I get thrust? I don't truly know, I hope I do.  There're so many unknowns in building something that doesn't have  solid theory behind it, just some empirical data from tests that can be argued either way.

    We're not even sure what actions are producing that debatable measured thrust. It could be Space/Time Warpage or Virtual Particles or as one very missed NSFer said "Foobie Dust" or even a combination of all three or it could simply just be actions with standard physics we haven't seen yet.

    But whatever it is this is a road to discovery, on a path none have trodden before.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/26/2015 03:54 pm
    Been working for a while to get the CSV data generated by meep into something I can run through the ray-tracing software I'm familiar with (POVRay).  Ended up writing a C++ program to take the x,y,z components from 3 different files and making a 3D vector in one file so I can ingest it into POVRay as an include file.  Here's the first video I've generated with it.  This is just from the X slice.  Red/Blue whiskers are E fields, Yellow/Green whiskers are H fields.  There are 10 frames (0-9) of the wave; this repeats 16 times in the animation.  The video includes this 160 frame animation 3 times: once at 2 frames/sec, then twice at 10 frames/sec.  Vector values below 1e-6 (arbitrary epsilon I chose from trial and error) are just shown as a black dot.  I'm thinking on how to incorporate Y and Z slices - may change the E fields to colored flat ranges more like the PNG files MEEP produces or maybe a very shortened cone so multiple slices don't interfere as much - the H field whiskers seem more important so I'll keep those.  If anyone has better/other visualization suggestions I'm all ears!!
    https://youtu.be/lIE4Rz_3_lg
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/26/2015 04:22 pm
    Yes but remember that the signal (for a thrust) was looked for at .04Hz, we are deriving conclusions from the remaining ripples that go through the filter(s) (we are talking of the mechanical aspect now but in the end we also have thermal filtering between power input and mechanical excitation...). "Negligible" is relative since we are precisely looking at the amplitude and phase of the remaining .04Hz ripples, even if this amplitude is low.

    Anyway, the excitation frequency .04 Hz is actually lower than the .067 Hz cutoff of the mechanical filter, the mechanical system is excited below cutoff, with little attenuation (or small resonant amplification), and phase shifting less that -90° for sure (that is, between 0° and -90°)

    The wave is not square (duty cycle != 50%) but assuming the system is linear yes it can be decomposed... which means that out of the filter(s) we will see (a recomposed) smoothed out ripple, with the deviation in shape from sinusoidal response slightly smeared to the right (more phase shifted toward lagging). Maybe this is not clear...
    Anyway we don't have f >> .07 Hz, so what looks like a first order exponential response to the overall 10minutes step (within which the signal is PWMed at f=.04 Hz) can't be due to the mechanical system.

    What I meant by the driving function was the PWM RF from the magnetron where f = 10 kHz (my guess).  My thought experiment above just shows the response of the balance to a steady-state PWM RF input would be the same as a second order system's step response.   If the programmed ON period of the magnetron is less than the time constant of the balance or torque pendulum then the response is not so well behaved because then the response starts to look more like the impulse response of a second order system.  It's difficult to analyze this when it is driven by a train of elongated impulses.

    Unless I have this wrong what you are saying is there are 2 modulations of the RF.   The high speed PWM, that I implied earlier is built in to the magnetron power supply.   It switches the magnetron's power off and on at some frequency that is maybe 1/4 the frequency of the switcher (30 kHz).   The other modulation is much slower - several seconds.   I assume this is under program control and is part of the experimental setup.    To get a clear picture of the response this modulation has to be changed.   Either make the ON time for this slower modulation last for 2X-3X the time constant of the balance (a step) or make it very short (an impulse).

    If the test uses an RF pulse that is longer than the time constant of the balance or torque pendulum the response (movement of the balance wrt time) should show the characteristic underdamped step response of a second order system.   The rise time of this response is faster than any thermal response so it whould be visible at the beginning.   If all you see is a rounded waveform that doesn't have a fast risetime then all you have is a thermal response and no thrust from the RF.    This is very clearly seen in the EW vacuum test.   Two different systems- TP which is a second order system and is driven by a force and thermal, which is a first order system and is driven by heat flow.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 04:22 pm
    Been working for a while to get the CSV data generated by meep into something I can run through the ray-tracing software I'm familiar with (POVRay).  Ended up writing a C++ program to take the x,y,z components from 3 different files and making a 3D vector in one file so I can ingest it into POVRay as an include file.  Here's the first video I've generated with it.  This is just from the X slice.  Red/Blue whiskers are E fields, Yellow/Green whiskers are H fields.  There are 10 frames (0-9) of the wave; this repeats 16 times in the animation.  The video includes this 160 frame animation 3 times: once at 2 frames/sec, then twice at 10 frames/sec.  Vector values below 1e-6 (arbitrary epsilon I chose from trial and error) are just shown as a black dot.  I'm thinking on how to incorporate Y and Z slices - may change the E fields to colored flat ranges more like the PNG files MEEP produces or maybe a very shortened cone so multiple slices don't interfere as much - the H field whiskers seem more important so I'll keep those.  If anyone has better/other visualization suggestions I'm all ears!!

    Is there any way this could show the boundaries for the walls??

    Nice work as it gives a very nice visual of the fields.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/26/2015 05:26 pm
    Hum, that what about fractional plank constant things is showing energy involved about equal to rfmwguys test.  I'm getting about 20mg of force is missing plank constants on end of the frustum with these equations.

    I reread Bae's paper on reusing photons in a laser thruster and realized that I had made a mistake.  I was using input power for W in Thurst = 2WN/C where C is the speed of light and N is the number of bounces.  W is the output power of the laser, not the input power.  This means I was doing things wrong on page 1, I was estimating thrust based on the input power and not the total amount of power in resonance.

    So I looked at rfmwguys reported results.  I estimated that he had maybe 50watts of his input power in resonance.  I then decided to see if I could figure out N.  One definition of Q is 2Pi * energy retained / energy lost per cycle.   Dave reported a minimum Q of 437
     
    =437  /(2*3.14) = about 70.

    So if I have 70 times the power retained that means about 3500 watts are in resonance.

    So, I know that the energy per photon at 2.4ghz is (freq * plank constant). = 1.5902581E-24

    Divide that into 3.5kws and you get 2.1878834E+27 photons.

    According to my spreadsheet at 2.4ghz a photon should be redshifted 8.0055 plank constants.  That means there's a "rounding error" of about 1 plank constants worth of energy.  Since a collision gives momentum both on absorption and emission. I expect I have about 140 missing plank constants on each side.

    140 plank constants * a whole bunch of photons = 0.0002018 Joules.  Which I will again (probably erroneously) convert to 0.0002018 Newtons which converts to around 20mg of force.

    Of course there are a number of things wrong with this:
    1.  I don't know how much energy rfmwguy actually had in resonance. 

    2.  I can't explain why the same effect on the other side of the frustum wouldn't perfectly balance any force generated.

    3.  I can't explain the odd interferometer readings that have been reported.  (Though I suspect part of the explanation might be as simple as math says it needs to move, Noether says a closed system cannot move and the system is only open to spacetime).


    So a crazy idea, a little data that might support it and a need for more, and more detailed, data.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Dortex on 11/26/2015 05:48 pm
    One definition of Q is 2Pi * energy retained / energy lost per cycle.   Dave reported a minimum Q of 437

    I demand you use Tau (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7vhMMXagQ)!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 11/26/2015 05:58 pm
    (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEnf9fAqpgDgfKp6lYYWB5FSQtEm-JeVhzeZjiy8d4ibkLzfGWbQ)

    To all the followers of this thread, all around the world, a thank you to all the scientists and engineers who push knowledge beyond the edge. Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States, a national holiday.

    As you can see from the picture we have a long history of manipulating odd-shaped cavities, usually with hot air but sometimes with microwaves. Instead of inducing thrust as some seek, we usually induce a coma like state from tryptophan's, wine, football [American style], and endless discussions of Aunt Tildy's sciatica, politics, and who's going to be stuck doing the dishes.

    A happy Thanksgiving Day to you all.


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/26/2015 06:11 pm
    One definition of Q is 2Pi * energy retained / energy lost per cycle.   Dave reported a minimum Q of 437

    I demand you use Tau (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7vhMMXagQ)!
    Just give up SteveD and throw in the Tau.


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 11/26/2015 07:29 pm
    ...

    So if I have 70 times the power retained that means about 3500 watts are in resonance.

    So, I know that the energy per photon at 2.4ghz is (freq * plank constant). = 1.5902581E-24

    Divide that into 3.5kws and you get 2.1878834E+27 photons.

    According to my spreadsheet at 2.4ghz a photon should be redshifted 8.0055 plank constants.  That means there's a "rounding error" of about 1 plank constants worth of energy.  Since a collision gives momentum both on absorption and emission. I expect I have about 140 missing plank constants on each side.

    140 plank constants * a whole bunch of photons = 0.0002018 Joules.  Which I will again (probably erroneously) convert to 0.0002018 Newtons which converts to around 20mg of force.

    ...

    The issues with your post are not which parts of the experimental results they do or don't explain.

    One important mistake is that you are confusing Power (watts) with Energy (Joules). Power is an energy rate, in other words energy per time. You use them in the wrong places multiple times, so most of your statements here are simply inconsistent.

    You are also not understanding the Planck constant correctly. First, you are treating it like a unit of energy, which it isn't. It has units of energy times time since it is a proportionality constant between energy and frequency. As a result of this, you are treating it like 1 Hz is special, when there is nothing special about it. 1Hz is an inverse second, and a second is just a human unit of time, close to the rate at which we breathe, and our heart beats.

    You seem to be confused between this quantization of light which involves the Planck constant, and the concept of Planck units. Planck units are a way physicists use to clean up all of the constants in physical equations by creating a system where most fundamental constants (including the Planck constant) are set to 1. There are various theories about how physics would behave at the Planck scale, but we can't currently test anything near 1 Planck unit of anything, so we don't really know how physics behaves in those regimes.

    An individual light wave can have any frequency, and there is no quantization to its allowed values. Quantization just means that for a collection of photons all with a given frequency, the energy must be a multiple of the energy of one photon at that frequency.

    Also, for something like the emdrive, there are an absurd number of photons at any given time. Your calculation was wrong, since you were using power, not energy. You instead calculated the number of photons generated per second from a 3.5 kW source. This huge number of photons means that quantization doesn't matter (plus magnetrons aren't a clean single frequency anyway). With the large number of photons, and the fact there is some spread in frequency, there are no effective constraints on the exact value of energy stored in a resonating cavity at a given time.

    Also for all the discussions about wavelength and photons: this gets into quantum mechanics which I don't want to try to explain right now. Given the large number of photons in a resonating cavity, which are all indistinguishable,  it actually does not make any sense to discuss properties of an individual photon in the ensemble.

    SteveD, you seem to have an interesting way of coming up with ideas, but it seems like you lack the foundation of basic physics to express them properly, or come to consistent conclusions. If you can, I'd recommend you try to take some physics classes somewhere. There are plenty of good physics resources online, but none of them quite substitute for the ability to go to office hours and discuss ideas in person with a professor or teaching assistant.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 11/26/2015 07:54 pm
    ...

    So if I have 70 times the power retained that means about 3500 watts are in resonance.

    So, I know that the energy per photon at 2.4ghz is (freq * plank constant). = 1.5902581E-24

    Divide that into 3.5kws and you get 2.1878834E+27 photons.

    According to my spreadsheet at 2.4ghz a photon should be redshifted 8.0055 plank constants.  That means there's a "rounding error" of about 1 plank constants worth of energy.  Since a collision gives momentum both on absorption and emission. I expect I have about 140 missing plank constants on each side.

    140 plank constants * a whole bunch of photons = 0.0002018 Joules.  Which I will again (probably erroneously) convert to 0.0002018 Newtons which converts to around 20mg of force.

    ...

    The issues with your post are not which parts of the experimental results they do or don't explain.

    One important mistake is that you are confusing Power (watts) with Energy (Joules). Power is an energy rate, in other words energy per time. You use them in the wrong places multiple times, so most of your statements here are simply inconsistent.

    You are also not understanding the Planck constant correctly. First, you are treating it like a unit of energy, which it isn't. It has units of energy times time since it is a proportionality constant between energy and frequency. As a result of this, you are treating it like 1 Hz is special, when there is nothing special about it. 1Hz is an inverse second, and a second is just a human unit of time, close to the rate at which we breathe, and our heart beats.

    You seem to be confused between this quantization of light which involves the Planck constant, and the concept of Planck units. Planck units are a way physicists use to clean up all of the constants in physical equations by creating a system where most fundamental constants (including the Planck constant) are set to 1. There are various theories about how physics would behave at the Planck scale, but we can't currently test anything near 1 Planck unit of anything, so we don't really know how physics behaves in those regimes.

    An individual light wave can have any frequency, and there is no quantization to its allowed values. Quantization just means that for a collection of photons all with a given frequency, the energy must be a multiple of the energy of one photon at that frequency.

    Also, for something like the emdrive, there are an absurd number of photons at any given time. Your calculation was wrong, since you were using power, not energy. You instead calculated the number of photons generated per second from a 3.5 kW source. This huge number of photons means that quantization doesn't matter (plus magnetrons aren't a clean single frequency anyway). With the large number of photons, and the fact there is some spread in frequency, there are no effective constraints on the exact value of energy stored in a resonating cavity at a given time.

    Also for all the discussions about wavelength and photons: this gets into quantum mechanics which I don't want to try to explain right now. Given the large number of photons in a resonating cavity, which are all indistinguishable,  it actually does not make any sense to discuss properties of an individual photon in the ensemble.

    SteveD, you seem to have an interesting way of coming up with ideas, but it seems like you lack the foundation of basic physics to express them properly, or come to consistent conclusions. If you can, I'd recommend you try to take some physics classes somewhere. There are plenty of good physics resources online, but none of them quite substitute for the ability to go to office hours and discuss ideas in person with a professor or teaching assistant.
    Fully agree :)
    (exclusive this single statement: "....there are no effective constraints on the exact value of energy stored in a resonating cavity at a given time."
    Is predicted by the energy of the source, its actual the phase, the coupling factor and the electrical conditions of the cavity. The average over time is known as Q.)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/26/2015 08:46 pm
    ...

    So if I have 70 times the power retained that means about 3500 watts are in resonance.

    So, I know that the energy per photon at 2.4ghz is (freq * plank constant). = 1.5902581E-24

    Divide that into 3.5kws and you get 2.1878834E+27 photons.

    According to my spreadsheet at 2.4ghz a photon should be redshifted 8.0055 plank constants.  That means there's a "rounding error" of about 1 plank constants worth of energy.  Since a collision gives momentum both on absorption and emission. I expect I have about 140 missing plank constants on each side.

    140 plank constants * a whole bunch of photons = 0.0002018 Joules.  Which I will again (probably erroneously) convert to 0.0002018 Newtons which converts to around 20mg of force.

    ...

    The issues with your post are not which parts of the experimental results they do or don't explain.

    One important mistake is that you are confusing Power (watts) with Energy (Joules). Power is an energy rate, in other words energy per time. You use them in the wrong places multiple times, so most of your statements here are simply inconsistent.

    You are also not understanding the Planck constant correctly. First, you are treating it like a unit of energy, which it isn't. It has units of energy times time since it is a proportionality constant between energy and frequency. As a result of this, you are treating it like 1 Hz is special, when there is nothing special about it. 1Hz is an inverse second, and a second is just a human unit of time, close to the rate at which we breathe, and our heart beats.

    You seem to be confused between this quantization of light which involves the Planck constant, and the concept of Planck units. Planck units are a way physicists use to clean up all of the constants in physical equations by creating a system where most fundamental constants (including the Planck constant) are set to 1. There are various theories about how physics would behave at the Planck scale, but we can't currently test anything near 1 Planck unit of anything, so we don't really know how physics behaves in those regimes.

    An individual light wave can have any frequency, and there is no quantization to its allowed values. Quantization just means that for a collection of photons all with a given frequency, the energy must be a multiple of the energy of one photon at that frequency.

    Also, for something like the emdrive, there are an absurd number of photons at any given time. Your calculation was wrong, since you were using power, not energy. You instead calculated the number of photons generated per second from a 3.5 kW source. This huge number of photons means that quantization doesn't matter (plus magnetrons aren't a clean single frequency anyway). With the large number of photons, and the fact there is some spread in frequency, there are no effective constraints on the exact value of energy stored in a resonating cavity at a given time.

    Also for all the discussions about wavelength and photons: this gets into quantum mechanics which I don't want to try to explain right now. Given the large number of photons in a resonating cavity, which are all indistinguishable,  it actually does not make any sense to discuss properties of an individual photon in the ensemble.

    SteveD, you seem to have an interesting way of coming up with ideas, but it seems like you lack the foundation of basic physics to express them properly, or come to consistent conclusions. If you can, I'd recommend you try to take some physics classes somewhere. There are plenty of good physics resources online, but none of them quite substitute for the ability to go to office hours and discuss ideas in person with a professor or teaching assistant.
    Fully agree :)
    (exclusive this single statement: "....there are no effective constraints on the exact value of energy stored in a resonating cavity at a given time."
    Is predicted by the energy of the source, its actual the phase, the coupling factor and the electrical conditions of the cavity. The average over time is known as Q.)

    A fundamental posit of quantum mechanics is that the deterministic initial conditions of a system do not define its evolution.  (As in its actual mass-energy equivalence cannot be predicted simply by knowing the details you mentioned, because energy input into the system is run through what you might call a quantum function, i.e.. f(x)=a, where a is the actual energy state during measurement, x is the initial conditions, and f() describes some behavior. I'm deliberately avoiding probabilistic language because I tend to fall in the camp which views these quantum events as deterministic, specifically determined by pilot wave interference. That's getting too metaphysical for this discussion though, it wouldn't be wrong to think of the quantum interior of the emdrive as following a probabilistic energy evolution).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: gargoyle99 on 11/26/2015 10:54 pm
    So if I have 70 times the power retained that means about 3500 watts are in resonance.

    So, I know that the energy per photon at 2.4ghz is (freq * plank constant). = 1.5902581E-24

    Divide that into 3.5kws and you get 2.1878834E+27 photons.

    According to my spreadsheet at 2.4ghz a photon should be redshifted 8.0055 plank constants.  That means there's a "rounding error" of about 1 plank constants worth of energy.  Since a collision gives momentum both on absorption and emission. I expect I have about 140 missing plank constants on each side.
    ...
    So a crazy idea, a little data that might support it and a need for more, and more detailed, data.

    As mberbs pointed out, there are some issues with your use of Planck's constant and understanding of the quantization of photon energy.  Let's do some math anyway.

    Q = 2 . pi . f . Avg E stored / Power Loss

    For a Q of 500, f of 2.4 GHz and a constant steady state power going into the resonant chamber of 50W, that works out to:

    Avg E stored = 1.6 x 10-6 J

    Now total energy of photons E = nhv.  For v = f = 2.4 GHz, solve for n.

    n = Q P / 2 pi h f2

    n = 1 x 1018 microwave photons (if I did that right)

    In your defense, it is a common mistake to think that Planck's constant represents an indivisible unit of energy rather than what it is: a proportional constant that relates energy quanta to frequency.  It doesn't.  In fact, the page that Traveller posted a few days ago is misleading at best:

    (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1080970,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.egEm9M9BPS.jpg)

    The source page is probably:

    https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/electromagnetic-waves-23/electromagnetic-waves-and-their-properties-166/energy-and-momentum-601-11184/ (https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/electromagnetic-waves-23/electromagnetic-waves-and-their-properties-166/energy-and-momentum-601-11184/)

    I understand the page is attempting a simple introduction to quantum mechanics, but it doesn't do a very good job. When they say, "Energy can only exist in increments of frequency times Planck's constant," that should be correctly interpreted as, "a quantum system has discrete energy states and the system will change between those energy states by emitting or absorbing photons of E = hv."  (And even that is oversimplified.)

    Instead, I suggest that Wikipedia pages do a better job of introducing quantized energy.  Or take a university course on quantum mechanics or statistical mechanics (where you would derive Planck's constant, among other things):

    Planck's constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
    Introduction to Quantum Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics#Photons:_the_quantisation_of_light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics#Photons:_the_quantisation_of_light)

    In quantum mechanics, there is no theoretical restriction whatsoever on the possible energies a photon can exist with. It says that the energy of any system that absorbs or emits electromagnetic radiation will do so in multiples of hv.  Once the photon is created, its energy (and therefore frequency) can be adjusted infinitesimally by red-shifting, blue-shifting, or in fact, just by changing the frame of reference.  The tools of quantum mechanics don't provide as much value for photons at microwave frequencies because the energy behaves much more like a wave in the ways engineers typically use it (like a resonant chamber) and not like a particle.

    I see where you are going with the idea that the Em-Drive thrust is composed of leftover momentum after rounding to quantized values and it is an intriguing concept, but quantum mechanics as we currently know it doesn't support that direction.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/27/2015 12:51 am


    Did I miss it in reading this nice evaluation? Looking at RFMWGUY's videos it seems like there looks to be a ~13 second delay before his magnetron achieves lock and outputs RF into his cavity. Could we assume that during those 13 seconds that there is no heating and no thrust and could the profile start at that point and would it change what what we see in thrust values?

    Stats are not my strong suit but I couldn't help but wondering.

    Shell

    Shells, how do you come up with 13 seconds?  Which videos are you refering to?

    In the thermal video that I have data for, heating starts as soon as the mag is on.  Fraction of a second.  The atmospheric effects should be immediate, albeit there is an ongoing debate regarding how long it should take the system to respond...   are your 13 seconds onset for heating or for resonance or ... ???

    Which video please.  :)
    This is the only one rfmwguy has a SA attached to the magnetron and we can see where it starts to produce microwaves and then lock.
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1449178#msg1449178

    I should have linked it, sorry, also cooking for Thanksgiving as well as reading and posting here.

     Shell
    added.
    You can see in his video where it takes about 13 seconds to stabilize any kind of signal out from the magnetron. I believe it will be close to the same for an unaltered magnetron as rfmwguy simply modified the magnets around the magnetron and that doesn't control the heating of the heater to give you electrons to control.
    I would not use the new mag spec an video as a reference. I believe this one is not operating correctly and might be the reason jt was a pull out part. Original mag had very small delay before lock as I observed from both the thermal vids and leakage detector alert. No a 13 second delay on original flight test data.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/27/2015 01:18 am
    Coming out of a thanksgiving fog...yes, brunches can do that to you. Wonderful discussions on stats and physics...I'm at a basic level but my visualization of the NSF-1701 balance beam test bed is a lowpass filter, more like a butterworth function than gaussian.

    A pulse input in the time domain (weight drop, etc)  results in dampened ringing and overshoot. Dampened by doc's oil bath but contains fairly rapid amplitude response capabilities. Gaussian is far less suseptible to ringing or overshoot but has poorer response time to amplitude inputs.

    Chebyshev has excellent response time but bad ringing and overshoot (undampened time pulse). When I built the syztem, this is what flashed in my mind...cheby or gaussian? If you watch my early laser pen vids...it was pure cheby...settling time was minutes, not seconds.

    Now whether I achieved a pure mathematical butterworth response in amplitude and time response, I don't know...but it was the visualization I had. Took the chebyshev response to butterworth in this mechanical system by addition of modest oil bath and beam support wires/mast.

    Sorry peeps, I'm an old filter guy and my mind kinda works in basic filter-speak  :o
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/27/2015 01:44 am
    Hi, all.  I"m running right now.  Most important thing, I'm probably not right but if I am there are some frequencies that produce a (comparative) lot of thrust and some that produce almost none.  While I would not argue that anyone should change their builds based on this you might want to check to make sure the expected thrust isn't in the dumps.  (Because I might be right).   

    For something interesting put in .300 ghz as frequency, Q of 15,000 and power of 1000 watts.  The output is in newtons. 

    (BTW both 2.4 ghz and 0.9 ghz are good frequencies, with the lower frequency being better)

    Basically, my crackpot theory is that, for some reason, the need to transfer energy to momentum in plank constants is causing one end of the frustum to gain up to two plank constants of energy per photon with each cycle than the other end.  Right now, the only reported experiments this even comes close to ballparking are rfmwguy (with an educated guess about the number of watts in resonance) and Shawyers flight thruster based on a possible wrong guess that there is a practical limit around 15-20,000 Q and that he exceeded it.  NASA is way low (in line with the rumor that a dielectric insert kills the thrust) and Yang is high (though somebody changed her reported Qs, to lower numbers).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/27/2015 04:12 am
    Hi, all.  I"m running right now.  Most important thing, I'm probably not right but if I am there are some frequencies that produce a (comparative) lot of thrust and some that produce almost none.  While I would not argue that anyone should change their builds based on this you might want to check to make sure the expected thrust isn't in the dumps.  (Because I might be right).   

    For something interesting put in .300 ghz as frequency, Q of 15,000 and power of 1000 watts.  The output is in newtons. 

    (BTW both 2.4 ghz and 0.9 ghz are good frequencies, with the lower frequency being better)

    Basically, my crackpot theory is that, for some reason, the need to transfer energy to momentum in plank constants is causing one end of the frustum to gain up to two plank constants of energy per photon with each cycle than the other end.  Right now, the only reported experiments this even comes close to ballparking are rfmwguy (with an educated guess about the number of watts in resonance) and Shawyers flight thruster based on a possible wrong guess that there is a practical limit around 15-20,000 Q and that he exceeded it.  NASA is way low (in line with the rumor that a dielectric insert kills the thrust) and Yang is high (though somebody changed her reported Qs, to lower numbers).

    Well, your theory agrees with McCulloch on one point at least. Force is frequency independent. At least the version of your spreadsheet that I downloaded says it is. That is not consistent with your opening paragraph so I must not understand your inputs.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 11/27/2015 04:32 am
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/27/2015 03:11 pm
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)

    I think Iulian had a good idea running his magnetron into the side wall but I disagree with this directly coupled angled insertion.  http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

    This is not much different than Tagmar's angled approach (https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

    If you look at his first drawing on the second page he had it correct as to how to inject the microwaves into the cavity.

    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    Shell

    (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: robus on 11/27/2015 04:30 pm
    A fundamental posit of quantum mechanics is that the deterministic initial conditions of a system do not define its evolution.  (As in its actual mass-energy equivalence cannot be predicted simply by knowing the details you mentioned, because energy input into the system is run through what you might call a quantum function, i.e.. f(x)=a, where a is the actual energy state during measurement, x is the initial conditions, and f() describes some behavior. I'm deliberately avoiding probabilistic language because I tend to fall in the camp which views these quantum events as deterministic, specifically determined by pilot wave interference. That's getting too metaphysical for this discussion though, it wouldn't be wrong to think of the quantum interior of the emdrive as following a probabilistic energy evolution).

    Long time lurker, first time poster. The combination of your reference to pilot wave theory and Shell's posting of the Brian Greene video were too much to resist. I would be very thrilled if the EM Drive ended up giving strength to the pilot wave theory. And who can watch that Greene video and not think of electrons bobbing around on interfering patterns of pilot waves. There's a beautiful elegance that context and no probabilistic voodoo required.

    I know it's out in left field but I couldn't help giving you a thumbs up from one lurker!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/27/2015 04:35 pm
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)

    I think Iulian had a good idea running his magnetron into the side wall but I disagree with this directly coupled angled insertion.  http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

    This is not much different than Tagmar's angled approach (https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

    If you look at his first drawing on the second page he had it correct as to how to inject the microwaves into the cavity.

    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    Shell

    (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg)
    I thought long and hard about duplicating Iulian's insertion point. Doc, MR T and I had many discussions on this. Here are the insertion points I experimented with:

    1) Centered on small diameter = null results
    2) Off-center on large diameter = null results
    3) Centered on large diameter = results per my test report

    I avoided side insertion mainly because of copper mesh sidewalls not being as suitable as a solid end plate for mounting either waveguide of mag. Also, I did have concerns about Iulians design sputtering on bottom plate due to proximity of radome. Side insertion (my humble view only) should be waveguide only. Iulian had null results when side insertion point was centered if memory serves me correctly.

    I still have some doubts (no evidence however) that waveguide insertion will contain some EM polarity component (horizontal or vertical) that may reduce the effect compared to a non directional (omni) pattern from a radome.

    Regardless, this is my speculation only purely based on my experience with horn antennas. A non-circular waveguide will form polarity patterns: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/aperture/horn.php
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/27/2015 05:10 pm
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)

    I think Iulian had a good idea running his magnetron into the side wall but I disagree with this directly coupled angled insertion.  http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

    This is not much different than Tagmar's angled approach (https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

    If you look at his first drawing on the second page he had it correct as to how to inject the microwaves into the cavity.

    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    Shell

    (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg)
    I thought long and hard about duplicating Iulian's insertion point. Doc, MR T and I had many discussions on this. Here are the insertion points I experimented with:

    1) Centered on small diameter = null results
    2) Off-center on large diameter = null results
    3) Centered on large diameter = results per my test report

    I avoided side insertion mainly because of copper mesh sidewalls not being as suitable as a solid end plate for mounting either waveguide of mag. Also, I did have concerns about Iulians design sputtering on bottom plate due to proximity of radome. Side insertion (my humble view only) should be waveguide only. Iulian had null results when side insertion point was centered if memory serves me correctly.

    I still have some doubts (no evidence however) that waveguide insertion will contain some EM polarity component (horizontal or vertical) that may reduce the effect compared to a non directional (omni) pattern from a radome.

    Regardless, this is my speculation only purely based on my experience with horn antennas. A non-circular waveguide will form polarity patterns: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/aperture/horn.php
    Good suggestions.

    The metal antenna out of the magnetron of the magnetron is simply a 1/4 wave antenna. Am I right on this?

    We did run simulations on a single waveguide insertion into the bottom of the cavity parallel to the large plate and while the pattern for the TE013 wasn't perfect it still showed  a very nice mode generation.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1XizxEfB23tR2NZaTZpeGE1ODA

    I'm not suggesting that the wide section of the magnetron be placed parallel  but vertical orientated just like the picture with the bottom edge of the magnetron wave guide on the bottom outside section of the large plate.

    Unlike the simulation where the waveguide (I linked too) was shortened on the bottom that leads to some discontinuity in modes by making the wave guide on the bottom the length of the guide on the waveguide on the magnetron and "filling in" the missing section.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/27/2015 06:05 pm
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)

    I think Iulian had a good idea running his magnetron into the side wall but I disagree with this directly coupled angled insertion.  http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

    This is not much different than Tagmar's angled approach (https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

    If you look at his first drawing on the second page he had it correct as to how to inject the microwaves into the cavity.

    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    Shell

    (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg)
    I thought long and hard about duplicating Iulian's insertion point. Doc, MR T and I had many discussions on this. Here are the insertion points I experimented with:

    1) Centered on small diameter = null results
    2) Off-center on large diameter = null results
    3) Centered on large diameter = results per my test report

    I avoided side insertion mainly because of copper mesh sidewalls not being as suitable as a solid end plate for mounting either waveguide of mag. Also, I did have concerns about Iulians design sputtering on bottom plate due to proximity of radome. Side insertion (my humble view only) should be waveguide only. Iulian had null results when side insertion point was centered if memory serves me correctly.

    I still have some doubts (no evidence however) that waveguide insertion will contain some EM polarity component (horizontal or vertical) that may reduce the effect compared to a non directional (omni) pattern from a radome.

    Regardless, this is my speculation only purely based on my experience with horn antennas. A non-circular waveguide will form polarity patterns: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/aperture/horn.php
    Good suggestions.

    The metal antenna out of the magnetron of the magnetron is simply a 1/4 wave antenna. Am I right on this?

    We did run simulations on a single waveguide insertion into the bottom of the cavity parallel to the large plate and while the pattern for the TE013 wasn't perfect it still showed  a very nice mode generation.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1XizxEfB23tR2NZaTZpeGE1ODA

    I'm not suggesting that the wide section of the magnetron be placed parallel  but vertical orientated just like the picture with the bottom edge of the magnetron wave guide on the bottom outside section of the large plate.

    Unlike the simulation where the waveguide (I linked too) was shortened on the bottom that leads to some discontinuity in modes by making the wave guide on the bottom the length of the guide on the waveguide on the magnetron and "filling in" the missing section.

    Shells - Are you suggesting this configuration? E and H views with one wave guide source.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tczZUTjV2ZFAzRFk&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tczZUTjV2ZFAzRFk&usp=sharing)

    Did you do any .gif's for this configuration showing the field dynamics? That's what we need to see.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 11/27/2015 06:22 pm
    Sweet cone news ;D
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17089
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/27/2015 06:32 pm
    Hey Shell,
    I'm part way through the frustum build (metal is cut) based on the dimensions you suggested..

    Quote
    For a TE012,  if that's your goal with a direct sidewall injection you would need to build to.

    Large diameter   0.280 m
    Small diameter   0.160 m
    Center Plate to Center Plate 0.2658 m

    Do you have a recommended location along the side-wall to locate the magnetron?
    (Or multiple locations to try)

    Thanks - your advice is appreciated. 
    (Most of the tech involved in this project I'm fine with, however, the microwave magic I'm still learning as I go...)

    I think Iulian had a good idea running his magnetron into the side wall but I disagree with this directly coupled angled insertion.  http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

    This is not much different than Tagmar's angled approach (https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side-Effects.pdf)

    If you look at his first drawing on the second page he had it correct as to how to inject the microwaves into the cavity.

    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    Shell

    (http://www.masinaelectrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EmDrive.jpg)
    I thought long and hard about duplicating Iulian's insertion point. Doc, MR T and I had many discussions on this. Here are the insertion points I experimented with:

    1) Centered on small diameter = null results
    2) Off-center on large diameter = null results
    3) Centered on large diameter = results per my test report

    I avoided side insertion mainly because of copper mesh sidewalls not being as suitable as a solid end plate for mounting either waveguide of mag. Also, I did have concerns about Iulians design sputtering on bottom plate due to proximity of radome. Side insertion (my humble view only) should be waveguide only. Iulian had null results when side insertion point was centered if memory serves me correctly.

    I still have some doubts (no evidence however) that waveguide insertion will contain some EM polarity component (horizontal or vertical) that may reduce the effect compared to a non directional (omni) pattern from a radome.

    Regardless, this is my speculation only purely based on my experience with horn antennas. A non-circular waveguide will form polarity patterns: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/aperture/horn.php
    Good suggestions.

    The metal antenna out of the magnetron of the magnetron is simply a 1/4 wave antenna. Am I right on this?

    We did run simulations on a single waveguide insertion into the bottom of the cavity parallel to the large plate and while the pattern for the TE013 wasn't perfect it still showed  a very nice mode generation.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1XizxEfB23tR2NZaTZpeGE1ODA

    I'm not suggesting that the wide section of the magnetron be placed parallel  but vertical orientated just like the picture with the bottom edge of the magnetron wave guide on the bottom outside section of the large plate.

    Unlike the simulation where the waveguide (I linked too) was shortened on the bottom that leads to some discontinuity in modes by making the wave guide on the bottom the length of the guide on the waveguide on the magnetron and "filling in" the missing section.

    Shells - Are you suggesting this configuration? E and H views with one wave guide source.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tczZUTjV2ZFAzRFk&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tczZUTjV2ZFAzRFk&usp=sharing)

    Did you do any .gif's for this configuration showing the field dynamics? That's what we need to see.

    I have one done (sorry for caps have company over) Y-vu-Hz 0-09

    I'll be glad to do another if you would like.
    .

    y-vU-hZ
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/27/2015 09:29 pm
    ...I have one done (sorry for caps have company over) Y-vu-Hz 0-09...

    As this is important here is some info that has not yet been disclosed.

    I did discuss direct maggie microwave injection with Roger. His comments were resonance and a low VSWR were needed. His preference is for TE013 excitation. I have chosen to do that at the centre of the middle lobe as that results in even guide wavelength distance from the 2 end plates.

    Roger also told me that SPR don't use antenna excitation inside the frustum at power levels above 450W. I believe that is due to concerns about possible arcing due to the very high field intensity inside a high Q frustum.

    Side wall or end plate antenna position is dependent on the desired mode to be excited by the maggies 1/4 wave stub antenna. My understanding is that generally end plate location will favour TM modes excitation and side wall location will favour TE modes excitation.

    Side wall excitation is normally 1/4 guide wavelength from the big end plate (centre of the lobe at the big end).

    Additionally Roger told me he prefers the coupling method Prof Yang has developed for either coax or waveguide primary energy source. In his latest patent and papers the choke or aperture is part of the side wall of the frustum (item 12 in 2nd attachment), which I believe results in minimal phase distortion around the Rf input port, especially if using pulsed Rf excitation, the after the pulse state of the resonant EM wave in the cavity that is still generating thrust.

    Those are my current thoughts and references on excitation methods and why, so back to lurking.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2015 09:51 pm

    I have one done (sorry for caps have company over) Y-vu-Hz 0-09

    I'll be glad to do another if you would like.
    .

    y-vU-hZ

    I just wanted to say Shells, that this is an interesting gif you have here.  Maybe I'm wrong but I thought standing waves were what is usually found in resonant structures.  It suggest power is being transferred to the small end?  What I am seeing here looks like a traveling wave along the side walls and it is always traveling towards the small end.  If there were electromagnetic drag created, such as when you drag a magnet along aluminum and the aluminum gets dragged with it, then maybe this could do the same with the frustum side walls? 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/27/2015 09:56 pm
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/27/2015 11:37 pm
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Zen, do you have a thermal radiation theory that supports this? I read about the pioneer anomaly and was intrigued thermal radiation interacts with the vacuum of space.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/27/2015 11:53 pm
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Zen, do you have a thermal radiation theory that supports this? I read about the pioneer anomaly and was intrigued thermal radiation interacts with the vacuum of space.

    The way the final report on the anomaly turned out it was not really a thermal interaction with the vacuum... At least not as it was explained.

    It was a very small imbalance in the way heat radiated from the satellite. A very small IR photon thrust effect, sort of. No QV or QFT involved.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/27/2015 11:56 pm
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    I would hope you could expand your thoughts here zen-in and Dr. Rodal why the like?

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 12:01 am
    Been waiting for the minivna tiny to arrive so I could d some profiling on the cavity. I just got here! So I'll be back to the shop tomorrow! Ready to get this current build over with!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/28/2015 12:46 am
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Zen, do you have a thermal radiation theory that supports this? I read about the pioneer anomaly and was intrigued thermal radiation interacts with the vacuum of space.

    The way the final report on the anomaly turned out it was not really a thermal interaction with the vacuum... At least not as it was explained.

    It was a very small imbalance in the way heat radiated from the satellite. A very small IR photon thrust effect, sort of. No QV or QFT involved.
    This is what I am interested in. IR photonic thrust is new to me...for example, was it more than a  photon rocket thrust...if so, why?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/28/2015 01:03 am
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Zen, do you have a thermal radiation theory that supports this? I read about the pioneer anomaly and was intrigued thermal radiation interacts with the vacuum of space.

    The way the final report on the anomaly turned out it was not really a thermal interaction with the vacuum... At least not as it was explained.

    It was a very small imbalance in the way heat radiated from the satellite. A very small IR photon thrust effect, sort of. No QV or QFT involved.
    This is what I am interested in. IR photonic thrust is new to me...for example, was it more than a  photon rocket thrust...if so, why?

    This was a very small effect, as in it took as long as it did to even be noticed. Basically all it was is an uneven radiation of heat loss. You could say that is like a very inefficient photon rocket! At least that was the best explanation that could be made without using an EMDrive to send someone out to bring back the satellite for a thorough investigation.

    Really, humor aside.., as far as any useable thrust is concerned no matter where the effect came from it is a dead end... And the heat loss explanation was pretty compelling. I don't remember all of the details. I do remember I was reading the report the Tanksgiving day just after it was released, and exchanged email with the author that day. Very surprised that he responded on Thanksgiving day!

    I might still have the report. I'll have to dig around and see now.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/28/2015 02:42 am
    Friday was finally my last radiation treatment. 8 weeks at 5 per week. Some days two treatments. They added a few on at the end.

    My pelvic, bowel and bladder regions are feeling like a chook that has been slowly cooked in a microwave. At my last doc interview was told the negative radiation effects will build up and peak in about 4 weeks, then drop away over another 4-6 weeks. Not really what I wanted to hear.

    Will get there.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 11/28/2015 02:52 am
    Friday was finally my last radiation treatment. 8 weeks at 5 per week. Some days two treatments. They added a few on at the end.

    My pelvic, bowel and bladder regions are feeling like a chook that has been slowly cooked in a microwave. At my last doc interview was told the negative radiation effects will build up and peak in about 4 weeks, then drop away over another 4-6 weeks. Not really what I wanted to hear.

    Will get there.

    Take care of yourself TT, you have a lot of work to do. Glad to hear you're done with the radiation. Onward and upward from here.

    I was tempted to tell you to stay away from the microwaves given the way your insides feel, but that would be counterproductive, wouldn't it?   :D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 11/28/2015 03:46 am
    Thanks everyone for the info and discussion on feeding the maggie into the frustum.  Lots of good points to consider!

    The reason I was thinking of direct insertion to begin with were two-fold:

    1) Easier construction with the ability to test different magnetron locations  (small holes to 'patch')
    2) If any thrust is measured, I can trivially reorient JUST the frustum and keep all other aspects of the test platform constant.  Even the magnetron itself and its wiring would not change.  I could thus run accurate comparison tests in forward/reverse/null directions.

    (This assumes the magnetron antenna itself is rotationally invariant, correct me if I'm wrong here)

    As a reminder, I'm planning a horizontal thrust measurement so I can avoid the thermal effects.  The magnetron antenna would be facing up into the side of the frustum.

    Quote
    If you saved the microwave magnetron you could use this to couple into the drive (see picture). The question is do you still have the guide from the microwave?

    I do have the microwave casing.  The magnetron waveguide is slightly different then the pic, but yes, I was considering cutting it out if the time came for such a mount.

    Iulian seemed to have his magnetron in a different location (based on the videos) than his original diagram showed (looks almost centered in the vids).  But I'm not sure how much trust I should put in his results though as his setup was far from ideal.  It's too bad he wasn't able to do more follow up experiments to eliminate the potential sources of error in his test platform.

    TT - I wish you all the best with your treatment.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/28/2015 04:08 am
    OK! Here's my latest video of the 2015-11-13 simulation run - this has no E field whiskers and is only the X slice.  Biggest difference between these E fields colors and the PNG/GIF files you've seen before is those files are only the intensity of ONE of the x,y,z vector elements - THIS video is colored by the vector length of all 3 components - red for positive pointing vectors, blue for negative.

    The video with ALL 5 slices (X,Y, and 3 Z's) is uploading - I'll post that link in a few...

    https://youtu.be/IebbR6SWptY
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/28/2015 04:13 am
    Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

    Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...

    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/28/2015 04:45 am
    It doesn't matter where the feed is placed in the cavity.   Everyone has done it different and has adjusted the frequency to minimize the missmatch.    If you maximize the power delivered to the cavity you will maximize the thermal response and therefore see a miniscule movement.
    Zen, do you have a thermal radiation theory that supports this? I read about the pioneer anomaly and was intrigued thermal radiation interacts with the vacuum of space.
    No, the Pioneer anomaly was discussed a few threads back and, if my recollection is correct, was dismissed as a possible explanation for em-drive behavior.   What we do know is that when all known sources of error - Lorentz force, convection, thermal lift, etc are eliminated the em-drive torque pendulum behaves like a first order system when the RF is switched on.   That means heat has caused the movement.    If a force had acted on the TP the behavior would be like a second order system.   Sorry! no new theory to offer everyone.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Blaine on 11/28/2015 04:59 am
    Zen in if we eliminate thermal lift how can heat be the cause? sorry if this is a stupid question.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/28/2015 06:17 am
    Zen in if we eliminate thermal lift how can heat be the cause? sorry if this is a stupid question.

    Only the EW vacuum test eliminated thermal lift in their experiment, along with the other sources of error I mentioned.   What the data showed was a slow risetime and a very similar slow fall.   The maximum displacement of the TP was only about 4 µm.  If something heats up it can move that amount just from heat expansion.   Aluminum has a coefficient of linear expansion of 22 X 10-6K-1.  Copper has a coefficient of linear expansion of 16.6 X 10-6K-1.   So a piece of Copper 1 Meter long will expand 16.6 µm if it's temperature goes up by 1 degree Celcius.   That's quite a bit of displacement compared to what the experiment indicated.    We know the RF gets dissipated inside the cavity as heat and from the thermal images we know the temperature can rise quite a bit more than 1 degree C.   So all it takes is just one part of the apparatus to twist or bend or push out, or exhibit some other thermal urging as a result of the thermal expansion, and the distance measuring device will move a tiny amount.    If instead of turning on the RF the apparatus was just heated up with heating pads the same movement would be observed.   Of course no one wants to do this.   The other aspect of this theory comes from looking at what happens when the RF is switched off.   We all know that RF can be switched off and on very quickly and that when it is switched off it doesn't hang around like the clueless dinner guest who deplete's one's liquor cabinet.   If RF did that none of our smart phones would work and we would be communicating with Morse code - ditditditdit ditdit   ditditditdit ditdit.  So the fall time of the waveform shown in the EW vacuum test should not last so long.    The reason why it lasts so long is because it is a thermal effect.   The metal is cooling and slowly contracting.    This was all analyzed several months ago by Dr. Rodal.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 11/28/2015 09:08 am
    Zen in if we eliminate thermal lift how can heat be the cause? sorry if this is a stupid question.

    Only the EW vacuum test eliminated thermal lift in their experiment, along with the other sources of error I mentioned.   What the data showed was a slow risetime and a very similar slow fall.   The maximum displacement of the TP was only about 4 µm.  If something heats up it can move that amount just from heat expansion.   Aluminum has a coefficient of linear expansion of 22 X 10-6K-1.  Copper has a coefficient of linear expansion of 16.6 X 10-6K-1.   So a piece of Copper 1 Meter long will expand 16.6 µm if it's temperature goes up by 1 degree Celcius.   That's quite a bit of displacement compared to what the experiment indicated.    We know the RF gets dissipated inside the cavity as heat and from the thermal images we know the temperature can rise quite a bit more than 1 degree C.   So all it takes is just one part of the apparatus to twist or bend or push out, or exhibit some other thermal urging as a result of the thermal expansion, and the distance measuring device will move a tiny amount.    If instead of turning on the RF the apparatus was just heated up with heating pads the same movement would be observed.   Of course no one wants to do this.   The other aspect of this theory comes from looking at what happens when the RF is switched off.   We all know that RF can be switched off and on very quickly and that when it is switched off it doesn't hang around like the clueless dinner guest who deplete's one's liquor cabinet.   If RF did that none of our smart phones would work and we would be communicating with Morse code - ditditditdit ditdit   ditditditdit ditdit.  So the fall time of the waveform shown in the EW vacuum test should not last so long.    The reason why it lasts so long is because it is a thermal effect.   The metal is cooling and slowly contracting.    This was all analyzed several months ago by Dr. Rodal.

    There are a couple thermal problems. 

    *The one mentioned above is from thermal expansion of solid objects.

    *Another is air convection outside the frustum and one end being more hot than the other.  Possibly placing it in a small box may solve the problem.   

    *Yet another is thermal expansion of air inside the frustum.  If there is a pinhole the air will be pushed out that pin hole as air expands and provide thrust.  One solution I had was to place air holes on the sides at a specific height so that equal volumes of air are moved up as down.  That or maybe 1 small hole each in the top and bottom.  smaller than will allow the wavelength of radiation to escape. 
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385064#msg1385064

    *Air buoyancy as a hot air balloon experiences is another problem.  (the solution I heard was to flip it over from up to down and measure the thrust and take the difference to get the buoyancy.)

    vacuum reduces a lot of these problems except for the thermal expansion of material (top). 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 11/28/2015 02:57 pm
    ...
    There are a couple thermal problems. 

    *The one mentioned above is from thermal expansion of solid objects.

    .../...

    vacuum reduces a lot of these problems except for the thermal expansion of material (top).

    And another one (also present in vacuum at EW) :

    * Modification of stiffness of balance due to change in temperature.

    Paul March mentioned a return current path going through the springy steel foils elements of the flexure bearings used by the horizontal torsion pendulum at EW. Current -> change in temperature -> change in stiffness -> change in rest equilibrium position -> direct measured displacement.



    Also remember that the horizontal torsion pendulum at EW is not horizontal, it is slightly tilted, that is something attached to the pendulum's arm will not turn in a perfectly horizontal plane, making the experiment extremely sensitive to small displacements (on the µm scale) of parts relative to fixation point on the arm, such that thermal expansion will make the (angular) rest equilibrium position drift proportionately.

    Figures :
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811757;image

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811712

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811959

    Associated posts :

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1341514#msg1341514

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1342331#msg1342331

    The reason EW team voluntarily introduced a small tilt in the system (and left a distance between the axis of rotation and the centre of mass of the pendulum arm moving assembly) was (and still is) to have a stable rest position, since the flexure bearings alone would define a drifting rest position due to varying thermal/mechanical load conditions (with no other way to tune/compensate for this drift) from experiment to experiment. I think this "trick" was and still is a very poor experimental choice, as it makes it all too easy for a small sustained thermal expansion to mimic a sustained "thrust" (in fact just a displacement in rest position). So they have to rely on time constant considerations, telling apart what part is thermal centre_of_mass shift induced and what part is "thrust" only on the relative velocities, fast or "impulsive" enough being catalogued as thrust.

    It is important to understand this when discussing thermal expansion (in regards of EW's results in vacuum) because we are not in the situation of a Cavendish style torsion balance, where the centre of mass of the whole moving assembly naturally has to align with axis of rotation (under suspension wire) and where test article centre of mass shifts would only impart minuscule temporary recoils while the long term effect of such shift would be intrinsically rejected (when the shift settles asymptotically to a new position, the angular rest equilibrium goes back to null reading). At EW, if a significant mass (say, the frustum) settles 1µm off when heated, then the arm's displacement reading follows and settles on the order of 1µm off.

    The solution, IMHO, would be to link the pendulum arm through a spring to a micrometer tuning vernier (fixed to ground) : that would allow to tune the initial angular rest position without fudging with the tilt of the whole balance. Then, adding on pendulum's arm a small servomotor shifting a small mass (10 grams) for a cm  (equivalent to 10kg moving 10µm) to measure sensitivity wrt mass shifts, and tune horizontality for the critical smallest sensitivity (best rejection) of such effect, not for the separate mundane problem of the initial angular rest position. There are no good reasons that a horizontal pendulum experiment should be that much sensitive to test article centre of mass shifts in the first place.

    All this can be done without the trouble of vacuum, and not counting man-hours this would cost less than 100$ in materials and make EW's experiment much more convincing, IMHO.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: LasJayhawk on 11/28/2015 03:36 pm
    The quest for the ultimate vacuum tube.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-quest-for-the-ultimate-vacuum-tube

    TWT's are already pushing 70% efficiency. It they make the cold cathode tube practical, it would make a fine power amp for an EM drive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/28/2015 05:00 pm
    The quest for the ultimate vacuum tube.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-quest-for-the-ultimate-vacuum-tube

    TWT's are already pushing 70% efficiency. It they make the cold cathode tube practical, it would make a fine power amp for an EM drive.

    That's a really 'cool' article, thanks for sharing!!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/28/2015 05:04 pm
    The quest for the ultimate vacuum tube.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-quest-for-the-ultimate-vacuum-tube

    TWT's are already pushing 70% efficiency. It they make the cold cathode tube practical, it would make a fine power amp for an EM drive.
    Well written article. Think Paul March had discussed this possibility a while ago for a spaceflight application once the prelim validation occurs. Seem to me the TWT is really more of an amplifier as opposed to a signal source, which is supplied separately at lower power. The benefit here is low power, clean and stable signal injection.

    Purity of signal is where EW has gone, best I can tell. Not sure if their second round of testing has machanical tuning or electronic tuning for resonance. Information not out to the public yet as far as I know.

    p.s. my wifes cousin was an engineer on the telstar project back in the day. pretty cool stuff they were doing back then...low power but well ahead of its time.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/28/2015 05:56 pm

    ...

    The solution, IMHO, would be to link the pendulum arm through a spring to a micrometer tuning vernier (fixed to ground) : that would allow to tune the initial angular rest position without fudging with the tilt of the whole balance. Then, adding on pendulum's arm a small servomotor shifting a small mass (10 grams) for a cm  (equivalent to 10kg moving 10µm) to measure sensitivity wrt mass shifts, and tune horizontality for the critical smallest sensitivity (best rejection) of such effect, not for the separate mundane problem of the initial angular rest position. There are no good reasons that a horizontal pendulum experiment should be that much sensitive to test article centre of mass shifts in the first place.

    All this can be done without the trouble of vacuum, and not counting man-hours this would cost less than 100$ in materials and make EW's experiment much more convincing, IMHO.

    I agree the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) has a lot of compromises that make it difficult to separate the different sources of errors.     EW should incorporate your suggestions in their next round of tests.     Despite this EW's work is the best em-drive investigative work so far.     The one advantage a vacuum test has is that convective, bouyant and other hot air  effects are eliminated.     I would be interested in seeing what they have done since those test were done a year ago.   Does anyone know if they plan to disclose anything before the next AIAA propulsion conference? 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/28/2015 05:57 pm
    Sorry for the drive by posts, Holidays.  Access to internet enabled PC is interesting.

    On use of a magnetron.  When I last was able to look at the patent it seemed like the claim was only that it cut out the sideband (and maybe stabilized the signal), not that the sideband energy went into the signal.  That would mean that you’re getting say 50-100 watts of rf energy out and 900 watts of heat on the magnetron.  My gut is telling me that the rf output is going to wander until the heat is dealt with.

    So software defined transmitters.  There is a review of some SDR options here http://www.taylorkillian.com/2013/08/sdr-showdown-hackrf-vs-bladerf-vs-usrp.html (http://www.taylorkillian.com/2013/08/sdr-showdown-hackrf-vs-bladerf-vs-usrp.html).  I wish they had said more about transmit capabilities.  I find myself wondering if one of these devices could emulate the interesting uses of a magnetrons wide range of frequencies that Shell was talking about.  Unfortunately, that might make the product useful as a rf jammer and the first rule of rf jammer club is that you do not talk about rf jammer club (unless you want to FCC to come to call).

    Still no source of a cheap amplifier.  Did find the website for a used test equipment reseller out of the UK that might be an option: http://www.gpteinternational.com/teqsearch.pl?prod=Amplifiers (http://www.gpteinternational.com/teqsearch.pl?prod=Amplifiers).  I wonder if, instead of a single powerful amplifier, you could use several less powerful amps (possibly with several different signal sources corresponding to different resonant modes in the device).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/28/2015 06:18 pm
    Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

    Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...

    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q

    Are magnetic fields exiting the device or are those rays simply showing some kind of increase in magnetic field strength?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 11/28/2015 07:42 pm
    Initial thoughts for a new build (ETA 24 months).

    Rf source: HackRF ($300)
    Amplifier: 43 dBM indoor 2.4 ghz wifi amp ($500) (Could really use a more powerful amp)

    Frustum: Concave/Convex resonance chamber made out of 3d printed ceramic, with a layer of conductive nickel paint applied and silver electroplated over ($?????), or 3d printed resin with same handling (note to self, make sure you know that nothing in the process is going to have a chemical reaction to resin if used).

    Balance beam: Economy Double Pan Balance http://www.drmass.com/economy-double-pan-balance.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMgSaLkdIrdhqy5CinocvZyRnsYYRhzKRR1NnumkPliMaAhUD8P8HAQ (http://www.drmass.com/economy-double-pan-balance.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMgSaLkdIrdhqy5CinocvZyRnsYYRhzKRR1NnumkPliMaAhUD8P8HAQ) ($150). + weight set ($??).  Proposed testing regime (put frustum thrust direction down with calibration weight on other end of the scale, setup camera, see what scale does).

    VSWR: $200

    Faraday Cage: $150

    Potential issues: Price, this is assuming I can land a decent job in the Spring.  Weight, needs to be under 2kg for scale.  Potential effects on magnetic dampening in scale (does that piece of junk have any dampening?).  Low resolution of scale, 0.1g.  Even if my theory is correct (it's almost certainly not) needs a Q of around 2500 to be detectable at this resolution.  Materials issues!

    So basically still in the think about it stage.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/28/2015 09:00 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Blaine on 11/28/2015 09:26 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)

    Can you use gold or another soft metal in those simulations.  i wanna see if the softness of rhe metal makes any difference in the intensity of the external field.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/28/2015 09:46 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)

    Can you use gold or another soft metal in those simulations.  i wanna see if the softness of rhe metal makes any difference in the intensity of the external field.

    No, I'm sorry but making material models is beyond my ability. DeltaMass made the copper model for me in accordance with the information - Conductivity and complex ε here:

    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Dielectric_materials_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Dielectric_materials_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5)

    If you would like to provide a valid model I would try it out. Silver would be useful.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 09:49 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)
    Nice work areo!

    This activity outside the frustum is a weird thing and at first I thought it could be Lenz's law showing up but after considering it would be in every conductor even meeps perfect conductor it intrigues me.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law which supports Newton's third Law of opposite reactions and also CoE.

    hmmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BeFoz3Ypo4 Lenz's law maybe in effect here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItFggklNX0o


    Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

    Sehll
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/28/2015 09:55 pm
    Software Defined Radios are just another way of generating a sine wave.  Most of the complexity in the current commercial SDRs is in the user interface, filtering, modulation and demodulation.  But one particular aspect I think is interesting for EmDrive.

    That is that you can have an arbitrarily complex feedback control loop the sets the frequency.  My own radio does this;  I had to go through a calibration procedure involving chilling the thing down in the refrigerator then heating it with a hair dryer, all while connected to a stable reference osciallator.   The control software monitored the radio's internal temperature along with what it thought the incoming signal frequency was.  It built a table relating temperature to the necessary osciallator control offset to maintain the correct frequency.  This is later used when transmitting, and the transmitter power amp stage heats up the circuit board, which heats the osciallator, which throws off the frequency.  The software consults its saved table and applies the appropriate control offset for the current temperature.  It does this over a range of 23 to 55 degrees C.

    I do not think you could control a magnetron this precisely, but a solid state signal generator into a TWT should be doable.  Which is why even hams, and the Direct TV satellite internet uplink you may have on your roof (if you lilve in the boonies) use TWT technology.

    Once the behavior of the EmDrive is sufficiently analyzed using the less expensive magnetron route, it should be possible to know how much more efficient it could get with more precise frequency control and decide if it is necessary.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RotoSequence on 11/28/2015 10:16 pm
    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    Are there energy leakage anomalies like this with other cavity geometries, like cubes, rectangles, triangles, spheres, etc?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 10:22 pm
    Software Defined Radios are just another way of generating a sine wave.  Most of the complexity in the current commercial SDRs is in the user interface, filtering, modulation and demodulation.  But one particular aspect I think is interesting for EmDrive.

    That is that you can have an arbitrarily complex feedback control loop the sets the frequency.  My own radio does this;  I had to go through a calibration procedure involving chilling the thing down in the refrigerator then heating it with a hair dryer, all while connected to a stable reference osciallator.   The control software monitored the radio's internal temperature along with what it thought the incoming signal frequency was.  It built a table relating temperature to the necessary osciallator control offset to maintain the correct frequency.  This is later used when transmitting, and the transmitter power amp stage heats up the circuit board, which heats the osciallator, which throws off the frequency.  The software consults its saved table and applies the appropriate control offset for the current temperature.  It does this over a range of 23 to 55 degrees C.

    I do not think you could control a magnetron this precisely, but a solid state signal generator into a TWT should be doable.  Which is why even hams, and the Direct TV satellite internet uplink you may have on your roof (if you lilve in the boonies) use TWT technology.

    Once the behavior of the EmDrive is sufficiently analyzed using the less expensive magnetron route, it should be possible to know how much more efficient it could get with more precise frequency control and decide if it is necessary.

    If we step back one and ask what makes the frustum run out of tune we will find it's nothing more than the thermal growth of the frustum itself changing the cavity length shifting it to a lower frequency. It would seem if you can control the distance between the two end plates by securing them together and allowing the copper walls to expand past you will have negated the need for active tuning. I think in doing a superconducting cavity where the growths of the medium are much more critical as the Q is much higher, then a active feedback system would be useful. For a relative room temperature device such as the frustum is truly isn't needed.

    The other issue is the warping of the top and bottom plates of copper, if we bond them onto a ceramic plate they will not deform changing the tuning of the frustum either.

     

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/28/2015 10:28 pm
    Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

    Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...

    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q

    Are magnetic fields exiting the device or are those rays simply showing some kind of increase in magnetic field strength?
    The magnetic field whiskers are only showing field strength.  I do not think the end points should be construed to be a position, only a graphic indication of the magnitude.  aero or shells can provide a more authoritative answer, I'm just generating pretty pictures :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/28/2015 10:41 pm
    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    Are there energy leakage anomalies like this with other cavity geometries, like cubes, rectangles, triangles, spheres, etc?

    I haven't tracked it in any detail. I have seen this characteristic with other copper frustum models so I would make the assumption that it exists everywhere the copper model is used. I did take a close look at one csv file to identify the field strength reduction as it passes through the copper.  Note with my current settings, that the meep computational cells are 0.0012 meters apart and the 1/4 inch skin thickness gives about 5 cells across the skin thickness. Here is what I found:
    inside to out   'h-field-y
    0   1.30718E-004
    1   -4.00489002847894E-011
    2   -8.96655835853277E-017
    3   -1.08173662392717E-022
    4   -1.45871091756361E-026
    5   9.92330678730847E-032
    Meep can output several different measures of the RF field, but not current density which is what I need to see in order to use J = Jo * eratio where ratio = -d/delta, d being the depth into the conducting surface and delta being skin depth. J is current density at depth and Jo is surface current density. If I had that I could calculate the effective frequency of the RF energy outside the frustum. It pretty clearly can not be the frustum drive frequency although it looks from the images like it is the drive frequency.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/28/2015 11:17 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)
    Nice work areo!

    This activity outside the frustum is a weird thing and at first I thought it could be Lenz's law showing up but after considering it would be in every conductor even meeps perfect conductor it intrigues me.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law which supports Newton's third Law of opposite reactions and also CoE.

    hmmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BeFoz3Ypo4 Lenz's law maybe in effect here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItFggklNX0o


    Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

    Sehll

    Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

    Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/28/2015 11:17 pm
    Even if the frustrum did not change shape at all, the frequency still has to match those dimensions exactly, even as the signal source itself heats up.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/28/2015 11:26 pm
    Software Defined Radios are just another way of generating a sine wave.  Most of the complexity in the current commercial SDRs is in the user interface, filtering, modulation and demodulation.  But one particular aspect I think is interesting for EmDrive.

    That is that you can have an arbitrarily complex feedback control loop the sets the frequency.  My own radio does this;  I had to go through a calibration procedure involving chilling the thing down in the refrigerator then heating it with a hair dryer, all while connected to a stable reference osciallator.   The control software monitored the radio's internal temperature along with what it thought the incoming signal frequency was.  It built a table relating temperature to the necessary osciallator control offset to maintain the correct frequency.  This is later used when transmitting, and the transmitter power amp stage heats up the circuit board, which heats the osciallator, which throws off the frequency.  The software consults its saved table and applies the appropriate control offset for the current temperature.  It does this over a range of 23 to 55 degrees C.

    I do not think you could control a magnetron this precisely, but a solid state signal generator into a TWT should be doable.  Which is why even hams, and the Direct TV satellite internet uplink you may have on your roof (if you lilve in the boonies) use TWT technology.

    Once the behavior of the EmDrive is sufficiently analyzed using the less expensive magnetron route, it should be possible to know how much more efficient it could get with more precise frequency control and decide if it is necessary.

    If we step back one and ask what makes the frustum run out of tune we will find it's nothing more than the thermal growth of the frustum itself changing the cavity length shifting it to a lower frequency. It would seem if you can control the distance between the two end plates by securing them together and allowing the copper walls to expand past you will have negated the need for active tuning. I think in doing a superconducting cavity where the growths of the medium are much more critical as the Q is much higher, then a active feedback system would be useful. For a relative room temperature device such as the frustum is truly isn't needed.

    The other issue is the warping of the top and bottom plates of copper, if we bond them onto a ceramic plate they will not deform changing the tuning of the frustum either.

    Maybe SteveD's printed ceramic frustum is not a bad way to go. As long as it comes in three pieces it can be plated (inside surfaces only) with copper-silver-gold for conductivity and resonance, while the ceramic stabilizes heat based expansion, at least to some degree.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 11:32 pm
    Even if the frustrum did not change shape at all, the frequency still has to match those dimensions exactly, even as the signal source itself heats up.
    Yes, this is why the top plate is tunable via micrometer attached to a quartz rod through the center of the frustum.
    http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a472/shells2bells2002/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/EM%20thruster%20016_zpsdj5mg8vf.jpg

    The magnetron is off the frustum and is cooled with a fan in another area so it stays stable in temperature.
    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=3&page=1


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/29/2015 12:05 am

    Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

    Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

    This demo is really popular at science shows, etc.   Another neat demo uses a 1/8" thick sheet of Copper and the largest NIB magnet you can find.   Slant the sheet at a 45° angle and try sliding the magnet down it.   Instead of sliding flat the magnet will tumble end-over-end very slowly.    If you drop the magnet flat on the Copper from 1/2" above it there is no sound because it moves so slowly.   Try sliding the NIB magnet across the sheet.  It's like its glued to the Copper.    This also works with thick Aluminum but not as well.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/29/2015 12:58 am
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/29/2015 01:21 am
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/29/2015 02:07 am
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law

    This is silly. We cannot consider photons (V=c) and an at-rest frustrum (V=0) to be, from the perspective of the frustrum OR photons, really in any respect to be a system following the same time - evolution the way that the magnet and tube operate.  The perspective of a photon by GR has no time component.  For this reason it would be best to conceive of these two things (em radiation inside the frustrum & frustrum itself) as two systems caught up such that they stay in the same place. (For example, think of the wonky action you see if you tie two gyroscopes together by a string while they both spin, but are both moving in the same direction. Each will exert a seemingly random influence of the trajectory of the system as a whole, thus it will be easier to model as two systems tied together by a string than one whole system.)  Note that there is also never a closed system in all and every case in the same way you cannot actually point out an infinite quantity.  These are tools for thought experiments and sensible math.)

    The only reality of course is that both of these things are in the reference frame of an experimenter testing thrust measurements, because of the nature of measurement (a far-off observer would clearly perceive the oscillations of two bound gyroscopes as neglible as he watched them both, because they become more of a single system with a decreased granularity of measurement, just like all observable phenomena.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/29/2015 03:02 am
    All, I've just posted a blog post on the work being done here (and elsewhere) on this, and included in it links to all the videos I've generated.  They aren't collected anywhere else as I didn't want to clog up my YouTube channel with them so they're unlisted.  I will continue to update it, especially as I gen new videos.

    https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/29/2015 01:38 pm
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    Then how do you answer OnlyMe's question:
    Quote from: OnlyMe
    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/29/2015 02:22 pm
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    Then how do you answer OnlyMe's question:
    Quote from: OnlyMe
    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?

    The frustum could not!.. Magnetic field strengths have shown up in simulations, but without measuring field strengths associated with how the copper reacts to resonance and any potential magnetic fields inside the frustum. It does not mean anything.

    I would like to know if it is even possible, to measure magnetic field strengths inside the frustum, while it is in operation... But what little I do understand of resonance, the act of attempting to make that measurement would probably affect resonance and any associated hypothetical magnetic fields.

    Like I said, measure for every hair brained idea possible.., but don't go in with expectations pro or con.

    Even if there were some way to get the data, it would have to be repeated in vacuum to rule out some kind of magnetic polarization of the air inside the frustum.

    To be certain, in atmosphere experiments have to reproducibly generate Newtons of force or very high mNs.., then be reproduced in vacuum.., and then in low gravity vacuum.., before function will have been confirmed. After that comes the real work of figuring out how it does what it does....., if it does.....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/29/2015 03:09 pm
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law

    This is silly. We cannot consider photons (V=c) and an at-rest frustrum (V=0) to be, from the perspective of the frustrum OR photons, really in any respect to be a system following the same time - evolution the way that the magnet and tube operate.  The perspective of a photon by GR has no time component.  For this reason it would be best to conceive of these two things (em radiation inside the frustrum & frustrum itself) as two systems caught up such that they stay in the same place. (For example, think of the wonky action you see if you tie two gyroscopes together by a string while they both spin, but are both moving in the same direction. Each will exert a seemingly random influence of the trajectory of the system as a whole, thus it will be easier to model as two systems tied together by a string than one whole system.)  Note that there is also never a closed system in all and every case in the same way you cannot actually point out an infinite quantity.  These are tools for thought experiments and sensible math.)

    The only reality of course is that both of these things are in the reference frame of an experimenter testing thrust measurements, because of the nature of measurement (a far-off observer would clearly perceive the oscillations of two bound gyroscopes as neglible as he watched them both, because they become more of a single system with a decreased granularity of measurement, just like all observable phenomena.

    It's not as silly as one may think. Yes, of course I see your point and of course your right, maybe. Why do you think I'm dedicating along with many others so much time and effort, because some have said it violates some of our most cherished foundations in physics. I'm not trying to say this to upset you or anyone else but to find out the truth about this drive seemingly going beyond the 100% efficiency of light propulsion (in some claimed cases 320,000 times!) You can't just say it can't happen because nature says it can't.

    Question and look at everything, at every aspect, at every minuscule detail, don't take anyone's thoughts and ideas as total reality, because only nature has the truth the ultimate correct answer.

    There is so much we simply don't know compared to what we do.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/29/2015 04:26 pm
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law

    This is silly. We cannot consider photons (V=c) and an at-rest frustrum (V=0) to be, from the perspective of the frustrum OR photons, really in any respect to be a system following the same time - evolution the way that the magnet and tube operate.  The perspective of a photon by GR has no time component.  For this reason it would be best to conceive of these two things (em radiation inside the frustrum & frustrum itself) as two systems caught up such that they stay in the same place. (For example, think of the wonky action you see if you tie two gyroscopes together by a string while they both spin, but are both moving in the same direction. Each will exert a seemingly random influence of the trajectory of the system as a whole, thus it will be easier to model as two systems tied together by a string than one whole system.)  Note that there is also never a closed system in all and every case in the same way you cannot actually point out an infinite quantity.  These are tools for thought experiments and sensible math.)

    The only reality of course is that both of these things are in the reference frame of an experimenter testing thrust measurements, because of the nature of measurement (a far-off observer would clearly perceive the oscillations of two bound gyroscopes as neglible as he watched them both, because they become more of a single system with a decreased granularity of measurement, just like all observable phenomena.

    It's not as silly as one may think. Yes, of course I see your point and of course your right, maybe. Why do you think I'm dedicating along with many others so much time and effort, because some have said it violates some of our most cherished foundations in physics. I'm not trying to say this to upset you or anyone else but to find out the truth about this drive seemingly going beyond the 100% efficiency of light propulsion (in some claimed cases 320,000 times!) You can't just say it can't happen because nature says it can't.

    Question and look at everything, at every aspect, at every minuscule detail, don't take anyone's thoughts and ideas as total reality, because only nature has the truth the ultimate correct answer.

    There is so much we simply don't know compared to what we do.
    I agree michelle, there is so much we don't know that dismissing things as silly is about as nonscientific as one could get. Let's ride this project out and not stop short until we discover the root cause of the emdrive effect. Even if it turns out to be something mundane, experiments are the way to get there, not generalized opinions based on assumed theories. Theories are made to be broken  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 11/29/2015 05:03 pm
    Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

    Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...

    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q

    Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.

    My guesses at the issue:

    -You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)
    -You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.
    -The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.
    -There is a major issue with the simulation.

    It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/29/2015 07:00 pm
    I wanted to get down my thoughts on the pure magnetic explanation.  I am calling this the "Caterpillar Theory" until a better name comes along.  Although the name comes from "The Hunt for Red October", this is not a magnetohydrodynamic explanation.

    This theory is inspired by the observations and comments of several people in this forum.  More linked references to come later.

    The frustrum has the following important properties.  Lettered points describe areas for further experimentation and development.

    1. Closed ends to set up a standing wave at the incoming frequency.  Actually, any impedance discontinuity will do this.  Current experiments use a dead short, which is probably the most effective.

    1a.  It is important to minimize other sources of impedance discontinuity within the frustrum.

    1b.  Is a dead short the most effective termination?  The introduction of dialectrics can also change the impendance, as can simply leaving the end open!

    2. Conductive sidewalls in which currents can be induced by moving magnetic fields.  The greater the conductivity of the material, the better this will work.

    2a. Superconductors are better.

    2b. The sidewalls have to be thick enough to wholly contain the magnetic field for minimum waste.  Count on skin-effect to help.  This is why the magnet-in-the-pipe trick works best with a very thick-walled pipe: no skin-effect from the slowly moving magnet.

    3. Tapered sidewalls that cause magnetic fields to move from one end to the other in repetitive patterns as shown by Meep, even though there is a standing wave.

    3a. The amount of taper might affect the speed of the motion.  Need a formula for this.  How fast does Meep predict the field moves?

    3b. Is a linear taper or a trombone shape (the "Riker Drive") more efficient?  Can Meep model the trombone shape?

    3c. If the magnetic field is moving in one direction, what is the E-component doing?

    4. The moving magnetic fields create a propulsive effect according to the Lorentz Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force).  (If the direction the field is moving is not in the same direction as the observed thrust, then this theory is clearly all wet!)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm
    Very interesting if this comes down to moving magnetic fields, and nothing to do with photons at all.  Something like a linear motor with only one part.

    Actually there is very little in common.   The magnetic field of the permanent magnet generates eddy currents in the Copper.   These eddy currents set up a magnetic field that opposes the movement of the magnet.   This is Lenz's law:

    "If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it."

    The magnet and Copper are two separate entities.   The em-drive is one.   There is nothing there to push against and the magnetic field is not quasi-static.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law

    This is silly. We cannot consider photons (V=c) and an at-rest frustrum (V=0) to be, from the perspective of the frustrum OR photons, really in any respect to be a system following the same time - evolution the way that the magnet and tube operate.  The perspective of a photon by GR has no time component.  For this reason it would be best to conceive of these two things (em radiation inside the frustrum & frustrum itself) as two systems caught up such that they stay in the same place. (For example, think of the wonky action you see if you tie two gyroscopes together by a string while they both spin, but are both moving in the same direction. Each will exert a seemingly random influence of the trajectory of the system as a whole, thus it will be easier to model as two systems tied together by a string than one whole system.)  Note that there is also never a closed system in all and every case in the same way you cannot actually point out an infinite quantity.  These are tools for thought experiments and sensible math.)

    The only reality of course is that both of these things are in the reference frame of an experimenter testing thrust measurements, because of the nature of measurement (a far-off observer would clearly perceive the oscillations of two bound gyroscopes as neglible as he watched them both, because they become more of a single system with a decreased granularity of measurement, just like all observable phenomena.

    It's not as silly as one may think. Yes, of course I see your point and of course your right, maybe. Why do you think I'm dedicating along with many others so much time and effort, because some have said it violates some of our most cherished foundations in physics. I'm not trying to say this to upset you or anyone else but to find out the truth about this drive seemingly going beyond the 100% efficiency of light propulsion (in some claimed cases 320,000 times!) You can't just say it can't happen because nature says it can't.

    Question and look at everything, at every aspect, at every minuscule detail, don't take anyone's thoughts and ideas as total reality, because only nature has the truth the ultimate correct answer.

    There is so much we simply don't know compared to what we do.

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/29/2015 08:32 pm
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/29/2015 08:36 pm
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.

    That doesn't make a difference about the fact of describing the emdrive as one system is misleading. I wasn't even saying that the Lenz effect propels an emdrive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/29/2015 11:41 pm
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Kimight on 11/29/2015 11:42 pm
    First of all I would have to say I'm no physicist. I however do follow up on some of the more abstract ideas in physics, but my mathematical understanding is only in classical physics and some basic relativity and quantum theory. My question then may not be mathematically sound, but I believe it is an interesting one.

    If string theory, or some other theory which allow for a multiverse or more spatial dimensions, is correct: Couldn't the conservation of momentum be conserved in a grander scale than just our universe or three spatial dimensions?

    The reason I'm asking is because I feel this engine rests in some domain we don't understand yet. Lets say between quantum theory and relativity. Of course everything can just be a fluke of sorts and no new physics will be developed here. But I sure hope this is revolutionary in some way :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/29/2015 11:43 pm
    Finished uploading faster than I thought :)

    Here's the video with all 5 planes!  I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...

    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q

    Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.

    My guesses at the issue:

    -You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)
    -You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.
    -The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.
    -There is a major issue with the simulation.

    It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.

    The "E" fields are shown as the red/blue dots in the slices, colored by the vector length of the field at that x,y coordinate.  Showing the electric fields as whiskers creates exactly what you describe; the vectors are normal to the plane at those locations.  This is why I decided not to show them that way - it just obscures the "H" field whiskers and the colored dot was just as informative.

    The "H" fields are shown by creating a cylinder starting at the x,y location in the slice, adding the vector value to the base location, and scaling the length and thickness by a factor that was purely artistic.  So it is not exactly the magnetic field line per say; it is a graphic representation of the H vector magnitude and direction at that location.

    Hope that clears things up! I'm going to post my POVRay and C++ converter code tonight - look for it in my blog post here :https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/ (https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 11/30/2015 12:32 am
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

    Dave,

    I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

    Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

    Don
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 11/30/2015 12:33 am

    ...

    Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

    Sehll

    Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

    Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

    This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

    Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

    Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing? 

    Edit1: Thanks Aero, I did find some in shell's links of those as still images.  I didn't find the gifs.  They say Hz so it's of the magnetic field I guess.  The only problem is I don't have an axis to compare so I know which direction the magnetic field is pointing in.

    Edit2: Ok it appears the z axis points toward the top of the frustum and y and x axis are along the base where it is symmetric. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/30/2015 01:36 am

    ...

    Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

    Sehll

    Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

    Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

    This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

    Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

    Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing?

    I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/30/2015 01:58 am

    I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing)

    The really interesting fields there to me are the BEZ_vu_h* fields and the SEZ_vu_h* fields. The BEZ is the big end Z plane, the SEZ is the small end Z plane.  If you watch how those two sets of fields are moving, the BEZ fields are moving outward from the center, where as the SEZ fields are mostly cycling between the colors meaning their H field vectors are perpendicular to the small end plate. 

    Add to that, that the highest reported thrust per power number to date is from the superconducting Cannae drive test, and I tend to agree this begins to make me suspicious that this is a magnetic field effect - almost like the microwave fields are acting like a pump for the magnetic field, cycling across the big end, but being 'squeezed' by the frustum toward the small end where they push on the small end plate.  I'm not a physicist, but just trying to verbalize what I'm seeing in the visualizations of the simulation data.

    This can also be seen in my latest video where the H fields 'bunch up' toward the small end of the frustum, ending up being perpendicular to the small end plate.  Essentially you're looking at all those animated GIFs at once but with the H field vectors being shown as the 'whiskers'.
    https://youtu.be/ScbsAdGHz3Q

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 11/30/2015 02:13 am

    ...

    Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.

    Sehll

    Interesting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)

    So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...

    Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.

    This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded.  here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260  For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif.  I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top.  I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate.  It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise.  The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe.  There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity.  The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field.  Is the image of magnetic or electric fields?  I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave.  I would have expected more of a standing wave.  A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines.  You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.

    Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?

    Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing?

    I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing)
    The key appears to be:
    Y,X,Z = plane of view, vu=? -hz, hx, hy=magnetic field of corresponding axis, -ex, ey, ez = electric field of corresponding axis.
    Y-vu-hz.gif, Y-vu-hx, Y-vu-ey, X-vu-hz, ?possibly X-vu-hy, appear to have modes traveling upward.  Some are rich in color and I would guess that is field strength.  I could imagine hx inducing drag but not sure about hz. 

    Some almost appear to have downward moving modes.  X-vu-ey, X-vu-hx is almost circular but down on the sides.  I think that's it. 

    I almost want to say, that there is a phase relation to the currents in the side walls in the Z direction over a distance, giving the appearance of a traveling wave similar to a phased array antenna, but that the currents don't appear to be only circling.  Rather we have charge separation forming quadrupole electric fields along the sides.  Imagine currents racing along the X or Y axis from left to right and then getting charge separation. Maybe all this is already obvious.   

    Maybe drag is only induced if the magnetic fields aren't perfectly lined up.  Edit: imagine the magnet in the pipe falling and the induced magnetic field in the pipe lags behind the falling magnet slightly. Then we can imagine one magnetic field attracts the other and the object is pulled along with the magnet or the reverse.  In this case maybe the magnetic fields are already in equilibrium and so there is no push or pull.  I would suppose the device that modeled that field should be able to tell if there is any force overall. 

    There appears to be 2 injecting antennas in the simulation.  Left and right.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 11/30/2015 06:07 am
    X-vu, Y-vu Z-vu  are viewing the 3D lattice in the x, y, and z directions and so looking at the y,z plane, the x,z plane and the x,y plane where z is the axis of rotation of the cavity, the two sources are along the x axis and y completes the right hand coordinate system. The EM field has 6 vector components, three electric, ex, ey, ez and three magnetic, hx, hy, and hz.

    One would think that by looking at the ex, hx vector component from the other coordinate directions, that there would be nothing to see. That does not seem to be the case. It would be helpful if there were an easy way to visually compare the energy levels across all of the 18 (24 because there are two slices in the x,y plane, BEZ and SEZ) slices but that is a surprisingly difficult challenge.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 11/30/2015 08:50 am
    First of all I would have to say I'm no physicist. I however do follow up on some of the more abstract ideas in physics, but my mathematical understanding is only in classical physics and some basic relativity and quantum theory. My question then may not be mathematically sound, but I believe it is an interesting one.

    If string theory, or some other theory which allow for a multiverse or more spatial dimensions, is correct: Couldn't the conservation of momentum be conserved in a grander scale than just our universe or three spatial dimensions?

    The reason I'm asking is because I feel this engine rests in some domain we don't understand yet. Lets say between quantum theory and relativity. Of course everything can just be a fluke of sorts and no new physics will be developed here. But I sure hope this is revolutionary in some way :)

    Of course. New physics can be used to explain anything. The question is how confident are you that you have observed anything that needs new physics to explain? Remember Feynman's first principle that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

    It is possible that some low energy device operating on a table top will profoundly alter our view of the universe. It is also profoundly unlikely that that will happen. OTOH people will frequently convince themselves that they have done just that.

    So place your bets and good luck.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/30/2015 11:47 am
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

    Dave,

    I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

    Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

    Don
    Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

    Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

    What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

    Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 11/30/2015 02:58 pm
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

    Dave,

    I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

    Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

    Don
    Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

    Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

    What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

    Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.

    Thanks Dave,

    What I meant was is it possible that some thrust force is not always completely horizontal to the position of the EM Drives large diameter end plate?

    Would it not be odd that all thrust force produced is always 100 percent confined to exactly one small area of the large diameter end plate of the EM Drive vs. some residual thrust force going in slightly different and/or different directions?

    That would seem like "Blind luck" no matter how much frequency tuning one does.  Even a scale or a rotatory table testbed for a EM Drive is not measuring thrust force in all directions at the same moment in time.

    Hope that better explains my original question.

    Don
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Blaine on 11/30/2015 03:33 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/30/2015 03:41 pm
    ...

    My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too.  (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.)  I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all.  In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.

    I don't mind you calling something I said as silly.  I have heard worse from better critics.   But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive.   The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary.  If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work.   Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out.  Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
    I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...

    Dave,

    I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?

    Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?

    Don
    Hi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...

    Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.

    What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.

    Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.

    Thanks Dave,

    What I meant was is it possible that some thrust force is not always completely horizontal to the position of the EM Drives large diameter end plate?

    Would it not be odd that all thrust force produced is always 100 percent confined to exactly one small area of the large diameter end plate of the EM Drive vs. some residual thrust force going in slightly different and/or different directions?

    That would seem like "Blind luck" no matter how much frequency tuning one does.  Even a scale or a rotatory table testbed for a EM Drive is not measuring thrust force in all directions at the same moment in time.

    Hope that better explains my original question.

    Don
    This is a good thought. A symmetrical can or cavity should probably have forces against all sides equally. The conical shape is what appears to concentrate the field along the length axis. I am not aware of any experiments being done to measure kinetic force along the perpendicular axis. I think this is a worthwhile experiment, if nothing else other than eliminating all possibilities. I did have people suggest rotating my frustum 180 and 90 degrees and re-running the experiment and noting the results. Perhaps I can do this next year once I finalize my new design. Thanks!

    One thing interesting is that the nozzle shape of the frustum seems to work just like a rocket motor, moving in the direction of the smaller diameter, yet nothing measurable flies out of the nozzle. Strange thing Don, its whats kept me interested so long in this thing. I think that once this is developed, if it gets there, is it will be analyzed in all 3 dimensions. Ideally, the EW experiment would be placed in LEO, fired up and watch what happens. Seems to me its a greater chance for advancement of science than some of the ISS experiments lately...but thats just me...I'm a little stuck on space exploration and not earth sciences or biology. ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/30/2015 04:53 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.

    Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

    I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

    I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

    Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/30/2015 05:29 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.

    That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/30/2015 07:03 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    ...

    Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

    I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

    I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

    Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
    Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/30/2015 07:19 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    ...

    Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

    I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

    I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

    Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
    Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
    Or if they take too long.., steel some thunder!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 11/30/2015 07:28 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.

    That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

    I have some background in logic/empirical philosophy, and the relevant notion here is a "just-so story".  If you can use all of the available tools to set up a story that, no matter how ridiculous, is logically and empirically possible, you place the burden of proof on your opponents' theory.

    Essentially if White can demonstrate exactly what he says in the abstract (notable is the actual EXISTENCE of "virtual" [here understood to be virtual not as in simulated/digital, but rather virtual in the same way there is virtually no difference between a hole in the ground and the outer layer of dirt touching the hole's cavity] positron - abundance in the absence of all matter), then he will have given you a reason to believe that one could interact forcefully with the positron - sea (i.e. spacetime).  If his "just-so story" fits within known physics, then it lends support to the notion that a propellant-less drive is possible (and if your objections are any evidence, plenty of smart people are hung up on that part of this whole thing).

    To slip in a bit of historical metaphysics, we should all note something important: amongst many others, Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, and Bell  were all thoroughly adamant on philosophical grounds that a vacuum is a medium that could in principle, if not practice, be observed/interacted with... as far as my understanding goes, physics has moved away from this concept of "aether" but only to its own detriment, because a little bit of rigorous logical philosophy can point out serious errors with the notion of the empty vacuum.  If anyone is interested I can try to lay out some of these proofs that make it (in my estimation) a fact of the matter that some medium contains all particles, which is to say a medium that has properties that interact in a forceful fashion with the particles within. This is kinda in the realm of metaphysics though, which was in a large part the project of many of our famed scientific forefathers (some mentioned above, all of whom considered there to be an extremely large value in the philosophical discussion framing the observations of quantum behavior).

    Since those days, we have taught the metaphysics of quantum systems as "shut up and calculate," which is of course useful-- at the same time as making almost useless theoreticians as a trade for highly predictive statisticians.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: sghill on 11/30/2015 07:31 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.

    That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

    With respects to you Zen.  The abstract states that the paper  is about why thrust may be occurring.  It's describing the "New Physics" everyone a lot of people have been debating if you will, and it's fundamentally needed for understanding and improving the EMDrive if the thrust effect is real.

    There are some tidbits in the abstract I found fascinating, and I'm sure others saw even more than I'll list.  They are:

    Quote
    PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.

    Wow! That'd be huge movement for meaningful discussion purposes- even if the theory isn't correct.

    Quote
    This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum.

    If correct, that would put it on a par with CoM, which is also an emergent phenomenon.

    Quote
    This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum.

    Which is consistent with Thread 2 discussions of how they used the EMDrive as a means to take measurements and test this theory, but in this case, they may be discussing hypothetical numbers rather than experimental observations.  We'll see.

    Quote
    The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus.

    This could be the most understated sentence in decades.  It'll explode in the press if it holds up to peer review.  The EMDrive will be a side show.



    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 11/30/2015 07:55 pm
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    ...

    Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

    I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

    I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

    Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
    Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
    Or if they take too long.., steel some thunder!
    I haven't spoke about this much, but a lot of grief comes with being one of the first to do something. When I started the emdrive project, I did it to investigate for myself and make the journey public. What I naively did not expect was the backlash from non-believers (some of it quite caustic). It almost makes me hesitant to post my next stage as publicly as I did the last time, after all, it was my own curiosity anyway and I wasn't out to convince anyone or start a biz venture.

    Actually, this is what EW has had to contend with as well, on a much larger scale mind you. Conservative science types (mostly younger for some reason) really take offense to speculative work done by others in an unnacceptable manner (as if they have THE exceptional authority and knowledge). But its a moving target, if a test is conducted, non-believers can always find an area of experimental imperfection, down to calipers not being NIST traceable, ad naseum. Being a critic is easy, doing something yourself is not.

    In a very small way, I understand what EW might have went through. Its not easy being first in any speculative venture, but without someone willing to hang out there, we'd all be sitting around re-reading textbooks written generations ago and be satified we've figured out the universe.

    That ain't me...I'm just not sure how much I want to publicly share right now.



    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/30/2015 08:55 pm


    ...


    I haven't spoke about this much, but a lot of grief comes with being one of the first to do something. When I started the emdrive project, I did it to investigate for myself and make the journey public. What I naively did not expect was the backlash from non-believers (some of it quite caustic). It almost makes me hesitant to post my next stage as publicly as I did the last time, after all, it was my own curiosity anyway and I wasn't out to convince anyone or start a biz venture.

    Actually, this is what EW has had to contend with as well, on a much larger scale mind you. Conservative science types (mostly younger for some reason) really take offense to speculative work done by others in an unnacceptable manner (as if they have THE exceptional authority and knowledge). But its a moving target, if a test is conducted, non-believers can always find an area of experimental imperfection, down to calipers not being NIST traceable, ad naseum. Being a critic is easy, doing something yourself is not.

    In a very small way, I understand what EW might have went through. Its not easy being first in any speculative venture, but without someone willing to hang out there, we'd all be sitting around re-reading textbooks written generations ago and be satified we've figured out the universe.

    That ain't me...I'm just not sure how much I want to publicly share right now.

    That just reflects on the inquisitive side of human nature and the resistance to accept something new at face value.   The critic can always quietly skulk away when proven wrong and not suffer any consequence.   Any extraordinary claim does require extraordinary proof.   Mr. White has proposed some interesting ideas to explain a phenomena he has so far not proven exists.   If they have found more convincing proof in the past year that would make interesting reading.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 11/30/2015 09:38 pm
    When I finish getting the room I'm setting up in the house to run more profiling on the drive with the VNA and a few other finishing details I'll update everyone with my testing outlines and what exactly I'll be testing for and how.

    I now know why people slow down when they get older. It's not because of old bones or weak muscles it's because to do anything worthwhile you have move stuff and the older you get the more stuff you have to move. 

    I'll be back later to detail some fun things I'm working on and planning for, it's getting very exciting.

    Shell

    And you know who you are I want to thank you for the Teddy Roosevelt Quote. That was the right medicine I needed to get going.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 11/30/2015 09:39 pm


    ...

    I haven't spoke about this much, but a lot of grief comes with being one of the first to do something. When I started the emdrive project, I did it to investigate for myself and make the journey public. What I naively did not expect was the backlash from non-believers (some of it quite caustic). It almost makes me hesitant to post my next stage as publicly as I did the last time, after all, it was my own curiosity anyway and I wasn't out to convince anyone or start a biz venture.

    Actually, this is what EW has had to contend with as well, on a much larger scale mind you. Conservative science types (mostly younger for some reason) really take offense to speculative work done by others in an unnacceptable manner (as if they have THE exceptional authority and knowledge). But its a moving target, if a test is conducted, non-believers can always find an area of experimental imperfection, down to calipers not being NIST traceable, ad naseum. Being a critic is easy, doing something yourself is not.

    In a very small way, I understand what EW might have went through. Its not easy being first in any speculative venture, but without someone willing to hang out there, we'd all be sitting around re-reading textbooks written generations ago and be satified we've figured out the universe.

    That ain't me...I'm just not sure how much I want to publicly share right now.

    That just reflects on the inquisitive side of human nature and the resistance to accept something new at face value.   The critic can always quietly skulk away when proven wrong and not suffer any consequence.   Any extraordinary claim does require extraordinary proof.   Mr. White has proposed some interesting ideas to explain a phenomena he has so far not proven exists.   If they have found more convincing proof in the past year that would make interesting reading.

    Dr. White's theories involving the QV predate his involvement with EMDrive experiments and he appears, to be more or less, folding them into a common package. (But absent a paper, even this is speculation.)

    Even while I am not adverse to speculating about New Physics, I would much rather see the experimental results delivered cleanly and separate from theoretical speculation. I believe that tossing out an unpopular theory, is one of the reasons Shawyer had so much trouble, getting anyone to pay attention sooner.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Star One on 11/30/2015 09:41 pm

    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    Blaine:

    The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question.  After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see.  It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. 

    See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html

    Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.

    It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... 

    Best, Paul M.

    Thanks for that. It's nice to have an update on this process.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/30/2015 10:46 pm
    ...

    Dr. White's theories involving the QV predate his involvement with EMDrive experiments and he appears, to be more or less, folding them into a common package. (But absent a paper, even this is speculation.)

    Even while I am not adverse to speculating about New Physics, I would much rather see the experimental results delivered cleanly and separate from theoretical speculation. I believe that tossing out an unpopular theory, is one of the reasons Shawyer had so much trouble, getting anyone to pay attention sooner.

    I agree.  It is a great leap to link this QV idea with an experiment that most agree has produced ambiguous results.   If someone can show an em-drive response that doesn't look like a first order step response that would be a start.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/30/2015 11:00 pm
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 11/30/2015 11:10 pm
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.

    We don't get the BBC here; just Downton Abbey.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 11/30/2015 11:21 pm
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.

    We don't get the BBC here; just Downton Abbey.

    No problems. Should be able to add it to this list:

    Here are all the known to me videos Roger had done, If anybody knows of another, please send me the link or file.
    Hope to soon add the BBC Horizon episode on the EmDrive.

    1) http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html (Interview in 3 sections)

    2) https://vimeo.com/128589915

    3) http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14audioslide.avi (This is an non peer reviewed add on to Roger's peer reviewed paper)

    4) http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg

    5) http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.avi

    All these can be found on Roger's web site www.emdrive.com

    Enjoy.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: robus on 12/01/2015 12:21 am
    This pilot-wave article is new to me and discusses some of the quantum effects that have been batted around here. It's an easy read and might inspire some new theoretical approaches:

    http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bush-PHYSICS-TODAY2015.pdf
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 03:02 am
    I'm getting all the loose ends tied up and my tests I have planned. I'll summarize the tests the why and the hardware I'm using for the DUT. Also I'm moving all the static testing into my house, even with 50,000 BTUs blasting away, if the outside temperature is below 20F I'm cold in the lab.

    Currently I've planned basic tests to look at three different aspects and theories and this is how I plan on going after them.

    To Start. I'll be finishing out the VNA profiling this week on the frustum after I get all the equipment into a area I'm setting aside in my home. Record all the data into a spreadsheet with lab notes.

    Then back to the lab for powered testing.

    Video, entire lab, the drive and test equipment. Running dialogue on what we're are seeing.


    DETAILING THE DRIVE PARAMETERS, POWER, THRUST and HEAT

    After I'm finished with the VNA on the drive and some fine tune building in the home, I'll move out to the lab.

    My first objective it to provide un-powered testing with a heated cavity equivalent to 1 candle power of heat inside of the frustum. Profiles from the digital scale a Bosch Distance GLM100 C Laser scale (Not high resolution .001m) but will give me a spreadsheet timed data to verify positional movements of the beam to go with the Laser on the beam to the graphed paper. The digital scales will be videoed when pressure readings are taken. This is going to be done with the drive in 0, 90, 180 degree positions. Of course a thermal image will  be provided.


    The second series test will be simply to model out the frustum in 10 sequenced power level tests with the VNA provided resonate frequencies. Record the thrusts in both pressures on a digital scale and acceleration profiles across different tune lengths and look and record thermal signatures. Add data to spreadsheets. Thermal profile images at each power level and a non-power thermal for comparison.

    The third series will be to test the drive in different orientations power on parallel to the beam for thermal profiling. then run Big end down and then small end down acceleration and pressure recordings.


    FUTHER DOWN THE LINE
    I bought two ceramic 300mm plates a couple months ago, one I'm using for this current build with 80mm Cu bonded onto the surface electroplated with Si. The second one I'm bonding 12.7um Cu and electroplating with ~3-4um of silver. The thin plate is to look for tunnelling of the evanescent wave and even help test the Virtual Particle theories.   

    I also have a polyethylene "plug" I bought several months ago and it ties in with testing the Mach effect. One of the reasons I've have focused on all the activity in the small end, it's not only to test the plug in the Mach effect, but also the Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory of Dr. Whites. With a plug and without. The tuning chamber will allow both at a TE012 mode.

    And if we're warping space and time as the two Michelson interferometer tests from EW and the mini-Hackaday tests show hints  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Dasun on 12/01/2015 03:44 am
    I for one really hope that rfmwguy - and the others! -  keep posting their findings, methodologies, experimental adventures and musings despite the dispiriting turbulence of the nay-sayers... Ignore them, this world was not made by people who stopped or hid their work away when ridiculed by the establishment.  Regardless of the outcome, you are contributing in some small way at least to the total sum of knowledge and the world is better off having access to your research.

    Personally I find it all this compelling reading, despite having very real doubts about the EM drive effect. And I always keep in mind that in the 19th Century no one really understood electricity or magnetism but they knew how to work the effects well enough to bind the world together with near light speed telegraphic connections by the 1870s...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/01/2015 03:49 am
    I'm getting all the loose ends tied up and my tests I have planned. I'll summarize the tests the why and the hardware I'm using for the DUT. Also I'm moving all the static testing into my house, even with 50,000 BTUs blasting away, if the outside temperature is below 20F I'm cold in the lab.

    Currently I've planned basic tests to look at three different aspects and theories and this is how I plan on going after them.

    To Start. I'll be finishing out the VNA profiling this week on the frustum after I get all the equipment into a area I'm setting aside in my home. Record all the data into a spreadsheet with lab notes.

    Then back to the lab for powered testing.

    Video, entire lab, the drive and test equipment. Running dialogue on what we're are seeing.


    DETAILING THE DRIVE PARAMETERS, POWER, THRUST and HEAT

    After I'm finished with the VNA on the drive and some fine tune building in the home, I'll move out to the lab.

    My first objective it to provide un-powered testing with a heated cavity equivalent to 1 candle power of heat inside of the frustum. Profiles from the digital scale a Bosch Distance GLM100 C Laser scale (Not high resolution .001m) but will give me a spreadsheet timed data to verify positional movements of the beam to go with the Laser on the beam to the graphed paper. The digital scales will be videoed when pressure readings are taken. This is going to be done with the drive in 0, 90, 180 degree positions. Of course a thermal image will  be provided.


    The second series test will be simply to model out the frustum in 10 sequenced power level tests with the VNA provided resonate frequencies. Record the thrusts in both pressures on a digital scale and acceleration profiles across different tune lengths and look and record thermal signatures. Add data to spreadsheets. Thermal profile images at each power level and a non-power thermal for comparison.

    The third series will be to test the drive in different orientations power on parallel to the beam for thermal profiling. then run Big end down and then small end down acceleration and pressure recordings.


    FUTHER DOWN THE LINE
    I bought two ceramic 300mm plates a couple months ago, one I'm using for this current build with 80mm Cu bonded onto the surface electroplated with Si. The second one I'm bonding 12.7um Cu and electroplating with ~3-4um of silver. The thin plate is to look for tunnelling of the evanescent wave and even help test the Virtual Particle theories.   

    I also have a polyethylene "plug" I bought several months ago and it ties in with testing the Mach effect. One of the reasons I've have focused on all the activity in the small end, it's not only to test the plug in the Mach effect, but also the Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory of Dr. Whites. With a plug and without. The tuning chamber will allow both at a TE012 mode.

    And if we're warping space and time as the two Michelson interferometer tests from EW and the mini-Hackaday tests show hints  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.

    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?

    EDIT oops everything is in faraday cages, might make that a difficult without expensive probes.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 04:05 am
    I'm getting all the loose ends tied up and my tests I have planned. I'll summarize the tests the why and the hardware I'm using for the DUT. Also I'm moving all the static testing into my house, even with 50,000 BTUs blasting away, if the outside temperature is below 20F I'm cold in the lab.



    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?
    I have...
    A miniVNA
    A Spectrum Analyser
    A Digital OScope
    Microwave Leak Detector
    Thermal Laser Probe
    Thermal Camera
    DVM
    No Gauss Meter

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 12/01/2015 04:15 am
    Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.

    My guesses at the issue:

    -You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)
    -You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.
    -The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.
    -There is a major issue with the simulation.

    It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.

    The "E" fields are shown as the red/blue dots in the slices, colored by the vector length of the field at that x,y coordinate.  Showing the electric fields as whiskers creates exactly what you describe; the vectors are normal to the plane at those locations.  This is why I decided not to show them that way - it just obscures the "H" field whiskers and the colored dot was just as informative.

    The "H" fields are shown by creating a cylinder starting at the x,y location in the slice, adding the vector value to the base location, and scaling the length and thickness by a factor that was purely artistic.  So it is not exactly the magnetic field line per say; it is a graphic representation of the H vector magnitude and direction at that location.

    Hope that clears things up! I'm going to post my POVRay and C++ converter code tonight - look for it in my blog post here :https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/ (https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/)

    Using the H field in these videos would explain the violation of the boundary conditions for magnetic fields. The H field subtracts out the magnetic field that is due to material properties, in this case the magnetic field due to the eddy currents induced in the metal.

    I would recommend not using the H field for any analysis of the emdrive. If we were filling all or part of the cavity with a significantly diamagnetic or paramagnetic material, it might be instructive, but in this case, it just causes us to ignore the effect of the walls on the real magnetic field present in the cavity.

    How difficult would it be to re-make some of these videos using the B field instead?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/01/2015 04:33 am
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.

    We don't get the BBC here; just Downton Abbey.

    Horizon may turn up on YouTube. Email the BBC, BBC World and BBC America to find out.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/01/2015 05:04 am
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.

    We don't get the BBC here; just Downton Abbey.

    Horizon may turn up on YouTube. Email the BBC, BBC World and BBC America to find out.

    I thought he was joking. My sister watches Downton Abbey. I hope he was joking.., because I had a good laugh when I read his post.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Star One on 12/01/2015 06:26 am

    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.

    We don't get the BBC here; just Downton Abbey.

    I thought it was carried by BBC Worldwide in a number of different countries.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Flyby on 12/01/2015 07:27 am
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.
    Looking forward to it, but much will depend on how and what is brought in the documentary...
    If it is to only to repeat what has been previously said, on "how fantastic the future will be" then it will not help at all.

    What's needed now are more credible experiments... so having a generation2.0 device producing a distinct and very measurable output would be the least I'd expect to see.
    Anything else - to put it bluntly - is just free roaming peptalk...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 08:18 am
    I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.


    ...

    Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...

    I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...

    I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...

    Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
    Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
    Or if they take too long.., steel some thunder!
    I haven't spoke about this much, but a lot of grief comes with being one of the first to do something. When I started the emdrive project, I did it to investigate for myself and make the journey public. What I naively did not expect was the backlash from non-believers (some of it quite caustic). It almost makes me hesitant to post my next stage as publicly as I did the last time, after all, it was my own curiosity anyway and I wasn't out to convince anyone or start a biz venture.

    Actually, this is what EW has had to contend with as well, on a much larger scale mind you. Conservative science types (mostly younger for some reason) really take offense to speculative work done by others in an unnacceptable manner (as if they have THE exceptional authority and knowledge). But its a moving target, if a test is conducted, non-believers can always find an area of experimental imperfection, down to calipers not being NIST traceable, ad naseum. Being a critic is easy, doing something yourself is not.

    In a very small way, I understand what EW might have went through. Its not easy being first in any speculative venture, but without someone willing to hang out there, we'd all be sitting around re-reading textbooks written generations ago and be satified we've figured out the universe.

    That ain't me...I'm just not sure how much I want to publicly share right now.
    Very true rfmwguy.

    I've also wondered about it. Share a null report and basically nothing happens, share a extremely positive report and it can become messy very quickly polarizing both sides and the flame wars begin.

    Don't get me wrong I've never backed down from a good fight but I've tried to make sure I've had the tools needed and in place when I get in one. This is one of the main reasons I'm taking the time needed for double checking, rechecking and making sure when I publish my results I have the right stuff in place. Even NASA's EagleWorks with the ability to produce a very nice paper and clean tests stirred the academia ant pile with a stick. I believe they didn't expect the reactions the first time they announced their results and this time they are making sure the data is clean and the tests solid.

    This is the way it's going to be, it's the way new knowledge will eventually be accepted.


    Had my cup of hot coco and I'm going back to sleep.

    Shell

     

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/01/2015 08:33 am
    The information below was just received from Roger Shawyer in relationship to the BBC Horizon episode they are creating on the EmDrive:

    Quote
    We will be filming with the BBC this week and will give a glimpse of our current work. 
    I understand that both the UK Ministry of Defence and the US Air Force have already contributed their input.

    Should be interesting to see the current work.
    Looking forward to it, but much will depend on how and what is brought in the documentary...
    If it is to only to repeat what has been previously said, on "how fantastic the future will be" then it will not help at all....


    Doubt the UK Dept of Defence and the USAF will be making "how fantastic the future will be" statements. But you never know. According to Roger, Horizons did the defence filming before doing the SPR filming, so unless Horizons are out for blood from Roger, may indicate earlier filming events were at least not negative.

    As the Uk gov paid for the Experimental EmDrive and Demonstrator EmDrive builds plus the rotary table, would expect that issue will be covered.

    If I learn anything else I can share, will do so.

    Now back to build mode as I try to mod a new Panasonic 1,200W inverter microwave oven I just bought to have very reduced freq splatter and to be able to auto adjust maggie freq to do frustum resonance tracking.

    You can follow my progress on:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RERT on 12/01/2015 10:26 am
    Shells - the earlier discussion suggested 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees (assuming we are talking about rotation of the frustrum from the vertical about an axis perpendicular to the balance beam. i.e. with small end pointing up, down, towards fulcrum and away from fulcrum).

    Shells and RFmwguy - regarding releasing your data: there is a saying in the UK - 'Nil Illegitimum Carborundum', or in the common tongue, 'Don't let the b******s grind you down'. Data is data, and is most welcome to any but those with vested interests. You should be very very proud of what you are doing. Post the results, take anything useful which comes from the resulting comments, and improve the next runs.

    Thank God both of you, and me, are way past being beholden to preserving an academic reputation, which is how the system makes the young thing toe the line.

    R.

    P.S. I know I'm being slightly naughty clipping the quote, but I think the meaning is clear enough. R.

    ...

    My first objective it to provide un-powered testing with a heated cavity equivalent to 1 candle power of heat inside of the frustum. Profiles from the digital scale a Bosch Distance GLM100 C Laser scale (Not high resolution .001m) but will give me a spreadsheet timed data to verify positional movements of the beam to go with the Laser on the beam to the graphed paper. The digital scales will be videoed when pressure readings are taken. This is going to be done with the drive in 0, 90, 180 degree positions. Of course a thermal image will  be provided.

    ....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/01/2015 12:18 pm
    Thank you all for recentering my thoughts. Family and friends don't relate to this experiment and I don't expect them to. This community is what got me started and will keep me going. I even appreciate skeptics who have helped me improve the experiment without ad hominem language, for that shows a greater intellect and empathy for doing something on the edge of known science. DeltaMass, if you're out there, you're one of the helpful skeptics I'm talking about and there are others, too.

    Thanks to Shell and Phil for exciting new prospects. Roy for the recent help...I'm off to make a new vid on the compact microwave delivered yesterday. Will post the spec an results in a little while. :)



    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/01/2015 01:22 pm
    Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.

    My guesses at the issue:

    -You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)
    -You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.
    -The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.
    -There is a major issue with the simulation.

    It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.

    The "E" fields are shown as the red/blue dots in the slices, colored by the vector length of the field at that x,y coordinate.  Showing the electric fields as whiskers creates exactly what you describe; the vectors are normal to the plane at those locations.  This is why I decided not to show them that way - it just obscures the "H" field whiskers and the colored dot was just as informative.

    The "H" fields are shown by creating a cylinder starting at the x,y location in the slice, adding the vector value to the base location, and scaling the length and thickness by a factor that was purely artistic.  So it is not exactly the magnetic field line per say; it is a graphic representation of the H vector magnitude and direction at that location.

    Hope that clears things up! I'm going to post my POVRay and C++ converter code tonight - look for it in my blog post here :https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/ (https://vaxheadroom.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/rf-drive-to-the-stars/)

    Using the H field in these videos would explain the violation of the boundary conditions for magnetic fields. The H field subtracts out the magnetic field that is due to material properties, in this case the magnetic field due to the eddy currents induced in the metal.

    I would recommend not using the H field for any analysis of the emdrive. If we were filling all or part of the cavity with a significantly diamagnetic or paramagnetic material, it might be instructive, but in this case, it just causes us to ignore the effect of the walls on the real magnetic field present in the cavity.

    How difficult would it be to re-make some of these videos using the B field instead?

    aero ran the simulations and generated the data.  I have no idea how easy/hard it is to create B field CSV files from meep, but once I have them, the animations would only take about an hour to run through my tools, and most of that is waiting on the computer.

    Enlighten me (and others here I imagine) if you would: what's the difference between the H and B fields?  I'm just the animator  ;D

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/01/2015 01:30 pm
    Thanks to Roy, was able to evaluate a new MW oven and its RF power source. Here is the video link with a running commentary:

    https://youtu.be/gz-GVD1CDvU
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/01/2015 01:33 pm

    Enlighten me (and others here I imagine) if you would: what's the difference between the H and B fields?  I'm just the animator  ;D

    I was wondering the same thing and found this web page what-is the difference between the b and h-fields (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 01:59 pm
    R.

    I know I can't look like EagleWorks with the shiny chrome and aluminum fixtures and great test equipment and theories, but I believe after months of work I can get good solid results and show to be replicated by anyone else. I think the same can be said for rfmwguy or TheTraveler and EagleWorks.

    The support here has been top notch and the advise on levels that have been mainly directed at helping and this even includes people who think the effect is not real. We all seem to be after one thing and that's the truth. 

    Thank you all for being professional and mainly objective in supporting us DYIers.

    Shell

     


    Shells - the earlier discussion suggested 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees (assuming we are talking about rotation of the frustrum from the vertical about an axis perpendicular to the balance beam. i.e. with small end pointing up, down, towards fulcrum and away from fulcrum).

    Shells and RFmwguy - regarding releasing your data: there is a saying in the UK - 'Nil Illegitimum Carborundum', or in the common tongue, 'Don't let the b******s grind you down'. Data is data, and is most welcome to any but those with vested interests. You should be very very proud of what you are doing. Post the results, take anything useful which comes from the resulting comments, and improve the next runs.

    Thank God both of you, and me, are way past being beholden to preserving an academic reputation, which is how the system makes the young thing toe the line.

    R.

    P.S. I know I'm being slightly naughty clipping the quote, but I think the meaning is clear enough. R.

    ...

    My first objective it to provide un-powered testing with a heated cavity equivalent to 1 candle power of heat inside of the frustum. Profiles from the digital scale a Bosch Distance GLM100 C Laser scale (Not high resolution .001m) but will give me a spreadsheet timed data to verify positional movements of the beam to go with the Laser on the beam to the graphed paper. The digital scales will be videoed when pressure readings are taken. This is going to be done with the drive in 0, 90, 180 degree positions. Of course a thermal image will  be provided.

    ....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JonathanD on 12/01/2015 02:01 pm
    That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

    My (overly simplistic) understanding is that journals won't accept a submission of an experiment such as this unless you are also supplying a theory for why it works.  I think more importantly, whether it's really a matter of QV effects or not, they presumably would not be attempting to publish a paper on it unless they continue to have a measurable thrust anomaly.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 02:01 pm

    Enlighten me (and others here I imagine) if you would: what's the difference between the H and B fields?  I'm just the animator  ;D

    I was wondering the same thing and found this web page what-is the difference between the b and h-fields (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/)

    The reason we use the H field is it is the defacto standard used in waveguides. My take agrees with this statement in physicsforums by Kinely.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/

     When it comes to outside of a magnetic material both these fields are same. Inside a magnetic material they are completely different especially with regards to relative magnitude and direction. B field is dependent to a considerable extent on currents, both microscopic and macroscopic while the H field depends on microscopic currents. B field lines always form loops around the total current. In the case of H field the lines always loops around free current. They begin and end near magnetic poles.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/#post-2543012
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JasonAW3 on 12/01/2015 02:54 pm
    Probably a dumb question here, but has anyone tried this experiment inside of a Faraday Cage?

         I suspect that reducing any outside RF interference could provide a "cleaner" reading of what is happening, from an RF perspective, than the open air experiments attempted thus far.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Star One on 12/01/2015 03:03 pm

    Probably a dumb question here, but has anyone tried this experiment inside of a Faraday Cage?

         I suspect that reducing any outside RF interference could provide a "cleaner" reading of what is happening, from an RF perspective, than the open air experiments attempted thus far.

    I am sure it has been mentioned somewhere in these threads that it has been done so.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 03:04 pm
    Probably a dumb question here, but has anyone tried this experiment inside of a Faraday Cage?

         I suspect that reducing any outside RF interference could provide a "cleaner" reading of what is happening, from an RF perspective, than the open air experiments attempted thus far.
    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=3&page=1

    Coming soon at a theater near you "EMDrive in a Faraday Cage".

    Soon.

    Added
    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/media/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20012_zps15wingle.jpg.html?sort=3&o=58
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/01/2015 03:21 pm
    That abstract is quite a word salad.   I don't understand where it all comes from.  The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far.    There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract.   With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.

    My (overly simplistic) understanding is that journals won't accept a submission of an experiment such as this unless you are also supplying a theory for why it works.  I think more importantly, whether it's really a matter of QV effects or not, they presumably would not be attempting to publish a paper on it unless they continue to have a measurable thrust anomaly.
    This makes sense. I suppose it is the old paradigm where uncertainty is unwelcomed. Its classical thinking but not modern imho. Experimentation following theory is more academic by nature, theory following experimentation is less acceptable in academia as theory, not necessarily building, reigns supreme.

    Its surprising careers are made on theories alone. But that how they had to do it in the old days, no lab equipment to generate or test their theories.

    We could be up against the same conundrum. For experimentalists discussing dark matter or qv, where can you rent test equipment to directly measure it? One canmot, or at leaat not yet.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rhubley on 12/01/2015 04:08 pm
    Just a lurker with some words of support.  What you are doing here is really quite amazing and admirable.  The diverse community of makers, technicians, engineers, scientists and "the curious" corresponding in respectful ( for the most part ) and encouraging terms is something I haven't seen during my career in science.  What a great model for how science can be done.  Please don't be discouraged and thank you for sharing your work so openly.

    -Robert
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/01/2015 07:53 pm

    No Gauss Meter

    If you have an android phone, you may have a gauss Meter
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: kadreal on 12/01/2015 07:56 pm
    Lerker here: Keep up the good work DIYers!

    Large changes in science have always been met with resistance, but if the force is there, we just need to prove it without a doubt.

    Since thermal convection seems to be one of the primary concerns for the cause of the force, why don't we just encase the frustrum in an inch or two of close fitting Styrofoam (or any other thermal insulator)? It seems that would seriously dampen thermal transfer to the surrounding air and eliminate that as a source of thrust for short term tests at least....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/01/2015 08:30 pm

    No Gauss Meter

    If you have an android phone, you may have a gauss Meter

    iPhone & iPads also, but I don't think they would discriminate sufficiently, to provide anything but general information. It seems you would need a gauss meter with a non contact probe to be able to detect changes at specific locations on and around the frustum. That begins to gets into a retail price of maybe $600-800.00 US.

    At the stage the DIYs are right now I think the $$ might be better spent, on other controls and modifications.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 08:56 pm

    No Gauss Meter

    If you have an android phone, you may have a gauss Meter
    No android phone here. To price something out that would get us out of the questionable what is it we're looking at kills the budget. We can do this in this step of the testing without it.

    Maybe a compass would give some insight or a magnaprobe?
    http://www.lessemf.com/dcgauss.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/01/2015 09:21 pm
    Note that iPhones also have a 3-axis magnetometer in them, and there are apps available that use that to read out field strength.  The magnetometer is a single tiny IC chip.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/01/2015 09:36 pm
    there is a saying in the UK - 'Nil Illegitimum Carborundum', or in the common tongue, 'Don't let the b******s grind you down'.

    I always heard it as Illegitimi non carborundum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum).  But I never took Latin so who knows.

    I notice that other forums, both within NSF and elsewhere, are referring to the participants in this topic as "the boffins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin) over at NASA Spaceflight".  A Google search turns up this guy:
    (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/assets/news_articles/2013/09/1378706940_brains.jpg) Thunderbirds are Go!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 09:36 pm
    Note that iPhones also have a 3-axis magnetometer in them, and there are apps available that use that to read out field strength.  The magnetometer is a single tiny IC chip.
    You're absolutely right ThereIWas3. I have a Raspberry Pi with a acceleration XYZ and a magnetometer chip but haven't set it up yet for this sequence of tests. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/01/2015 10:19 pm
    I kinda think the various EM fields around the frustrum would mortally confuse anything as complicated as a smartphone or a RaspberryPi, unfortunately.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Vesc on 12/01/2015 10:22 pm
    Regarding Thunderbirds. I once speculated that SkyShip I, designed by Mr. X and featured in the movie Thunderbird 6, used microwave cavities to superheat air thus providing the "anti-gravity" effect. How appropriate to this thread...  ;)


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/01/2015 10:32 pm
    I kinda think the various EM fields around the frustrum would mortally confuse anything as complicated as a smartphone or a RaspberryPi, unfortunately.

    My thoughts exactly and when I get the Raspberry Pi going it will be at the other end of the beam outside of the Faraday cage, the best place for it.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/01/2015 11:26 pm
    Note that iPhones also have a 3-axis magnetometer in them, and there are apps available that use that to read out field strength.  The magnetometer is a single tiny IC chip.
    You're absolutely right ThereIWas3. I have a Raspberry Pi with a acceleration XYZ and a magnetometer chip but haven't set it up yet for this sequence of tests.

    Shell, don't know if this is of any help, but there is an iPhone/iPad app called MagnetMeter that can resolve to uTeslas. I use it regularly while degaussing aircraft. It actually points at the field lines. Oh, it also does acceleration to 0.01 g.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 12:20 am
    there is a saying in the UK - 'Nil Illegitimum Carborundum', or in the common tongue, 'Don't let the b******s grind you down'.

    I always heard it as Illegitimi non carborundum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum).  But I never took Latin so who knows.

    I notice that other forums, both within NSF and elsewhere, are referring to the participants in this topic as "the boffins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin) over at NASA Spaceflight".  A Google search turns up this guy:
    (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/assets/news_articles/2013/09/1378706940_brains.jpg) Thunderbirds are Go!
    I'm kindofa fireball xl5 person...lol. what a strange journey this has been. Science types can be as nonlinear as sports fanatics, which I used to be before I grew up :)

    I will go out on a limb here, no pressure michelle, and say that her design will be a step above mine and I believe ew's 100W unit. She is cranking nearly 2kW into a finely tuned (thks meepers)  frustum that will either difinitively prove the effect or relegate it to a nice idea that just didn't pan out.

    Here's to shell, I'll sit back with some satisfaction that I might have been the first independant in the americas, but I won't be the last to give this thing a try. Phil is already disassembling a mw and freely sharing data on his own emdrive site and that's great.

    For me, I'll play lurker for a while after my vid this am. The rest of this day was spent running around and getting things together for the holidays with family.

    Roy, I hope you don't mind this...since the mw was using a lower power mag and not solid state, it would only be something sitting around unused. It is a very nice box and I've decided to take it to a stuff the van charity for local families. Normally, we donate canned food. This brand new microwave will blow away a local family in need. Hope this is ok.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 12:32 am
    Forgot to mention, I have a tech support ticket generated with freescale for an app discussion anout their new ssd mw chip. I will tell them what I'm planning to do. They'll either hang up the phone or be really interested. Who knows...

    http://www.freescale.com/products/rf/rf-industrial-scientific-and-medical/2.45-ghz-250-w-evaluation-board-compatible-with-rf-power-tool:RFPT-H2450-250
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/02/2015 12:36 am
    Shell, don't know if this is of any help, but there is an iPhone/iPad app called MagnetMeter that can resolve to uTeslas. I use it regularly while degaussing aircraft. It actually points at the field lines. Oh, it also does acceleration to 0.01 g.

    Is it actually safe to expose an iphone to a magnet field like that though?  For example, is their a limit on the strength of the field it can be exposed too?  A small niobium magnet can do 2 Tesla... is that too much?  Clearly uTesla is okay because the magnetic field of the earth is in the tens of uTesla range, but what about some big boy magnets?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/02/2015 12:44 am
    The problem is that the field is oscillating at close to the computer's internal clock frequency and will induce random signals in every wire.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/02/2015 12:47 am
    Shell, don't know if this is of any help, but there is an iPhone/iPad app called MagnetMeter that can resolve to uTeslas. I use it regularly while degaussing aircraft. It actually points at the field lines. Oh, it also does acceleration to 0.01 g.

    Is it actually safe to expose an iphone to a magnet field like that though?  For example, is their a limit on the strength of the field it can be exposed too?  A small niobium magnet can do 2 Tesla... is that too much?  Clearly uTesla is okay because the magnetic field of the earth is in the tens of uTesla range, but what about some big boy magnets?

    I tested a free app on my iPad with a neodymium magnet, about a 10lb pull off, and I am still posting so.... I doubt anything from the exterior of the frustum will get anywhere near that level.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Sudo on 12/02/2015 01:05 am
    Is it actually safe to expose an iphone to a magnet field like that though?  For example, is their a limit on the strength of the field it can be exposed too?  A small niobium magnet can do 2 Tesla... is that too much?  Clearly uTesla is okay because the magnetic field of the earth is in the tens of uTesla range, but what about some big boy magnets?

    FWIW my Nexus 5 phone says these are the specs for its mag sensor (I'd imagine other phones would be similar):

    Name : AK8963 Magnetometer
    Vendor : AKM
    Version : 1
    Power : 5.0 mA
    Resolution : 0.1495361328 µT
    Max. range : 4911.9995117188 µT
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 12/02/2015 01:17 am

    Enlighten me (and others here I imagine) if you would: what's the difference between the H and B fields?  I'm just the animator  ;D

    I was wondering the same thing and found this web page what-is the difference between the b and h-fields (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/)

    The reason we use the H field is it is the defacto standard used in waveguides. My take agrees with this statement in physicsforums by Kinely.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/

     When it comes to outside of a magnetic material both these fields are same. Inside a magnetic material they are completely different especially with regards to relative magnitude and direction. B field is dependent to a considerable extent on currents, both microscopic and macroscopic while the H field depends on microscopic currents. B field lines always form loops around the total current. In the case of H field the lines always loops around free current. They begin and end near magnetic poles.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/#post-2543012

    To discuss B and H fields, I will be using the standards from the Griffiths electrodynamics text book. He has some good reasons for choosing these conventions and frankly refers to some of the conventions used by responses in the thread linked above as "absurd." (his word not mine)

    I have not seen H used for metal and free space waveguides. Usually it only comes up once you start discussing dielectric waveguides.

    The B field is the magnetic field. It is what would be measured by any magnetometer/Gauss meter and is what you would use to calculate the force on a charged particle.

    The H field has different units from the magnetic field, which is where Griffiths gets adamant that it should not be referred to as the magnetic field, just to call it "H". (He quotes Sommerfield's 1952 book in support of this)

    The definition of H is H = B/mu0 - M. Where M is the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume.

    The H field is independent of the material, since it subtracts out the field do to the magnetism of the material. This simplifies a lot of calculations since you can know H directly from applied current to a system, and you don't have to worry about the properties of the material or the history of it if it is a ferromagnetic material.

    Reviewing some examples of how to work with H, it really should just differ from B by a constant factor in free space. (I had incorrectly convinced myself otherwise to explain the fields in the video)

    It is still weird that the field in the video has a nonzero component perpendicular to the end plates. This could be due to the points plotted being counted as just below the surface of the material in meep (Magnetized materials create a discontinuity in the H field). Note that the parallel component of the B field is also discontinuous at the surface (due to surface currents), so that is something else to watch out for.

    There is a D field as well that is related to E in a similar way as the B and H fields. Due to the nature of test equipment, H is often easier for experimentalists to work with, but D rarely has benefits, so you don't hear about it as much.

    Summary:
    B is the magnetic field. It is the real field that is actually present.
    H is a field related to B that is sometimes easier to work with in the presence of  magnetized materials. This is because it depends only on free currents (which usually you can control), and not the bound currents related to the material magnetization.

    Also, if this talk about magnetometers is because of that <10^-20 field outside the drive from some of the meep results, there is no need to worry about it. Double precision numbers only store about 10 decimal places, so this definitely counts as rounding error. Also, you will be measuring the force on the emdrive down to nanoNewtons long before you can measure that tiny of a magnetic field.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/02/2015 01:50 am
    there is a saying in the UK - 'Nil Illegitimum Carborundum', or in the common tongue, 'Don't let the b******s grind you down'.

    I always heard it as Illegitimi non carborundum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum).  But I never took Latin so who knows.

    I notice that other forums, both within NSF and elsewhere, are referring to the participants in this topic as "the boffins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin) over at NASA Spaceflight".  A Google search turns up this guy:
    (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/assets/news_articles/2013/09/1378706940_brains.jpg) Thunderbirds are Go!
    Thunderbirds???!!?  You kids need to check out Rocky Jones, Space Ranger from the 1950's. They used electricity to recharge their rocket ship! EM Drive??

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rocky+jones+space+ranger+tv+show&view=detail&mid=A64A5627018E938FD223A64A5627018E938FD223&FORM=VIRE2

    Yes, I AM old  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/02/2015 02:26 am

    Enlighten me (and others here I imagine) if you would: what's the difference between the H and B fields?  I'm just the animator  ;D

    I was wondering the same thing and found this web page what-is the difference between the b and h-fields (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/)

    The reason we use the H field is it is the defacto standard used in waveguides. My take agrees with this statement in physicsforums by Kinely.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/

     When it comes to outside of a magnetic material both these fields are same. Inside a magnetic material they are completely different especially with regards to relative magnitude and direction. B field is dependent to a considerable extent on currents, both microscopic and macroscopic while the H field depends on microscopic currents. B field lines always form loops around the total current. In the case of H field the lines always loops around free current. They begin and end near magnetic poles.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-magnetism-what-is-the-difference-between-the-b-and-h-fields.370525/#post-2543012

    To discuss B and H fields, I will be using the standards from the Griffiths electrodynamics text book. He has some good reasons for choosing these conventions and frankly refers to some of the conventions used by responses as "absurd." (his word not mine)

    I have not seen H used for metal and free space waveguides. Usually it only comes up once you start discussing dielectric waveguides.

    The B field is the magnetic field. It is what would be measured by any magnetometer/Gauss meter and is what you would use to calculate the force on a charged particle.

    The H field has different units from the magnetic field, which is where Griffiths gets adamant that it should not be referred to as the magnetic field, just to call it "H". (He quotes Sommerfield's 1952 book in support of this)

    The definition of H is H = B/mu0 - M. Where M is the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume.

    The H field is independent of the material, since it subtracts out the field do to the magnetism of the material. This simplifies a lot of calculations since you can know H directly from applied current to a system, and you don't have to worry about the properties of the material or the history of it if it is a ferromagnetic material.

    Reviewing some examples of how to work with H, it really should just differ from B by a constant factor in free space. (I had incorrectly convinced myself otherwise to explain the fields in the video)

    It is still weird that the field in the video has a nonzero component perpendicular to the end plates. This could be due to the points plotted being counted as just below the surface of the material in meep (Magnetized materials create a discontinuity in the H field). Note that the parallel component of the B field is also discontinuous at the surface (due to surface currents), so that is something else to watch out for.

    There is a D field as well that is related to E in a similar way as the B and H fields. Due to the nature of test equipment, H is often easier for experimentalists to work with, but D rarely has benefits, so you don't hear about it as much.

    Summary:
    B is the magnetic field. It is the real field that is actually present.
    H is a field related to B that is sometimes easier to work with in the presence of  magnetized materials. This is because it depends only on free currents (which usually you can control), and not the bound currents related to the material magnetization.

    Also, if this talk about magnetometers is because of that <10^-20 field outside the drive from some of the meep results, there is no need to worry about it. Double precision numbers only store about 10 decimal places, so this definitely counts as rounding error. Also, you will be measuring the force on the emdrive down to nanoNewtons long before you can measure that tiny of a magnetic field.

    A different definition of B and H is that B is the magnetic flux density and H is the magnetic field intensity. This derives directly from the units of both. In the general case, when ferromagnetic materials are involved, it is essential to consider B, but there are no ferromagnetic material in these copper frustums. Copper is diamagnetic however and perhaps something is going on there.

    In deference to your concern, I plan to output both the H and the B field from the same meep run within a few days. With that perhaps we can do a side-by-side comparison and hopefully evaluate the results.

    As for the magnetic fields that meep shows outside of the copper frustum base, it is 28 orders of magnitude down from the fields inside the frustum base. But the base is modelled as being 1/4 inch thick = 6,350 micrometers, or about 6,000 skin thickness’s. The energy should be zero to ... well zero. And in most of the meep runs, it is.

    And as for significant digits, are you sure about that? I am running 64 bit double precision, 128 bits of precision and back in the day 32 bit double gave 15 digits of precision unless my recollection is off. Do you know an easy check of precision that I could run? I know that there are numerical errors but in a stable algorithm they don't accumulate without bounds, do they? If they did, super computers wouldn't be much use for long running mathematical simulations. I don't think that meteorologists doing long term weather forecasts can lay the erroneous  predictions off on accumulated numerical errors.


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/02/2015 03:14 am
    Dave,

    As your frustum has mesh sides, it might be interesting to build one of these to fit inside your frustum and see how the Rf is distributed in real time. Might be able to see how many nodes you have in the vertical direction, which would help to confirm the excited mode.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAXpKdQ-mk

    More here:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/microwa1/videos

    Interesting paper on this subject:
    http://booksc.org/s/?q=Measurement+of+intense+microwave+field+patterns+using+a+neon+glow+indicator+lamp&e=1&t=0 and attached

    Phil
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 12/02/2015 03:48 am

    A different definition of B and H is that B is the magnetic flux density and H is the magnetic field intensity. This derives directly from the units of both. In the general case, when ferromagnetic materials are involved, it is essential to consider B, but there are no ferromagnetic material in these copper frustums. Copper is diamagnetic however and perhaps something is going on there.

    In deference to your concern, I plan to output both the H and the B field from the same meep run within a few days. With that perhaps we can do a side-by-side comparison and hopefully evaluate the results.

    As for the magnetic fields that meep shows outside of the copper frustum base, it is 28 orders of magnitude down from the fields inside the frustum base. But the base is modelled as being 1/4 inch thick = 6,350 micrometers, or about 6,000 skin thickness’s. The energy should be zero to ... well zero. And in most of the meep runs, it is.

    And as for significant digits, are you sure about that? I am running 64 bit double precision, 128 bits of precision and back in the day 32 bit double gave 15 digits of precision unless my recollection is off. Do you know an easy check of precision that I could run? I know that there are numerical errors but in a stable algorithm they don't accumulate without bounds, do they? If they did, super computers wouldn't be much use for long running mathematical simulations. I don't think that meteorologists doing long term weather forecasts can lay the erroneous  predictions off on accumulated numerical errors.

    That definition is one of the ones Griffiths specifically mentioned as being problematic, anytime you use the words "magnetic field" in conjunction with H rather than B, it can lead to confusion since B is the physical magnetic field. I understand this view is not universal.

    I was going from memory and was wrong on the precision of a double I should have said 16 decimal places. The terminology is a bit confusing here too, but a double means a 64 bit number.

    From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_precision)
    Quote
    the total precision is therefore 53 bits (approximately 16 decimal digits, 53 log10(2) ≈ 15.955).

    If you are actually using 128 bit floating point numbers, that is apparently called a quadruple (see wikipedia). There is also apparently an 80 bit float as well. long double may refer to one of these (wikipedia seems to indicate that it varies). I have never seen anything beyond a double used myself.

    It is weird that the field is not even closer to zero at that thickness, even with rounding errors. I am more interested in figuring out why the magnetic field seems to be significantly breaking the boundary condition of 0 magnetic field component normal to a metallic surface inside the frustrum. (I could understand a small violation due to simulation and the fact that copper is not a perfect conductor, but the video showed significant field)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/02/2015 05:49 am
    Thanks to Roy, was able to evaluate a new MW oven and its RF power source. Here is the video link with a running commentary:

    {snip}

    I do not know if the weak signal without a payload is a safety device or just nothing to resonate.

    Assuming that it is nothing to resonate then the EMDrives will need some sort of payload. On Earth we can use water and refill the cut each time. In space a payload/target that does not boil off will be needed. Design for a 20 year lifetime. A solid that can be connected to a cooling fin would be nice. A resonate frequency near to that of the EMDrive will help.

    Has any one any suggestions for materials?
    Resonance in the infra-red or micro wave frequency band please.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/02/2015 08:02 am


    I was going from memory and was wrong on the precision of a double I should have said 16 decimal places. The terminology is a bit confusing here too, but a double means a 64 bit number.

    From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_precision)
    Quote
    the total precision is therefore 53 bits (approximately 16 decimal digits, 53 log10(2) ≈ 15.955).

    If you are actually using 128 bit floating point numbers, that is apparently called a quadruple (see wikipedia). There is also apparently an 80 bit float as well. long double may refer to one of these (wikipedia seems to indicate that it varies). I have never seen anything beyond a double used myself.

    This is not correct. If you declare an integer double its size in bits varies from platform to platform depending on the language and operating system.  I am used to working with C, and if you declare a double on 32bit architecture it will compile with (as expected from the name) twice the size of a floating point, which is the size of a long integer but stored as fractional components.

    So the answer "how big is a double?" has no answer except "twice a float."  Moreover, odds are that meep does not work with decimal math. It gets very tricky. What you do is work with unsigned long longs or normal long longs (if you need to preserve negativity), which are huge integer numbers, and you compute separately their decimal point at the end by dividing all your math by a big old constant for displaying to the user.

    For example you never want to compute dollars and store them as a float like $12.51, because the computer stores this as 12+(51/100).  For obvious reasons doing math on that float will turn out weird. So instead you just store the quantity 1051 and divide it at the end (for display) by 100 (but not for storage/computation).  The ONLY alternative for sensitive applications is the use of fixed point variables. I assure you that meep is using one of these two strategies, otherwise you would see a lot of quirks any time it did a lot of cumulative summing.  Trust me here, programmers avoid floating point math like they avoid goto routines.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RERT on 12/02/2015 09:14 am
    Harumph. I throw in a joke, I get a Latin lesson! Here is a better joke, for those interested in such frippery...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8)

    R.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 12/02/2015 09:31 am
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 11:30 am
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.

    It think the original question got trampled by some smart people.

    aero had used two models, one was Cu .25" thick which showed a very small EM field outside the cavity.

    When aero used the perfect conductor there was nothing.
     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 01:42 pm
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.

    It think the original question got trampled by some smart people.

    aero had used two models, one was Cu .25" thick which showed a very small EM field outside the cavity.

    When aero used the perfect conductor there was nothing.
     
    Shell, Gauss measurement is very problematic from my personal experience. You have lots of fields interacting in 3 dimensions and you have a 2 dimensional meter or probe usually not fast enough to keep up with the rapid field fluctuations.

    I thought about this during my tests. The mag itself has the 2 permanent magnets and the lorentz force in the supply wires (especially on the filament line) will be pulsing magnetically all over the place. Separating out these 2 sources would have been quite a challenge. Any proximity measuring at NSF-1701 would have to be far away from these gauss sources.

    However, your system is different with the supply and RF feed isolated from the frustum. I wouldn't spend gobs of money on a precision meter, but a relative analog meter or even the smartphone thing would probably work fine.

    Look at it this way. When your DUT lifts off the balance beam, ;D  hundreds of labs with 100s of thousands of dollars will want to analyze your DUT to the nth degree. Save your budget $$ is my recommendation.

    p.s. Be sure to sign an NDA and make sure you witness the testing...your expenses paid, of course. I'd recommend a lab in Hawaii 8)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/02/2015 02:08 pm
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.

    It think the original question got trampled by some smart people.

    aero had used two models, one was Cu .25" thick which showed a very small EM field outside the cavity.

    When aero used the perfect conductor there was nothing.
     
    Shell, Gauss measurement is very problematic from my personal experience. You have lots of fields interacting in 3 dimensions and you have a 2 dimensional meter or probe usually not fast enough to keep up with the rapid field fluctuations.

    I thought about this during my tests. The mag itself has the 2 permanent magnets and the lorentz force in the supply wires (especially on the filament line) will be pulsing magnetically all over the place. Separating out these 2 sources would have been quite a challenge. Any proximity measuring at NSF-1701 would have to be far away from these gauss sources.

    However, your system is different with the supply and RF feed isolated from the frustum. I wouldn't spend gobs of money on a precision meter, but a relative analog meter or even the smartphone thing would probably work fine.

    Look at it this way. When your DUT lifts off the balance beam, ;D  hundreds of labs with 100s of thousands of dollars will want to analyze your DUT to the nth degree. Save your budget $$ is my recommendation.

    p.s. Be sure to sign an NDA and make sure you witness the testing...your expenses paid, of course. I'd recommend a lab in Hawaii 8)

    I would have recommended the ISS.

    But seriously,

    Whatever is going on, magnetic fields are even less likely than VP. We are looking at an empty copper can, filled with microwave radiation. As I believe meberbs has been trying to point out, the only magnetic fields there can be, would be associated with currents in the copper.., with nothing for them to react against/with... And even those should be insignificant to zero outside the frustum, where they could be easily measured.

    I asked if Shell had a gauss meter because when you don't know what causes something, test for everything, even when you expect that test to exclude... Besides there is a long way to go before anyone who is sharing data is ready to start testing to exclude anything.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 02:51 pm
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.

    It think the original question got trampled by some smart people.

    aero had used two models, one was Cu .25" thick which showed a very small EM field outside the cavity.

    When aero used the perfect conductor there was nothing.
     
    Shell, Gauss measurement is very problematic from my personal experience. You have lots of fields interacting in 3 dimensions and you have a 2 dimensional meter or probe usually not fast enough to keep up with the rapid field fluctuations.

    I thought about this during my tests. The mag itself has the 2 permanent magnets and the lorentz force in the supply wires (especially on the filament line) will be pulsing magnetically all over the place. Separating out these 2 sources would have been quite a challenge. Any proximity measuring at NSF-1701 would have to be far away from these gauss sources.

    However, your system is different with the supply and RF feed isolated from the frustum. I wouldn't spend gobs of money on a precision meter, but a relative analog meter or even the smartphone thing would probably work fine.

    Look at it this way. When your DUT lifts off the balance beam, ;D  hundreds of labs with 100s of thousands of dollars will want to analyze your DUT to the nth degree. Save your budget $$ is my recommendation.

    p.s. Be sure to sign an NDA and make sure you witness the testing...your expenses paid, of course. I'd recommend a lab in Hawaii 8)
    hehe nice rfmwguy, nice Maui... hehehe nice.

    I ordered the simple compass and MAGNAPROBE yesterday because just what you just said. Nothing fancy here is needed and to do it where I can detect levels and frequencies would get into the outrageous sums of money. This is a KISS project for now.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/02/2015 03:42 pm
    This caught my attention this morning in my daily space readings (I watch a half a dozen websites daily for space news)
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Simulation_shows_key_to_building_powerful_magnetic_fields_999.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/02/2015 03:45 pm
    I don't get where this fascination to meep's results stray values stems from.
    It's clear that if meep proudly outputs relative magnitudes down to the 10-28 and even less then it is using floating point (fixed point would require 128bits to get down there relatively, this is ridiculous).
    Whatever the floating point format, I have yet to see a platform where  double x;  is less than 64 bits (please educate me otherwise) that gives us 15 or 16 equivalent base 10 digits.

    Whatever, this is precise enough since the rounding errors here (magnitudes discretization) will be peanuts compared to the approximation introduced by the coarse spatial discretization, where the skin effect occurs at µm level and the walls should be simulated as 1000s layers when there are actually just 5 (is that it ?) in presently discussed results...

    If really interested in those through-the-wall values, should have a few runs with varying spatial coarseness, everything else being equal, and see how those stray values depend on coarseness. Aero, is it possible ? I know simulation time goes as the cube of spatial resolution... Would be very surprised if outside stray value wouldn't be decreasing with increasing spatial resolution. At µm resolution (computationally intractable !) we should start to approach the real expected values of e-6000 (walls of 6000 times skin thickness, is that it ?) that is approx. 10-2600, i.e. exponent beyond the usual 64 double, but this is pretty irrelevant IMHO.

    As for me, I'd like to chalk it up to "something weird" and let it go at that, but I've been asked to investigate the fields outside the can in a little more depth. I don't know that meep will be able to deal with 1000's of layers but maybe 100's of layers are doable.

    To add to what Shells wrote, the effect does not show when using perfect metal, and it does not normally show when using 1/4 inch copper. It only shows at high resonance and with the weird travelling wave fields inside the can. That condition is not easy to replicate so my attempts to investigate without the can but with high energy fields next to 100 of layers through 15 um may be fruitless. We will see, but at the rate things are stacking up for meep, Shell may have her tests well under-way before I get to this task.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 12/02/2015 03:48 pm


    I was going from memory and was wrong on the precision of a double I should have said 16 decimal places. The terminology is a bit confusing here too, but a double means a 64 bit number.

    From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_precision)
    Quote
    the total precision is therefore 53 bits (approximately 16 decimal digits, 53 log10(2) ≈ 15.955).

    If you are actually using 128 bit floating point numbers, that is apparently called a quadruple (see wikipedia). There is also apparently an 80 bit float as well. long double may refer to one of these (wikipedia seems to indicate that it varies). I have never seen anything beyond a double used myself.

    This is not correct. If you declare an integer double its size in bits varies from platform to platform depending on the language and operating system.  I am used to working with C, and if you declare a double on 32bit architecture it will compile with (as expected from the name) twice the size of a floating point, which is the size of a long integer but stored as fractional components.

    So the answer "how big is a double?" has no answer except "twice a float."  Moreover, odds are that meep does not work with decimal math. It gets very tricky. What you do is work with unsigned long longs or normal long longs (if you need to preserve negativity), which are huge integer numbers, and you compute separately their decimal point at the end by dividing all your math by a big old constant for displaying to the user.

    For example you never want to compute dollars and store them as a float like $12.51, because the computer stores this as 12+(51/100).  For obvious reasons doing math on that float will turn out weird. So instead you just store the quantity 1051 and divide it at the end (for display) by 100 (but not for storage/computation).  The ONLY alternative for sensitive applications is the use of fixed point variables. I assure you that meep is using one of these two strategies, otherwise you would see a lot of quirks any time it did a lot of cumulative summing.  Trust me here, programmers avoid floating point math like they avoid goto routines.

    As far as I have been able to determine, meep uses floating point math just about everywhere.  I am only a hobbyist level programmer in C/C++, but relevant code can be found in the git repository.  The guts of the meep engine appear to be here:

    https://github.com/stevengj/meep/blob/master/src/bicgstab.cpp

    This is an implementation of "a generalization of the stabilized biconjugate-gradient (BiCGSTAB)" iterative solver, whatever that is.

    Perhaps you could take a look and see?  I, for one, would appreciate a second opinion.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 04:15 pm
    Dropped the new mw off at a local dealership...just for the record.

    They said thanks! Told them this is from Nasaspaceflight, then left.

    Have to think that will be interesting water cooler talk later today  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/02/2015 04:53 pm
    ...  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.

    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?

    EDIT oops everything is in faraday cages, might make that a difficult without expensive probes.

    I would also be curious if a constant or osculating magnetic field could be picked up just outside the surface of a powered EM drive. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/02/2015 05:36 pm
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1451535#msg1451535

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1451637#msg1451637


    I don't have much time to discuss this again (I addressed this in previous threads), but this fascination with Meep's output of extremely small numerical values at certain locations (*) must stem from a lack of working familiarity with Finite Difference solutions (and other numerical solution methods).  A lack of understanding of these numerical solutions, entailing a lack of understanding of what is a valid physical model and what is a numerical artifact.

    I wrote Finite Difference and Finite Element programs for my S.B., S.M. and Ph.D. degrees at MIT (and compared them with physical experiments I performed) as well as in my professional R&D work.  It is evident to me that Frobnicat's observations in these regards are correct, the Finite Difference results involves the solution of simultaneous equations, whose numerical inversion necessarily involves such numerical precision issues.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about the numbers associated with theoretically zero fields being 28 orders of magnitude smaller rather than perfect zeros, compared with the Meep solution for perfect conductivity.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about this numerical artifact showing a relation with "high resonance".  This is to be expected (from the numerical solution of what are really eigenvalue problems, solving them in the time domain with the central difference method).

    This discussion reminds me of similar incorrect interpretations (several thread's back) about the "fractal" images output from Meep in initial discussions (associated with very small numbers and the numerical solution) without understanding that fractals associated with such small numbers have no physical significance.


    ____________

    (*) "The magnetic fields that meep shows outside of the copper frustum base, are 28 orders of magnitude down from the fields inside the frustum base "


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 05:48 pm
    ...  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.

    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?

    EDIT oops everything is in faraday cages, might make that a difficult without expensive probes.

    I would also be curious if a constant or osculating magnetic field could be picked up just outside the surface of a powered EM drive.
    Not at MW frequencies without spending a lot. The one I'd be looking for what discussed months ago and it was suggested if I was looking for anything unusual I would need to use a magnet close to the frustum. I am, a compass is a very sensitive magnet that will find DC currents and that would be interesting.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 05:56 pm
    I don't have much time to discuss this again (I addressed this in previous threads), but this fascination with Meep's extremely small numerical values (*) must stem from a lack of working familiarity with Finite Difference solutions (and other numerical solution methods).  A lack of understanding of these numerical solutions, entailing a lack of understanding of what is a valid physical model and what is a numerical artifact.

    I wrote Finite Difference and Finite Element programs for my S.B., S.M. and Ph.D. degrees at MIT (and compared them with physical experiments I performed) as well as in my professional R&D work.  It is evident to me that Frobnicat's observations in these regards are correct, the Finite Difference results involves the solution of simultaneous equations, whose numerical inversion necessarily involves such numerical precision issues.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about the numbers associated with theoretically zero fields being 28 orders of magnitude smaller rather than perfect zeros, compared with the Meep solution for perfect conductivity.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about this numerical artifact showing a relation with "high resonance".  This is to be expected (from the numerical solution of what are really eigenvalue problems, solving them in the time domain with the central difference method).

    This discussion reminds me of similar incorrect interpretations (several thread's back) about the "fractal" images output from Meep in initial discussions (associated with very small numbers and the numerical solution) without understanding that they have no physical significance and are clearly numerical artifacts.


    ____________

    (*) "The magnetic fields that meep shows outside of the copper frustum base, are 28 orders of magnitude down from the fields inside the frustum base"
    Welcome back Doc! OK, so what if you lost me in the first couple of sentences (im a non-meeper)...glad to see you return.  :) Hope all is well.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/02/2015 06:02 pm
    ...  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.

    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?

    EDIT oops everything is in faraday cages, might make that a difficult without expensive probes.

    I would also be curious if a constant or osculating magnetic field could be picked up just outside the surface of a powered EM drive.

    I mentioned that I had used a free app for an iPad to check a neodymium magnet... I just opened the app to see what the background looked like. Depending on iPad orientation, that is just 90 rotation, the app registers 50-60 uT. It does show a fluctuating +/- 0.5 uT variation. That's background with no device within a room fan about 12 feet away and refigerator and the closest in wall wiring 6-7 ft. away. No change when the forced air heat cycles on and off.

    I think Shell has the right idea in using the simple compass style detector, at least as a starting point.

    There is one other concern I thought of. From what I have seen in Shells photos, there may be microwave leakage at both end plates where the quartz rod passes through. So until she has finished any fine tuning and either enclosed or even used a faraday like screen at the ends, there might be microwaves to deal with making any close to the frustum measurements. Not having the background, I am not sure that the quartz rod will act sufficiently as a RF plug.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 06:23 pm
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1451535#msg1451535

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1451637#msg1451637


    I don't have much time to discuss this again (I addressed this in previous threads), but this fascination with Meep's extremely small numerical values (*) must stem from a lack of working familiarity with Finite Difference solutions (and other numerical solution methods).  A lack of understanding of these numerical solutions, entailing a lack of understanding of what is a valid physical model and what is a numerical artifact.

    I wrote Finite Difference and Finite Element programs for my S.B., S.M. and Ph.D. degrees at MIT (and compared them with physical experiments I performed) as well as in my professional R&D work.  It is evident to me that Frobnicat's observations in these regards are correct, the Finite Difference results involves the solution of simultaneous equations, whose numerical inversion necessarily involves such numerical precision issues.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about the numbers associated with theoretically zero fields being 28 orders of magnitude smaller rather than perfect zeros, compared with the Meep solution for perfect conductivity.  There is nothing surprising or "weird" about this numerical artifact showing a relation with "high resonance".  This is to be expected (from the numerical solution of what are really eigenvalue problems, solving them in the time domain with the central difference method).

    This discussion reminds me of similar incorrect interpretations (several thread's back) about the "fractal" images output from Meep in initial discussions (associated with very small numbers and the numerical solution) without understanding that fractals associated with such small numbers have no physical significance.


    ____________

    (*) "The magnetic fields that meep shows outside of the copper frustum base, are 28 orders of magnitude down from the fields inside the frustum base "
    Thanks Dr. Rodal,

    It's my job to question everything and ask stupid questions and get answers. Thanks for taking the time to answer, I know your very busy.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/02/2015 06:23 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 12/02/2015 06:40 pm
    @aero,
    Did you ever try to rerun the simulation (with the field outside the cavity) while scaling the applied voltage/power to the dipoles? It would be interesting to see if the field strength outside scales also. If my memory is correct this run was with PEC instead of PML for the boundary conditions of the simulated volume?

    EDIT:
    Nevertheless, even if the meep result is correct, I don't believe that such a tiny effect could be significant for the generation of any thrust level like the reported.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/02/2015 06:51 pm
    ...
    Thanks Dr. Rodal,

    It's my job to question everything and ask stupid questions and get answers. Thanks for taking the time to answer, I know your very busy.

    Shell
    Thanks to you Shell for your very kind and nice reply !

    On this subject, you may be interested in what has been known as "leaky modes,"  also known as "tunneling modes": an electromagnetic field that decays monotonically for a finite distance in the transverse direction but becomes oscillatory everywhere beyond that finite distance.

    EDIT: Please notice that these are associated with surface-wave modes of propagation.  They are associated with higher frequencies and exist only for finite conductivity.

    Prof. Collin wrote (in his masterpiece "Field Theory of Guided Waves"):

    Quote
    In addition to the roots leading to surface waves, the eigenvalue equations [in surface waveguides] have an infinity of solutions with complex roots.  The corresponding modes are referred to as "leaky modes," since they correspond to a flow of power away from the surface.

    Understanding leaky modes
    Jonathan Hu* and Curtis R. Menyuk
    University of Maryland Baltimore County, TRC 205A, 5200Westland Boulevard,
    Baltimore, Maryland 21227, USA

    http://bit.ly/1N44uf2

    Types and basic properties of leaky modes in integrated circuits, Oliner

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.29.7858&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    _______________________________________________________________________

    EDIT:

    also:

    Enhancing Optical Gradient Forces with Metamaterials
    Vincent Ginis,1 Philippe Tassin,2 Costas M. Soukoulis,2 and Irina Veretennico 1
    1Applied Physics Research Group (APHY), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
    2Ames Laboratory|U.S. DOE and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0057
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 07:18 pm
    ...
    Thanks Dr. Rodal,

    It's my job to question everything and ask stupid questions and get answers. Thanks for taking the time to answer, I know your very busy.

    Shell
    Thanks to you Shell for your very kind and nice reply !

    On this subject, you may be interested in what has been known as "leaky modes,"  also known as "tunneling modes": an electromagnetic field that decays monotonically for a finite distance in the transverse direction but becomes oscillatory everywhere beyond that finite distance.

    Prof. Collin wrote (in his masterpiece "Field Theory of Guided Waves"):

    Quote
    In addition to the roots leading to surface waves, the eigenvalue equations [in surface waveguides] have an infinity of solutions with complex roots.  The corresponding modes are referred to as "leaky modes," since they correspond to a flow of power away from the surface.

    Understanding leaky modes
    Jonathan Hu* and Curtis R. Menyuk
    University of Maryland Baltimore County, TRC 205A, 5200Westland Boulevard,
    Baltimore, Maryland 21227, USA

    http://bit.ly/1N44uf2

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.29.7858&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    _______________________________________________________________________

    EDIT:

    also:

    Enhancing Optical Gradient Forces with Metamaterials
    Vincent Ginis,1 Philippe Tassin,2 Costas M. Soukoulis,2 and Irina Veretennico 1
    1Applied Physics Research Group (APHY), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
    2Ames Laboratory|U.S. DOE and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0057

    Yes yes yes! I now have that in my critical notes folder for the EMDrive!

    Thanks for that link, perfect timing Dr. Rodal.

    Enough fun, I'm back to painting the floor in the new room to set up work in the house.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/02/2015 07:19 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.

    I downloaded and scanned or rather did a few word searches, at over 600 pages, not likely I will read it through.

    Mention of electric propulsion came up. Nothing referring to microwave propulsion. Much of what I did scan seemed more a military security assessment, than focused on new technologies.

    One quote and a couple of referenced links on the electric propulsion.

    From page 305 of the report,
    Quote
    China also has announced plans to launch its first communications satellite that uses electric propulsion around 2020, following previous demonstrations of this technology by the Unites States, Russia, Europe, and Japan. (153) By using electric-powered engines instead of chemical propellant, such satellites will allow China to launch larger payloads at a fraction of the cost of traditional launch vehicles and improve communications satellites’ lifespan from 15 to 20 years.

    Reference #153 & 154
    Quote
    153. People’s Daily, ‘‘China to Launch Its First Electric Satellite Around 2020,’’June 12, 2015.

    154. Peter B. de Selding, ‘‘Airbus Charges Ahead with Electric Propulsion,’’ Space News, April 7, 2015; Stephen Clark, ‘‘Boeing’s First Two All-Electric Satellites Ready for Launch,’’ Spaceflight Now, March 1, 2015.

    I think these links are correct for the articles referenced in 154 above,
    http://spacenews.com/airbus-charges-ahead-with-electric-propulsion/
    http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/01/boeings-first-two-all-electric-satellites-ready-for-launch/
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/02/2015 07:32 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.

    Going through the "space" section I found this:

    "China plans to launch the world’s first experimental quantum communications† satellite in 2016. This technology could eventually enable the PLA to instantaneously send, receive, and decipher messages around the world using a virtually unbreakable encryption key to provide secure electronic transmission of sensitive information.

    China also has announced plans to launch its first communications satellite that uses electric propulsion around 2020, following previous demonstrations of this technology by the Unites States, Russia, Europe, and Japan. By using electric-powered engines instead of chemical propellant, such satellites will allow China to launch larger payloads at a fraction of the cost of traditional launch vehicles and improve communications satellites’ lifespan from 15 to 20 years. The main drawback of this technology will be the longer time required to bring a satellite into orbit—up to eight months instead of several weeks. According to a deputy chief designer of China’s communications satellites at the China Academy of Space Technology, the technology will also be important for future manned spaceflight missions, including China’s future space station around 2022. The PLA could eventually use the technology to launch more advanced remote sensing ISR satellites into high Earth orbit, as well as for military missions in deep space."

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/02/2015 07:49 pm
    SeeShells has been concerned about the field energy apearing in the meep model, outside of her copper frustum so she asked me to double check the wave guide model. Her concern is reasonable because it models the frustum that she is building but is modeled as if made from 1/4 inch thick copper plate. One would think that nothing would pass.

    I redesigned the wave guide model using the same geometry but different parameters. After testing, I re-ran the particular case of interest and noted that meep still showed energy outside of the frustum. This is not very much energy, it is down about 28 orders of magnitude from the energy levels inside the frustum. But - One would think that nothing would pass.

    To verify that the model was intact and not leaking, I ran the same case with perfect metal substuted for the copper material used in the model. No leaks. Nothing shows outside the frustum when using the perfect metal material model.

    An image of the copper model showing the energy outside of the frustum is attached. Again, this energy is not very intense but why does it exist at all?

    The complete set of images is on Google drive and includes a new wrinkle - I present 24 gif images, one each for the x and y directions of the 6 EM field components, and 2 for each of the 6 field components in the z direction. They're fun to look at.

    In looking at a side-by side comparison of the similar set of gif's from the perfect metal run, I see no dicernable difference in the field dynamics. It doesn't seem likely that one would see a difference unless it were quite dramatic on the time scale showing 2.47 GHz.

    In any case, we would like to understand the energy outside of the frustum. Please contribute your thoughts.

    And here is the new link:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tUWlaQjJRRkVSOWs&usp=sharing)

    Can you use gold or another soft metal in those simulations.  i wanna see if the softness of rhe metal makes any difference in the intensity of the external field.

    No, I'm sorry but making material models is beyond my ability. DeltaMass made the copper model for me in accordance with the information - Conductivity and complex ε here:

    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Dielectric_materials_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Dielectric_materials_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5)

    If you would like to provide a valid model I would try it out. Silver would be useful.

    Explicitly, what are the numerical values of the Drude model constants for copper that you have actually been inputting for your Meep runs ?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/02/2015 08:21 pm
    Dr. Rodal,
    It's a conductivity model (I think that is a good name for it) modelled as described in the link as
    (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    where  CU-D-conduct is defined as:
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
    here f2_4GHzmeep is the frequency 2.4 GHz in meep units and epsilon_r = 1

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/02/2015 09:40 pm
    I could be wrong or it may have been a different issue, my memory is not what it once was.., but I think that some where earlier in the thread aero said that DeltaMass provided the Cu data for the meep model.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/02/2015 09:48 pm
    I could be wrong or it may have been a different issue, my memory is not what it once was.., but I think that some where earlier in the thread aero said that DeltaMass provided the Cu data for the meep model.

    Well, even if that would be the case,

    1) DeltaMass is (unfortunately) no longer able to post in the NSF threads.  We miss him.

    2) We need to understand what numerical values and what model was used in the Meep calculations

    3) DeltaMass only suggested a constitutive model, and gave its parameters in Non-Meep units (DeltaMass was not a Meep user).  Whatever physical units any model is given in, it needs to be translated to Meep units.  Even if DeltaMass model would be physically correct at microwave frequencies, if the translation to Meep units is not correct, Meep will give wrong values (GIGO  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out  )

    4) in any case,  if anybody has a link to DeltaMass original message, it would be appreciated.  I tried to search for it using the wiki EM Drive for thread 3

    http://emdrive.wiki/NSF_Thread_3

    but unfortunately this gives a server error, so thread 3 cannot be searched at the moment.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/02/2015 10:14 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.

    My theory is the Chinese em-drive is just disinformation.  It may not have started that way.  Ms Yang may have thought she had interesting results, but later may have discovered an error in the experiment.   Her sponsors, rather than retracting the paper decided to stop communicating.    That, in MHO, is the more likely scenerio.

    The Soviets ran a disinformation campaign in the late 60's and early 70's where they claimed psychic powers had been harnessed.   The book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" Describes these events well, from the perspective of a duped believer.  This was also the time of Yuri Geller, of spoon bending fame.
    http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Iron-Curtain/dp/0137320817
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/02/2015 10:28 pm
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1391633#msg1391633
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1391527#msg1391527
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1391460#msg1391460

    Had to dig a little on my system but this will get you going.

    Shell

    Added
    I miss DeltaMass very much as well and wish he was able to be here.

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1391448#msg1391448

    I could be wrong or it may have been a different issue, my memory is not what it once was.., but I think that some where earlier in the thread aero said that DeltaMass provided the Cu data for the meep model.

    Well, even if that would be the case,

    1) DeltaMass is (unfortunately) no longer able to post in the NSF threads.  We miss him.

    2) We need to understand what numerical values and what model was used in the Meep calculations

    3) DeltaMass only suggested a constitutive model, and gave its parameters in Non-Meep units (DeltaMass was not a Meep user).  Whatever physical units any model is given in, it needs to be translated to Meep units.  Even if DeltaMass model would be physically correct at microwave frequencies, if the translation to Meep units is not correct, Meep will give wrong values (GIGO  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out  )

    4) in any case,  if anybody has a link to DeltaMass original message, it would be appreciated.  I tried to search for it using the wiki EM Drive for thread 3

    http://emdrive.wiki/NSF_Thread_3

    but unfortunately this gives a server error, so thread 3 cannot be searched at the moment.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 12/02/2015 10:30 pm
    Dr. Rodal,
    It's a conductivity model (I think that is a good name for it) modelled as described in the link as
    (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    where  CU-D-conduct is defined as:
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
    here f2_4GHzmeep is the frequency 2.4 GHz in meep units and epsilon_r = 1

    EDITED:

    Am I correct that you simply modeled the copper with a single constant and a frequency dependence:


    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    (a linear model, with conductivity increasing linearly with frequency)

    where epsilon" is the imaginary part of the complex electric permittivity

    epsilon = epsilon' - j * epsilon"

    and where the angular frequency is

    omega = 2 * Pi * frequency = 2 * Pi * 2.4 GHz

    If not, to interpret your model as a Drude model,

    aero, could you please specify what equation in the link you provided:

    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep


    is the equation you used (please specify the location of the equation in the article or, alternatively, please insert a cropped image with the equation), and please specify the numerical value of the constants you used.  Thank you

    The header "Conductivity and Complex E"
    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5

    appears to have the information you are requesting.  Specifically, the third paragraph starting with "For example, suppose..." contains the same programming directive, "(make medium (..." with different values plugged in for epsilon (real and imaginary parts).

    The last paragraph includes the information that meep sees the conductivity as dimensionless units, and has a conversion formula for SI.  You would have to ask Aero for the value and units of "a", of which the units are probably meters.

    EDIT:
    real part of epsilon: 1
    imaginary part: 3.25 x10^8
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/02/2015 10:49 pm
    ...  I became excited to come up with using the Quartz rod through the center of the drive. This allows the setting up a Michelson interferometer shooting the laser though the center of the cavity and Quartz rod and measuring any time dilation.

    You don't happen to have a gauss meter, to check for any changes in magnetic fields when powered up?

    EDIT oops everything is in faraday cages, might make that a difficult without expensive probes.

    I would also be curious if a constant or osculating magnetic field could be picked up just outside the surface of a powered EM drive.
    Not at MW frequencies without spending a lot. The one I'd be looking for what discussed months ago and it was suggested if I was looking for anything unusual I would need to use a magnet close to the frustum. I am, a compass is a very sensitive magnet that will find DC currents and that would be interesting.

    This is what I am interested in here: "In electrical engineering, evanescent waves are found in the near-field region within one third of a wavelength of any radio antenna." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field

    Basically there should be a field that extends outside of the EM drive 1/3 wavelength that doesn't carry energy, supposedly, but is a field and can exert force.  What I am interested in is measuring it to see if its phase changes with distance from outside the cavity surface.  This might be accomplished with something as simple as two hall effect probes connected to an oscilloscope and observing two waves changing phase with distance.  I am not sure a hall effect probe would work to be honest but I think it might.  There are probably better methods I am unfamiliar with.  I could be wrong and it might be too expensive to try and detect. 

    I am not implying that you have to do this in any way.  Just that I am curious to observe the evanescent waves and a phase delay with distance from the cavity surface, if such a phase delay with distance exists. 

    I think I see some exponentially decaying fields in Dr. Rodals papers also and they extend outside of the wave guides as well. 

    Maybe I am mistaken in this and if so feel free to correct me. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/02/2015 11:07 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.

    My theory is the Chinese em-drive is just disinformation.  It may not have started that way.  Ms Yang may have thought she had interesting results, but later may have discovered an error in the experiment.   Her sponsors, rather than retracting the paper decided to stop communicating.    That, in MHO, is the more likely scenerio.

    The Soviets ran a disinformation campaign in the late 60's and early 70's where they claimed psychic powers had been harnessed.   The book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" Describes these events well, from the perspective of a duped believer.  This was also the time of Yuri Geller, of spoon bending fame.
    http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Iron-Curtain/dp/0137320817

    I am not saying this is the case but, not only could disinformation be used to waste effort on something useless but disinformation could also be used to hide something valuable.  Such as the needle in the haystack.  Basically providing the hay so that the needle can not be found.  Another analogy might be a cheese trap for a mouse to keep the mouse from getting into the cupboard where all the goodies are.  If a new discovery was made then disinformation could help "some one" to keep their advantage for longer with out giving away their newly discovered pearl to competitors.  Of course speculation is, just what it is, and it is good everyone would verify if there is actually anything to be discovered or not from many different angles. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/02/2015 11:19 pm
    Dr. Rodal,
    It's a conductivity model (I think that is a good name for it) modelled as described in the link as
    (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    where  CU-D-conduct is defined as:
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
    here f2_4GHzmeep is the frequency 2.4 GHz in meep units and epsilon_r = 1

    EDITED:

    Am I correct that you simply modeled the copper with a single constant and a frequency dependence:


    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    (a linear model, with conductivity increasing linearly with frequency)

    where epsilon" is the imaginary part of the complex electric permittivity

    epsilon = epsilon' - j * epsilon"

    and where the angular frequency is

    omega = 2 * Pi * frequency = 2 * Pi * 2.4 GHz

    If not, to interpret your model as a Drude model,

    aero, could you please specify what equation in the link you provided:

    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep


    is the equation you used (please specify the location of the equation in the article or, alternatively, please insert a cropped image with the equation), and please specify the numerical value of the constants you used.  Thank you

    The header "Conductivity and Complex E"
    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5

    appears to have the information you are requesting.  Specifically, the third paragraph starting with "For example, suppose..." contains the same programming directive, "(make medium (..." with different values plugged in for epsilon (real and imaginary parts).

    The last paragraph includes the information that meep sees the conductivity as dimensionless units, and has a conversion formula for SI.  You would have to ask Aero for the value and units of "a", of which the units are probably meters.

    EDIT:
    real part of epsilon: 1
    imaginary part: 3.25 x10^8

    <<You would have to ask Aero for the value and units of "a.>>

    Aero, I am asking:

    what is the value of the Meep length factor "a" that you inputted into Meep ?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 12:40 am
    Dr. Rodal,
    It's a conductivity model (I think that is a good name for it) modelled as described in the link as
    (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    where  CU-D-conduct is defined as:
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
    here f2_4GHzmeep is the frequency 2.4 GHz in meep units and epsilon_r = 1

    It is under the heading Conductivity and Complex "epsilon" which I thought was linked directly, but no...

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    EDITED:

    Am I correct that you simply modeled the copper with a single constant and a frequency dependence:
    Yes, following the reference above and DeltaMass's determination that the free electron gas model  is the only significant factor at the 2.45 GHz frequency range.
    Quote

    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon0*epsilon_r
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    (a linear model, with conductivity increasing linearly with frequency)

    where epsilon" is the imaginary part of the complex electric permittivity

    epsilon = epsilon' - j * epsilon"

    and where epsilon0 is the permittivity of vacuum

    and where the angular frequency is

    omega = 2 * Pi * frequency = 2 * Pi * 2.4 GHz

    If not, to interpret your model as a Drude model,

    aero, could you please specify what equation in the link you provided:

    http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep


    is the equation you used (please specify the location of the equation in the article or, alternatively, please insert a cropped image with the equation), and please specify the numerical value of the constants you used.  Thank you

    The equation in SI units would be;
    epsilon  = 1 + j ( 2 * pi * 2.40*(10^9) * 3.25*(10^8))
    The SI frequency converts to meep units as (freq in meep units) = 2.4(10^9) * scale factor / speed of light.
    In my case, scale factor =0.3 and as always, speed of light =299792458. m/s . When using SI units in meep, the scale factor = 1.

    I did question DeltaMass about using epsilon' = 1 and he assured me that when considering metals, 1 was the correct value to use, factoring any non-unity deviation into epsilon''. And he does have impressive credentials in this area.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 12:56 am
    ...

    The equation in SI units would be;
    epsilon  = 1 + j ( 2 * pi * 2.40*(10^9) * 3.25*(10^8))
    The SI frequency converts to meep units as (freq in meep units) = 2.4(10^9) * scale factor / speed of light.
    In my case, scale factor =0.3 and as always, speed of light =299792458. m/s . When using SI units in meep, the scale factor = 1.

    I did question DeltaMass about using epsilon' = 1 and he assured me that when considering metals, 1 was the correct value to use, factoring any non-unity deviation into epsilon''. And he does have impressive credentials in this area.

    In order to check this, I would prefer not to assume anything.  Therefore it would be helpful if you give me the actual input expression you inputted into Meep, rather than giving SI units or giving explanations ("GHzmeep")

    These expressions "f2_4GHzmeep" and "3.25E+8", did you actually inputted those as

    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r)) ???

    Thanks
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/03/2015 01:32 am
    Just a reminder to everyone the math typeit web page is really handy for entering equations that use Greek symbols.

    http://math.typeit.org/

    Instead of:
    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon0*epsilon_r
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    σ = Ω × ε

    Ω = 2πf = 2 * π * 2.4 GHz

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 01:46 am

    This is the Scheme code input into meep, with non-related code removed.

    (define-param csi 299792458.)                      ; Speed of light, c
    (define-param asi 0.3)
    (define f2_4GHzmeep (/ (* 2.4E+9 asi) csi))
    (define epsilon_r 1)                             
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
            (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct))) ; the copper metal


    I hope that is what you need.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 01:55 am

    This is the Scheme code input into meep, with non-related code removed.

    (define-param csi 299792458.)                      ; Speed of light, c
    (define-param asi 0.3)
    (define f2_4GHzmeep (/ (* 2.4E+9 asi) csi))
    (define epsilon_r 1)                             
    (define CU-D-conduct (/ (* 2 pi f2_4GHzmeep 3.25E+8) epsilon_r))
            (material (make medium (epsilon 1) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct))) ; the copper metal


    I hope that is what you need.

    It seems to me that to be true to the model of DeltaMass you should have inputted (in Meep units, properly taking into account the Meep transformations)


    2.878009 E+6

    instead of the value (in SI units) you inputted of

    3.252698 E+8

    (which corresponds to a value of epsilon" = 0.00288 and frequency=2.4GHz)

    As interpreted by Meep, your input is 113.0190 times higher than the value that DeltaMass intended.  Since the value that DeltaMass intended gives a conductivity of 4.3429 E+7 (in SI units) and a resistivity of 2.3026 E+8 (which are reasonable values, as given by DeltaMass), this means that your input is modeling Copper with a conductivity 113.0190 times higher than that (equivalently a resistivity of only 2.037 E+6 which is absurdly low).

    This explains the absurd values of Q in the output of your Meep runs:

    an output of Q of 1 million (based on the incorrect input) should actually be only (10^6)/113.0190 = 8848 , when based on the correct input for the DeltaMass values, which is much more reasonable

    an output of Q of 10 million (based on the incorrect input) shoud actually be only (10^7)/113.0190 = 88481  , when based on the correct input  for the DeltaMass values, which is much more reasonable
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 03:02 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/03/2015 03:06 am
    This is what I am interested in here: "In electrical engineering, evanescent waves are found in the near-field region within one third of a wavelength of any radio antenna." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field

    Basically there should be a field that extends outside of the EM drive 1/3 wavelength that doesn't carry energy, supposedly, but is a field and can exert force.  What I am interested in is measuring it to see if its phase changes with distance from outside the cavity surface.  This might be accomplished with something as simple as two hall effect probes connected to an oscilloscope and observing two waves changing phase with distance.  I am not sure a hall effect probe would work to be honest but I think it might.  There are probably better methods I am unfamiliar with.  I could be wrong and it might be too expensive to try and detect. 

    I am not implying that you have to do this in any way.  Just that I am curious to observe the evanescent waves and a phase delay with distance from the cavity surface, if such a phase delay with distance exists. 

    I think I see some exponentially decaying fields in Dr. Rodals papers also and they extend outside of the wave guides as well. 

    Maybe I am mistaken in this and if so feel free to correct me.

    I believe this has been discussed before.   The illustrations of an evanescent light wave that is refracted by a dielectric medium such as glass, etc, does not happen the way you are thinking when a cavity is considered.   If you look at the first illustration in the Wikipedia article that is what near field (evanescent) RF looks like.   The bottom of the illustration would be outside the cavity and above, where the near field radiation is, would be the inside of the cavity.

    Basically there should be a field that extends outside of the EM drive 1/3 wavelength that doesn't carry energy, supposedly, but is a field and can exert force.

    here you are trying to have your cake and eat it to.   Any wave that doesn't carry energy just does not exist.  It is a contradiction in terms.   Also an AC (magnetic) field can only exert a force against a nearby conductor if the eddy currents that are generated in it are large enough.   This doesn't happen at microwave frequencies because the resistivity of metals is too high.   Instead a high potential is produced.   A good example of this is when you put a cup that has Gold decoration on it in a microwave oven.  The Gold on china starts off as liquid Gold that is baked on @ ~900 C, boiling off everything but 24 karat Gold that somehow magically fuses to the glaze.   The resulting film is conductive and arcing is produced when the microwave is turned on.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 03:16 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2015 03:55 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
                                                                = 1/ 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    I second and third that. And you have been highly missed Dr. Rodal as well.

    DeltaMass said he is working way too hard (aren't we all) but I'm sure he needs some stress relief, no matter what... he should visit old friends. And how can we get back WarpTech? Petition the powers to be?

    I vote to invite him back, whatever he did I'm sure he will be a good boy and just be a little cantankerous not a lot.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 04:05 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    And again, DeltaMass value corresponds to a resistivity for copper of 2.3026 E+8 (SI units)

    For other materials (Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) you simply have to change the input, to scale it by the ratio of the resistivites, and using the aforementioned scale factor.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2015 04:15 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = 1/ 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    And again, DeltaMass value corresponds to a resistivity for copper of 2.3026 E+8 (SI units)

    For other materials (Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) you simply have to change the input, to scale it by the ratio of the resistivites, and using the aforementioned scale factor.
    We be running some Cu and then silver then, ok aero? Thank you Dr. Rodal this helps a lot and than you too areo for taking the time to provide critical info to get this model I'm about to test right.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: saucyjack on 12/03/2015 04:28 am
    4) in any case,  if anybody has a link to DeltaMass original message, it would be appreciated.  I tried to search for it using the wiki EM Drive for thread 3

    http://emdrive.wiki/NSF_Thread_3

    but unfortunately this gives a server error, so thread 3 cannot be searched at the moment.

    Sorry about that, that monster thread 3 page was timing out the server.  Now the page is back up, along with all the others.

    http://emdrive.wiki/NSF_Thread_3
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 05:29 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    I don't have a serious problem using your derivation, I have enough confidence in your abilities to give it a try,
    But, do you see what you are doing in meep? You are saying, that when using the conductivity equation, do not use meep frequency, but rather, use the frequency in your original units, converted to radians/second? That is because converting frequency to meep frequency uses the factor a/c, but converting the imaginary component you are multiplying by c/a then multiplying the two together. If that is the correct case, then I wonder why Dr. Johnson, in his manual, emphasizes using meep frequency units but says nothing about units on the imaginary term. Why bother, it seems more likely to be coded correctly if he said nothing about units.

    As for why I didn't use Warptech's suggestion of lowering the term until Q came out right? That's easy enough to explain by example from my work today. I have been placing an antenna in a cylindrical resonator to find the best Q. I shifted the dipole antennas apart and recorded Q values as follows.

    Sep   Q 
    1.1   50,316
    1.15   203,501
    1.18   148,446
    1.2   392,201
    1.21   6,834,692
    1.22   439,088
    1.25   102,888
    1.3   34,309

    Here, Sep multiplies wavelength and with wavelength ~ 12 cm, you see that the range of dipole separation is a little over 30 mm and the range of Q calculated is two orders of magnitude. Of course I could have adjusted the conductivity term on any one of those runs to achieve a reasonable Q, but how am I to know which antenna location to use then? Sure, you could give me cylinder dimensions and calculate a Q for me to target but I could hit that target with either the correct conductivity or the correct antenna location (in 3D) or both or neither. And when I got tired of iterating on antenna location, I could iterate on conductivity or I could increase resolution, which tends to increase calculated Q and then I could go away and read a book while meep calculates.

    In a nut shell, there are to many uncertainties involved to successfully find the correct conductivity using meep. Using one wrong value or another wrong value does at least give a fixed basis to use for comparison one run to the next. Even though I know that the Q values are unrealistic, I can easily tell when one value is larger than the other.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/03/2015 09:38 am
    This is what I am interested in here: "In electrical engineering, evanescent waves are found in the near-field region within one third of a wavelength of any radio antenna." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field

    Basically there should be a field that extends outside of the EM drive 1/3 wavelength

    ...

    Maybe I am mistaken in this and if so feel free to correct me.

    I believe this has been discussed before.   The illustrations of an evanescent light wave that is refracted by a dielectric medium such as glass, etc, does not happen the way you are thinking when a cavity is considered.   If you look at the first illustration in the Wikipedia article that is what near field (evanescent) RF looks like.   The bottom of the illustration would be outside the cavity and above, where the near field radiation is, would be the inside of the cavity.

    Basically there should be a field that extends outside of the EM drive 1/3 wavelength that doesn't carry energy, supposedly, but is a field and can exert force.

    here you are trying to have your cake and eat it to.   Any wave that doesn't carry energy just does not exist.  It is a contradiction in terms.   Also an AC (magnetic) field can only exert a force against a nearby conductor if the eddy currents that are generated in it are large enough.   This doesn't happen at microwave frequencies because the resistivity of metals is too high.   Instead a high potential is produced.   A good example of this is when you put a cup that has Gold decoration on it in a microwave oven.  The Gold on china starts off as liquid Gold that is baked on @ ~900 C, boiling off everything but 24 karat Gold that somehow magically fuses to the glaze.   The resulting film is conductive and arcing is produced when the microwave is turned on.

    Thanks for clearing that up Zen.  I think I get it now.  Looks like the waves actually decay much more rapid than the 1/3 wavelength suggested when passing through metal.  If I want to observe such I would need to consider extremely thin metal or just dielectric wave-guides.  Then they might need meta materials to enhance the effect as in a paper Dr. Rodal just posted,

    ...
    EDIT:

    also:

    Enhancing Optical Gradient Forces with Metamaterials
    Vincent Ginis,1 Philippe Tassin,2 Costas M. Soukoulis,2 and Irina Veretennico 1
    1Applied Physics Research Group (APHY), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
    2Ames Laboratory|U.S. DOE and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0057
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 10:41 am
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    I don't have a serious problem using your derivation, I have enough confidence in your abilities to give it a try,
    But, do you see what you are doing in meep? You are saying, that when using the conductivity equation, do not use meep frequency, but rather, use the frequency in your original units, converted to radians/second? That is because converting frequency to meep frequency uses the factor a/c, but converting the imaginary component you are multiplying by c/a then multiplying the two together. If that is the correct case, then I wonder why Dr. Johnson, in his manual, emphasizes using meep frequency units but says nothing about units on the imaginary term. Why bother, it seems more likely to be coded correctly if he said nothing about units.

    As for why I didn't use Warptech's suggestion of lowering the term until Q came out right? That's easy enough to explain by example from my work today. I have been placing an antenna in a cylindrical resonator to find the best Q. I shifted the dipole antennas apart and recorded Q values as follows.

    Sep   Q 
    1.1   50,316
    1.15   203,501
    1.18   148,446
    1.2   392,201
    1.21   6,834,692
    1.22   439,088
    1.25   102,888
    1.3   34,309

    Here, Sep multiplies wavelength and with wavelength ~ 12 cm, you see that the range of dipole separation is a little over 30 mm and the range of Q calculated is two orders of magnitude. Of course I could have adjusted the conductivity term on any one of those runs to achieve a reasonable Q, but how am I to know which antenna location to use then? Sure, you could give me cylinder dimensions and calculate a Q for me to target but I could hit that target with either the correct conductivity or the correct antenna location (in 3D) or both or neither. And when I got tired of iterating on antenna location, I could iterate on conductivity or I could increase resolution, which tends to increase calculated Q and then I could go away and read a book while meep calculates.

    In a nut shell, there are to many uncertainties involved to successfully find the correct conductivity using meep. Using one wrong value or another wrong value does at least give a fixed basis to use for comparison one run to the next. Even though I know that the Q values are unrealistic, I can easily tell when one value is larger than the other.

    Running Finite Difference (or Finite Element, etc.) programs without checking vs. exact solutions and performing convergence studies, is fraught with  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out


    A strong-validating approach would involve, as I pointed out many threads ago:

    1) Run (with Meep) problems for which there are EXACT solutions known, to compare your numerical results with the exact results.  For example, there are several exact solutions for transmission and reflection of electromagnetic waves in lossy media: at metal/air (or metal/vacuum) interfaces, for which you could have checked that your interpretation of the value to input for conductivity was incorrect.  You can find such solutions in the books of Collin, the books of Balanis, or the books of Adler and Fano.  If you would have run such exact solution comparison you would have found out that you are incorrect in not using the transformation factor for the conductivity.

    2) Run convergence studies compared to exact solutions for resonating cavities, to make sure that your solution is reasonably converged and to understand the asymptotic behavior of your numerical solution, as compared to exact solutions of resonating cavities.  For example, make sure that you get the correct behavior for resonance of a cylinder, and that you get the correct Q.  Several books have worked out numerical examples that you can use to check your model.

    3) Finally, run convergence studies for any solution you present for which there is no exact solution, to make sure that your solution is reasonably converged and to understand the asymptotic behavior of your numerical solution.

    ****

    Sorry, I cannot afford the time to continue these back-and-forth exchanges any further. 
     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/03/2015 12:08 pm
    My initial brief reading of the Meep documentation points out that its calculations are dimensionless.  Therefore it is important that the user provide input values that are consistent with each other.  For example, if you define the speed of light with a value meaning 'meters per second' to you, then you have by implication set the unit of length as  'meters' and the unit of time as 'seconds'.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/03/2015 12:15 pm
    Are you sure about that?

    Quote
    For example, suppose you want to simulate a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i at a frequency 0.42 (in your Meep units), and you only care about the material in a narrow bandwidth around this frequency (i.e. you don't need to simulate the full experimental frequency-dependent permittivity). Then, in Meep, you could use (make medium (epsilon 3.4) (D-conductivity (/ (* 2 pi 0.42 0.101) 3.4)); i.e. ....

    Your logic sounds reasonable but in the above we have a material with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . The meep make statement example uses both the real and imaginary part unchanged. We know that the real part does not change with meep scaling. Why do you say that the imaginary part scales, and what are the units on the imaginary part to scale? There is no mention of converting the imaginary part. The example gives a medium with epsilon = 3.4 + 0.101i . it then goes on to say that the frequency used must be in your meep units and follows this by the example "make" statement in which the real and imaginary part of the material epsilon appear unchanged. I see no reason to think that the material epsilon is given in anything other than non-dimensional units for which there is no conversion.

    Yes I am sure of that.

    Your input into MEEP is a misrepresentation of what DeltaMass intended because you did not transform the conductivity with the proper Meep scale factor.  The problem has nothing to do with DeltaMass or with Meep.  It has to do with inputting values into Meep using the correct scale factors.

    Your output of Q's of 1 to 10 million are obviously absurd.  Meep is a good program, and Q's of 1 to 10 million are absurdly high because you inputted a value for conductivity which is 113 times higher than what it should be.  I never understood why you did not follow  WarpTech's (*) advice to just scale your input until you get a reasonable value of Q.

    Now that you know the reason why your output of Q is so absurd ( millions ) , I hope that you will use the correct input,  which is 113 times smaller than what you have been using, and will lead to realistic values for Q.

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 


    Sorry, it is futile to spend time arguing about this, let's move to more productive discussions  :-)

    _____

    (*) WarpTech ==> we miss you too (you left with DeltaMass ??? )

    I don't have a serious problem using your derivation, I have enough confidence in your abilities to give it a try,
    But, do you see what you are doing in meep? You are saying, that when using the conductivity equation, do not use meep frequency, but rather, use the frequency in your original units, converted to radians/second? That is because converting frequency to meep frequency uses the factor a/c, but converting the imaginary component you are multiplying by c/a then multiplying the two together. If that is the correct case, then I wonder why Dr. Johnson, in his manual, emphasizes using meep frequency units but says nothing about units on the imaginary term. Why bother, it seems more likely to be coded correctly if he said nothing about units.

    As for why I didn't use Warptech's suggestion of lowering the term until Q came out right? That's easy enough to explain by example from my work today. I have been placing an antenna in a cylindrical resonator to find the best Q. I shifted the dipole antennas apart and recorded Q values as follows.

    Sep   Q 
    1.1   50,316
    1.15   203,501
    1.18   148,446
    1.2   392,201
    1.21   6,834,692
    1.22   439,088
    1.25   102,888
    1.3   34,309

    Here, Sep multiplies wavelength and with wavelength ~ 12 cm, you see that the range of dipole separation is a little over 30 mm and the range of Q calculated is two orders of magnitude. Of course I could have adjusted the conductivity term on any one of those runs to achieve a reasonable Q, but how am I to know which antenna location to use then? Sure, you could give me cylinder dimensions and calculate a Q for me to target but I could hit that target with either the correct conductivity or the correct antenna location (in 3D) or both or neither. And when I got tired of iterating on antenna location, I could iterate on conductivity or I could increase resolution, which tends to increase calculated Q and then I could go away and read a book while meep calculates.

    In a nut shell, there are to many uncertainties involved to successfully find the correct conductivity using meep. Using one wrong value or another wrong value does at least give a fixed basis to use for comparison one run to the next. Even though I know that the Q values are unrealistic, I can easily tell when one value is larger than the other.

    I disagree with your approach to using Meep.  Running Finite Difference (or Finite Element, etc.) programs without checking vs. exact solutions and performing convergence studies, is fraught with  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out


    A strong-validating approach would involve, as I pointed out many threads ago:

    1) Run (with Meep) problems for which there are EXACT solutions known, to compare your numerical results with the exact results.  For example, there are several exact solutions for transmission and reflection of electromagnetic waves in lossy media: at metal/air (or metal/vacuum) interfaces, for which you could have checked that your interpretation of the value to input for conductivity was incorrect.  You can find such solutions in the books of Collin, the books of Balanis, or the books of Adler and Fano.  If you would have run such exact solution comparison you would have found out that you are incorrect in not using the transformation factor for the conductivity.

    2) Run convergence studies compared to exact solutions for resonating cavities, to make sure that your solution is reasonably converged and to understand the asymptotic behavior of your numerical solution, as compared to exact solutions of resonating cavities.

    3) Finally, run convergence studies for any solution you present for which there is no exact solution, to make sure that your solution is reasonably converged and to understand the asymptotic behavior of your numerical solution.

    ****

    Sorry, I cannot afford the time to continue these back-and-forth exchanges.
    I'll come down on the side of much lower Q because what I've seen with my own eyes over there years. Doc, you might recall a swag I had on my Q before I had the equipment to measure it.

    My Q guess was 1K. I measured 860 without tuning. After tuning bands installed, it jumped to about 1.7K, so practical engineering experience lead me to the general number.

    Regarding Q in millions, I cannot fathom this in realistic devices, perhaps in modeling, but real world Qs of 10K is probably the limit.

    While I don't have the meep knowledge I have the hands on knowledge. Q beyond 10K not only gets into exotic materials or exotic math, it would be extreemly difficult to manage resonance due to thermal drift characteristics of both the cavity and the source...even with PLL tracking assistance.

    Hmmm, think I am experiencing deja vu all over again, Doc...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Fugudaddy on 12/03/2015 01:03 pm
    Another hopefully not too low level question from the sidelines regarding the Q/meep discussion-

    It has been discussed that the frustum and MW energy and all (possibly) turns the copper into sort of a super-conductor. Wouldn't that condition make the Q increase dramatically even if for a brief time in the real world (due to changing conditions in heat, resonance, shape, etc.)? If that, indeed, is part of what's happening here, that is... :)

    Thanks
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RERT on 12/03/2015 01:09 pm
    Aero - This from the MEEP reference you gave us on materials:

    "
    If you have the electric conductivity σ in SI units and want to convert to σD in Meep units, you can simply use the formula: \sigma_D = (a/c) \sigma / \varepsilon_r \varepsilon_0 (where a is your unit of distance in meters, c is the vacuum speed of light in m/s, \varepsilon_0 is the SI vacuum permittivity, and \varepsilon_r is the real relative permittivity).
    "

    If I'm following right it appears relative permittivity is 1, so this gives a direct way to input correct values for MEEP D-conductivity from easily accessible SI conductivity without going via complex permittivity. [ I really hope this matches what Dr.Rodal said!]

    R.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 01:23 pm
    Aero - This from the MEEP reference you gave us on materials:

    "
    If you have the electric conductivity σ in SI units and want to convert to σD in Meep units, you can simply use the formula: \sigma_D = (a/c) \sigma / \varepsilon_r \varepsilon_0 (where a is your unit of distance in meters, c is the vacuum speed of light in m/s, \varepsilon_0 is the SI vacuum permittivity, and \varepsilon_r is the real relative permittivity).
    "

    If I'm following right it appears relative permittivity is 1, so this gives a direct way to input correct values for MEEP D-conductivity from easily accessible SI conductivity without going via complex permittivity. [ I really hope this matches what Dr.Rodal said!]

    R.

    Yes, thank you for finding that ( http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Material_dispersion_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )

    Quote
    Note: the "conductivity" in Meep is slightly different from the conductivity you might find in a textbook, because (for computational convenience) it appears as \sigma_D \mathbf{D} in our Maxwell equations rather than the more-conventional \sigma \mathbf{E}; this just means that our definition is different from the usual electric conductivity by a factor of ε. Also, just as Meep uses the dimensionless relative permittivity for ε, it uses nondimensionalized units of 1/a (where a is your unit of distance) for the conductivities σD,B. If you have the electric conductivity σ in SI units and want to convert to σD in Meep units, you can simply use the formula: \sigma_D = (a/c) \sigma / \varepsilon_r \varepsilon_0 (where a is your unit of distance in meters, c is the vacuum speed of light in m/s, \varepsilon_0 is the SI vacuum permittivity, and \varepsilon_r is the real relative permittivity).




     is the same transformation factor that I used in my previous posts and that aero should use and should have been using (wikipedia should have used a parenthesis as follows so that the order of opertation in the  formula could not be misinterpreted: \sigma_D = (a/c) \sigma / ( \varepsilon_r \varepsilon_0 ) ):

    (Conductivity in Meep units/Conductivity in SI) = epsilon ' * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * epsilon_o * c / a
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.854187817 E-12* 2.99792458 E+08 / 0.3
                                                                    = epsilon_r * 8.848062 E-03
                                                                    = epsilon_r / 113.0190 

    The same transformation factor for conductivity input into Meep can be found in numerous sources.  For example, this transformation factor is also here:

    http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki

    It is the only transformation factor that makes sense for Meep conductivity, no doubt about it.

    To get this straight, one simply has to understand that DeltaMass' expression implies:

    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon0*epsilon_r
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    (a linear model, with conductivity increasing linearly with frequency)

    and therefore that the imaginary part of the permittivity (times the angular frequency) is equal to the conductivity.  Therefore one must use the transformation factor for conductivity in the complex permittivity expression.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/03/2015 01:46 pm
    Another hopefully not too low level question from the sidelines regarding the Q/meep discussion-

    It has been discussed that the frustum and MW energy and all (possibly) turns the copper into sort of a super-conductor. Wouldn't that condition make the Q increase dramatically even if for a brief time in the real world (due to changing conditions in heat, resonance, shape, etc.)? If that, indeed, is part of what's happening here, that is... :)

    Thanks
    I am about about as weak on meep as you can get, so don't feel like the lone ranger. Nothing I've experienced or read has morphed copper into a superconductor just by EM saturation (maybe you can point me to something). What I think Doc is trying to establish is a proper math boundary for modeling EM in common Cu via meep. Shell is taking the Cu to an O2 free level, which I believe was decided upon due to the oxidation of Tajmar's small frustum (shell correct me if Im wrong) and not to achieve of Q improvement, just resistance to oxidation. Think she is silver flashing it...that will improve Q, however.

    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material. Simply stated, I think it "channels" magnetic fields that directly oppose gravity in the magnet drop experiment by magnetic field redirection back towards the rare earth magnet. There are ewetoob vids galore I believe.

    So, copper is copper. The modeling challenge is made more difficult because a working theory on EM to kinetic conversion does not yet exist that even the biggest skeptic would agree with. I'll go after the best Q in my design not because I think it has a place in a kE formula, because it matches best to the signal source, reduces heating and applies a stronger EM field internally.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2015 01:52 pm
    About the only thing that comes close in your antenna model with a real like situation and cross checking with calculations is the profile of the Q over the antenna placements. Otherwise the huge Q is just meaningless.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/03/2015 02:01 pm
    This might be tangential to emdrive, but I am beginning to wonder if China might be the first to space-test an emdrive concept (yang's) since her experimentation went dark over a year ago.

    Here's the article link: http://www.space.com/31160-china-space-prowess-rivals-us-dominance.html

    The congressional report is massive and a link to it is provided. Satellite technology is spoken about frequently in the cover article. If someone has the time to read the congressional report and anything interesting shows up about propulsion or sat technology, you might want to report it here.

    My theory is the Chinese em-drive is just disinformation.  It may not have started that way.  Ms Yang may have thought she had interesting results, but later may have discovered an error in the experiment.   Her sponsors, rather than retracting the paper decided to stop communicating.    That, in MHO, is the more likely scenerio.

    The Soviets ran a disinformation campaign in the late 60's and early 70's where they claimed psychic powers had been harnessed.   The book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" Describes these events well, from the perspective of a duped believer.  This was also the time of Yuri Geller, of spoon bending fame.
    http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Iron-Curtain/dp/0137320817
    Thanks Zen, this is certainly a possibility, cloak and dagger stuff. I think we all did establish there is a Prof Yang and NW Institute and a paper. Also, requests for more info were dismissed as unwelcomed, etc.

    Dadgum emdrive has enough to worry about functionally; add to that big biz, politics, the press, trolls and fanatics it really is a fascinating study in psychology...or the makings of an interesting book.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/03/2015 02:02 pm
    About the only thing that comes close in your antenna model with a real like situation and cross checking with calculations is the profile of the Q over the antenna placements. Otherwise the huge Q is just meaningless.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity

    Shell

    Shell, please notice that if one divides the values in (the vertical axis of) that chart


    (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1082389,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.Qgoy83-ow-.webp)

     by the Meep transformation factor (using the Meep length factor a=0.3 meters used by aero) of 113, one gets values of Q that are similar to the values I get using the exact solution for a frustum of a cone, and values of Q similar to the ones found in the literature for (almost pure) copper. 

    For example, Q= 7 E+06 /113 = 61947 or (rounding up, about Q=62,000). 

    For Brass (using the resistivity ratio between copper and brass), one would have Q= 61947/3.09 = 20,048.


    Theoretically calculated values of Q between 20000 and 62000 are very reasonable (in comparison with the Q values output by aero, a Q value of 7 million is absurd for copper at ambient temperature).

    Imperfections in geometry and surface (which have not been modeled with Meep) will lead to practical Q's lower than those values (lower than 20000 to 62000), like 10,000 or lower than that, as has been experienced by rfmwguy in the real world.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/03/2015 02:58 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2015 03:14 pm
    About the only thing that comes close in your antenna model with a real like situation and cross checking with calculations is the profile of the Q over the antenna placements. Otherwise the huge Q is just meaningless.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity

    Shell

    Shell, please notice that if one divides the values in (the vertical axis of) that chart


    (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1082389,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.Qgoy83-ow-.webp)

     by the Meep transformation factor (using the Meep length factor a=0.3 meters used by aero) of 113, one gets values of Q that are similar to the values I get using the exact solution for a frustum of a cone, and values of Q similar to the ones found in the literature for (almost pure) copper. 

    For example, Q= 7 E+06 /113 = 61947 or (rounding up, about Q=62,000). 

    For Brass (using the resistivity ratio between copper and brass), one would have Q= 61947/3.09 = 20,048.


    Theoretically calculated values of Q between 20000 and 62000 are very reasonable.

    Imperfections in geometry and surface (which have not been modeled with Meep) will lead to practical Q's lower than those values (lower than 20000 to 62000), like 10,000 or lower than that, as has been experienced by rfmwguy in the real world.

    Very true and very close Qs dividing it out.

    I expect as I go through the peaks in tuning my frustum with the tuning chamber I will see a similar profile emerge,  plus a close real world Q to this theoretical number.

    I suspect that the factor that was off in the meep file  would also show the weird patterns outside of the frustum with the Cu model, the perfect conductor didn't show a thing. It's irrelevant at those minuscule levels, but I hate loose ends. This gives me some answers.

    Thanks, I mean really thanks for the time. You are da simulation man!

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/03/2015 03:20 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    I played with the magnet and copper pipe a bit. The best I could figure is that the fixed magnetic field of the magnet moving through the pipe.., induced an electric field in the pipe with a polarity opposite to the magnetic polarity of the magnet, which acts to resist or slow is rate of fall...

    The only magnetic field I could detect outside the pipe, as the magnet fell through the pipe, seemed to be that portion of the magnet's field that penetrated the thin walls of the pipe.

    I was using a fairly strong neodymium magnet and common 3/4 ridged cu water pipe. The one thing a little different from the video SeeShells posted was that the magnet I was using was 1/2x1/2x1 inches and magnetized through the 1/2 inch dimension instead of end to end, through the 1 inch length.

    If I had been using a magnet polarized through its length, it would have been easier to see how the magnetic field outside the pipe changed as the magnet passed a compass needle, indicator.

    Keep in mind I had never seen this before the video SeeShells posted.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/03/2015 03:46 pm
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/03/2015 04:17 pm
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.

    The induced current is circumferential - it travels around the diameter of the pipe.   This produces a magnetic field like a solenoid's that pushes against the magnet.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/03/2015 04:48 pm
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.

    The induced current is circumferential - it travels around the diameter of the pipe.   This produces a magnetic field like a solenoid's that pushes against the magnet.

    That makes sense.

    The problem I was having is that the magnet's field does extend outside the pipe and is detectable, for the pipe and magnet, I was using. The induced field in the pipe must be weak enough that it exists only inside the pipe.., does not extend outside... Or I need to buy a magnet polarized through its length... But from what has been being discussed, I suspect that the induced field doesn't penetrate the pipe wall outwardly. So while the magnet's field was easily detectable, no opposing field was.., from the exterior of the pipe wall.

    EDIT: Wouldn't this support the conclusion that no induced magnetic or EM field inside the frustum, should be detectable from outside? Those magnetic fields should be smaller than the field induced by the magnet.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/03/2015 04:55 pm
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.

    The induced current is circumferential - it travels around the diameter of the pipe.   This produces a magnetic field like a solenoid's that pushes against the magnet.

    That makes sense.

    The problem I was having is that the magnet's field does extend outside the pipe and is detectable, for the pipe and magnet, I was using. The induced field in the pipe must be weak enough that it exists only inside the pipe.., does not extend outside... Or I need to buy a magnet polarized through its length... But from what has been being discussed, I suspect that the induced field doesn't penetrate the pipe wall outwardly. So while the magnet's field was easily detectable, no opposing field was.., from the exterior of the pipe wall.

    It sounds to me like you are wondering why the magnet's field can be detected outside the pipe when the em field  is virtually zero outside a cavity.  There is no contradiction here.  The magnetic field is quasi-static while the em field inside a cavity is no where near static.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/03/2015 05:23 pm
    The magnet's field is fixed and built into the magnet - it might be very very strong.   The magnetic field created by the currents in the pipe is only as strong as results from the induced current.  If the magnet was falling faster, the induced field would be stronger.  If the Pipe was superconducting, the field would also be stronger.  If you lower the magnet on a string slowly through the pipe, the induced field will be very weak.   If the magnet moved very VERY fast (close to 'c'), such that skin effect limits the depth the field penetrates into the pipe wall, and the pipe wall was thick enough, it may well be that no field appears outside at all.

    The EmDrive is closer to this last case.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/03/2015 05:25 pm
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.

    The induced current is circumferential - it travels around the diameter of the pipe.   This produces a magnetic field like a solenoid's that pushes against the magnet.

    That makes sense.

    The problem I was having is that the magnet's field does extend outside the pipe and is detectable, for the pipe and magnet, I was using. The induced field in the pipe must be weak enough that it exists only inside the pipe.., does not extend outside... Or I need to buy a magnet polarized through its length... But from what has been being discussed, I suspect that the induced field doesn't penetrate the pipe wall outwardly. So while the magnet's field was easily detectable, no opposing field was.., from the exterior of the pipe wall.

    It sounds to me like you are wondering why the magnet's field can be detected outside the pipe when the em field  is virtually zero outside a cavity.  There is no contradiction here.

    Actually, the magnet's field penetrating the pipe was not an issue. What I was trying to do was detect any induced field or current in the pipe, outside the pipe. And yes from what I observed and the discussion here, I see there is no contradiction, in what I was able to detect.

    I was working through this blind, so to speak, since I have no associated working background. Other than some of the classical or engineering aspects, most of the discussion is new to me.

    But I did, with a little help, arrive at the same basic conclusion.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JasonAW3 on 12/03/2015 06:27 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 06:43 pm
    Quote
    Sorry, I cannot afford the time to continue these back-and-forth exchanges any further. 

    You and me both.

    So I wonder where I'm expected to find the time to do convergence studies?

    Instead, I rely on experts on this forum to graciously correct errors they detect in my efforts. Perhaps if this were a formalized R&D effort there would be a line or lines in the work-break-down structure allocating time for convergence studies. But based on the status of rfmwguy's and Shells' current project status, that work line item would have been completed months ago, back when I could barely cause meep to start running.

    People tend to overlook the fact that it takes a day and a half just to optimally locate the antenna in meep, and no one recognises that existing  antenna theory becomes hog-wash when the antenna is located inside a resonant cavity. That antenna location search is necessary for any cavity, convergence study or not.

    In any case, I will adopt the new value of conductivity at the next opportunity.

    Edit Add: It will be interesting to see how the conductivity effects the optimal antenna location.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/03/2015 07:04 pm
    Quote
    Sorry, I cannot afford the time to continue these back-and-forth exchanges any further. 

    You and me both.

    So I wonder where I'm expected to find the time to do convergence studies?

    Instead, I rely on experts on this forum to graciously correct errors they detect in my efforts. Perhaps if this were a formalized R&D effort there would be a line or lines in the work-break-down structure allocating time for convergence studies. But based on the status of rfmwguy's and Shells' current project status, that work line item would have been completed months ago, back when I could barely cause meep to start running.

    People tend to overlook the fact that it takes a day and a half just to optimally locate the antenna in meep, and no one recognises that existing  antenna theory becomes hog-wash when the antenna is located inside a resonant cavity. That antenna location search is necessary for any cavity, convergence study or not.

    In any case, I will adopt the new value of conductivity at the next opportunity.

    I've not taken lightly your contribution aero or Dr. Rodal's or any of the others here lightly. It's made me determined to do the very best I can, to design and test and be successful. You all need to be very proud of what we have done here as I've never in my 50 years in the field seen its equal.

    50 years ago burning my fingers replacing a bad tube in a TV I built I would have never dreamed at this time in my life I'd be having the same amount determination to make something go, to make it work, to see the first light on a old TV screen or thrust from a can of microwaves.

    Thank you all, I can't think of a better group to bust by behind for, so to all of you ... a deep bow of gratitude.

    Michelle

    Added...
    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/03/2015 07:04 pm
    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.
    Shawyer is working with superconductors according to The Traveler.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/03/2015 07:09 pm
    Since I lack any metal-bending skills but I do have a rusty EE degree that included a year of electromagnetics, and tons of software experience, including some in Scheme, I thought I could contribute by running some Meep as well.  It will take a few days to get all the pre-requisite packages installed on my Linux box.  The Arch Linux distro I use does not offer a pre-made install for Meep but it does have a build script in its Application Repository that automates the process of getting it done.

    I have looked over the Meep for EmDrive (http://emdrive.wiki/MEEP) wiki page and it looks straightforward enough.

    The last time I had to deal with Maxwell's Equations directly was back in those college courses.   "Digital" was the cool new tech back then and I went that way.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/03/2015 07:22 pm


    Well, I came close to inserting "almost" no one recognizes ... but then had the thought, "why quibble, time is passing." :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Johnny_Tsunami on 12/03/2015 07:22 pm
    Gravity, copper pipe and a magnet, isn't this a generator of sorts?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/03/2015 08:06 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.

    Fine (99.9% pure) Silver is the best room temperature conductor of electricity at DC and low frequencies.   The difference with Copper is small.   At microwave frequencies the situation is more complex.  I think Gold is the best conductor there.   High temperature (liquid Nitrogen cooled) superconductors lose their superconductivity when exposed to AC fields.   The don't work at radio frequencies.   Low temperature superconductors, such as Niobium don't have that limitation, but they have to be cooled with liquid Helium.    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.

    But this is all beside the point.   You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to link this magnet/tube experiment with the em-drive.      There are plenty of other interesting permanent magnet motors and generators that are fascinating to watch.   The physics of these devices is well known.   Something is always pushing against something else.    With the em-drive the antenna is attached to the cavity and the cavity is sealed.   There is nothing to push against.   The em-drive converts microwaves into heat.   It is the heat that does the work.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/03/2015 08:36 pm
    ...
    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.


    FYI http://www.cannae.com came back online last week.  It looks to be the same content as before, but somebody is paying attention (and the bills!)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 12/03/2015 08:36 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.

    Fine (99.9% pure) Silver is the best room temperature conductor of electricity at DC and low frequencies.   The difference with Copper is small.   At microwave frequencies the situation is more complex.  I think Gold is the best conductor there.   High temperature (liquid Nitrogen cooled) superconductors lose their superconductivity when exposed to AC fields.   The don't work at radio frequencies.   Low temperature superconductors, such as Niobium don't have that limitation, but they have to be cooled with liquid Helium.    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.

    But this is all beside the point.   You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to link this magnet/tube experiment with the em-drive.      There are plenty of other interesting permanent magnet motors and generators that are fascinating to watch.   The physics of these devices is well known.   Something is always pushing against something else.    With the em-drive the antenna is attached to the cavity and the cavity is sealed.   There is nothing to push against.   The em-drive converts microwaves into heat.   It is the heat that does the work.
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/03/2015 09:46 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.

    Fine (99.9% pure) Silver is the best room temperature conductor of electricity at DC and low frequencies.   The difference with Copper is small.   At microwave frequencies the situation is more complex.  I think Gold is the best conductor there.   High temperature (liquid Nitrogen cooled) superconductors lose their superconductivity when exposed to AC fields.   The don't work at radio frequencies.   Low temperature superconductors, such as Niobium don't have that limitation, but they have to be cooled with liquid Helium.    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.

    But this is all beside the point.   You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to link this magnet/tube experiment with the em-drive.      There are plenty of other interesting permanent magnet motors and generators that are fascinating to watch.   The physics of these devices is well known.   Something is always pushing against something else.    With the em-drive the antenna is attached to the cavity and the cavity is sealed.   There is nothing to push against.   The em-drive converts microwaves into heat.   It is the heat that does the work.
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.
    Dr White has an interesting theory being peer reviewed as we speak. If this is the theory that "drives" the emdrive, we should know about it within a few months. If accepted in principle, my guess is we'll have replication efforts by labs knowledgeable in RF and Quantum Physics taking a look at it (indirectly) for themselves. The end result probably will not be a quantum vacuum detector, but indirect measurement such as an inferometer, atomic clock, and who knows what else at this point.

    This smacks of dark energy/matter's endless discussions...is it real if it cannot be directly measured? Some say yes, some say no. I've not read a lot of high level consensus on this. Black Holes are in this category...indirect measurement driven by theory. So really, the entire argument rests with direct and indirect measurement...artifact or no artifact?

    Therefore, we revert back to the 17th and 18th centuries where almost no advanced theories could be directly measured due to primitive technology way behind advanced thinking.

    So riddle me this...are we a century away from being able to directly measure dark matter/energy, black holes or a quantum vacuum? Considering funding issues and ultra-conservative thinking amongst corporations and institutions, I believe we are.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/03/2015 10:08 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.

    Fine (99.9% pure) Silver is the best room temperature conductor of electricity at DC and low frequencies.   The difference with Copper is small.   At microwave frequencies the situation is more complex.  I think Gold is the best conductor there.   High temperature (liquid Nitrogen cooled) superconductors lose their superconductivity when exposed to AC fields.   The don't work at radio frequencies.   Low temperature superconductors, such as Niobium don't have that limitation, but they have to be cooled with liquid Helium.    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.

    But this is all beside the point.   You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to link this magnet/tube experiment with the em-drive.      There are plenty of other interesting permanent magnet motors and generators that are fascinating to watch.   The physics of these devices is well known.   Something is always pushing against something else.    With the em-drive the antenna is attached to the cavity and the cavity is sealed.   There is nothing to push against.   The em-drive converts microwaves into heat.   It is the heat that does the work.
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.
    Dr White has an interesting theory being peer reviewed as we speak. If this is the theory that "drives" the emdrive, we should know about it within a few months. If accepted in principle, my guess is we'll have replication efforts by labs knowledgeable in RF and Quantum Physics taking a look at it (indirectly) for themselves. The end result probably will not be a quantum vacuum detector, but indirect measurement such as an inferometer, atomic clock, and who knows what else at this point.

    This smacks of dark energy/matter's endless discussions...is it real if it cannot be directly measured? Some say yes, some say no. I've not read a lot of high level consensus on this. Black Holes are in this category...indirect measurement driven by theory. So really, the entire argument rests with direct and indirect measurement...artifact or no artifact?

    Therefore, we revert back to the 17th and 18th centuries where almost no advanced theories could be directly measured due to primitive technology way behind advanced thinking.

    So riddle me this...are we a century away from being able to directly measure dark matter/energy, black holes or a quantum vacuum? Considering funding issues and ultra-conservative thinking amongst corporations and institutions, I believe we are.

    Even should the paper in question pass peer review and be published, the theoretical basis will remain controversial for a long time. There have been other theoretical papers involving the QV going back 30-40 years and no general consensus. One hurtle being the transition from an immutable QV in the background and a dynamic or mutable QV that can be interacted with in a classical manner.

    If all it is, is a theory paper, it will wind up just more paper, for a very long time, whether the theory is right or wrong.

    If on the other hand the paper includes along with the theory, good EMDrive test data that raises the anomalous thrust, a notch or two, with or without agreement on the theoretical basis, there will be funding, for further testing and possible development. Perhaps both public (as in NASA and/or DOD) and private/corporate.

    What happens with the dark matter/energy question depends largely on integrating QFT and GR.., who knows when any real progress in that direction will occur?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 12/03/2015 10:39 pm
    ...
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/03/2015 11:09 pm
    ...
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Wouldn't the appearance/creation/capture of e/p pairs always be in the frustum's reference frame and be at initial rest? I'm no theorist, but lets say we're magnet fishing in a powered boat against a fast moving stream and we snag a metal object. At that instant, neither the stream, not the object's initial reference (rest) frame matter...only the magnet's which has changed the reference frame of the metal object to match its own.

    OK, so what if I like to fish?  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/04/2015 12:00 am
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Wouldn't the appearance/creation/capture of e/p pairs always be in the frustum's reference frame and be at initial rest? I'm no theorist, but lets say we're magnet fishing in a powered boat against a fast moving stream and we snag a metal object. At that instant, neither the stream, not the object's initial reference (rest) frame matter...only the magnet's which has changed the reference frame of the metal object to match its own.

    OK, so what if I like to fish?  ;)

    I think a minimum constraint would have to be that the e/p pairs travel in opposite directions.   If they travelled in the same direction wouldn't they immediately combine?   How can the physical shape of the fustrum influence which direction the virtual particles go when they appear?    If they appeared inside the fustrum wouldn't it be the same scenerio as a vacuum tube (valve for some)?  Electrons boil off the cathode, get accelerated, hit the plate, end of story: no net momentum.   Or is it a case of robbing from Peter to pay Paul?   The momentum deficit is paid by the "Quantum Vacuum"??   Is the "Quantum Vacuum" made up of invisible, undetectable photons?    No, I'll stick with heat and thermal expansion of the fustrum.   lex parsimoniae
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/04/2015 12:21 am
    ...
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Wouldn't the appearance/creation/capture of e/p pairs always be in the frustum's reference frame and be at initial rest? I'm no theorist, but lets say we're magnet fishing in a powered boat against a fast moving stream and we snag a metal object. At that instant, neither the stream, not the object's initial reference (rest) frame matter...only the magnet's which has changed the reference frame of the metal object to match its own.

    OK, so what if I like to fish?  ;)

    I haven't seen enough of Dr. White's theory to have much of an opinion. That said, it is not good to think of the virtual particles of the QV, as e/p pairs. Whether you approach the subject from QED or SED they, the virtual particles, are vacuum fluctuations of the underlying ground state of the various fields address in QFT. If they exist, they don't exist long enough to be thought of as particles, in the same way we think of electrons and positrons.

    While it is possible to think of interactions between vacuum fluctuations and matter, that involve a transfer of momentum, it is still not good to think of those interactions, as interactions between short lived e/p particles and matter... I have to believe that most of the discussion that includes talk of QV-VP as particles, was intended as a crude interpretation for a mostly lay audience.

    Additionally, the idea of quantum fluctuations occurring as e/p pairs, seems to be more an artifact of the idea that the quantum fluctuations involved are particles and a need to address issues involving CoE. A quantum fluctuation in the vacuum lasting, say as long as it takes for two EM wave fronts to pass through each other (that is twice the speed of light through a point), does not have to have a +/- or e/p like characteristic. It could be a simple as a single fluctuation that resembles, how in QFT an electron, positron or even quark would be described. There are no particles just quantum fields.

    As disclaimer, I don't have a strong background in quantum theory. When I was studying physics I was focused mostly on GRT, gravitation and inertia. I have only begun over the past 8-10 years, since I retired, to begin reading papers originating from a background of QFT and dealing with gravitation and inertia. A difficult task since I no longer retain a working knowledge of the math. Thus my opions should be seen as those of an armchair theoretician, at best.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 12:35 am
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Wouldn't the appearance/creation/capture of e/p pairs always be in the frustum's reference frame and be at initial rest? I'm no theorist, but lets say we're magnet fishing in a powered boat against a fast moving stream and we snag a metal object. At that instant, neither the stream, not the object's initial reference (rest) frame matter...only the magnet's which has changed the reference frame of the metal object to match its own.

    OK, so what if I like to fish?  ;)

    I think a minimum constraint would have to be that the e/p pairs travel in opposite directions.   If they travelled in the same direction wouldn't they immediately combine?   How can the physical shape of the fustrum influence which direction the virtual particles go when they appear?    If they appeared inside the fustrum wouldn't it be the same scenerio as a vacuum tube (valve for some)?  Electrons boil off the cathode, get accelerated, hit the plate, end of story: no net momentum.   Or is it a case of robbing from Peter to pay Paul?   The momentum deficit is paid by the "Quantum Vacuum"??   Is the "Quantum Vacuum" made up of invisible, undetectable photons?    No, I'll stick with heat and thermal expansion of the fustrum.   lex parsimoniae
    This is the safe bet, no doubt. Since I'm not wagering a scientist's career, I'll keep experimenting until I either lose interest or definitive proof by a reputable lab that its all been a measurement error. So far, the party line amongst skeptics is its not worth testing because it can't work; existing, not new physics is all thats needed.

    My counter to this is wouldn't a reputable lab be given very positive kudos for disproving NASA, Dresden, Yang and a handful of independant experimenters? Think of the measurement error lesson that could be used as a teaching moment for untold science students. Yet so many have stated "thats not how science works" trying to avoid the challenge.

    So far, only the Li's have deemed it worthy to create a DIY experiment to explain it as Lorentz forces. That experiment fell short in micronewtons (by a factor of about 20). Theirs was with around 5 amps, approximately half of what a magnetron and heater current is, so the math doesn't add up. It did help NASA track and account for Lorentz though and it was useful, regardless.

    So, regardless of how some say science works (probably to avoid work themselves) I think we should challenge non-believers to put their vast experience and knowledge to the test and prove difinitively that a measurement error has been missed for years. Think of the benefit to science students. Think of the children!  8)

    Seriously though, most non-believers tend to reside on a "pad of paper" with existing knowledge and avoid taking the challenge themselves. I understand not everyone has an access to a lab, design skills, etc...doesn't stop me from poking at them from time to time.  ::)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 12/04/2015 02:42 am
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.

    In what frame of reference the e/p pairs are "found" before they are asymmetrically accelerated and ejected by the drive's power ? Are they always harvested "at rest" relative to the frustum  ?

    I asked this question to Paul March in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327228#msg1327228) and got no more explicit answer than this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1327261#msg1327261) concluding by
    " I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean... "

    So I ask the question (in bold above) again. And add the remark that, if we can "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 0m/s defining the start of a journey, and can still "harvest" particles at rest (wrt drive) when going 1km/s after such deltaV was reached, then why not just harvest/drag onto those 1km/s particles from the start and, you know, sail, not "drive". Why the trouble of having to spend power to accelerate a reaction mass from rest (wrt drive), when the reaction mass depots are, apparently from this idea, everywhere and at every velocity ? The obvious difference from all propulsion within a medium schemes (propeller analogy) is that in those cases the medium defines an intrinsic rest frame : mass depots are everywhere but not at every velocity...

    The idea that we have those reaction mass particles available everywhere and at every possible velocity is reminiscent of stochastic electrodynamics theories, what for propulsion purpose I would tend to call a frame invariant crisscrossing conveyor belt model. Stochastic electrodynamics naturally (and without false modesty) allows for "free energy", in the same sense that wind + ground (2 mediums defining 2 different rest velocities) allows both harvesting of power and free rides (sailing), only there we would have a continuum of rest frames from -c to +c in all directions and we could conveniently chose the one(s) that fit(s) us, for instance the road that's at rest relative to the vehicle. Then it's not the vehicle that does most of the work when accelerating, it's the road (hence "conveyor belt model"), why overunity energy appears immediately as a consequence in the initial rest frame of a journey.

    To borrow the words of Star-Drive,
    I'll leave the rest to you folks to draw your own conclusions from what this might mean...
    Wouldn't the appearance/creation/capture of e/p pairs always be in the frustum's reference frame and be at initial rest? I'm no theorist, but lets say we're magnet fishing in a powered boat against a fast moving stream and we snag a metal object. At that instant, neither the stream, not the object's initial reference (rest) frame matter...only the magnet's which has changed the reference frame of the metal object to match its own.

    OK, so what if I like to fish?  ;)

    I think a minimum constraint would have to be that the e/p pairs travel in opposite directions.   If they travelled in the same direction wouldn't they immediately combine?   How can the physical shape of the fustrum influence which direction the virtual particles go when they appear?    If they appeared inside the fustrum wouldn't it be the same scenerio as a vacuum tube (valve for some)?  Electrons boil off the cathode, get accelerated, hit the plate, end of story: no net momentum.   Or is it a case of robbing from Peter to pay Paul?   The momentum deficit is paid by the "Quantum Vacuum"??   Is the "Quantum Vacuum" made up of invisible, undetectable photons?    No, I'll stick with heat and thermal expansion of the fustrum.   lex parsimoniae
    This is the safe bet, no doubt. Since I'm not wagering a scientist's career, I'll keep experimenting until I either lose interest or definitive proof by a reputable lab that its all been a measurement error. So far, the party line amongst skeptics is its not worth testing because it can't work; existing, not new physics is all thats needed.

    My counter to this is wouldn't a reputable lab be given very positive kudos for disproving NASA, Dresden, Yang and a handful of independant experimenters? Think of the measurement error lesson that could be used as a teaching moment for untold science students. Yet so many have stated "thats not how science works" trying to avoid the challenge.

    So far, only the Li's have deemed it worthy to create a DIY experiment to explain it as Lorentz forces. That experiment fell short in micronewtons (by a factor of about 20). Theirs was with around 5 amps, approximately half of what a magnetron and heater current is, so the math doesn't add up. It did help NASA track and account for Lorentz though and it was useful, regardless.

    So, regardless of how some say science works (probably to avoid work themselves) I think we should challenge non-believers to put their vast experience and knowledge to the test and prove difinitively that a measurement error has been missed for years. Think of the benefit to science students. Think of the children!  8)

    Seriously though, most non-believers tend to reside on a "pad of paper" with existing knowledge and avoid taking the challenge themselves. I understand not everyone has an access to a lab, design skills, etc...doesn't stop me from poking at them from time to time.  ::)

    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/04/2015 03:42 am
    Are you sure there is any induced magnetic field in the copper tube?

    Yes, according to Faraday's Law of Induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction) and Lenz's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law).  A magnetic field moving over a conducor will induce currents in that conductor.  The induced currents create a magnetic field of their own, and that field will be in oppositiion to the original field.  The opposing fields are what slows the fall of the magnet through the tube.

    The induced current is circumferential - it travels around the diameter of the pipe.   This produces a magnetic field like a solenoid's that pushes against the magnet.

    That makes sense.

    The problem I was having is that the magnet's field does extend outside the pipe and is detectable, for the pipe and magnet, I was using. The induced field in the pipe must be weak enough that it exists only inside the pipe.., does not extend outside... Or I need to buy a magnet polarized through its length... But from what has been being discussed, I suspect that the induced field doesn't penetrate the pipe wall outwardly. So while the magnet's field was easily detectable, no opposing field was.., from the exterior of the pipe wall.

    EDIT: Wouldn't this support the conclusion that no induced magnetic or EM field inside the frustum, should be detectable from outside? Those magnetic fields should be smaller than the field induced by the magnet.

    I wanted to say there is an induced current in the copper pipe.  It comes from Maxwell's equations -dB=curl E .  This curling electric field comes from some change in the magnetic field or accelerating charge.  When the magnet moves with respect to the pipe this induces a curling electric field.  In front of the magnet if you use v x B = E you get a counter current just in front of the magnet.  The component of the magnetic field to use is the one perpendicular to the velocity of the magnet in the pipe.  Behind the magnet you will get an attractive magnetic field.  This seems to stem from natures resistance to changes in magnetic fields (i.e. the copper pipe resists the change in the magnetic field.)  If the copper or aluminum pipe was instead a super conductor then charge in the pipe would experience no resistance and it would not let the magnet fall through the pipe at all.  The resistance to current in the pipe allows the magnet to coast its way through because the induced current will be converted to heat.  Another similar experiment you will find on youtube is people dropping magnets directly onto a metal plate and the magnet will suddenly decelerate when approaching the metal. 

    Back to the copper pipe and your observations.  The copper pipe acts to make the magnetic field that was in it appear to continue to be where it was and not where it is.  It doesn't want it to change so to speak.  This counter current in the pipe in front of the magnet cancels the magnetic flux from exiting from where the magnet is.  The two separate magnetic fields (magnet and pipe) superimpose or in other words just add together. 

    Concerning the frustum, I have been corrected on this and it would appear that there should be practically no magnetic field outside of it unless you were dealing with really thin metal walls or a dielectric frustum cavity.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2015 03:43 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JonathanD on 12/04/2015 04:00 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I find this insulting.  The people here are not entertaining fantasy, they are doing real experiments at considerable cost in terms of personal time and money in pursuit of science.  A possible thrust anomaly has been recorded in a number of experiments (including those from NASA Eagleworks) and those qualified to test this phenomenon (God bless them because most of us are only good for using a magnetron for heating a frozen burrito) are trying to do so.  If I have misread you, my apologies, but if not, please exit stage left and let these people do science, regardless of whether you approve of their endeavor or not.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/04/2015 04:01 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    *starts out of a sound sleep*
    Huh? What? Who are you? Where's Buttercup?

    Oh.  Sure... ;)

    Generating an animated video with Poynting vectors - stand by...
    Here we go:
    https://youtu.be/4Xj_u8dutcI

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2015 04:40 am
    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    *starts out of a sound sleep*
    Huh? What? Who are you? Where's Buttercup?

    Oh.  Sure... ;)

    Generating an animated video with Poynting vectors - stand by...
    Here we go:
    https://youtu.be/4Xj_u8dutcI

    Gee, are there small net Poynting vectors travelling to the small end of the frustum? Hmmm...

    Reminds me of the "Rodents of Unusual Size" there Westly...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2015 07:09 am
    OK, here is what I see with some references:

    X axis being the center line between the large and small ends of the frustum
    Y axis being left/right through the midpoint of the X axis
    Z axis being the up/down displacement between the x/y axes

    Small amounts of Z axis displacement.

    A "swimming" function of the high amplitude spikes along the Y axis towards the small end of the frustum.

    Offsetting small "centered" x axis spikes oscillating along the X axis between the small and large ends, but slightly favoring directionality towards the small end, possibly deviating towards the lower value of the Z axis.

    That's 2 cents worth of my visual interpretation.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2015 07:19 am
    Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I find this insulting.  The people here are not entertaining fantasy, they are doing real experiments at considerable cost in terms of personal time and money in pursuit of science.  A possible thrust anomaly has been recorded in a number of experiments (including those from NASA Eagleworks) and those qualified to test this phenomenon (God bless them because most of us are only good for using a magnetron for heating a frozen burrito) are trying to do so.  If I have misread you, my apologies, but if not, please exit stage left and let these people do science, regardless of whether you approve of their endeavor or not.

    Referencing a frozen burrito is definitely worth 10 points...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 12/04/2015 07:20 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    People hunting bigfoot aren't taking risks. They are indulging in a fantasy.  The entire body of scientific knowledge acts as a noise filters that helps identify risks worth taking. Yes it is about taking risks but if you can't figure the odds then the game is going to eat your lunch.

    In the end bigfoot is far more likely than the EMdrive because bigfoot does not violate COM or COE.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 12/04/2015 07:58 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I find this insulting.  The people here are not entertaining fantasy, they are doing real experiments at considerable cost in terms of personal time and money in pursuit of science.  A possible thrust anomaly has been recorded in a number of experiments (including those from NASA Eagleworks) and those qualified to test this phenomenon (God bless them because most of us are only good for using a magnetron for heating a frozen burrito) are trying to do so.  If I have misread you, my apologies, but if not, please exit stage left and let these people do science, regardless of whether you approve of their endeavor or not.

    It is not my intent to insult you. Nor is it my intent to try and stop the experimenters. It is their time and money, why would I care how they spend it?

    Bigfoot is a fantasy. Yes, possible sightings of large ape like animals have been reported. It is still a fantasy.

    UFOs are a fantasy. Yes, possible sightings of strange flying crafts have been reported. They are still fantasy.

    Cold fusion is fantasy. Yes, possible anomalous heat has been reported. It is still fantasy.

    I'm sorry but the EMdrive is less likely than any of these. Cold fusion is over 25 years old now and still there are believers working on it. I predict in 25 years the same will be true of the EMdrive. Bigfoot is even older and it even has its own discovery channel series. People are free to spend their time any way they want but this isn't how progress happens.

    Again I'm sorry if my judgment seems harsh.  I have just seen this kind of thing happen over and over again. The need to believe seems to be one of the more powerful human drives.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2015 08:00 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    People hunting bigfoot aren't taking risks. They are indulging in a fantasy.  The entire body of scientific knowledge acts as a noise filters that helps identify risks worth taking. Yes it is about taking risks but if you can't figure the odds then the game is going to eat your lunch.

    In the end bigfoot is far more likely than the EMdrive because bigfoot does not violate COM or COE.

    The funny thing is that I was interviewed by the Times of London about Bigfoot around 1993.

    I was working for the Whatcom County Council (US) when a local entrepreneur asked the County Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the  hunting of Bigfoot's (not Bigfeet). The Times called an wanted to know what was up.

    Well it was a small town in the Cascade mountains and since they got international publicity the Council figured
    "What the heck." Nobody hurt. No Bigfoot's killed either.

    This is different in that these folks are trying to replicate results that have been published by others. They are willing to accept the postulate that our current understanding of COM and COE may not be correct in every instance of every theoretical framework of the universe.

    Einstein was a Patent Clerk. I'm pretty sure that he sat in an uncomfortable chair in a dingy office reviewing things like new can openers and perpetual motion machines. Pretty dull stuff.

    Somehow, he found the time to change the universe. And he took a lot of crap in the process.

    So maybe you ought to be more supportive of folks who are willing to put up their own time and money to test the fundamental laws of the universe, the way Einstein did.

    By the way, Hairy says "Hi!"


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Cinder on 12/04/2015 09:11 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.
    That's not analogous.  EMD contraptions are physically available for debunking; eminently so.  Bigfoot, UFOs, and unicorns are all intangible rumors.

    If you did have empirically conclusive evidence of "the obvious", this would be a done deal.  But no one does, and so it's not.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 11:08 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    People hunting bigfoot aren't taking risks. They are indulging in a fantasy.  The entire body of scientific knowledge acts as a noise filters that helps identify risks worth taking. Yes it is about taking risks but if you can't figure the odds then the game is going to eat your lunch.

    In the end bigfoot is far more likely than the EMdrive because bigfoot does not violate COM or COE.
    There were better replies to this than what I'm about to write, but assumptions are a slippery slope. if you do not work to prove or disprove an assumption, you rely on common beliefs (others) to form opinions. Its a psychological thing, risk adversion versus risk taking. Conformity is a strong and powerful motivator to most people. You have this, which is common and nothing to be ashamed about..
     
    Tolerance of other belief systems/opinions is critical in life...and science for that matter. insisting people conform can be a dangerous thing. We're seeing evidnce of this right now in global conflicts.

    The difference between you and me is I say more power to bigfoot, ufo and ghost chasers if that's what they want to do. If they asked me to design a gadget to help them, I'd do it even though I don't think they'll find anything.

    The emdrive is a totally different thing. Disparaging it only strengthens resolve. If there is some skill or knowledge you personally have that can end the 25 year old claims, by all means enlighten the world, for opinions are just like a certain part of the human anatomy...everybody has one.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/04/2015 11:38 am
    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.

    A perfectly sensible position. But I want to re-quote something I said before:

    "But the one thing I learned is that any fool can see the horizon, because it's right in  front of you. VISION means being able to see beyond the horizon, and PROGRESS requires sailing there."

    It's all about risk. Not taking a risk means you live off fruits,berries and the occasional raw meat. But someone, somewhere, took a risk and learned to build a fire.

    [That ok with you Vax? I think you have my local rights...]

    People hunting bigfoot aren't taking risks. They are indulging in a fantasy.  The entire body of scientific knowledge acts as a noise filters that helps identify risks worth taking. Yes it is about taking risks but if you can't figure the odds then the game is going to eat your lunch.

    In the end bigfoot is far more likely than the EMdrive because bigfoot does not violate COM or COE.

    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Acryte on 12/04/2015 11:43 am

    Seeing nothing can never prove that there is nothing to see. I have never seen a UFO but UFO believers keep on seeing them. I have never seen bigfoot yet bigfoot sightings happen every week on the discovery channel. People can fool themselves and I don't have the power to unfool them.

    If you enjoy tinkering with your device then more power to you. But don't expect anything from me but pointing out the obvious... decade after decade after decade. I honestly wish you good luck but I'm no more going to build one myself than I'm going to organize an expedition to find bigfoot.
    Those statements are not the same. On one hand you have something that, if it doesn't exist, can't be disproven. Such as the UFO and Bigfoot. On the other hand, you have EM-Drive which, if it doesn't work, CAN be disproven. rfmwguy's post was simply stating that the act of disproving it would be of scientific merit because it would benefit future researchers and possibly increase the level of precision in select experiments. I think that's worthy of consideration.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/04/2015 01:14 pm
    The biggest reason I'm building it, is because I can.

    The difference in debate here and other places, is what we'll find. But you see finding out is only a small part of this. It's the journey to discovery that fires the soul, it's turning that corner and not really knowing what you'll find. 

    I say I don't know what I'll find, but I'm willing to enjoy the journey to find out, because I can.


    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/04/2015 02:40 pm
    Since I lack any metal-bending skills but I do have a rusty EE degree that included a year of electromagnetics, and tons of software experience, including some in Scheme, I thought I could contribute by running some Meep as well.  It will take a few days to get all the pre-requisite packages installed on my Linux box.  The Arch Linux distro I use does not offer a pre-made install for Meep but it does have a build script in its Application Repository that automates the process of getting it done.

    I have looked over the Meep for EmDrive (http://emdrive.wiki/MEEP) wiki page and it looks straightforward enough.

    The last time I had to deal with Maxwell's Equations directly was back in those college courses.   "Digital" was the cool new tech back then and I went that way.

    I will appreciate the companionship.

    Here is a VM install including the latest meep compilation on the virtual machine. The VM runs with about 3% overhead on my machine. To install it, read and follow the instructions. It should take about two hours to be up and running going this route.
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B91RvuTQIsPkfkFvdGlVelRRX2xwTXVlTHB4LWU2b1FEUlVPUDQtVEJxcHJlNC1LYzB3bU0&usp=drive_web (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B91RvuTQIsPkfkFvdGlVelRRX2xwTXVlTHB4LWU2b1FEUlVPUDQtVEJxcHJlNC1LYzB3bU0&usp=drive_web)
    aero.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/04/2015 02:52 pm
    ok, here's the link.
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B91RvuTQIsPkfkFvdGlVelRRX2xwTXVlTHB4LWU2b1FEUlVPUDQtVEJxcHJlNC1LYzB3bU0&usp=drive_web (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B91RvuTQIsPkfkFvdGlVelRRX2xwTXVlTHB4LWU2b1FEUlVPUDQtVEJxcHJlNC1LYzB3bU0&usp=drive_web)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 03:22 pm
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, he means COM as in conservation of momentum.

    You are thinking of CoM as in theorems relating to the center of mass(I assume by context).  And CoM has an exact relativistic analogue that accounts for both mass and energy called the center of energy.  It is just an extension of all the same concepts to mass and energy combined.  So CoM isn't "overturned" by anything, because it is exactly correct in the context in which it is derived, namely Newtonian mechanics.  If you are going to throw mass-energy conversion into the mix, then you have to use the correct and updated version.  CoM always holds; it is just called by a different name when you include relativistic effects.

    Quote
    it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible

    Yeah, it's called an electric motor buddy.  The emdrive isn't interesting because it can convert em energy into kinetic energy though, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 03:26 pm
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, he means COM as in conservation of momentum.

    You are thinking of CoM as in theorems relating to the center of mass(I assume by context).  And CoM has an exact relativistic analogue that accounts for both mass and energy called the center of energy.  It is just an extension of all the same concepts to mass and energy combined.  So CoM isn't "overturned" by anything, because it is exactly correct in the context in which it is derived, namely Newtonian mechanics.  If you are going to throw mass-energy conversion into the mix, then you have to use the correct and updated version.  CoM always holds; it is just called by a different name when you include relativistic effects.

    Quote
    it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible

    Yeah, it's called an electric motor buddy.  The emdrive isn't interesting because it can convert em energy into kinetic energy though, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.   
    An electric motor has a mechanical bridge, there is no mechanical bridge in an emdrive, no "middle man" senario.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 03:37 pm
    An electric motor has a mechanical bridge, there is no mechanical bridge in an emdrive, no "middle man" senario.

    What is a "mechanical bridge"?  Electric motors directly convert EM field energy (in the magnetic fields of their stator and rotor, this energy coming from chemical energy in their batteries) into kinetic energy (rotation of the rotor).  There is no "middle man" scenario in an electric motor.     

    You can employ good old UEM=1/2*B^2/mu to the volume of an electric motor between the stator and the rotor and watch as EM field energy reduces while power is transferred to the rotor.  It's just as direct as the emdrive supposedly is. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 12/04/2015 03:59 pm
    Bob woods,

    Quote
    So maybe you ought to be more supportive of folks who are willing to put up their own time and money to test the fundamental laws of the universe, the way Einstein did.

    My criticism is my support for the process. And Einstein was working on a problem that everyone knew about. The problem could have been to difficult for him to solve but there was never a question that there was a problem that needed solving.

    Cinder,

    Quote
    That's not analogous.  EMD contraptions are physically available for debunking; eminently so.  Bigfoot, UFOs, and unicorns are all intangible rumors.

    Turns out that having a device to debunk is less useful than you would think. If I built a device and didn't see any thrust what would that prove? That I didn't get my geometry right? That my measurements weren't accurate enough? I'm unlikely to convince anyone of anything. There is a reason that negative results are rarely reported. And cold fusion is an example where we have had a device to "debunk" for 25 years now and yet it goes on. Some of its supporters are here.

    rfmguy,

    Quote
    The emdrive is a totally different thing. Disparaging it only strengthens resolve.

    Yeah, that response to criticism is problematic. That response is why we still have people looking for bigfoot and cold fusion. If you are enjoying what you are doing then more power to you. If you are doing it to spite critics then that is bad karma.

    oliverio,

    Quote
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, I mean conservation of momentum not conservation of mass. Yet your point remains valid. Conservation of momentum could be broken and replaced by a deeper conservation law. I'm not saying such a thing is impossible. I'm saying that it is profoundly unlikely from a low energy table top experiment. I'm saying that the theories put forward by Shawyer and others are an embarrassment.

    And em-energy-to-kinetic is not analytically possible with current physics. Shawyer's attempt is just wrong. I'm not sure what to make of your billion feet square.

    Acryte,

    Quote
    On one hand you have something that, if it doesn't exist, can't be disproven. Such as the UFO and Bigfoot. On the other hand, you have EM-Drive which, if it doesn't work, CAN be disproven.

    Like Cinder you are ignoring the counter example of cold fusion. There are so many permutations and combinations of things that may affect it that disproving it is pretty much the same as disproving bigfoot. You have to look everywhere and check everything and that is just not possible. A believer will find a reason to believe.

    SeeShells,

    Quote
    The biggest reason I'm building it, is because I can.

    And more power to you.

     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 04:00 pm
    An electric motor has a mechanical bridge, there is no mechanical bridge in an emdrive, no "middle man" senario.

    What is a "mechanical bridge"?  Electric motors directly convert EM field energy (in the magnetic fields of their stator and rotor, this energy coming from chemical energy in their batteries) into kinetic energy (rotation of the rotor).  There is no "middle man" scenario in an electric motor.     

    You can employ good old UEM=1/2*B^2/mu to the volume of an electric motor between the stator and the rotor and watch as EM field energy reduces while power is transferred to the rotor.  It's just as direct as the emdrive supposedly is.
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 04:07 pm
    Bob woods,

    Quote
    So maybe you ought to be more supportive of folks who are willing to put up their own time and money to test the fundamental laws of the universe, the way Einstein did.

    My criticism is my support for the process. And Einstein was working on a problem that everyone knew about. The problem could have been to difficult for him to solve but there was never a question that there was a problem that needed solving.

    Cinder,

    Quote
    That's not analogous.  EMD contraptions are physically available for debunking; eminently so.  Bigfoot, UFOs, and unicorns are all intangible rumors.

    Turns out that having a device to debunk is less useful than you would think. If I built a device and didn't see any thrust what would that prove? That I didn't get my geometry right? That my measurements weren't accurate enough? I'm unlikely to convince anyone of anything. There is a reason that negative results are rarely reported. And cold fusion is an example where we have had a device to "debunk" for 25 years now and yet it goes on. Some of its supporters are here.

    rfmguy,

    Quote
    The emdrive is a totally different thing. Disparaging it only strengthens resolve.

    Yeah, that response to criticism is problematic. That response is why we still have people looking for bigfoot and cold fusion. If you are enjoying what you are doing then more power to you. If you are doing it to spite critics then that is bad karma.

    oliverio,

    Quote
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, I mean conservation of momentum not conservation of mass. Yet your point remains valid. Conservation of momentum could be broken and replaced by a deeper conservation law. I'm not saying such a thing is impossible. I'm saying that it is profoundly unlikely from a low energy table top experiment. I'm saying that the theories put forward by Shawyer and others are an embarrassment.

    And em-energy-to-kinetic is not analytically possible with current physics. Shawyer's attempt is just wrong. I'm not sure what to make of your billion feet square.

    Acryte,

    Quote
    On one hand you have something that, if it doesn't exist, can't be disproven. Such as the UFO and Bigfoot. On the other hand, you have EM-Drive which, if it doesn't work, CAN be disproven.

    Like Cinder you are ignoring the counter example of cold fusion. There are so many permutations and combinations of things that may affect it that disproving it is pretty much the same as disproving bigfoot. You have to look everywhere and check everything and that is just not possible. A believer will find a reason to believe.

    SeeShells,

    Quote
    The biggest reason I'm building it, is because I can.

    And more power to you.

     
    I'm very much a believer in Karma, and nope, it was simply to satisfy my own curiosity and share along the way. The "share" is what has some people all riled up as it possibly challenges long-help beliefs. Same as politics and religion, science is no different in this regard.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 04:10 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    "mechanical movement" and "kinetic energy" aren't different things in this case.  The "mechanical component" of the emdrive necessary to harvest work is the the actual movement of the physical mass of the emdrive as it experiences it's unidirectional force. 

    Consider a linear electric motor and an emdrive.  Can you explain to me how one has a "mechanical component' (I still don't know what you are defining that to be) and the other doesn't?   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 04:19 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    "mechanical movement" and "kinetic energy" aren't different things in this case.  The "mechanical component" of the emdrive necessary to harvest work is the the actual movement of the physical mass of the emdrive as it experiences it's unidirectional force. 

    Consider a linear electric motor and an emdrive.  Can you explain to me how one has a "mechanical component' (I still don't know what you are defining that to be) and the other doesn't?   
    Sorry wolfy, my language precision fails me at times. Lets simplify it by saying: direct energy to an acceleration force against a mass, no mechanical conversion needed. Better?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/04/2015 04:40 pm
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, he means COM as in conservation of momentum.

    You are thinking of CoM as in theorems relating to the center of mass(I assume by context).  And CoM has an exact relativistic analogue that accounts for both mass and energy called the center of energy.  It is just an extension of all the same concepts to mass and energy combined.  So CoM isn't "overturned" by anything, because it is exactly correct in the context in which it is derived, namely Newtonian mechanics.  If you are going to throw mass-energy conversion into the mix, then you have to use the correct and updated version.  CoM always holds; it is just called by a different name when you include relativistic effects.

    Quote
    it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible

    Yeah, it's called an electric motor buddy.  The emdrive isn't interesting because it can convert em energy into kinetic energy though, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.   
    An electric motor has a mechanical bridge, there is no mechanical bridge in an emdrive, no "middle man" senario.

    There is no classical mechanical bridge involved in an EMDrive. If on the other hand the quantum vacuum is real, whether it is mutable or immutable, as long as interaction between the vacuum ground state and matter can occur, from a stochastic approach a quantum mechanical bridge may exist... And even should the concept of a real immutable QV, be the case (rather than as suggested by Dr. White a mutable QV), violations of conservation of momentum even in the presence of useable thrust may not exist.

    Generally an exchange of momentum between EM radiation and an object is very inefficient, with most of the energy being dissipated as heat, changes in electron energy states, or randomly distributed throughout an object. What has struck me from early in my reading of this thread, is that the total energy being radiated into the frustum, if efficiently transferred to the frustum as an exchange of momentum, should be sufficient to account for most of the claims of developed thrust. As mentioned an electric motor can produce greater changes in momentum on the same energies.

    Almost every theory paper I have read that involves an interaction between an object or more often particles and the QV, addresses the interaction as boundary conditions between the ground state of the vacuum and the charge characteristics of the particle or object. Most of the time requiring acceleration of the object/particle resulting in some asymmetry in the ground state of the QV, as experienced by the object/particle.

    Assuming that an immutable QV does exist and that quantum fluctuations in its EM ground state, can interact stochastically with the EM boundary conditions of an object, in this case the inside surfaces of a frustum, it seems equally possible that as a result of the asymmetry of the frustum design the resonant EM radiation may alter the boundary conditions of the inside walls of the frustum asymmetrically and/or the asymmetric distribution and resonance of the EM radiation inside the frustum, itself results in an asymetric distribution of quantum fluctuations near the frustum's interior walls. Even as short lived as the quantum fluctuations, referred to as virtual particles must be, any interaction between those quantum fluctuations and the frustum walls should result in a more efficient transfer of momentum than could be expected from the initializing EM radiation.

    In essence the suggestion is, that some portion of the RF/MW radiation introduced into the frustum, is converted to an asymmetric increase in QV quantum fluctuations and side wall/end plate boundary conditions, resulting in an asymmetric thrust. While microwaves in and of theirselves should not result in any net thrust, if the combination of resonance and asymmetric frustum design, results in a change in asymmetric boundary conditions and an asymmetric increased quantum fluctuations potential, the result could be an asymmetric transfer of momentum between the QV and the frustum, completely within and result of the MW energy potential introduced.

    I believe that Shells pending tests may provide some better data on heat, than in earlier published results. Since she has isolated the magnetron from the frustum, it should be far easier to develope a better model of heat dissipated through the frustum, as compared to the RF/MW energy introduced. It may also be that moving to a more expensive microwave source with better frequency control would improve the performance.




    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 04:46 pm
    Sorry wolfy, my language precision fails me at times. Lets simplify it by saying: direct energy to an acceleration force against a mass, no mechanical conversion needed. Better?

    Well I still don't see the distinction you are trying to make but I'll try not to clog the thread up.

    Everything you just said applies to a linear electric motor like you would see in a maglev train.  Energy in the EM field creates an accelerating force against the mass of the train, and the whole process is solid-state, no moving parts and no mechanical conversions, save the actual moving mass of the train (which is the analogue of the emdrive moving). 

    The only difference between a linear electric motor and the emdrive is that the force on the stator of a linear electric motor is equal and opposite the force on the armature.  It obeys COM and it exists.  The emdrive on the other hand, does not appear (in my opinion) to do either.     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tetrakis on 12/04/2015 04:59 pm
    The "share" is what has some people all riled up as it possibly challenges long-help beliefs. Same as politics and religion, science is no different in this regard.

    You and some others seem fixated on the notion that the scientific community is out to get you. Really, the few scientists that have participated in the thread and elsewhere are just bringing the kind of rigor found in professional science to bear on your own work. Certain individuals have become a bit too emotionally invested, sure, but you shouldn't be surprised by these high standards. As has been said many times, challenging long-held beliefs is the business of scientific enterprise. Read Nature or Science sometime.

    And to echo ppnl, if you are doing this for fun then feel free to tinker with these devices all you like. Just don't get offended when asked to conform to the higher standard of professional science, considering that you aspire to work at that level.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JaimeZX on 12/04/2015 05:19 pm
    Greetings all. I have been lurking since about page 15 of this thread, when I first learned of this forum, although I've been following Emdrive developments for a few years now, at the "headline" level.

    I unfortunately have little to contribute since my physics undergrad over 15 years ago and very little math since then... I'm operating at the conceptual level only.

    First, I offer my sincere thanks to those of you (shells, rfmguy, etc.,) who are spending time and resources testing this out as best you can. I honestly wish I had the knowledge and skill to join you in this endeavour. I would probably just electrocute myself with the MW transformer. lol

    I also offer thanks to the several skeptics who have been posting. At best you offer concrete suggestions as to why a particular line of reasoning or data set may be flawed, and at worst I think you strengthen the experimenters' resolve to drive forward. ;)

    From my standpoint, I am naturally skeptical of anything that conflicts with well-established theories, but also very hopeful that we will learn something new and perhaps have a fantastic new tool with which to explore the universe!

    A point made a few pages back has really stuck in my nugget, however. My apologies if this has already been addressed and dismissed; I will try paraphrase it through the lens of my own understanding.

    * I don't have a conceptual problem with the drive pushing on virtual particles (e/p pairs or what have you) or the QV (however we want to describe the proposed interaction). What challenges me is this - if the QV "particles" are stationary relative to the test stand / drive / [ other ], that would infer a preferred reference frame, would it not? Or, that the Earth is "special" insofar as it's at rest with respect to the QV... Similarly, if the Earth is NOT at rest with respect to the QV, then it ought to have an observable "flow direction" seemingly in violation of Relativity. If we were able to pull a thrust signal out of the noise, we could presumably "Michelson-Morley this" (to coin a phrase) by running the Emdrive in different directions.

    * If the Emdrive is somehow always "at rest" with respect to the QV regardless of velocity (relative to its point of departure) then that would imply that there are QV "particles" moving at all velocities (up to c?). If the mechanism for thrust is the asymmetric shape of the frustum, shouldn't any "exhaust" as the result of pushing against one "velocity set" (I'm sure there's a better term) of QV be exactly cancelled out by the "velocity set" 180° opposite to the thrust vector?

    Again, my sincerest apologies if this question only exists due to my limited understanding of the subject matter. Again, bravo to all, and best of luck!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 05:26 pm
    The "share" is what has some people all riled up as it possibly challenges long-help beliefs. Same as politics and religion, science is no different in this regard.

    You and some others seem fixated on the notion that the scientific community is out to get you. Really, the few scientists that have participated in the thread and elsewhere are just bringing the kind of rigor found in professional science to bear on your own work. Certain individuals have become a bit too emotionally invested, sure, but you shouldn't be surprised by these high standards. As has been said many times, challenging long-held beliefs is the business of scientific enterprise. Read Nature or Science sometime.

    And to echo ppnl, if you are doing this for fun then feel free to tinker with these devices all you like. Just don't get offended when asked to conform to the higher standard of professional science, considering that you aspire to work at that level.
    No, NSF has been a great place to share the data, other places have not. Wolfy and others are actually quite helpful and gave me suggestions to improve the experiment over time. The primary beef I had was no specific inputs to specific aspects of the experiments. Here that didn't happen much if at all. Other places, it was met with general criticism based on general textbook principles. But no, posters on NSF, including yourself, are a cut above other public forums. Its why I hang around here and not go dark with my tinkering around.  8)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 05:33 pm
    Sorry wolfy, my language precision fails me at times. Lets simplify it by saying: direct energy to an acceleration force against a mass, no mechanical conversion needed. Better?

    Well I still don't see the distinction you are trying to make but I'll try not to clog the thread up.

    Everything you just said applies to a linear electric motor like you would see in a maglev train.  Energy in the EM field creates an accelerating force against the mass of the train, and the whole process is solid-state, no moving parts and no mechanical conversions, save the actual moving mass of the train (which is the analogue of the emdrive moving). 

    The only difference between a linear electric motor and the emdrive is that the force on the stator of a linear electric motor is equal and opposite the force on the armature.  It obeys COM and it exists.  The emdrive on the other hand, does not appear (in my opinion) to do either.     
    Its me, wolfy not to worry. I know what you're saying and am trying to describe whats floating around in my head...EM directly to Motion. The obvious conundrum is against what is it pushing or pulling against outside of its reference frame...Don't have an answer for that. Its a no moving parts thing.

    This seemed perposterous to me as well in the beginning. Pushing against a windshield from inside a car should not make it move. Yet something I saw and read about seems to violate that "law". Its not clogging up the thread at all as there are new people arriving all the time who have not read this topic in threads past.

    Glad to have you back in the sandbox!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/04/2015 05:41 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/04/2015 05:58 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.

    Aluminum TP?

    What part is that zen-in?

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 05:58 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.
    Aluminum TP?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pm
    ..
    Aluminum TP?

    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc. (*), and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah



    _________________
    (*) (except for commonly known acronyms for organizations like NASA, CERN, etc.)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 06:31 pm
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  It did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 06:42 pm
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then  :o

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.

    Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/04/2015 06:42 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.
    Aluminum TP?

    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc. (*), and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah



    _________________
    (*) (except for commonly known acronyms for organizations like NASA, CERN, etc.)
    We should have a Conservation of Blah. CoB and if there is a lot of Blah it would be called CoBS.

    Shell


    BTW Not By the Way... But.... Back To Work. ;)


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:52 pm
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then  :o

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.

    Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?  ;)

    Quote
    Blah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in full

    Blah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written   ;)

    //////////////

    Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. 

    Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating.

    There are also thermal radiation effects,  etc. etc.

    Oops etc. is another acronym  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: cee on 12/04/2015 06:52 pm
    Now, the magnet in a tube experiment does show Cu to have unusual Magnetic properties while maintaining a non-magnetic material.

    I don't think there is anything special about Copper.  The generation of an opposing magnetic field is a property of any conductor, and the strength of the generated field varies with the conductivity.

    One has to wonder what the results would be using a fustrum made of a superconductor.  Could prove interesting.

    Perhaps, if someone could afford it, a fustrum made of silver or a high silver alloy could be made to see if there is any appreciable difference in results.

    Fine (99.9% pure) Silver is the best room temperature conductor of electricity at DC and low frequencies.   The difference with Copper is small.   At microwave frequencies the situation is more complex.  I think Gold is the best conductor there.   High temperature (liquid Nitrogen cooled) superconductors lose their superconductivity when exposed to AC fields.   The don't work at radio frequencies.   Low temperature superconductors, such as Niobium don't have that limitation, but they have to be cooled with liquid Helium.    Cannae LLC, now defunct, promoted a superconducting cavity until recently.   No one has been able to find out why they went out of business.

    But this is all beside the point.   You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to link this magnet/tube experiment with the em-drive.      There are plenty of other interesting permanent magnet motors and generators that are fascinating to watch.   The physics of these devices is well known.   Something is always pushing against something else.    With the em-drive the antenna is attached to the cavity and the cavity is sealed.   There is nothing to push against.   The em-drive converts microwaves into heat.   It is the heat that does the work.
    "... There is nothing to push against...."
    Maybe Dr. Harold "Sonny" White wouldn't agree with you at this point.
    Its pure theory, but the quantum vacuum(pairs of virtual particle, spend from QV for short time) is everywhere and maybe the emdrive is able to push against it and use the back reaction for thrust generation. I am curious about the next paper about it from him and his research group. And yes at the end of the day its some sort of heating the cavity and maybe the QV.
    Dr White has an interesting theory being peer reviewed as we speak. If this is the theory that "drives" the emdrive, we should know about it within a few months. If accepted in principle, my guess is we'll have replication efforts by labs knowledgeable in RF and Quantum Physics taking a look at it (indirectly) for themselves. The end result probably will not be a quantum vacuum detector, but indirect measurement such as an inferometer, atomic clock, and who knows what else at this point.

    This smacks of dark energy/matter's endless discussions...is it real if it cannot be directly measured? Some say yes, some say no. I've not read a lot of high level consensus on this. Black Holes are in this category...indirect measurement driven by theory. So really, the entire argument rests with direct and indirect measurement...artifact or no artifact?

    Therefore, we revert back to the 17th and 18th centuries where almost no advanced theories could be directly measured due to primitive technology way behind advanced thinking.

    So riddle me this...are we a century away from being able to directly measure dark matter/energy, black holes or a quantum vacuum? Considering funding issues and ultra-conservative thinking amongst corporations and institutions, I believe we are.

    Seems like the more we learn the less we know. The holometer is a good start for investigating QV.
    http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/12/holometer-rules-out-first-theory-space-time-correlations
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Fugudaddy on 12/04/2015 06:57 pm
    And to echo ppnl, if you are doing this for fun then feel free to tinker with these devices all you like. Just don't get offended when asked to conform to the higher standard of professional science, considering that you aspire to work at that level.

    Comparing Dave and Shell's (and others) efforts to 'Unicorns' and 'Bigfoot' is specious and offensive. It is all cute and easy to hand wave away positive data while shouting 'CoM! CoM!', it is much harder to do what others on this thread have done and to actually get into the dirt of it.

    I don't know if this effect is real and, this is the kicker, neither does anybody else. At this point anybody who says they are '100% certain' this is not real goes into the same bucket as those who are '100% certain' that this is real.

    Uncertainty is uncomfortable, but that's life on the edge of things, including science.

    Data (and papers) are coming. Maybe it'll all turn out to be a big ol' bust like 'cold fusion in a jar' was, but maybe it won't. Personally, I feel it is too early in the game to be calling the final score.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 07:00 pm
    Don't assume that acronyms are going to be immediately understood.  CoM can stand for "Center of Mass", "Conservation of Momentum" etc.  Yes, one could determine from the context what is most likely intended, but why make the audience go through that effort?

    COM is not analogous to the use of DNA.  No paper in a reputable physics journal would write COM without first defining what that acronym means.  When refereeing papers I would certainly object to that

    How much effort does it take you to first write Conservation of Momentum [CoM] ???
    If people don't even want to go through that effort, why should people bother to read what they write?

    And an NSF forum topic isn't analogues to a reputable physics journal.  Yes, in a journal article, a non-standard abbreviation would need to be spelled out.  Forum posts aren't journal articles.

    Within this forum, COM and COE have been written ad nauseam because it'a all we used to talk about before people more or less accepted there was no resolution and moved on.  Hence I would consider them, within this forum, to be standard. 

    Quote
    How much effort does it take you to first write Conservation of Momentum [CoM] ???

    About the same amount of effort it takes someone to figure out what it means by context, and more than I'm willing to spend every time I use them.   I guess I'm lazy like that.   
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ppnl on 12/04/2015 07:02 pm
    Greetings all. I have been lurking since about page 15 of this thread, when I first learned of this forum, although I've been following Emdrive developments for a few years now, at the "headline" level.

    I unfortunately have little to contribute since my physics undergrad over 15 years ago and very little math since then... I'm operating at the conceptual level only.

    First, I offer my sincere thanks to those of you (shells, rfmguy, etc.,) who are spending time and resources testing this out as best you can. I honestly wish I had the knowledge and skill to join you in this endeavour. I would probably just electrocute myself with the MW transformer. lol

    I also offer thanks to the several skeptics who have been posting. At best you offer concrete suggestions as to why a particular line of reasoning or data set may be flawed, and at worst I think you strengthen the experimenters' resolve to drive forward. ;)

    From my standpoint, I am naturally skeptical of anything that conflicts with well-established theories, but also very hopeful that we will learn something new and perhaps have a fantastic new tool with which to explore the universe!

    A point made a few pages back has really stuck in my nugget, however. My apologies if this has already been addressed and dismissed; I will try paraphrase it through the lens of my own understanding.

    * I don't have a conceptual problem with the drive pushing on virtual particles (e/p pairs or what have you) or the QV (however we want to describe the proposed interaction). What challenges me is this - if the QV "particles" are stationary relative to the test stand / drive / [ other ], that would infer a preferred reference frame, would it not? Or, that the Earth is "special" insofar as it's at rest with respect to the QV... Similarly, if the Earth is NOT at rest with respect to the QV, then it ought to have an observable "flow direction" seemingly in violation of Relativity. If we were able to pull a thrust signal out of the noise, we could presumably "Michelson-Morley this" (to coin a phrase) by running the Emdrive in different directions.

    * If the Emdrive is somehow always "at rest" with respect to the QV regardless of velocity (relative to its point of departure) then that would imply that there are QV "particles" moving at all velocities (up to c?). If the mechanism for thrust is the asymmetric shape of the frustum, shouldn't any "exhaust" as the result of pushing against one "velocity set" (I'm sure there's a better term) of QV be exactly cancelled out by the "velocity set" 180° opposite to the thrust vector?

    Again, my sincerest apologies if this question only exists due to my limited understanding of the subject matter. Again, bravo to all, and best of luck!

    I think you have put your finger on the problem. Attempts to address it have pretty much been a total failure. Many seem not to be able to understand the problem.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 07:15 pm
    At the beginning of this past Summer there were a number (several !!! just look at the EM Drive wiki) people attempting to perform experiments:

    http://emdrive.wiki/Building

    I have not seen enough discussion lately (if any) about the fact that:

    NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) are not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report their negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective and to be unbiased.

    ________________________

    There are several thermomechanical mechanisms in the EM Drive experiments producing forces.  They have different time constants, from very fast to slow effects.  I have written and analyzed some of them (ever since my first post, with an open letter to Dr. White), so has Frobnicat, Zen-In and others.  Papers on the EM Drive have NOT properly analyzed the thermomechanical force producing effects present in the EM Drive experiments.  They have NOT been analyzed at the level at which such effects are characterized in University Ph.D. theses, or in NASA JPL reports (i.e. the Pioneer anomaly report), etc.

    This lack of proper analysis of thermomechanical effects is a large part of the reason why such experimental papers are not being taken seriously in the academic and scientific community (in addition, of course, to the main problem: apparent violation of Conservation of Momentum) since it is obvious (to anybody familiar with a microwave oven) that these resonant microwave cavities are heaters.

    Paul March at NASA (with the COMSOL Finite Element Analysis of induction heating and comparison with Thermal Infrared camera images of the mode shape) is the one that has been the most thorough in analyzing these effects.  However, those NASA efforts are still incomplete: for example, the thermal expansion effect on the torque pendulum movement was starting to be taken into account as of Paul March's last contributions to these threads.

    There are several other thermal effects that remain to be analyzed at a high level (a level constrained by the budget constraints on the NASA laboratory).

    ______________________

    * Not reporting negative results by several DIY experimenters

    * Negative results by the Aachen team, the university team by Zellerium, etc.

    * Previous interpretation of forces as anomalous may all turn out to be thermal (or other artifacts) in nature upon close scrutiny

    * Writing about science fiction flying cars and short-trips to Pluto (or even the Stars ! ) that violate conservation of energy by Shawyer, instead of providing new, strong experimental evidence that can be independently verified

    * No theory embraced by Academia that can explain any form of EM Drive space propulsion (except for minute conventional forces like thermal radiation as in the Pioneer anomaly, etc.).

    are not positive
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 07:22 pm
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then  :o

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.

    Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?  ;)

    Quote
    Blah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in full

    Blah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written   ;)

    //////////////

    Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. 

    Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating.

    There are also thermal radiation effects,  etc. etc.

    Oops etc. is another acronym  ;)
    Yep...I've been anxiously awaiting (hint-hint) some analysis reporting of the September tests. It gets above my pay grade to do this so experts here on NSF volunteered to do it for me. Raw data/temps/humidy/weight was supplied a couple of months ago and although anxiously awaiting, will not rush the results. Only hint I got a couple of weeks ago that analysis is continuing and nothing obvious has yet explained the mag-on variations from thermal rise. No official results yet, but thats as far as its gotten as of today.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 07:39 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 08:17 pm
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then  :o

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.

    Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?  ;)

    Quote
    Blah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in full

    Blah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written   ;)

    //////////////

    Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. 

    Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating.

    There are also thermal radiation effects,  etc. etc.

    Oops etc. is another acronym  ;)
    Yep...I've been anxiously awaiting (hint-hint) some analysis reporting of the September tests. It gets above my pay grade to do this so experts here on NSF volunteered to do it for me. Raw data/temps/humidy/weight was supplied a couple of months ago and although anxiously awaiting, will not rush the results. Only hint I got a couple of weeks ago that analysis is continuing and nothing obvious has yet explained the mag-on variations from thermal rise. No official results yet, but thats as far as its gotten as of today.

    I was referring to an analysis using Computational Fluid Dynamics to analyze the thermal convection effects (for example using FLUENT/ANSYS, etc.).

    (http://blog.capinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CFD-gif.gif)

    I do not think that the person that you are referring to was going to conduct such an analysis.

    There are no closed-form solutions for the transient fluid mechanics problem (your turning your magnetron of and off) involving thermal convection, and the geometry of the experiment is not that simple.

    There was only one person with a background in Computational Fluid Dynamics that I am aware of having an exchange in these threads (if there are others reading this, please let us know and sorry for my omission) .  We had a short exchange at the time referring to using MEEP to get a reasonable amount of modeling time (the analyses by aero have been extremely short: fractions of a microsecond, nowhere near to steady state resonance) but we never heard back from him.

    The computer time required for such an analysis would require significant computer resources.  Certainly a few NASA centers would be able to perform such an analysis, as they have the computational resources required  ;)

    In this respect, the NASA Eagleworks and Dresden experiments in a vacuum chamber are most interesting because they eliminate this huge fluid mechanics analysis complication (thermal convection effects).

    Neither Shawyer nor Yang ever reported a single experiment performed in vacuum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/04/2015 08:59 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.

    Aluminum TP?

    What part is that zen-in?

    Shell

    I'm talking about the EW vacuum tests.   They used an Aluminum bar for their torque pendulum (TP).  The coefficient of linear expansion of Aluminum is 22 10-6K-1, so a change in temperature of the TP of 1 degree C means it will expand by 22 um per Meter.   That is enough to move the distance measuring device closer to it's reflector by several micrometers.   Every experiment is different in how this effect operates.  I don't think you could realistically use rfmwguy's apparatus in air to deduce how thermal expansion affects the EW vacuum test.   The EW people have not looked into this.   They should have an independent team analyze this effect.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 09:22 pm
    Aha...looks like I forgot the small chamber torsion testing in 2014. I decided against this methodology mainly due to Lorentz concerns, vibration from air bearing, extra cost, etc., Thermal lift extraction was the biggest challenge in the data. The test report mitigates some of that. Since then, I got a thermal cam to isolate heat sources (90+% is outside the frustum) and on the magnetron frame itself which resides on top. This creates a heat plume in still, ambient air. No horizontal jetting occured which would have showed up as hotter spots on the top plate of the frustum. Heated air went directly up like Doc's pic best I can determine without Schlieren photography (wish I had the $$ for that).

    Also, some thermal cam movies were made to track heat rise of the magnetron. Hopefully all this can be pieced together as a more scientific presentation. I'm a long way from a calibration lab in my setup, but trying my best to get it together. Note: the Laser Displacement Sensor made the biggest improvement. It had fast, and accurate micrometer level resolution of balance beam displacements. If I recall the natural resonance was .7 hz or thereabouts and a persistence of about 3-4 seconds thanks to the oil bath dampener.

    Don't want to bore you, but heres the test stand walkaround:

    https://youtu.be/l241ecg6K3k
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/04/2015 10:02 pm
    Bob woods,

    Quote
    So maybe you ought to be more supportive of folks who are willing to put up their own time and money to test the fundamental laws of the universe, the way Einstein did.

    My criticism is my support for the process. And Einstein was working on a problem that everyone knew about. The problem could have been to difficult for him to solve but there was never a question that there was a problem that needed solving.

    Cinder,

    Quote
    That's not analogous.  EMD contraptions are physically available for debunking; eminently so.  Bigfoot, UFOs, and unicorns are all intangible rumors.

    Turns out that having a device to debunk is less useful than you would think. If I built a device and didn't see any thrust what would that prove? That I didn't get my geometry right? That my measurements weren't accurate enough? I'm unlikely to convince anyone of anything. There is a reason that negative results are rarely reported. And cold fusion is an example where we have had a device to "debunk" for 25 years now and yet it goes on. Some of its supporters are here.

    rfmguy,

    Quote
    The emdrive is a totally different thing. Disparaging it only strengthens resolve.

    Yeah, that response to criticism is problematic. That response is why we still have people looking for bigfoot and cold fusion. If you are enjoying what you are doing then more power to you. If you are doing it to spite critics then that is bad karma.

    oliverio,

    Quote
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, I mean conservation of momentum not conservation of mass. Yet your point remains valid. Conservation of momentum could be broken and replaced by a deeper conservation law. I'm not saying such a thing is impossible. I'm saying that it is profoundly unlikely from a low energy table top experiment. I'm saying that the theories put forward by Shawyer and others are an embarrassment.

    And em-energy-to-kinetic is not analytically possible with current physics. Shawyer's attempt is just wrong. I'm not sure what to make of your billion feet square.

    Acryte,

    Quote
    On one hand you have something that, if it doesn't exist, can't be disproven. Such as the UFO and Bigfoot. On the other hand, you have EM-Drive which, if it doesn't work, CAN be disproven.

    Like Cinder you are ignoring the counter example of cold fusion. There are so many permutations and combinations of things that may affect it that disproving it is pretty much the same as disproving bigfoot. You have to look everywhere and check everything and that is just not possible. A believer will find a reason to believe.

    SeeShells,

    Quote
    The biggest reason I'm building it, is because I can.

    And more power to you.

     

    Wait!!!!

    Your day is not complete until you find a UFO buff in the thread.

    FYI, I do photo interpretation as a hobby for MUFON.  No bucks.  I get images or videos from time to time over the last decades.  My task is to determine what if any optical interpretation can be derived from the images or videos. I don't interpret what happened, just the image content.  In a previous life I was an image processing guru.

    I'm sad to report I have seen just one video sequence that is intriguing.  Don't know what it is, but it's not CGI and it's really cool.  I'll send you the photo interpretation PDF in exchange for your email address via PM.

    Then I can be added to your crackpot list and you'll have covered all bases.  :)

    On a friendlier note, I appreciate your commentary here.  I consider it of value.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/04/2015 10:07 pm

    NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) are not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report their negative experimental results.


    There is an ongoing series (multiple years) of articles in the AAAS Science which notes the under reporting of negative results in multiple disciplines.  As I recall, the last study looked at 800 journal acceptance policies which basically concluded that there is a strong bias against all negative results in all disciplines.

    I don't think the EM folks can be faulted as an exception.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/04/2015 10:14 pm
    For kinetic energy to be utilized in any motor, mechanical movement takes place to provide useable "work".

    An emdrive has no mechanical component necessary to harvest "work" or motion.

    There is a mechanical component od the em-drive that produces a force.  It is themal expansion of the Aluminum TP.   Every em-drive built has this component and they all act in different ways.   Until there is independent testing done of an em-drive in a vacuum to characterize and quantify this mechanical component we will all be going around in circles.

    Aluminum TP?

    What part is that zen-in?

    Shell

    I'm talking about the EW vacuum tests.   They used an Aluminum bar for their torque pendulum (TP).  The coefficient of linear expansion of Aluminum is 22 10-6K-1, so a change in temperature of the TP of 1 degree C means it will expand by 22 um per Meter.   That is enough to move the distance measuring device closer to it's reflector by several micrometers.   Every experiment is different in how this effect operates.  I don't think you could realistically use rfmwguy's apparatus in air to deduce how thermal expansion affects the EW vacuum test.   The EW people have not looked into this.   They should have an independent team analyze this effect.
    I would agree on this and I don't know if EagleWorks has taken this into effect or not. I would assume they have.

    This is why I'm using Carbon Fiber tubes on my beam with almost a zero coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE).
    http://www.carbonfibertubeshop.com/faq.html

    Even the coax I'm running down the beam will be floating on the beam ie: not secured or strapped to the beam.

    Thank you for your answer.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 10:37 pm
    Don't assume that acronyms are going to be immediately understood.  CoM can stand for "Center of Mass", "Conservation of Momentum" etc.  Yes, one could determine from the context what is most likely intended, but why make the audience go through that effort?
    ...

    ....

    Within this forum, COM and COE have been written ad nauseam because it'a all we used to talk about before people more or less accepted there was no resolution and moved on.  Hence I would consider them, within this forum, to be standard. 

    ....

    Here is a very recent example  ;) of the ambiguous interpretation of COM showing  why such acronyms should be discouraged in this forum without defining them first (it appears that COM was interpreted as Conservation of Mass and a reference is made to E=mc^2, while the author meant conservation of momentum):

    ...

    oliverio,

    Quote
    CoM? You mean the theory that was eventually overturned by the theory of conservation of energy?  You know people thought that a mass-energy conversion was ridiculous, right?  Like... buddy, I'm skeptical as well, but it takes naught but a bare minimum of intelligence to understand why an em-energy-to-kinetic is analytically possible the same way a square could have sides of threw billion feet; there may exist no squares that big, but all facts about physics indicate it is potential.

    No, I mean conservation of momentum not conservation of mass. ...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/04/2015 11:01 pm
    ...

    I'm talking about the EW vacuum tests.   They used an Aluminum bar for their torque pendulum (TP).  The coefficient of linear expansion of Aluminum is 22 10-6K-1, so a change in temperature of the TP of 1 degree C means it will expand by 22 um per Meter.   That is enough to move the distance measuring device closer to it's reflector by several micrometers.   Every experiment is different in how this effect operates.  I don't think you could realistically use rfmwguy's apparatus in air to deduce how thermal expansion affects the EW vacuum test.   The EW people have not looked into this.   They should have an independent team analyze this effect.
    I would agree on this and I don't know if EagleWorks has taken this into effect or not. I would assume they have.

    This is why I'm using Carbon Fiber tubes on my beam with almost a zero coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE).
    http://www.carbonfibertubeshop.com/faq.html

    Even the coax I'm running down the beam will be floating on the beam ie: not secured or strapped to the beam.

    Thank you for your answer.

    Shell

    There is an alloy called invar that has a very low coefficient of expansion, as low as .55 X 10-6K-1.   Tuneable cavity filters used in radio links (called "cans") usually have threaded invar rods in them.   Using invar or carbon fiber beams in a vacuum test like the Eagleworks (EW) lab did would produce a very different response curve.   There might be no apparent movement at all.   This is the kind of thing EW should be doing to rule out thermal effects.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invar
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/04/2015 11:20 pm

    NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) are not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report their negative experimental results.


    There is an ongoing series (multiple years) of articles in the AAAS Science which notes the under reporting of negative results in multiple disciplines.  As I recall, the last study looked at 800 journal acceptance policies which basically concluded that there is a strong bias against all negative results in all disciplines.

    I don't think the EM folks can be faulted as an exception.

    We are NOT discussing here the futile attempt by people to get papers published (in refereed journals) on negative experimental results on the EM Drive.

    What we are referring to is the fact that several people were in these threads saying that they embarked in DIY experiments to verify the EM Drive and whether they either did not report back their negative results or (at least in one ocassion) whether they explicitly asked that such negative results not be reported.  The record speaks for itself.

    It is also not a question of faulting anybody, but it is a question of actively and continuously encouraging people to report to this thread such negative results.  It is a question of encouraging people to write in the EM Drive wiki all known negative results. 

    Such reporting of negative results and open skepticism should be warmly encouraged.



    AAAS Science magazine has many articles on disciplines which are not as hard a science as Physics, for example on  EVOLUTION, SOCIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, etc.

    A comparison could be made between negative results for the EM Drive and negative results for another controversial Physics experiment: Cold Fusion where:

    Quote
    Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.

    In this case, DIY experimenters trying to replicate the claims by Shaywer should indeed be expected, and encouraged !, to report such negative results, just as (I recall at the time) experimenters at MIT reported their negative results on cold fusion at the time.

    Here is a partial list (covering little more than one year -1989 and 1990-) with published negative results for Cold Fusion (many of these experiments were conducted at MIT), showing that failed experiments on controversial physics experiments have been reported, and furthermore, have been published:


    1. Albagli, D., et al., Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission rates,
    other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes. J. Fusion
    Energy, 1990. 9: p. 133.
    2. Anderson, R.E., et al. Neutron Measurements in Search of Cold Fusion. in Anomalous
    Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference Proceedings 228". 1990.
    Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York.
    3. Campbell, R.B. and L.J. Perkins, A study of 'cold fusion' in deuterated titanium subjected
    to high-current densities. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 383.
    4. Deakin, M.R., et al., Search for cold fusion using x-ray detection. Phys. Rev. C: Nucl.
    Phys., 1989. 40(5): p. R1851.
    5. Dignan, T.G., et al., A search for neutrons from fusion in a highly deuterated cooled
    palladium thin film. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 469.
    6. Ewing, R.I., et al., Negative results and positive artifacts observed in a comprehensive
    search for neutrons from 'cold fusion'. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 404.
    7. Faller, S.H., R.W. Holloway, and S.C. Lee, Investigation of cold fusion in heavy water. J.
    Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 1989. 137(1): p. 9.
    8. Fleming, J.W., et al., Calorimetric studies of electrochemical incorporation of hydrogen
    isotopes into palladium. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 517.
    9. Guilinger, T.R., et al., Investigation of Fusion Reactions in Palladium and Titanium
    Tritide Using Galvanostatic, Coulometric, and Hydrogen Permeation Techniques. J.
    Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(3): p. 299.
    10. Hayden, M.E., et al., High precision calorimetric search for evidence of cold fusion using
    in situ catalytic recombination of evolved gases. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(2): p. 161.
    11. Hill, J.C., et al., Search for cold fusion using Pd-D2O cells and Ti-D mixtures. J. Fusion
    Energy, 1990. 9: p. 305.
    12. Kashy, E., et al., Search for neutron emission from deuterium-loaded palladium. Phys.
    Rev. C: Nucl. Phys., 1989. 40(1): p. R1.
    13. Porter, J.D., et al., Limits on electromagnetic and particle emission from palladium-D2O
    electrolytic cells. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 319.
    14. Rehm, K.E., W. Kutschera, and G.J. Perlow, Search for protons from the 2H(d,p)3H
    reaction in an electrolytic cell with palladium-platinum electrodes. Phys. Rev. C: Nucl.
    Phys., 1990. 41(1): p. 45.
    15. Roberts, D.A., et al., Energy and flux limits of cold fusion neutrons using a deuterated
    liquid scintillator. Phys. Rev. C: Nucl. Phys., 1990. 42: p. R1809.
    16. Rugari, S.L., et al., Upper limits on emission of neutrons from Ti in pressurized D2 gas
    cells: A test of evidence for 'cold fusion'. Phys. Rev. C: Nucl. Phys., 1991. 43: p. 1298.
    17. Schirber, J.E., et al., Search for cold fusion in high-pressure deuterium-loaded titanium
    and palladium metal and deuteride. Fusion Technol., 1989. 16: p. 397.
    18. Silvera, I.F. and E. Moshary, Deuterated palladium at temperatures from 4.3 to 400K
    and pressures to 105 kbar: search for cold fusion. Phys. Rev. B: Mater. Phys., 1990.
    42(14): p. 9143.
    19. Southon, J.R., et al., Upper limit for neutron emission from cold deuteron-triton fusion.
    Phys. Rev. C: Nucl. Phys., 1990. 41(5): p. R1899.
    20. Wiesmann, H., Examination of cathodically charged palladium electrodes for excess heat,
    neutron emission, or tritium production. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 350


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 12:18 am
    Hi all.

    God it's been a busy week.  Need to go read the responses to my proposal in a bit.  Anyway, upshot is 3D printing in frustum sizes is expensive and the melting point of the material can be a consideration, even for low powered builds (project is probably $2500 in materials with significant materials limitations due to size, at an ETA of 24 months, this cost might come down considerably).  That said, if for some odd reason each photon really is imparting 2 plant constants of momentum on the small end , then cutting the power and upping the Q (thus the number of photons and the work you get out of them) might be the way to go for testing.

    In any event, according to TheTravellers spreadsheet,

    Frustum big diameter   m   0.29500
    Frustum small diameter   m   0.16000
    Frustum centre length (curved)   m   0.26468
    External Rf   Hz   2,460,000,000

    with spherical endplates should have a stable resonance at TE013.

    I suspect I have misread how TT is measuring the spherical endplates.  I took rsmall and rbig as the radius of the circle generating the endplate. 

    I modeled the device in openscad, then realized with a little modifications the code could generate a frustum and endplates of any size.  Also note that to get usable parts, I think you're going to have to up the resolution to 1000 or higher.  The render times at those resolutions are going to be considerable.  Also, somebody with a better CAD programs should probably check to make sure I didn't make any errors when I did these.

    All that said, here are the files that will hopefully be of use to somebody doing a digitally assisted build.

    -EDIT files are opensourced under GNUPublic Liscense. 




    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 12:23 am

    NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) are not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report their negative experimental results.


    There is an ongoing series (multiple years) of articles in the AAAS Science which notes the under reporting of negative results in multiple disciplines.  As I recall, the last study looked at 800 journal acceptance policies which basically concluded that there is a strong bias against all negative results in all disciplines.

    I don't think the EM folks can be faulted as an exception.

    We are NOT discussing here the futile attempt by people to get papers published (in refereed journals) on negative experimental results on the EM Drive.

    What we are referring to is the fact that several people were in these threads saying that they embarked in DIY experiments to verify the EM Drive and whether they either did not report back their negative results or (at least in one ocassion) whether they explicitly asked that such negative results not be reported.  The record speaks for itself.

    It is also not a question of faulting anybody, but it is a question of actively and continuously encouraging people to report to this thread such negative results.  It is a question of encouraging people to write in the EM Drive wiki all known negative results. 

    Such reporting of negative results and open skepticism should be warmly encouraged.



    AAAS Science magazine has many articles on disciplines which are not as hard a science as Physics, for example on  EVOLUTION, SOCIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, etc.

    A comparison could be made between negative results for the EM Drive and negative results for another controversial Physics experiment: Cold Fusion

    With all due respect, I think you're in left field here.

    AAAS Science is on the same par as Nature.   Those are the #1 and #2 journals on this planet.  Stating that sociology and evolution and ecology is not on par with physics isn't an argument, it's a theology.  Which two journals on this planet published the first human genome?  Is that not something on par with physics or is biology a "soft" science of little repute?

    I'm sure you can cite many other journals of repute and I won't refute that, but a publication in either of these has significant peer review and strenuous editorial standards that can't be ignored unless retracted. 

    My point here is that you're trying to hold NON professional science to the same standards as professional science, when professional science has its own publication problems with negative reporting.

    Since there is no reputable "EM Journal", IMHO you are way off base demanding "NEGATIVE" reports when reputable journals have exactly the same problem.

    Dragging in the historical disaster of cold fusion as a refutation is also off base.

    You want the NON professional folks to publish negative results as a baseline?  That would be great!!!  But it doesn't happen in the professional science literature either.

    EM folks can be criticized legitimately for many many reasons, but this argument of yours is off the wall.

    Sorry.

    I respect you and your input, but this argument just doesn't work.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RotoSequence on 12/05/2015 12:38 am
    this argument just doesn't work.

    This Is Not Nature is not a good excuse for eschewing practices that increase the clarity and precision of communications. This forum is the only publicly visible and moderated grounds we have for discussing and disseminating EM Drive experimental results and theories. Showing a bit of scientific rigor and decorum would only improve it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/05/2015 12:40 am
    Something that would be useful is if anybody gets a nonnull result, they repeat the experiment changing one single variable at a time, a sensitivity analysis, to help discover what the important factors are.   This could reveal something about how it works.  If some runs are negative but others are positive, by the same experimenter, we gain knowledge even from negative results.

    If you get null results and stop after one try, maybe you just screwed it up somewhere.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 12:44 am
    this argument just doesn't work.

    This Is Not Nature is not a good excuse for eschewing practices that increase the clarity and precision of communications. This forum is the only publicly visible and moderated grounds we have for discussing and disseminating EM Drive experimental results and theories. Showing a bit of scientific rigor and decorum would only improve it.

    I think your comment is appropriate.

    What I'm pointing out here is that there are two worlds here.

    1.  The world of physics

    2.  The world of EM testers

    They are not compatible, because 1. does not believe in 2.

    To argue that 2. should adhere to the standards of 1. is fair.

    To argue that 2. should EXCEED the standards of 1. is not fair.

    Decorum is edited out of peer reviewed papers.  Just the facts remain.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 12:54 am
    ...

    With all due respect, I think you're in left field here.

    AAAS Science is on the same par as Nature.   Those are the #1 and #2 journals on this planet.  Stating that sociology and evolution and ecology is not on par with physics isn't an argument, it's a theology.  Which two journals on this planet published the first human genome?  Is that not something on par with physics or is biology a "soft" science of little repute?

    I'm sure you can cite many other journals of repute and I won't refute that, but a publication in either of these has significant peer review and strenuous editorial standards that can't be ignored unless retracted. 

    My point here is that you're trying to hold NON professional science to the same standards as professional science, when professional science has its own publication problems with negative reporting.

    Since there is no reputable "EM Journal", IMHO you are way off base demanding "NEGATIVE" reports when reputable journals have exactly the same problem.

    Dragging in the historical disaster of cold fusion as a refutation is also off base.

    You want the NON professional folks to publish negative results as a baseline?  That would be great!!!  But it doesn't happen in the professional science literature either.

    EM folks can be criticized legitimately for many many reasons, but this argument of yours is off the wall.

    Sorry.

    I respect you and your input, but this argument just doesn't work.

    Instead of unfairly fabricating a straw argument  :): are you portraying me as disparaging Science magazine ? (I would never do that  ;) ) please point out the specific article you are referring to in Science stating that negative results in physical experiments are discouraged. 

    Instead of writing generalities please disclose the specific article(s) and show that it pertains to the subject at hand: experiments in Physics (or experiments in Electrical Engineering), rather than Life Sciences (as I do read Science magazine, and the articles I remember concerning negative results pertained to the Life Sciences instead). Quote from the article, disclose the authors of the article(s) you are referring to, and their affiliation (the articles I recall were authored by people in the Life Sciences).


    I make this distinction not to disparage the Life Sciences, but to point out that the specific articles I recall in Science dealt with a different issue pertaining the Life Sciences, which I think does not apply (as much) in physical experiments.

    The point of my post  was that negative results in EM Drive experiments should be encouraged to be disclosed in these threads.  Instead you continue to write about getting articles published in journals instead of addressing the issue at hand: disclosing negative results to this thread by people doing DIY experiments.

    This was the spirit of these threads (at least as I recall them from the times I was actively involved in threads 2 through 4). 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/05/2015 01:10 am
    I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"

    I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text.  :-)

    For example:

    Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah

    To be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now.  When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. 

    I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not.  I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.   
    Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then  :o

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.

    Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?  ;)

    Quote
    Blah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in full

    Blah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written   ;)

    //////////////

    Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. 

    Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating.

    There are also thermal radiation effects,  etc. etc.

    Oops etc. is another acronym  ;)
    Yep...I've been anxiously awaiting (hint-hint) some analysis reporting of the September tests. It gets above my pay grade to do this so experts here on NSF volunteered to do it for me. Raw data/temps/humidy/weight was supplied a couple of months ago and although anxiously awaiting, will not rush the results. Only hint I got a couple of weeks ago that analysis is continuing and nothing obvious has yet explained the mag-on variations from thermal rise. No official results yet, but thats as far as its gotten as of today.

    I was referring to an analysis using Computational Fluid Dynamics to analyze the thermal convection effects (for example using FLUENT/ANSYS, etc.).

    (http://blog.capinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CFD-gif.gif)

    I do not think that the person that you are referring to was going to conduct such an analysis.

    There are no closed-form solutions for the transient fluid mechanics problem (your turning your magnetron of and off) involving thermal convection, and the geometry of the experiment is not that simple.

    There was only one person with a background in Computational Fluid Dynamics that I am aware of having an exchange in these threads (if there are others reading this, please let us know and sorry for my omission) .  We had a short exchange at the time referring to using MEEP to get a reasonable amount of modeling time (the analyses by aero have been extremely short: fractions of a microsecond, nowhere near to steady state resonance) but we never heard back from him.

    The computer time required for such an analysis would require significant computer resources.  Certainly a few NASA centers would be able to perform such an analysis, as they have the computational resources required  ;)

    In this respect, the NASA Eagleworks and Dresden experiments in a vacuum chamber are most interesting because they eliminate this huge fluid mechanics analysis complication (thermal convection effects).

    Neither Shawyer nor Yang ever reported a single experiment performed in vacuum.



    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/05/2015 01:17 am
    Hi all.

    God it's been a busy week.  Need to go read the responses to my proposal in a bit.  Anyway, upshot is 3D printing in frustum sizes is expensive and the melting point of the material can be a consideration, even for low powered builds (project is probably $2500 in materials with significant materials limitations due to size, at an ETA of 24 months, this cost might come down considerably).  That said, if for some odd reason each photon really is imparting 2 plant constants of momentum on the small end , then cutting the power and upping the Q (thus the number of photons and the work you get out of them) might be the way to go for testing.

    In any event, according to TheTravellers spreadsheet,

    Frustum big diameter   m   0.29500
    Frustum small diameter   m   0.16000
    Frustum centre length (curved)   m   0.26468
    External Rf   Hz   2,460,000,000

    with spherical endplates should have a stable resonance at TE013.

    I suspect I have misread how TT is measuring the spherical endplates.  I took rsmall and rbig as the radius of the circle generating the endplate. 

    I modeled the device in openscad, then realized with a little modifications the code could generate a frustum and endplates of any size.  Also note that to get usable parts, I think you're going to have to up the resolution to 1000 or higher.  The render times at those resolutions are going to be considerable.  Also, somebody with a better CAD programs should probably check to make sure I didn't make any errors when I did these.

    All that said, here are the files that will hopefully be of use to somebody doing a digitally assisted build.

    I think the best way to make a fustrum is to buy a VHF attenuation cavity.   They are about 3 feet tall and 1 foot Dia.   The Copper is joined with a bent seam.   Make a poster board pattern and tape it to the side of the cavity opposite the seam and cut out the section of Copper you need.   Most of the bending is already done.   You just have to reshape it from a cylinder to a cone.   The bottom plate of the cavity is large enough to use as the large end of a fustrum so you won't need to buy much Copper to finish off the rest.    As a bonus the tuning rod is made from invar.  You can use that to make a Torsion Pendulum that will have almost zero coefficient of linear expansion.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 01:17 am
    ...
    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.

    Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...

    The new one should be 113.019 times lower.

    Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.

    Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 01:23 am
    ...

    With all due respect, I think you're in left field here.

    AAAS Science is on the same par as Nature.   Those are the #1 and #2 journals on this planet.  Stating that sociology and evolution and ecology is not on par with physics isn't an argument, it's a theology.  Which two journals on this planet published the first human genome?  Is that not something on par with physics or is biology a "soft" science of little repute?

    I'm sure you can cite many other journals of repute and I won't refute that, but a publication in either of these has significant peer review and strenuous editorial standards that can't be ignored unless retracted. 

    My point here is that you're trying to hold NON professional science to the same standards as professional science, when professional science has its own publication problems with negative reporting.

    Since there is no reputable "EM Journal", IMHO you are way off base demanding "NEGATIVE" reports when reputable journals have exactly the same problem.

    Dragging in the historical disaster of cold fusion as a refutation is also off base.

    You want the NON professional folks to publish negative results as a baseline?  That would be great!!!  But it doesn't happen in the professional science literature either.

    EM folks can be criticized legitimately for many many reasons, but this argument of yours is off the wall.

    Sorry.

    I respect you and your input, but this argument just doesn't work.

    Instead of unfairly fabricating a straw argument: unfairly portraying me as disparaging Science magazine. please point out the specific article you are referring to in Science that you claim was stating that negative results in physical experiments are discouraged in Physic journals (as opposed to other disciplines). 

    Instead of writing generalities please disclose the specific article(s) and show that it pertains to the subject at hand: experiments in Physics, rather than Life Sciences (as I do read Science magazine, and the articles I remember concerning negative results pertained to the Life Sciences instead).

    ____________________

    PS: Also I noticed that you still fail to admit (or understand) the point of my post which was that negative results in EM Drive experiments should be encouraged to be disclosed in these threads.

    I am not a physicist.  I will not and cannot argue anything in that domain.

    I absolutely agree that negative reports should be published and available, of course other than JIR, where do they publish them?  This is an unfair request IMHO,

    My point simply is that "ALL" peer reviewed journals do not like negative or "null" publications.  "Physics" journals are not immune or vaccinated.  MY position is that while EM may be crap, demanding more from them than is demanded from physicists is simply not fair.

    Negative results should absolutely be reported.

    References... provided you have the login permissions.  If not I will download and make available.  Just a sampling.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6207/308.2.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6203/1502.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30

    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-often-mocked-targeted-budget-cuts-due-lack-public-understanding

    Nature

    http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v30/n7/full/jcbfm201051a.html


    non aaas reports


    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/scientists-we-want-your-negative-results-too

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_result#Scientific_journals_for_null_results

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9909033

    http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/GFrancis-R1.pdf

    I'll provide more if you wish after my wife is done serving dinner.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 01:41 am
    ...
    I am not a physicist.  I will not and cannot argue anything in that domain.

    I absolutely agree that negative reports should be published and available, of course other than JIR, where do they publish them?  This is an unfair request IMHO,

    My point simply is that "ALL" peer reviewed journals do not like negative or "null" publications.  "Physics" journals are not immune or vaccinated.  MY position is that while EM may be crap, demanding more from them than is demanded from physicists is simply not fair.

    Negative results should absolutely be reported.

    References... provided you have the login permissions.  If not I will download and make available.  Just a sampling.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6207/308.2.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6203/1502.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30

    http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-often-mocked-targeted-budget-cuts-due-lack-public-understanding

    Nature

    http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v30/n7/full/jcbfm201051a.html


    non aaas reports


    https://www.elsevier.com/connect/scientists-we-want-your-negative-results-too

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_result#Scientific_journals_for_null_results

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9909033

    http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/GFrancis-R1.pdf

    I'll provide more if you wish after my wife is done serving dinner.

    Yes, those are the articles I recall reading in Science magazine.

    OK, since both of us agree that:

    Quote
    Negative results should absolutely be reported

    Let's encourage such negative results to be disclosed in these threads, and let's encourage people to post them in the EM Drive wiki.

    We agree on this.  Peace  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 01:50 am


    We agree on this.  Peace  :)

    Agreed.  And Peace  :)

    AND

    Please continue your input to the DIY community.

    IMHO whatever they find or not, requires the best and the brightest.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/05/2015 02:06 am
    I'm glad that everyone found common ground. All data is important. Shell has repeated that so many times she's probably wearing out the keys on her keyboard.

    I'm glad the heavy hitters are back on this thread.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/05/2015 02:22 am
    I'm glad I'm back, too! Lol

    You got that right, doc and glenn keep me in check better than my wife can sometimes  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/05/2015 02:23 am
    Spent the day finishing up setting the mini-lab spare room and then fighting with the tuning mechanism grrr. Going to Hot Tub and call it a day.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/05/2015 02:23 am
    ...
    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.

    Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...

    The new one should be 113.019 times lower.

    Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.

    Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).

    Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:
    http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/ (http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/)
    DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?

    aero
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/05/2015 02:28 am
    Shell,

    End plate parallelism is also important to maintain. Believe Roger could adjust both spacing and parallelism in the Demonstrator EmDrive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 02:46 am
    ...
    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.

    Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...

    The new one should be 113.019 times lower.

    Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.

    Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).

    Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:
    http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/ (http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/)
    DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?

    aero

    No !. 

    3.25E+8 was not the conductivity. 

    3.25E+8 is not the conductivity, it is instead the imaginary part of the relative complex permittivity

    Therefore 3.25E+8 corresponds instead to epsilon"/epsilon_o =  0.00288/epsilon_o

    (The number really is 3.252698....E+8)

    The numerical value of the imaginary part of the permittivity: epsilon"=0.00288 was given by DeltaMass

    The conductivity in SI Units that corresponds to epsilon"=0.00288 is:

    conductivity        = omega * epsilon"
                              = 2 Pi frequency 0.00288
                              = 2 Pi 2.4E+9 * 0.00288
                              = 4.342937 E+7

    which is almost 10 times smaller than 3.25E+8

    Please also recall that DeltaMass was conscious that it is incorrect to take 0.00288 as a constant !

    That value (the imaginary part of the permittivity) is a function of frequency.

    What is approximately constant in this regime is the conductivity itself.

    DeltaMass gave you explicit instructions to keep the conductivity constant, at other frequencies:
    for example, the conductivity at 1 GHz is also  4.342937 E+7, so

    at 1 GHz you should use a value of  (3.25...E+8 ) *2.4 = 7.8 E+8 instead of 3.25E+8, for example






    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 03:13 am
    ...
    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.

    Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...

    The new one should be 113.019 times lower.

    Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.

    Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).

    Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:
    http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/ (http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/)
    DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?

    aero

    No !. 

    3.25E+8 was not the conductivity. 

    3.25E+8 is the number in SI units that corresponds to the expression used in Meep: it is not the conductivity, it is instead the imaginary part of the relative complex permittivity

    Therefore 3.25E+8 corresponds instead to epsilon"/epsilon_o =  0.00288/epsilon_o

    (The number really is 3.252698....E+8)

    The numerical value of the imaginary part of the permittivity: epsilon"=0.00288 was given by DeltaMass

    The conductivity in SI Units that corresponds to epsilon"=0.00288 is:

    conductivity        = omega * epsilon"
                              = 2 Pi frequency 0.00288
                              = 2 Pi 2.4E+9 * 0.00288
                              = 4.342937 E+7

    which is almost 10 times smaller than 3.25E+8

    Please also recall that DeltaMass was conscious that it is incorrect to take 0.00288 as a constant !

    That value is a function of frequency.

    What is approximately constant in this regime is the conductivity itself.

    DeltaMass gave you explicit instructions to keep the conductivity constant, at other frequencies:
    for example, the conductivity at 1 GHz is also  4.342937 E+7, so

    at 1 GHz you should input into Meep  (3.25...E+8 ) *2.4 = 7.8 E+8, for example

    So, for pure Silver, for example (from the table in the link in your post),

    Conductivity =  6.090E+07


    So, instead of 3.25...E+8 for copper, you have to use   ( 6.090E+07/4.342937 E+7 ) *3.25...E+8 at 2.4GHz

    in other words, at 2.4 GHz, your input to Meep for pure Silver should be 1.402276 times higher than for the copper value given by DeltaMass.  About 40% higher, whether in SI units or in Meep units.

    In other words, everything else being the same, the quality of resonance (Q) should be about 40% higher with pure silver than with copper.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 03:36 am
    Just thought I'd also include the visual outputs while I'm at it (note, I've turned up the resolution on these from the default in the files).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 04:32 am
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 05:06 am
    Actually, I should probably just post the code to get feedback.
    Quote
    //GNU Public License

    //Operating frequency 2,460,000,000 hz
    //Center Length 0.26468
    //Big Diameter 0.29500
    //Small Diameter 0.1600
    {
    //enter dimensions in meters 
    length = 0.26468;
    bigbase = 0.29500;
    smallbase = 0.1600;

    $fn=100;  //desired resolution
    tolerance = 0.5; //the tolerance of the 3d printing method (used for small endplate join) in mm
    thickness = 3; // minimum desired thickness in your printing method in mm
    minattach = 10; //the minimum size in mm of the smallest part of the attachment square


    //machine variables
    bigrad = ((bigbase * 1000) / 2);
    smallrad = ((smallbase * 1000) / 2);
    leng = (length * 1000);
    ma = minattach *2;

    module frustum (){
    difference (){
    cylinder(h= leng, r1=(smallrad +thickness), r2=(bigrad + thickness), center=true);
    cylinder(h=(leng +0.5), r1=(smallrad + tolerance), r2=bigrad, center=true);
    //leng + 0.5 is to insure a clean cut
    //The second cylinder is the inside dimns of the frustum
    }
    }

    module smallattach(){
    difference(){
    cube ([(smallrad * 2 + ma), (smallrad * 2 + ma), thickness],center=true);
        cylinder (h=(thickness + 0.25), r1=(smallrad+thickness/2), r2 = (smallrad+thickness/2), center=true);
    }
     };

    module bigattach(){
        difference(){
    cube ([(bigrad *2 + ma), (bigrad * 2 + ma), thickness],center=true);
        cylinder (h=3.25, r1=(bigrad + thickness/2), r2=(bigrad + thickness/2), center=true);
     }
       }
    // Not sure leaving flat connectors to later drill for screws is a good idea.
    union(){
    frustum ();
    translate([0, 0, ((-(leng/2))+(thickness/2))])
        smallattach();
       translate([0, 0, ((leng/2)-thickness/2)])
            bigattach();
    }
    //I'm telling it to move the midpoint to half the height of the frustum.  That means there is 1.5mm of connector width hanging over the end.  I then move it the connector to account for this.  Suggest doing a test run of just this area to validate my logic.
      }

    Small endplate

    Quote
    //For small endplate only
    // GNU Public License
    diam = 0.1600; //diameter of chorde in meters
    radiusofsphere = .31370; //radius of sphere from which small base is derived bigger numbers = rounder
    thickness = 3;  //minthickness of 3d printing material
    cnctmin = 10; //minimum number of mm of smallest part of square connector
    $fn = 100; //resolution, suggest high for endplades, note this number may need to be very large (over 500).  Smaller number right now due to processor limitations.

    //machine variables
    diameter =  diam * 1000;
    radsphere = radiusofsphere * 1000;
    height = radsphere - sqrt(radsphere*radsphere-((diameter*diameter)/4));

    module smallcap(){
    difference(){
    sphere (r=radsphere, center = true);
        sphere (r=(radsphere-thickness), center = true);
        translate([0,0, height])
            cube ([(radsphere * 2 + cnctmin), (radsphere * 2 + cnctmin),(radsphere* 2)], center = true);
        }
    }
    module smallat(){
    difference(){
    cube ([(diameter + cnctmin), (diameter + cnctmin), thickness],center=true);
        cylinder (h=(thickness+.1), r1=(diameter/2-thickness*3), r2=(diameter/2-thickness*3), center=true);
        }
    }
    //Bring center up by radius of sphere, down by height of endcap, then down by 1.5 to compensate for being centered a 0 line with a width of 3mm.
    union(){
    translate ([0, 0, (radsphere-height-(thickness/2))])
        smallcap();
    smallat();
    }

    Big Endplate
    Quote
    //For big endplate only
    // GNU Public License

    diam = 0.295; //diameter of chorde in meters
    radiusofsphere = .57838; //radius of sphere from which small base is derived bigger numbers = rounder
    thickness = 3;  //minthickness of 3d printing material
    cnctmin = 10; //minimum number of mm of smallest part of square connector
    $fn = 500; //resolution, suggest high for endplades, note this number may need to be very large (over 500).  Smaller number right now due to processor limitations.


    //machine variables
    diameter =  diam * 1000;
    radsphere = radiusofsphere * 1000;
    height = radsphere - sqrt(radsphere*radsphere-((diameter*diameter)/4));

    module smallcap(){
    difference(){
    sphere (r=radsphere+thickness, center = true);
        sphere (r=(radsphere), center = true);
        translate([0,0, height])
            cube ([(radsphere * 2 + cnctmin), (radsphere * 2 + cnctmin),(radsphere* 2 + thickness)], center = true);
        }
    }
    module smallat(){
    difference(){
    cube ([(diameter + cnctmin), (diameter + cnctmin), thickness],center=true);
        cylinder (h=(thickness+.1), r1=(diameter/2-thickness*3), r2=(diameter/2-thickness*3), center=true);
        }
    }
    //Note minus thickness on big endplate.  The connector has to be level with the edge of the circle.
    union(){
    translate ([0, 0, (radsphere-height+thickness/2)])
        smallcap();
    smallat();
    }

    Compile with http://www.openscad.org/ (http://www.openscad.org/).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/05/2015 01:22 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Zellerium is a busy boy right before graduation, so I don't think he will respond. Where I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum. I do not recall reading a test report but seems to me I saw some pics posted here. Hope Kurt can get back here sometime and fill us in.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/05/2015 01:54 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Zellerium is a busy boy right before graduation, so I don't think he will respond. Where I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum. I do not recall reading a test report but seems to me I saw some pics posted here. Hope Kurt can get back here sometime and fill us in.

    Rfmwguy,

    Was he the one who said he had someone who wanted to continue, as some sort of class project?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/05/2015 02:31 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Zellerium is a busy boy right before graduation, so I don't think he will respond. Where I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum. I do not recall reading a test report but seems to me I saw some pics posted here. Hope Kurt can get back here sometime and fill us in.

    Rfmwguy,

    Was he the one who said he had someone who wanted to continue, as some sort of class project?
    Yes, that is where he left off IIRC.

    <edit> found it: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=837146
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 03:07 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Zellerium is a busy boy right before graduation, so I don't think he will respond. Where I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum. I do not recall reading a test report but seems to me I saw some pics posted here. Hope Kurt can get back here sometime and fill us in.

    Rfmwguy,

    Was he the one who said he had someone who wanted to continue, as some sort of class project?
    Yes, that is where he left off IIRC.

    <edit> found it: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=837146

    The attached link (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=837146) shows that:

    Concerning the question

    Quote
    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum
    ,

    NO, the document  does not report getting any force measurements using the frustum of a cone.  The attached document is a short document proposing measurements.  No experimental measurements with a frustrum of a cone are reported.


    Essentially my recollection is identical to rfmwguy:

    Quote
    I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum.

    Except that "symmetrical" is not a precise, correct, statement, because any cavity (including cavities with uniform cross-section for example circular or rectangular cross-section) containing an unsymmetrically placed dielectric are effectively unsymmetric for the purposes of electromagnetic wave propagation (as there is a power loss in the dielectric but effectively insignificant power loss in the empty section, and as the group and phase velocities are different in the dielectric section than in the empty section of the cavity).

    The unsymmetry produced by an unsymmetrically placed dielectric in a cavity with uniform cross-section have been discussed by Prof. Woodward, Paul March, Notsosureofit, Mulletron and even Roger Shawyer (in his first EM Drive patent).

    And as Flux_Capacitor pointed out (Bold added for emphasis):

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1430962#msg1430962

    Quote
    Let me summarize this, as I've read what Woodward thinks about the EmDrive: he does not believe that an EmDrive without a dielectric within can work at all; and while he thinks an EmDrive with an internal electrostrictive dielectric could work because of some Mach effect, he denies the reality of any quantum vacuum plasma-based propulsion.

    The negative result of Zellerium at a US University with such a cavity is important to be documented (it is still not listed in the EM Drive wiki).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/05/2015 03:28 pm
    "NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all.  Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki (  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked.  Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of.  At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.

    An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE results

    An effort has to be made to be objective."


    Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.

    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?

    I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1.  Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null  (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
    Zellerium is a busy boy right before graduation, so I don't think he will respond. Where I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum. I do not recall reading a test report but seems to me I saw some pics posted here. Hope Kurt can get back here sometime and fill us in.

    Rfmwguy,

    Was he the one who said he had someone who wanted to continue, as some sort of class project?
    Yes, that is where he left off IIRC.

    <edit> found it: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=837146

    The attached link (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=837146) shows that:

    Concerning the question

    Quote
    Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum
    ,

    NO, the document  does not report getting any force measurements using the frustum of a cone.  The attached document is a short document proposing measurements.  No experimental measurements with a frustrum of a cone are reported.


    Essentially my recollection is identical to rfmwguy:

    Quote
    I thought he left it was Null on symmetrical cavity, no time for frustum.

    Except that "symmetrical" is not a precise, correct, statement, because any cavity (including cavities with uniform cross-section for example circular or rectangular cross-section) containing an unsymmetrically placed dielectric are effectively unsymmetric for the purposes of electromagnetic wave propagation (as there is a power loss in the dielectric but effectively insignificant power loss in the empty section, and as the group and phase velocities are different in the dielectric section than in the empty section of the cavity).

    The unsymmetry produced by an unsymmetrically placed dielectric in a cavity with uniform cross-section have been discussed by Prof. Woodward, Paul March, Notsosureofit, Mulletron and even Roger Shawyer (in his first EM Drive patent).

    The negative result of Zellerium with such a cavity is important to be documented (it is still not listed in the EM Drive wiki).
    I've always been reluctant to update the wiki page on anyone other than my own experiment. Whats your thoughts Doc. I didn't start the wiki...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/05/2015 04:14 pm
    Is the results table in the wiki available somewhere as a spreadsheet or CSV file?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Prunesquallor on 12/05/2015 04:34 pm

    ...

    * Writing about science fiction flying cars and short-trips to Pluto (or even the Stars ! ) that violate conservation of energy by Shawyer, instead of providing new, strong experimental evidence that can be independently verified

    ...

    are not positive

    To some degree, I disagree with this. For example, for EMDrive experimentation to be within the purvue of NASA, or indeed this forum, I think it is necessary to investigate the implications to space flight.  These should be clearly stated in the form of "if this performance level, behavior, etc. could be attained, these would be the implications" along with details of the assumptions and analysis techniques, rather than unqualified promises of future benefits. You are right, Shawyer was more the latter than the former.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/05/2015 06:55 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 07:01 pm
    ...
    Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharing)

    These runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs.

    On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.

    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))

    where epdilon_r = 1

    numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file)
     CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066
    old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935
     ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282

    As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.

    And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.

    Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...

    The new one should be 113.019 times lower.

    Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.

    Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).

    Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:
    http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/ (http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/)
    DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?

    aero

    No !. 

    3.25E+8 was not the conductivity. 

    3.25E+8 is the number in SI units that corresponds to the expression used in Meep: it is not the conductivity, it is instead the imaginary part of the relative complex permittivity

    Therefore 3.25E+8 corresponds instead to epsilon"/epsilon_o =  0.00288/epsilon_o

    (The number really is 3.252698....E+8)

    The numerical value of the imaginary part of the permittivity: epsilon"=0.00288 was given by DeltaMass

    The conductivity in SI Units that corresponds to epsilon"=0.00288 is:

    conductivity        = omega * epsilon"
                              = 2 Pi frequency 0.00288
                              = 2 Pi 2.4E+9 * 0.00288
                              = 4.342937 E+7

    which is almost 10 times smaller than 3.25E+8

    Please also recall that DeltaMass was conscious that it is incorrect to take 0.00288 as a constant !

    That value is a function of frequency.

    What is approximately constant in this regime is the conductivity itself.

    DeltaMass gave you explicit instructions to keep the conductivity constant, at other frequencies:
    for example, the conductivity at 1 GHz is also  4.342937 E+7, so

    at 1 GHz you should input into Meep  (3.25...E+8 ) *2.4 = 7.8 E+8, for example

    So, for pure Silver, for example (from the table in the link in your post),

    Conductivity =  6.090E+07


    So, instead of 3.25...E+8 for copper, you have to use   ( 6.090E+07/4.342937 E+7 ) *3.25...E+8 at 2.4GHz

    in other words, at 2.4 GHz, your input to Meep for pure Silver should be 1.402276 times higher than for the copper value given by DeltaMass.  About 40% higher, whether in SI units or in Meep units.

    In other words, everything else being the same, the quality of resonance (Q) should be about 40% higher with pure silver than with copper.

    Here is a complete collection of the above-mentioned equations:

    σ=conductivity
    ω = angular frequency
    f = frequency
    ε = complex permittivity
    ε’ = real part of permittivity
    ε“ = imaginary part of permittivity
    εo = real part of permittivity of free space
        =8.854187817 E-12
    εr = ε’/εo (real part of relative permittivity)

    ε=ε’ - i ε“  ( Assuming a travelling wave with positive time dependence (exp^(+ i ω t), the negative sign for the imaginary part is required because it implies power loss; while a positive sign would imply power creation, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics)

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“

    ________________________________

    DeltaMass model for almost pure copper at microwave frequencies (everything in SI units) :

    ε“ = 0.00288 * (2.4 E+09)/f


    therefore

    1) σ = conductivity
           = 2 π f ε“
           = 2 π f 0.00288*(2.4 E+09)/f
           = 2 π 0.00288*(2.4 E+09)
          = 4.342937 E+07  (constant for any frequency)

    2) ε“/εo = complex part of relative permittivity
                 = (0.00288/εo)*(2.4 E+09)/f
                 = (0.00288/(8.854187817 E-12))*(2.4 E+09)/f
                 = (3.252698 E+08)*(2.4 E+09)/f   (inversely proportional to frequency)

    only for f=2.4 E+09 Hertz one has

    ε“/εo = 3.252698 E+08

    while for f = 2.45 E+09 Hertz (for example) one has

    ε“/εo = 3.186316 E+08

    and for f = 2.35 E+09 Hertz one has

    ε“/εo = 3.321904 E+08

    Observe therefore that it does not make numerical sense to worry about the numerical value of the electromagnetic field calculated by Meep outside the EM Drive having values 24 orders of magnitude lower than the field inside the EM Drive, instead of being perfectly zero, while the model used for modeling copper conductivity should have the relative imaginary permittivity parameter ε“/εo vary with frequency instead of being constant.  The difference for this constitutive parameter between 2.4 GHz and 2.45 GHz is of the order of 2%.  Therefore a Meep run with the present model (having  ε“/εo a constant with frequency instead of inversely proportional to frequency) with ε“/εo = 3.252698 E+08 at 2.45GHz already implies an error of 2%, which is several orders of magnitude larger than the difference between 10^(-24) and zero.

    Again, the conductivity is constant with frequency in this frequency range, but the constitutive parameter input into Meep (ε“/εo) -which is not the conductivity- should NOT be a constant, it should vary inversely with frequency.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 07:18 pm
    Just a reminder to everyone the math typeit web page is really handy for entering equations that use Greek symbols.

    http://math.typeit.org/

    Instead of:
    CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"   
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon'
                          = omega * tanDelta * epsilon0*epsilon_r
                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)

    σ = Ω × ε

    Ω = 2πf = 2 * π * 2.4 GHz

    My last equation in my message (now deleted) was missing a factor of epsilon0, should have read

                          = omega * 3.25*(10^8)*epsilon0
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 07:27 pm

    Except that "symmetrical" is not a precise, correct, statement, because any cavity (including cavities with uniform cross-section for example circular or rectangular cross-section) containing an unsymmetrically placed dielectric are effectively unsymmetric for the purposes of electromagnetic wave propagation (as there is a power loss in the dielectric but effectively insignificant power loss in the empty section, and as the group and phase velocities are different in the dielectric section than in the empty section of the cavity).

    . . .

    The negative result of Zellerium at a US University with such a cavity is important to be documented (it is still not listed in the EM Drive wiki).

    Quote
    Update:

    I spent the weekend polishing the cylinder and it looks much better (couldn't get some of the bigger scratches out unfortunately). However it definitely improved the VNA plots. Today we tested the attached resonance, seems to be matched very well at 2.434 GHz. But we still don't have a spectrum analysis of our magnetron, so we aren't sure how the power is distributed and how that changes over time. 

    The EMF strips arrived to hopefully improve electrical connection between the waveguide and cylinder without the messy Ox Gard. We heard some arcing when the magnetron fired up which seemed to stop (or at least quiet down) as the test continued. We definitely have some deflection but it could easily be due to asymmetric current flow to ground. The x deflection is actually a torque on the cylinder (clockwise if looking from above). This may also be from misalignment of the cylinder axis. The y deflection is in the right direction (towards the dielectric)  and we calculated the force causing it is about 1 mN. Unfortunately our noise level was fairly high so we will need to repeat this test early in the morning when we can get less noise. I'll post the raw data if anyone is interested.

    The biggest problem is obtaining symmetric current flow: we've shown that we can get significant deflections on resonance with asymmetric grounding which disappear off resonance. When fields don't build up surface currents are too small to cause a disturbance. We may need to weld our movable plate near a resonant position and manufacture some tuning fixture. However at high power we fear a tuning screw would not work (would probably arc). Are there any other relatively easy analog tuning methods for high power out there?

    The simulations are coming along, I've modeled a coax to waveguide to frustum with a VSWR of 1.15 and quality of ~22,000. Changing the length of the coax shifts the resonant frequency (non-linearly which surprised me) but maintains the quality. One question I have yet to answer: how can I model a coax to waveguide bought from a manufacturer without their proprietary information? (i.e. penetration depth and back wall distance) I was able to determine dimensions that give me a VSWR of 1.2 (their maximum quoted value) and used the dimensions for an RG142 coax.



    Instead I could model the system with a plane wave excitation, but how do I know the phase of the wave exiting the purchased waveguide? Maybe we should attempt to manufacture this waveguide on our own?
    I've emailed the manufacturer back with these questions, perhaps I am missing something or over analyzing...

    We've come to the conclusion that a microwave oven magnetron is far from ideal for this application. (As many of you have said before) The wide bandwidth and unpredictable shifting max power make designing any high quality resonator near impossible. Using a circulator could deliver power at the right frequency but would still filter out the majority of the power. And then we don't know how much power is actually being delivered to the cavity... NWPU must have overcome this challenge with a higher tolerance magnetron with a more stable frequency distribution.   

    Anyone have any suggestions, comments, questions?

    -Kurt

    I'd hold off on calling this null for a bit.  Doesn't seem that the expirement progressed to the point that a conclusion could be reached.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/05/2015 07:29 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.

    Zen-in,

    I agree with most of what you say above. In a perfect world it would be good to have every last detail logged and recorded. I expect that within reason the DIYs are keeping such logs. I don't know anything about what is involved in editing Wiki pages and I am not sure that posting every last detail for every experimental run or rerun, on the Wiki page, would be a good idea. For a large part of the Wiki audience it would be just noise. It would be good to have that information available for those with credible experience and the desire to review it.

    Where I disagree is on the value of the video record. These are DIY adventures that rely in part (large or small) on the donation of $$, by mostly interested lay persons. Both the Wiki page and especially the videos go a long way toward encouraging that kind of support.

    I cannot say how well any of the DIYs have been at keeping an unpublished log of their efforts. Still I have been impressed by their efforts and achievements.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 07:34 pm

    Except that "symmetrical" is not a precise, correct, statement, because any cavity (including cavities with uniform cross-section for example circular or rectangular cross-section) containing an unsymmetrically placed dielectric are effectively unsymmetric for the purposes of electromagnetic wave propagation (as there is a power loss in the dielectric but effectively insignificant power loss in the empty section, and as the group and phase velocities are different in the dielectric section than in the empty section of the cavity).

    . . .

    The negative result of Zellerium at a US University with such a cavity is important to be documented (it is still not listed in the EM Drive wiki).

    Quote
    Update:

    I spent the weekend polishing the cylinder and it looks much better (couldn't get some of the bigger scratches out unfortunately). However it definitely improved the VNA plots. Today we tested the attached resonance, seems to be matched very well at 2.434 GHz. But we still don't have a spectrum analysis of our magnetron, so we aren't sure how the power is distributed and how that changes over time. 

    The EMF strips arrived to hopefully improve electrical connection between the waveguide and cylinder without the messy Ox Gard. We heard some arcing when the magnetron fired up which seemed to stop (or at least quiet down) as the test continued. We definitely have some deflection but it could easily be due to asymmetric current flow to ground. The x deflection is actually a torque on the cylinder (clockwise if looking from above). This may also be from misalignment of the cylinder axis. The y deflection is in the right direction (towards the dielectric)  and we calculated the force causing it is about 1 mN. Unfortunately our noise level was fairly high so we will need to repeat this test early in the morning when we can get less noise. I'll post the raw data if anyone is interested.

    The biggest problem is obtaining symmetric current flow: we've shown that we can get significant deflections on resonance with asymmetric grounding which disappear off resonance. When fields don't build up surface currents are too small to cause a disturbance. We may need to weld our movable plate near a resonant position and manufacture some tuning fixture. However at high power we fear a tuning screw would not work (would probably arc). Are there any other relatively easy analog tuning methods for high power out there?

    The simulations are coming along, I've modeled a coax to waveguide to frustum with a VSWR of 1.15 and quality of ~22,000. Changing the length of the coax shifts the resonant frequency (non-linearly which surprised me) but maintains the quality. One question I have yet to answer: how can I model a coax to waveguide bought from a manufacturer without their proprietary information? (i.e. penetration depth and back wall distance) I was able to determine dimensions that give me a VSWR of 1.2 (their maximum quoted value) and used the dimensions for an RG142 coax.



    Instead I could model the system with a plane wave excitation, but how do I know the phase of the wave exiting the purchased waveguide? Maybe we should attempt to manufacture this waveguide on our own?
    I've emailed the manufacturer back with these questions, perhaps I am missing something or over analyzing...

    We've come to the conclusion that a microwave oven magnetron is far from ideal for this application. (As many of you have said before) The wide bandwidth and unpredictable shifting max power make designing any high quality resonator near impossible. Using a circulator could deliver power at the right frequency but would still filter out the majority of the power. And then we don't know how much power is actually being delivered to the cavity... NWPU must have overcome this challenge with a higher tolerance magnetron with a more stable frequency distribution.   

    Anyone have any suggestions, comments, questions?

    -Kurt

    I'd hold off on calling this null for a bit.  Doesn't seem that the expirement progressed to the point that a conclusion could be reached.

    If one would do that for every experimental result that is negative and doesn't agree with one's expectations, then  negative results are not going to ever be reported, if positive results are not forthcoming.

    You would have to define a priori (not a posteriori) what is your time framework for reporting results.

    In this case it is clear that Zellerium completed his experiments at the University (glennfish: please note that we are talking about Zellerium's experiments in a University, not DIY in a garage, and Zellerium wrote University reports), and he embarked to other curricular things (you said he actually was going to hand over the work to somebody else to continue it - although it seems that the future work would be on a different geometry, so it is clear that the work on a constant cross-section with unsymmetric dielectric was completed to that extent of the project), so it is quite proper to report such null results.  This is what is generally done in academia and R&D institutions.

    Even long-term experimental projects in Universities, as for example Ph.D. theses, that are funded by institutions (for example NASA, DoD, etc.) expect progress reports with reporting of partial results, including negative results.  That was my experience with NASA, the US Navy Research, US Army Research and US Air Force Research, both at Universities and in R&D at different companies.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 07:47 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.

    Zen-in,

    I agree with most of what you say above. In a perfect world it would be good to have every last detail logged and recorded. I expect that within reason the DIYs are keeping such logs. I don't know anything about what is involved in editing Wiki pages and I am not sure that posting every last detail for every experimental run or rerun, on the Wiki page, would be a good idea. For a large part of the Wiki audience it would be just noise. It would be good to have that information available for those with credible experience and the desire to review it.

    Where I disagree is on the value of the video record. These are DIY adventures that rely in part (large or small) on the donation of $$, by mostly interested lay persons. Both the Wiki page and especially the videos go a long way toward encouraging that kind of support.

    I cannot say how well any of the DIYs have been at keeping an unpublished log of their efforts. Still I have been impressed by their efforts and achievements.

    Please note that some of the experimental work being discussed has been conducted at Universities and they are not DIY work in a home or garage.  There is the work that Zellerium completed on the uniform cross section unsymmetrically placed dielectric cavity -which should be reported, as discussed above, as Zellerium wrote a formal report on it and completed his work to that extent-, and the yet still-to-be-heard of results of research work at a Canadian University using MegaWatts of power, as part of a student's project for example.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/05/2015 07:57 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.

    Zen-in,

    I agree with most of what you say above. In a perfect world it would be good to have every last detail logged and recorded. I expect that within reason the DIYs are keeping such logs. I don't know anything about what is involved in editing Wiki pages and I am not sure that posting every last detail for every experimental run or rerun, on the Wiki page, would be a good idea. For a large part of the Wiki audience it would be just noise. It would be good to have that information available for those with credible experience and the desire to review it.

    Where I disagree is on the value of the video record. These are DIY adventures that rely in part (large or small) on the donation of $$, by mostly interested lay persons. Both the Wiki page and especially the videos go a long way toward encouraging that kind of support.

    I cannot say how well any of the DIYs have been at keeping an unpublished log of their efforts. Still I have been impressed by their efforts and achievements.

    Please note that some of the experimental work being discussed has been conducted at Universities and it is not DIY in a home or garage work.  There is the work that Zellerium completed on the uniform cross section unsymmetrically placed dielectric cavity, and the yet still-to-be-heard of results of research work at a Canadian University using MegaWatts of power, as part of a student's project for example.

    Yes, and Paul March of NASA Eagleworks has posted some updates in the past. But none of those individuals/groups seem to be posting regularly here and wouldn't they be responsible for any of their own detailed information to be posted on Wiki?

    As I said I agree in principle. It just seems that it could be a burden in the case of most of those actively posting here.

    And my main point was that the photos and videos do play an important fund raising role for the DIYs who have been posting them.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 08:06 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.

    Zen-in,

    I agree with most of what you say above. In a perfect world it would be good to have every last detail logged and recorded. I expect that within reason the DIYs are keeping such logs. I don't know anything about what is involved in editing Wiki pages and I am not sure that posting every last detail for every experimental run or rerun, on the Wiki page, would be a good idea. For a large part of the Wiki audience it would be just noise. It would be good to have that information available for those with credible experience and the desire to review it.

    Where I disagree is on the value of the video record. These are DIY adventures that rely in part (large or small) on the donation of $$, by mostly interested lay persons. Both the Wiki page and especially the videos go a long way toward encouraging that kind of support.

    I cannot say how well any of the DIYs have been at keeping an unpublished log of their efforts. Still I have been impressed by their efforts and achievements.

    Please note that some of the experimental work being discussed has been conducted at Universities and it is not DIY in a home or garage work.  There is the work that Zellerium completed on the uniform cross section unsymmetrically placed dielectric cavity, and the yet still-to-be-heard of results of research work at a Canadian University using MegaWatts of power, as part of a student's project for example.

    Yes, and Paul March of NASA Eagleworks has posted some updates in the past. But none of those individuals/groups seem to be posting regularly here and wouldn't they be responsible for any of their own detailed information to be posted on Wiki?

    As I said I agree in principle. It just seems that it could be a burden in the case of most of those actively posting here.

    And my main point was that the photos and videos do play an important fund raising role for the DIYs who have been posting them.

    <<But none of those individuals/groups seem to be posting regularly here and wouldn't they be responsible for any of their own detailed information to be posted on Wiki?>>

    No, that would be completely inconsistent:

    * the information on Shawyer's on the Wiki was not posted by Shawyer
    * the information on Yang's on the Wiki was not posted by Yang
    * the information on NASA's on the Wiki was not posted by NASA
    * the information on Cannae on the Wiki was not posted by Fetta
    * the information on Dresden's on the Wiki was not posted by Dresden
    * and so on

    *the information on the DIY at Aachen on the Wiki was not posted by the Aachen fellows
    *the information on the DIY by Berca on the Wiki was not posted by Berca

    therefore the information on Zellerium's experimental work at the University (he published a formal report on the results) should also be posted, just like the work at Dresden, etc.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/05/2015 08:13 pm
    I have a question.

    What results from E cross B when there is no mass? That is, in a vacuum. And how strong does the electric field need to be to ionize air in the atmosphere? Would we see an E x B drift in that case?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 08:13 pm
    ...
    I've always been reluctant to update the wiki page on anyone other than my own experiment. Whats your thoughts Doc. I didn't start the wiki...
    Well, I didn't start the Wiki either.

    I only contributed to the Experimental Spreadsheet, actually I was the one that filled (and curated) most of the data for the Wiki spreadsheet -except for your experiment-.

    Until I did not have any more time available to continue posting here, or updating the Wiki.

    I'm definitely getting the impression that there is a lack of volunteers to fill the Wiki spreadsheet with the data from Zellerium's report.

    In other words: the consensus at the present time appears to be that it is nor worth anybody's time to curate the Wiki's spreadsheet on experimental results.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/05/2015 08:44 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video.    It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   Another aspect of testing is repeatability.   If someone does a test they should try to set up the experiment again under the same conditions and run it again.  These would be recorded as repeats of one experiment where the protocol has not changed.   It may be necessary to allow time for everything to cool down to room temperature and to fiddle with the apparatus so it is setup the same each time.    After several runs have been done - maybe 10 - 20 then run some statistical data analysis.   What is the standard deviation of the "thrust" that was measured?   What is the mean?   Plot the results on a bar graph so the whole set of experiments can be seen.   Now change some part of the experiment and repeat.

    Zen-in,

    I agree with most of what you say above. In a perfect world it would be good to have every last detail logged and recorded. I expect that within reason the DIYs are keeping such logs. I don't know anything about what is involved in editing Wiki pages and I am not sure that posting every last detail for every experimental run or rerun, on the Wiki page, would be a good idea. For a large part of the Wiki audience it would be just noise. It would be good to have that information available for those with credible experience and the desire to review it.

    Where I disagree is on the value of the video record. These are DIY adventures that rely in part (large or small) on the donation of $$, by mostly interested lay persons. Both the Wiki page and especially the videos go a long way toward encouraging that kind of support.

    I cannot say how well any of the DIYs have been at keeping an unpublished log of their efforts. Still I have been impressed by their efforts and achievements.

    If experimenters want to make videos of their experiments that is their choice.  I'm not saying they shouldn't do that.  I'm not trying to be the Taliban here.   But the recording of experimental results should not rely on just a video.   I don't think it's a lot to expect experimenters to record as much from their experiments as possible.   A lab notebook, with carefully written notes (in ink!!) of each experiment is a reward in itself.   It's a nice momento for the experimenter and allows easy, unambiguous references to the results of the experiment.   If data is recorded into a file, and written to a CD-ROM the reference to that file can be included.   One of the most important things here is to perform multiple runs of an experiment and then do the analysis of the data.    Showing these results doesn't take up a lot of space if it is shown as a graph.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 09:10 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/05/2015 09:19 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.

    I think the balance beams that both rfmwguy used and SeeShells has set up are just more accurate versions of your off the shelf triple beam. I think the digital scale Shell incorporates in her set up measures to 0.01g.

    Switching to a carbon fiber beam or some other material that is both ridged enough and less prone to expansion from heat, is a good idea but the cost is a bit high for an early stage balance.

    Could be wrong but that's the impression I get.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 09:46 pm

    If one would do that for every experimental result that is negative and doesn't agree with one's expectations, then  negative results are not going to ever be reported, if positive results are not forthcoming.

    You would have to define a priori (not a posteriori) what is your time framework for reporting results.

    In this case it is clear that Zellerium completed his experiments at the University (glennfish: please note that we are talking about Zellerium's experiments in a University, not DIY in a garage, and Zellerium wrote University reports), and he embarked to other curricular things (you said he actually was going to hand over the work to somebody else to continue it - although it seems that the future work would be on a different geometry, so it is clear that the work on a constant cross-section with unsymmetric dielectric was completed to that extent of the project), so it is quite proper to report such null results.  This is what is generally done in academia and R&D institutions.

    Even long-term experimental projects in Universities, as for example Ph.D. theses, that are funded by institutions (for example NASA, DoD, etc.) expect progress reports with reporting of partial results, including negative results.  That was my experience with NASA, the US Navy Research, US Army Research and US Air Force Research, both at Universities and in R&D at different companies.

    Urm, the report you linked to says only that:
    Quote
    We have developed many experimental designs over the course of our research and this document
    details our current plan of action. However, this design is subject to change as new knowledge is brought
    to our attention. We encourage those with expertise to examine our design and provide comments or
    advice concerning any aspect of the experiment. We intend to share all information discovered over the
    course of this experiment with the global community in hopes of accelerating the progress on this
    potentially revolutionary technology.

    In other words this describes a series of tests that they intended to conduct.  If you've got a link to a document issued in an official capacity stating a null result, then it should be listed as null.  All I'm seeing here is an undergraduate project that didn't make progress fast enough and that the University pulled support for.  Termination for lack of funding is not a null result. 

    Further, I'm worried that the torque they are reporting might be an important clue in the question of "if this does work why has nobody noticed it before?"  That said, I don't think anything should be listed on a project cancelled for lack of support. There simply is no data here. 

    But, while we're on the subject how about listing all the ways you can think of that a dielectric plug differs from a frustum.  The difference between the two might be interesting.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/05/2015 09:51 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    ...


    Scales have not been used because any that would support the weight of a fustrum don't have the sensitivity to measure the "thrust" produced.   One experimenter did build a counterbalanced apparatus but he discontinued his experimentation for some reason.  If you have a resolution of .1 grams-force that is the same as 0.00098 N  = 980 μN, about 20X what anyone has measured so far.   The other problem is getting something as large as a fustrum to stay on a scale.   The center of mass would have to be in the right location and as it heated the center of mass would move.   I have used an Ohaus triple beam scale for experiments.  The mass I have suspended was only 200 grams and I was seeing a force of < .1 gram-force.  The damping magnet is easily removed.   The torsion pendulum (TP) used by Eagleworks is a lot more sensitive and when a laser distance measurement device is used it can be directly calibrated to μNewtons.   One of the problems with the EW TP pointed out by frobnicat was its rotational axis is not exactly verticle.   This would allow thermal expansion of the fustrum to produce an error result.

    And another one (also present in vacuum at EW) :

    * Modification of stiffness of balance due to change in temperature.

    Paul March mentioned a return current path going through the springy steel foils elements of the flexure bearings used by the horizontal torsion pendulum at EW. Current -> change in temperature -> change in stiffness -> change in rest equilibrium position -> direct measured displacement.



    Also remember that the horizontal torsion pendulum at EW is not horizontal, it is slightly tilted, that is something attached to the pendulum's arm will not turn in a perfectly horizontal plane, making the experiment extremely sensitive to small displacements (on the µm scale) of parts relative to fixation point on the arm, such that thermal expansion will make the (angular) rest equilibrium position drift proportionately.

    Figures :
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811757;image

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811712

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=811959

    Associated posts :

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1341514#msg1341514

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1342331#msg1342331

    The reason EW team voluntarily introduced a small tilt in the system (and left a distance between the axis of rotation and the centre of mass of the pendulum arm moving assembly) was (and still is) to have a stable rest position, since the flexure bearings alone would define a drifting rest position due to varying thermal/mechanical load conditions (with no other way to tune/compensate for this drift) from experiment to experiment. I think this "trick" was and still is a very poor experimental choice, as it makes it all too easy for a small sustained thermal expansion to mimic a sustained "thrust" (in fact just a displacement in rest position). So they have to rely on time constant considerations, telling apart what part is thermal centre_of_mass shift induced and what part is "thrust" only on the relative velocities, fast or "impulsive" enough being catalogued as thrust.

    It is important to understand this when discussing thermal expansion (in regards of EW's results in vacuum) because we are not in the situation of a Cavendish style torsion balance, where the centre of mass of the whole moving assembly naturally has to align with axis of rotation (under suspension wire) and where test article centre of mass shifts would only impart minuscule temporary recoils while the long term effect of such shift would be intrinsically rejected (when the shift settles asymptotically to a new position, the angular rest equilibrium goes back to null reading). At EW, if a significant mass (say, the frustum) settles 1µm off when heated, then the arm's displacement reading follows and settles on the order of 1µm off.

    The solution, IMHO, would be to link the pendulum arm through a spring to a micrometer tuning vernier (fixed to ground) : that would allow to tune the initial angular rest position without fudging with the tilt of the whole balance. Then, adding on pendulum's arm a small servomotor shifting a small mass (10 grams) for a cm  (equivalent to 10kg moving 10µm) to measure sensitivity wrt mass shifts, and tune horizontality for the critical smallest sensitivity (best rejection) of such effect, not for the separate mundane problem of the initial angular rest position. There are no good reasons that a horizontal pendulum experiment should be that much sensitive to test article centre of mass shifts in the first place.

    All this can be done without the trouble of vacuum, and not counting man-hours this would cost less than 100$ in materials and make EW's experiment much more convincing, IMHO.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/05/2015 09:52 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.

    I think the balance beams that both rfmwguy used and SeeShells has set up are just more accurate versions of your off the shelf triple beam. I think the digital scale Shell incorporates in her set up measures to 0.01g.

    Switching to a carbon fiber beam or some other material that is both ridged enough and less prone to expansion from heat, is a good idea but the cost is a bit high for an early stage balance.

    Could be wrong but that's the impression I get.

    Yes, but how many labs have somebody able to tinker up a balance beam setup straight out of the 1890s.  Get something where the frustum can be built out of CAD and using off the shelf parts (especially a source/amp setup that does not represent an electrical danger) and you unleash a horde of undergraduate researchers.  Get a couple of hundred successful replications and suddenly this thing looks a bunch more plausible.

    Also, you can't get a large balance beam into most vacuum chambers.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/05/2015 10:12 pm
    Is the results table in the wiki available somewhere as a spreadsheet or CSV file?
    .xls file for you

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 10:39 pm

    If one would do that for every experimental result that is negative and doesn't agree with one's expectations, then  negative results are not going to ever be reported, if positive results are not forthcoming.

    You would have to define a priori (not a posteriori) what is your time framework for reporting results.

    In this case it is clear that Zellerium completed his experiments at the University (glennfish: please note that we are talking about Zellerium's experiments in a University, not DIY in a garage, and Zellerium wrote University reports), and he embarked to other curricular things (you said he actually was going to hand over the work to somebody else to continue it - although it seems that the future work would be on a different geometry, so it is clear that the work on a constant cross-section with unsymmetric dielectric was completed to that extent of the project), so it is quite proper to report such null results.  This is what is generally done in academia and R&D institutions.

    Even long-term experimental projects in Universities, as for example Ph.D. theses, that are funded by institutions (for example NASA, DoD, etc.) expect progress reports with reporting of partial results, including negative results.  That was my experience with NASA, the US Navy Research, US Army Research and US Air Force Research, both at Universities and in R&D at different companies.

    Urm, the report you linked to says only that:
    Quote
    We have developed many experimental designs over the course of our research and this document
    details our current plan of action. However, this design is subject to change as new knowledge is brought
    to our attention. We encourage those with expertise to examine our design and provide comments or
    advice concerning any aspect of the experiment. We intend to share all information discovered over the
    course of this experiment with the global community in hopes of accelerating the progress on this
    potentially revolutionary technology.

    In other words this describes a series of tests that they intended to conduct.  If you've got a link to a document issued in an official capacity stating a null result, then it should be listed as null.  All I'm seeing here is an undergraduate project that didn't make progress fast enough and that the University pulled support for.  Termination for lack of funding is not a null result. 

    Further, I'm worried that the torque they are reporting might be an important clue in the question of "if this does work why has nobody noticed it before?"  That said, I don't think anything should be listed on a project cancelled for lack of support. There simply is no data here. 

    But, while we're on the subject how about listing all the ways you can think of that a dielectric plug differs from a frustum.  The difference between the two might be interesting.

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Concerning <<all the ways you can think of that a dielectric plug differs from a frustum>> you can search for Mulletron's posts, and Notsosureofit's posts (Notsosureofit and myself actually cooperated on a closed-form equation for it) and mainly search for Prof. Woodward (in NSF and in the web) who has stated words to the effect that the only way that it makes sense to him for the EM Drive to produce any spaceflight thrust is by using a dielectric unsymmetrically placed in a cavity (of any shape).  Also you can search for what Prof. Woodward thinks of R. Shawyer's theory.  Actually Prof. Woodward with Prof. Fearn has a paper coming up on this subject to be published, as I understand.

    Also several books on Electromagnetic Fields cover the issue of dielectrics unsymmetrically placed in cavities, foremost is the one by Collin (the one on Guided Waves requires an understanding of mathematics beyond Calculus, like Green's functions, etc.)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 10:40 pm


    In this case it is clear that Zellerium completed his experiments at the University (glennfish: please note that we are talking about Zellerium's experiments in a University, not DIY in a garage, and Zellerium wrote University reports), and he embarked to other curricular things (you said he actually was going to hand over the work to somebody else to continue it - although it seems that the future work would be on a different geometry, so it is clear that the work on a constant cross-section with unsymmetric dielectric was completed to that extent of the project), so it is quite proper to report such null results.  This is what is generally done in academia and R&D institutions.

    Even long-term experimental projects in Universities, as for example Ph.D. theses, that are funded by institutions (for example NASA, DoD, etc.) expect progress reports with reporting of partial results, including negative results.  That was my experience with NASA, the US Navy Research, US Army Research and US Air Force Research, both at Universities and in R&D at different companies.

    Noted.

    Previously I proposed data reporting standards for folks in the DIY category.

    Taking your comments in an expanded context, do you think we could converge on a generalized experimental design template?  There's a lot of factors that can't be accounted for in each approach but it seems to me that if we had some sort of reporting template, it would be easier to report both positive & negative results within the constraints of what they have the capacity to control for.

    At the same time, such a template could give guidance about what to record and what not to record.  i.e. phase of the moon is off the list of observations, but anything thermal is in.

    I think video recording would be on the must do list and easy for most folks because there are some folks monitoring this thread who are extremely good at converting otherwise useless video in to time stamped data that can be analyzed.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/05/2015 10:52 pm


    In this case it is clear that Zellerium completed his experiments at the University (glennfish: please note that we are talking about Zellerium's experiments in a University, not DIY in a garage, and Zellerium wrote University reports), and he embarked to other curricular things (you said he actually was going to hand over the work to somebody else to continue it - although it seems that the future work would be on a different geometry, so it is clear that the work on a constant cross-section with unsymmetric dielectric was completed to that extent of the project), so it is quite proper to report such null results.  This is what is generally done in academia and R&D institutions.

    Even long-term experimental projects in Universities, as for example Ph.D. theses, that are funded by institutions (for example NASA, DoD, etc.) expect progress reports with reporting of partial results, including negative results.  That was my experience with NASA, the US Navy Research, US Army Research and US Air Force Research, both at Universities and in R&D at different companies.

    Noted.

    Previously I proposed data reporting standards for folks in the DIY category.

    Taking your comments in an expanded context, do you think we could converge on a generalized experimental design template?  There's a lot of factors that can't be accounted for in each approach but it seems to me that if we had some sort of reporting template, it would be easier to report both positive & negative results within the constraints of what they have the capacity to control for.

    At the same time, such a template could give guidance about what to record and what not to record.  i.e. phase of the moon is off the list of observations, but anything thermal is in.

    I think video recording would be on the must do list and easy for most folks because there are some folks monitoring this thread who are extremely good at converting otherwise useless video in to time stamped data that can be analyzed.

    I appreciate and share your interest in doing this, but it appears to me that the consensus at the present time (from the responses concerning reporting Zellerium's results, for example) appears to be that it is not worth anybody's time to curate the Wiki's spreadsheet on experimental results or to formalize these experiments any further.

    Maybe as further results are disclosed we could re-establish a level of enthusiasm to do this (for example Shell has a very interesting experimental set-up, and I hope that NASA Eagleworks may replicate their experiments at NASA Glenn which were previously conducted at NASA Johnson, we may also hear more news from Dresden as they hinted to further testing at the end of their last report)   :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/05/2015 11:03 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.

    I think the balance beams that both rfmwguy used and SeeShells has set up are just more accurate versions of your off the shelf triple beam. I think the digital scale Shell incorporates in her set up measures to 0.01g.

    Switching to a carbon fiber beam or some other material that is both ridged enough and less prone to expansion from heat, is a good idea but the cost is a bit high for an early stage balance.

    Could be wrong but that's the impression I get.

    It cost me around $115 for three pieces 2 - 1 m and 1 - 2 m composite tubes with shipping.

    I also considered the metal scales but with thermal effects and magnetic effects I put them aside. I also looked at getting a scale and gutting it out to eliminate as much error prone materials I could and increasing the sensitivity. I ended up with a carbon fiber beam.

    I also did a sheet to look at the critical things in a EMDrive that looked like they would be critical to thrust. Here is a pic of the spreadsheet I did.

    Shell

    added: Unless it's not obvious to you looking at the critical aspect, it's the thrust vs photon rocket efficiency and the modes that are used to drive that value. It's TE modes, specifically the TE012 and TE013  which both provided the highest ratios. Even considering if the Chinese fudged the numbers to 1/10th of the real values the others in combinations shows that these operating modes are the one to pursue.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/05/2015 11:16 pm

    I appreciate and share your interest in doing this, but it appears to me that the consensus at the present time (from the responses concerning reporting Zellerium's results, for example) appears to be that it is not worth anybody's time to curate the Wiki's spreadsheet on experimental results or to formalize these experiments any further.

    Maybe as further results are disclosed we could re-establish a level of enthusiasm to do this (for example Shell has a very interesting experimental set-up, and I hope that NASA Eagleworks may replicate their experiments at NASA Glenn which were previously conducted at NASA Johnson, we may also hear more news from Dresden)   :)

    well... I've directly engaged Shell & RFMGUY on methodology concerns and they were receptive.  I know there's one or two other builders out there that I haven't engaged.  They've been receptive, albeit not committed.

    I could set up a wiki where literally anything could be uploaded...

    I could set up a google share for the same purpose.

    My sense is that their intentions are to demonstrate some kind of result, good or bad.

    If there were a guidance, especially from you, the guru of propriety in physics (an EM DIY Fatwa?),  I could waste my own time providing templates and data stores for critique, plus the offer to provide statistical and methodological guidance unique to each builder.

    For example, when RFMWGUY did is his first round, the only way to share data was through attachments in this thread.  It never ended up in a repository that could be browsed.  When I did my statistical analyses, they were attachments that wouldn't permit VBA macros to be uploaded due to the rules of this site.

    IMHO, this endeavor won't drop off the face of the earth when RFMWGUY or SEE run out of money or interest.  I would think that a common data store, a common methodology template, a common experimental template, a common data reporting standard would be of value.

    Even if EW and Dresden report totally negative results including the current crop of DIY folks, the sociology strongly suggests this is a decades issue.  To that end, I think some effort should be made to support anyone who wants to explore this.  Perhaps, think of it as a curriculum guide to teaching EM-Drive?

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/05/2015 11:24 pm
    Google Drive is free and provides a common interchange format for collaborative spreadsheets and text documents.  It can convert to and from most other formats.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/05/2015 11:27 pm
    To that end, I think some effort should be made to support anyone who wants to explore this.  Perhaps, think of it as a curriculum guide to teaching EM-Drive?

    I have created archves of all of Dave and Shell's data. Here is Daves:

    Quote
    NSF posts:
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=messages;u=47785

    NSF attachments:
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach;u=47785

    YouTube Channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videos)

    Google Drive of all NSF attachments and YouTube videos:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iUUF4ZXVIVldzRlU&usp=sharing

    Dave has a lot of excellent experimental data, images and videos for us all to learn quite a lot from. Well done Dave, keep the good oil coming.

    As Dave produces more data I'll keep his Google Drive archive updated so all of Dave's data can be found and studied in one place.

    Dave told me he was able to find data he could not otherwise find.

    Doing the same for Shell and all the other EmDrive experimenters.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 12/05/2015 11:42 pm
    I looked at the wiki page a few times and I don't believe the data accurately shows the outcome of diy experiments.   Part of the problem is people like to "data reduce" and cherry pick data.    A more scientific method is to establish a protocol to follow for each experiment and to record everything in exacting detail as it is done in a lab notebook.    Each experimental run then has a complete paper record that can be referred to later on.  Video recording is fine but I don't think it is suitable for recording an experiment.   There are too many measurements, changes to the apparatus, etc.  that are not available in a video. It appears the EW tests did follow this method but I don't believe they provided data on all their tests.   
    ...
    Bold added for emphasis.

    Back when he was apparently free and willing to post content, I asked quite a few times (at least 3) to Paul March,  that he gave us some plots of the null results reported without dielectric inserts, to no avail. I didn't want to sound impolite by insisting more, and he was in no obligation to answer all requests by anonymous users on a forum (now he is unfortunately in obligation to answer none...). But the result is so far, the only data we have about those null results is a sidenote like "no detectable thrust when no dielectric used". (Don't remember exactly, please correct me if wrong).

    Considering that the father of EMdrive is working on (and reporting spectacular positives for) "dielectricless" devices, that a number of experimenters are reporting positives with cavities without dielectric, this sounds important to understand this experimental null result at EW, and yet we have no details : how hard they tried, at what frequencies, did the plots looked like flat flat or just so so...

    I think that it has something to do with the less than desirable aspect of the positives' plots (smoothed out step up and step down responses) on top of (and in continuity to) long term drifts of similar magnitudes. Paul March remarked, while arguing that we (people with an involvement in advanced concepts) wouldn't be interested by the countless fruitless tests and experiments data points (again I'm sorry if I'm horribly mischaracterizing what he said, I'm citing by memory), that there was a continuum of responses, from fast (deemed enough to indicate EM induced thrust) to slow (thermal).

    Ah, here it is :
    link (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1364093#msg1364093)
    Quote from: Star-Drive
    ...
    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.

    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.
    Bold and underline added for emphasis.

    I think EW's null results (plots) with cavities without dielectric are not reported because they would worsen the case of this problematic separation between thermal and EM driven responses, by showing how fuzzy it is (even more than it already appears). That's only my impression, I could be wrong (hope so). But what's for sure is that all the validity of the conclusion of reality of an EM driven response at all, at EW, rests on this separation and the clarity of this separation. It's hard to argue that this is fragile, and to me frankly unconvincing.

    Back to the null results (without dielectric) as a valuable data point, they are interesting because they show that it is possible to get null results, at least with an horizontal torsion pendulum, even at atmospheric pressure. I think this is an encouragement to DIYers : it is possible to get good true negatives without a vacuum chamber.

    p.s.
    EW = EagleWorks lab.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/05/2015 11:59 pm
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.

    Why is everyone fixated on balance beams? If I were to build an EM drive (and I'm not), I'd suspend the frustum/microwave source from a non-magnetic/non-conductive wire (quartz perhaps), and a spring. It will seek it's own rest point. Below the spring I would mount a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). An LVDT can be capable of sub-micron resolution. They are inexpensive, and can even be easily fabricated by the do-it-yourself (DIY) crowd.

    I would then fire up the rig, and measure its vertical displacement, inclusive of thermal effects. Next, I would reverse the frustum and re-run the test. With a simple cylindrical shroud around the frustum/microwave source, the thermal effects would be identical (same thermal energy injected into the same "chimney").

    The difference between the two tests would be thrust, even if you used coaxial cable injection from the microwave source to the frustum, since the weight of the coax would be automatically compensated by the suspension system. No attempting to "tare" balance beams under very fiddly conditions.

    And I'll say it again. With decades in the microwave business, trying to split millimeters to fab a waveguide (of any kind, even a truncated cone), to resonance match a free running oven magnetron is an exercise in frustumation, I mean frustration. It's pointless. It's not possible. There is no center frequency to match to.

    Once more, you need to build a frustum per common microwave standards, and then PHASE LOCK (or at least frequency lock) the SOURCE to the CAVITY. Some folks here are starting to get the idea that they need to clean up the magnetron to the point that it can be phase locked. Some folks may have the right idea.

    In short, less tin-knocking, more electrical engineering. Phase locking a magnetron is not rocket science, but it won't be done with something in a kitchen appliance. And then you have to consider whether the pulse repetition rate (PRR) of the standard kitchen magnetron (50 or 60 Hertz) might be crucial to the purported effect. So your phase locked loop (PLL) needs to be able to deal with losing its input signal every 16 milliseconds (msec) for 16 msec (50% PRR).

    Just some food for thought. Think simple, think sideways.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 12:00 am
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1441094#msg1441094

    Quote
    As to testing a frustum without a dielectric, we have tested this configuration in an aluminum frustum on a new teeter-totter balance using hundreds of watts of 2.45 GHz RF power, and we MAY have observed a non-zero thrust results while in-air.  Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 12:06 am
    I noticed that Paul March went way of his way to write MAY with capital letters ("MAY have observed" instead of simply "have observed").
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 12:10 am
    In short, less tin-knocking, more electrical engineering. Phase locking a magnetron is not rocket science, but it won't be done with something in a kitchen appliance. And then you have to consider whether the pulse repetition rate (PRR) of the standard kitchen magnetron (50 or 60 Hertz) might be crucial to the purported effect. So your phase locked loop (PLL) needs to be able to deal with losing its input signal every 16 milliseconds (msec) for 16 msec (50% PRR).

    Just some food for thought. Think simple, think sideways.

    If you are a reasonably skilled EE, most of the work has been done. You might find this folder's papers of interest:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iOTZRZlltYVhWTHc&usp=sharing

    +-5kHz output bandwidth was achieved using a standard kitchen oven maggie.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 12:13 am
    I noticed that Paul March went way of his way to write MAY with capital letters ("MAY have observed" instead of simply "have observed").

    Reading Paul's last line

    Quote
    Past that, you'll have to wait for the peer reviewed test report on this topic after the copper frustum test report is published.

    would imply there is a separate peer reviewed paper being developed on the test results from this new setup.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/06/2015 12:14 am
    For Dave, Shell, and the others involved in their projects their constraints are time, money, space (some unheated ;) ) and lack of sleep. It seems to me that if you want to give them the maximum help, you should ask them what they need to stay on track with their further work, and improve what they can within their constraints. In other words, "How may I assist you, now?"

    Truly, a LOT of assistance has already been provided and I'm sure more is forthcoming.

    It just seems to me that if there are reasonable incremental experimental attempts that continue to evidence the possibility of a thrust effect through multiple small iterations, the additional funding necessary to resolve the constraints and provide the extremely detailed standardization and documentation needed will come. Ultimately major universities and institutions like NASA will be needed to provide the level of credibility that the broader scientific community will demand.

    A question that might even be harder to deal with is "What will Science do when the have to list a group of contributors with the names of  Zen-In, Prunesqualler, rfmwguy, SeaShells, ThereIWas3, frobnicat, aero, Rodal and TheTraveller?" ;D

    They've never had to deal with crowd-sourcing before.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 01:02 am
    For Dave, Shell, and the others involved in their projects their constraints are time, money, space (some unheated ;) ) and lack of sleep. It seems to me that if you want to give them the maximum help, you should ask them what they need to stay on track with their further work, and improve what they can within their constraints. In other words, "How may I assist you, now?"

    Truly, a LOT of assistance has already been provided and I'm sure more is forthcoming.

    It just seems to me that if there are reasonable incremental experimental attempts that continue to evidence the possibility of a thrust effect through multiple small iterations, the additional funding necessary to resolve the constraints and provide the extremely detailed standardization and documentation needed will come. Ultimately major universities and institutions like NASA will be needed to provide the level of credibility that the broader scientific community will demand.

    A question that might even be harder to deal with is "What will Science do when the have to list a group of contributors with the names of  Zen-In, Prunesqualler, rfmwguy, SeaShells, ThereIWas3, frobnicat, aero, Rodal and TheTraveller?" ;D

    They've never had to deal with crowd-sourcing before.

    The answer will depend, as always, on the results  ;)  :

    Quote
    Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

    John F. Kennedy

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 01:26 am
    On repeatability, I've been thinking that the current balance beam setups might be a problem.  Each one introduces a bunch of unknowns, and no tow beams are going to work alike. 

    Simply sitting a frustum on a modern digital scale might cause RFI.

    So I got to thinking about the old tri-beam balances I used in high school.  Why not measure on a completely analog scale?  Dial in the weight of the frustum, let it stablize and if the thing moved that's interesting.

    While led me to find these things:

    (http://assets.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/DimRegular/1560_sd_image_1.jpg)

    And I got to thinking, put a frustum on one end and dial in the weight and you could:

    1.  Place a level showing distance in mm on the other end, shoot a laser pointer at it, and measure the amount of displacement on the level with a digital camera.

    2.  Put a laser displacement sensor under the unused side to measure very small movements.

    The upshot of this is that you can model the effect of lift and downward thrust by placing weights on either side of the balance.

    People here don't like the idea because of concerns about the magnetic dampening used.  I still think this setup might be a useful tool in allowing tests to be done on a bench, and not requiring a large beam setup.  Better yet it uses a measuring tool that can be easily acquired.

    Which brings me to my gold standard EMDrive test:

    1.  Get a tripple beam balance rated to around 2600g with 0.1g resolution.  I could be wrong, but I can't see any mention of any form of dampening on these things.

    2.  Get a frustum believed to have at least 0.1 grams of thrust in a vacuum.  Preferably an integrated test article.

    3.  Point frustum so that the thrust is directed downward with the thing on the tripple balance beam scale in a vacuum chamber (testing in a vacuum).

    4.  If the thing moves downward (especially on the integrated setup) then rebuild the setup with a balance made of non-ferrous polymers.  If you're still getting 0.1 grams of force, then I'd be hard pressed to say that it's anything but thrust.  No air, no electronics to get fouled, probably nothing magnetic to cause the effect.

    5. Flip and check to make sure the effect still exists inverted.

    Why is everyone fixated on balance beams? If I were to build an EM drive (and I'm not), I'd suspend the frustum/microwave source from a non-magnetic/non-conductive wire (quartz perhaps), and a spring. It will seek it's own rest point. Below the spring I would mount a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). An LVDT can be capable of sub-micron resolution. They are inexpensive, and can even be easily fabricated by the do-it-yourself (DIY) crowd.

    I would then fire up the rig, and measure its vertical displacement, inclusive of thermal effects. Next, I would reverse the frustum and re-run the test. With a simple cylindrical shroud around the frustum/microwave source, the thermal effects would be identical (same thermal energy injected into the same "chimney").

    The difference between the two tests would be thrust, even if you used coaxial cable injection from the microwave source to the frustum, since the weight of the coax would be automatically compensated by the suspension system. No attempting to "tare" balance beams under very fiddly conditions.

    And I'll say it again. With decades in the microwave business, trying to split millimeters to fab a waveguide (of any kind, even a truncated cone), to resonance match a free running oven magnetron is an exercise in frustumation, I mean frustration. It's pointless. It's not possible. There is no center frequency to match to.

    Once more, you need to build a frustum per common microwave standards, and then PHASE LOCK (or at least frequency lock) the SOURCE to the CAVITY. Some folks here are starting to get the idea that they need to clean up the magnetron to the point that it can be phase locked. Some folks may have the right idea.

    In short, less tin-knocking, more electrical engineering. Phase locking a magnetron is not rocket science, but it won't be done with something in a kitchen appliance. And then you have to consider whether the pulse repetition rate (PRR) of the standard kitchen magnetron (50 or 60 Hertz) might be crucial to the purported effect. So your phase locked loop (PLL) needs to be able to deal with losing its input signal every 16 milliseconds (msec) for 16 msec (50% PRR).

    Just some food for thought. Think simple, think sideways.

    Good engineering thoughts and I respect what you have to say, I can tell you put a lot of thought into it.

    Consider these couple things in a build as well.

    First, build the DUT to compensate for the thermal effects of 100's of watts of mode focused energy.

    1. The Metal frustum will grow and warp with a tuned phase locked loop locked or not. The tuning is only good for compensation between the end plates. When in tune they will warp and expand depending on the mode of induction, this will in turn cause the Q to drop whereby causing the PLL to try to compensate. It can't because the plate distance has remained the same but the copper endplate has warped not the distance between the plates, as your PLL tries to compensate the q still drops as will your thrust. The heat travels into the side walls where it causes the walls of the frustum to grow and expand and further reducing the Q, the PLL trys to compensate but the endplates are still warped and struggles to keep up with failing Qs and thrust as your cavity deforms.

    First build a thermally compensating frustum. Use copper endplates bonded to a ceramic plate that will not warp under the heated modes and allow the heat to travel up the sides of the frustum expanding the walls but it doesn't matter as the two endplates are locked together by a quartz rod through the center.

    Stabilize the magnetron output with some great tips found online (inverter), get rid of the splatter. Remove the magnetron off the frustum because you cannot cool it with a fan or a water jacket. Now you have a stable frequency output from your magnetron couple it directly into the coax from the 1/4 wave antenna out of the magnetron. As long as you terminate into another 1/4 wave antenna or waveguide in the frustum your VSWR will remain very low. You magnetron will not drift because you are keeping it cool away from the frustum and the testing area (heat is a killer for the magnetron being stable)

    Now if you still need and want to PLL the inverter you can do it and it will fine tune to a very high Q without drifting.


    Shell

    Added: in using a new style Panasonic Inverter the switching frequency is 33Khz and can be filtered out to give you a very nice output without the 50% duty cycle a old style iron cored magnetron power supply.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/06/2015 01:36 am

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.

    Quote
    Concerning <<all the ways you can think of that a dielectric plug differs from a frustum>> you can search for Mulletron's posts, and Notsosureofit's posts (Notsosureofit and myself actually cooperated on a closed-form equation for it) and mainly search for Prof. Woodward (in NSF and in the web) who has stated words to the effect that the only way that it makes sense to him for the EM Drive to produce any spaceflight thrust is by using a dielectric unsymmetrically placed in a cavity (of any shape).  Also you can search for what Prof. Woodward thinks of R. Shawyer's theory.  Actually Prof. Woodward with Prof. Fearn has a paper coming up on this subject to be published, as I understand.
    Is there a pre-publication link?  Look, I'm seeing what appears to be a bunch of abandoned tests.  After pricing out what it would take to test one of these things, I think I can understand why.  My gut is telling me one of two things.  Either 1. this is a magic trick for scientists with error sources that are hard to pin down.  In twenty years telling a new graduate student to pin down how the EmDrive "works" may pose a way to test them on their lab techniques.  2.  This is something dead simple, probably at or just above a Newtonian level of complexity.  We've missed it because the processes involved are outside of the human sensory range.  (Who knows, maybe creatures who's sight involves microwaves combined with some kind of sonic location picked up on this effect in their bronze age.  The point is we should not assume that all simple things are going to be easy to see).  There might be no reported null test results, because there are no null test results to report. 

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 01:52 am

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.
    ...
    Quote the posts?   ;D

    I have been in these threads since thread 1.  Do you know how many messages is that?.  ;) I recall many of the discussions we had in the threads, but quote the posts?  I would not even be able to find the quotes of the work we did together with Notsosureofit (great cooperation) and many others, and even less the quotes regarding Zellerium.

    ;) Too much time to find those quotes and it doesn't make a difference to me. RFMWGUY stated that he had a similar recollection regarding the negative results with a uniform cross-section cavity.
    Do you think that Zellerium never conducted any tests ?
    You think that it may have been << a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests)>>  ???
    Sorry you were not around when these test discussions were taking place  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/06/2015 02:15 am
    For Dave, Shell, and the others involved in their projects their constraints are time, money, space (some unheated ;) ) and lack of sleep. It seems to me that if you want to give them the maximum help, you should ask them what they need to stay on track with their further work, and improve what they can within their constraints. In other words, "How may I assist you, now?"

    Truly, a LOT of assistance has already been provided and I'm sure more is forthcoming.

    It just seems to me that if there are reasonable incremental experimental attempts that continue to evidence the possibility of a thrust effect through multiple small iterations, the additional funding necessary to resolve the constraints and provide the extremely detailed standardization and documentation needed will come. Ultimately major universities and institutions like NASA will be needed to provide the level of credibility that the broader scientific community will demand.

    A question that might even be harder to deal with is "What will Science do when the have to list a group of contributors with the names of  Zen-In, Prunesqualler, rfmwguy, SeaShells, ThereIWas3, frobnicat, aero, Rodal and TheTraveller?" ;D

    They've never had to deal with crowd-sourcing before.

    Why it will be called a Shawyer drive using a shifting Shell mode  (go look at 2.46 ghz, TT's spreadsheet is showing resonance at both TE013 and TM013, suspect that will either generate one of Shell's unstable modes or be useless) with a Distler geometry and a Traveller tuner created using an Aero model of the Rodal-Zen-Woodward effect. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/06/2015 02:23 am
    In short, less tin-knocking, more electrical engineering. Phase locking a magnetron is not rocket science, but it won't be done with something in a kitchen appliance. And then you have to consider whether the pulse repetition rate (PRR) of the standard kitchen magnetron (50 or 60 Hertz) might be crucial to the purported effect. So your phase locked loop (PLL) needs to be able to deal with losing its input signal every 16 milliseconds (msec) for 16 msec (50% PRR).

    Just some food for thought. Think simple, think sideways.

    If you are a reasonably skilled EE, most of the work has been done. You might find this folder's papers of interest:
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iOTZRZlltYVhWTHc&usp=sharing

    +-5kHz output bandwidth was achieved using a standard kitchen oven maggie.

    +-5kHZ output bandwidth means nothing to an RF engineer. Is this 3 dB bandwidth? Is it phase noise? As usual, Traveller, you do a lot of hand waving, and never firmly define your terms. Neat graphics, but no information. I've been watching the Shawyer effect for almost 2 decades. I'm still watching.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 02:44 am
    +-5kHZ output bandwidth means nothing to an RF engineer. Is this 3 dB bandwidth? Is it phase noise? As usual, Traveller, you do a lot of hand waving, and never firmly define your terms. Neat graphics, but no information. I've been watching the Shawyer effect for almost 2 decades. I'm still watching.

    As an engineer, I always talk +-3dB bandwidths.

    Data is there. I provided the link to the papers I have collected on the subject. Only needs a read. Have attached the most relevant so you don't need to read all the other papers even though they are also of relevance to the subject. Even a few papers about driving a superconducting cavity with a maggie.

    I promise you 2016 will be a very interesting year.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/06/2015 03:08 am
    For Dave, Shell, and the others involved in their projects their constraints are time, money, space (some unheated ;) ) and lack of sleep. It seems to me that if you want to give them the maximum help, you should ask them what they need to stay on track with their further work, and improve what they can within their constraints. In other words, "How may I assist you, now?"

    Truly, a LOT of assistance has already been provided and I'm sure more is forthcoming.

    It just seems to me that if there are reasonable incremental experimental attempts that continue to evidence the possibility of a thrust effect through multiple small iterations, the additional funding necessary to resolve the constraints and provide the extremely detailed standardization and documentation needed will come. Ultimately major universities and institutions like NASA will be needed to provide the level of credibility that the broader scientific community will demand.

    A question that might even be harder to deal with is "What will Science do when the have to list a group of contributors with the names of  Zen-In, Prunesqualler, rfmwguy, SeaShells, ThereIWas3, frobnicat, aero, Rodal and TheTraveller?" ;D

    They've never had to deal with crowd-sourcing before.

    Why it will be called a Shawyer drive using a shifting Shell mode  (go look at 2.46 ghz, TT's spreadsheet is showing resonance at both TE013 and TM013, suspect that will either generate one of Shell's unstable modes or be useless) with a Distler geometry and a Traveller tuner created using an Aero model of the Rodal-Zen-Woodward effect.

    Can we shorten that to the SDSMDT T2 AZW Effect, with Thousand Island dressing??  ;D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/06/2015 03:09 am
    I was doing some simple calculations about chamber length and sensitivity to dimensional changes.   Looking at the results spreadsheet, I observe that the various reported chamber lengths as measured in wavelengths at the driving frequency are all over the place, from 0.58λ to 2.11λ.  The most common size is around 1.4 - 1.7 wavelengths.  This is in resonance?

    I calculate that, at 2.54 GHz, a change in chamber length of 1mm due to heating or other causes would require a frequency change of 0.7% to match, if being in resonance is actually important.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: robus on 12/06/2015 03:10 am
    Einstein was a Patent Clerk. I'm pretty sure that he sat in an uncomfortable chair in a dingy office reviewing things like new can openers and perpetual motion machines. Pretty dull stuff.

    Somehow, he found the time to change the universe. And he took a lot of crap in the process.

    Einstein was not a lowly patent clerk by choice. He had been a brilliant PhD student who had run so many rings around his professors that none of them recommended him for a post-doc. He took the clerking job to keep a roof over his head. And yes he paid just enough attention to his day job to avoid getting fired and he wasn't there for long before his undeniable genius got him a more worthy position. A small plea for this "Einstein was an autodidact " meme to die... :)

    On the acronym front, I'm not mistaken that NSF is referring to the National Science Foundation right? Right? ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 03:11 am
    My frustum design has changed to allow different end plates to be evaluated and to allow easy access to the inside of the frustum for antenna tuning, polishing, adding sample ports, etc.

    This is not the nitrogen filled version. Just the 1st cut. Expect to build a lot of frustums before I get this very right.

    My VNA and spectrum analyser will help the R&D effort. Also nice that my 100W Rf amp provides real time Forward and Reflected power outputs, which can be compared to the peak rtn loss dB / VSWR data from the VNA resonance scans.

    Also experimenting with being able to generate a narrow band maggie output and to be able to modify the maggie freq to track frustum resonance changes. Will also have the 100W Rf amp system, so to experiment with both waveguide into the side wall and coax to internal antenna frustum Rf energy feed systems.

    More into on my plans, experiments and build progress is here. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch There you can also find the DIY archives that are being created for all the known DIY EmDrive efforts.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/06/2015 03:18 am
    Lets see: EMDrive Wiki 2.0

    Must: Be a website, not a google docs files.  Websites are indexed by searched engines and archived.  A google drive can be lost with time, a record of a webside is more likely to remain.

    Categories:
    Introduction to the EMDrive / Press Kit
    (What we know.  What this thing can and cannot do.)

    Library
         -- Popular Press
         -- Academic Papers
    (A place where the papers that keep getting mentioned in these threads can be recorded, and a way to not see the same news story reposted every couple of weeks on reddit).

    Theories
         -- Published Academic Theories
         -- Other/Working Theories
    (Hopefully setup as a series of sandboxes so all of us with a crackpot theory can record it and supporting documents somewhere.)

    How to Conduct a Test -- Best Practices

    Plans
         -- Test Setup
         -- Frustum
    (Might encourage folks to document their test rigs.  Frustum's may be fairly easy to design, but I think having a repository of plans would be helpful).

    Parts & Materials
    (Possibly with some sandboxing to allow folks to upload things like links to good cheapish VNAs.)

    Simulations
         -- MEEP / COSMAL / Other Sims
    (Hopefully also sandboxed so that folks can upload their MEEP/COSMAL outputs.  I'd really be interested to see MEEP outputs of Shawyers reported builds.  Note, depending on the data allowed to be uploaded these could be some big files.)

    Results
         -- Reported
         -- Rumored

    Test Data Logs
    (A place to put spreadsheets and videos/links to videos)

    Data I think we need to collect on each test:

    Day/Time (UTC and Local)
    Atmospheric Pressure / Torr for Vacuum 
    Ambient Temp
    Humidity (Atmospheric Only).
    Average Duration of Test Cycle (i.e. mag on 10s, 100%, mag on 30s, 50% -- five minute run)
    Drop Down menu -- (Vertical Test, Horizontal Test, Rotating Test).

    Thrust (Actual) - Up
    Thrust (Actual) - Down
    Thrust (Large Base on TP)
    Thrust (Small Base on TP)
    Thrust (Net)
    Thrust (Net, N/kw)
    Max RPM (For rotating rig)

    Frustum Dimensions
    Frequency
    Target Mode(s)
    Q -- Tajmar
    Q -- Nasa
    Qr
    Gross Power Input into Frustum
    Power on Target Frequency
    Link to test rig setup plans/drawings/photos
    VNA / VSWR outputs
    Power Source
    Test Article Composition  (with check box for oxide free Cu).
    Before / After pictures of test article
    Peak Recorded Temp Large Base
    Peak Recorded Temp Small Base
    Peak Recorded Temp, Sidewall
    Thermal Imagery
    Measured Air Current Off Top of Frustum (Not sure how this is going to be done, but know it needs to be done for atmospheric tests).
    Data Logs

    That last point might be the most critical.  Let me emphasize how helpful we've found digitally outputted data logs.  Future logs would, hopefully, capture in standard units and include device on, off cycles.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 03:22 am
    I was doing some simple calculations about chamber length and sensitivity to dimensional changes.   Looking at the results spreadsheet, I observe that the various reported chamber lengths as measured in wavelengths at the driving frequency are all over the place, from 0.58λ to 2.11λ.  The most common size is around 1.4 - 1.7 wavelengths.  This is in resonance?

    I calculate that, at 2.54 GHz, a change in chamber length of 1mm due to heating or other causes would require a frequency change of 0.7% to match, if being in resonance is actually important.

    Resonance requires 1 or more 1/2 waves at the effective guide wavelength (which is longer than the external wavelength) to fit between the end plates. The number of 1/2 effective guide waves between the end plates is the last number to the right in say the TE013 or TM112 mode. Internal to the waveguide, EM wave energy and freq are the same as external. Internal guide wavelength is longer than external wavelength.

    In a cylindrical waveguide, the internal guide wavelength is determined by the diameter, excitation mode and driven frequency.

    Which means you can adjust the length of the cavity or the driven freq or diameter of the cavity or the excited mode to bring the cavity into resonance.

    Refer to any good Microwave Engineering text book for the exact equations.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/06/2015 03:22 am
    The format is hard to work with on nsf, but its THE place to collaborate and help one another. We'll just need to back each other up. I agree with doc, zellerium is null for his initial testing. The frustum probably didn't materialize. Kml, warptech, mulletron went dark, so who knows? Looks like me, shell and mr t for now...I'm waiting on shell to raise the bar before I attack this again. For now, I'll spend my time annoying naysayers on another forum. I know, its childish, but its fun to pretend I'm a 30-something kid with an axe to grind. Besides, I've got time on my hands...shell's giving me some breathing room, right shell?  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThinkerX on 12/06/2015 03:26 am
    Quote
    Why it will be called a Shawyer drive using a shifting Shell mode  (go look at 2.46 ghz, TT's spreadsheet is showing resonance at both TE013 and TM013, suspect that will either generate one of Shell's unstable modes or be useless) with a Distler geometry and a Traveller tuner created using an Aero model of the Rodal-Zen-Woodward effect. 

    Quote
    Can we shorten that to the SDSMDT TM2 AZW Effect, with Thousand Island dressing??  ;D

    If this device actually works, especially in space, I would suggest calling it the 'Joker Drive' because it would be one whopper of a jest against some very fundamental laws of science.   Especially since very little to nothing is actually known about how this device works. 

    I suspect even the board skeptics might not object to that designation. 

    Come to think of it, 'Joker Drive' might be a good designation even if it flops big time.  In that case, the jest is on us.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 03:55 am
    The format is hard to work with on nsf, but its THE place to collaborate and help one another. We'll just need to back each other up. I agree with doc, zellerium is null for his initial testing. The frustum probably didn't materialize. Kml, warptech, mulletron went dark, so who knows? Looks like me, shell and mr t for now...I'm waiting on shell to raise the bar before I attack this again. For now, I'll spend my time annoying naysayers on another forum. I know, its childish, but its fun to pretend I'm a 30-something kid with an axe to grind. Besides, I've got time on my hands...shell's giving me some breathing room, right shell?  ;)
    Not today, I had to do Christmas shopping, and did the market, you know that stuff you need to do to eat? Was gone for most of the day and didn't get much done other than some reading on heavy research papers.

    Tomorrow I have planned to focus on the build, getting the tuning chamber to work smoothly and I have a couple of antennas I would like to try to make and test with the VNA, software to get going on my laptop and anything else I can fit in.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/06/2015 05:08 am
    ...

    First build a thermally compensating frustum. Use copper endplates bonded to a ceramic plate that will not warp under the heated modes and allow the heat to travel up the sides of the frustum expanding the walls but it doesn't matter as the two endplates are locked together by a quartz rod through the center.

    Stabilize the magnetron output with some great tips found online (inverter), get rid of the splatter. Remove the magnetron off the frustum because you cannot cool it with a fan or a water jacket. Now you have a stable frequency output from your magnetron couple it directly into the coax from the 1/4 wave antenna out of the magnetron. As long as you terminate into another 1/4 wave antenna or waveguide in the frustum your VSWR will remain very low. You magnetron will not drift because you are keeping it cool away from the frustum and the testing area (heat is a killer for the magnetron being stable)

    Now if you still need and want to PLL the inverter you can do it and it will fine tune to a very high Q without drifting.


    Shell

    Added: in using a new style Panasonic Inverter the switching frequency is 33Khz and can be filtered out to give you a very nice output without the 50% duty cycle a old style iron cored magnetron power supply.

    Shell's you inspired me thinking with all those good ideas about a possible altercation of the Frustum.  It might not be what everyone would want to do but it might be a good way to ensure resonance and detect individual forces on the walls of the frustum.   

    The idea is to completely disconnect the small and big disk top and bottom from the side walls.  This demands as a result however that the mode excited doesn't have current crossing from the side walls to the center disks.  TE011 I think it is called, should be one of the modes, however, I am not sure it is called exactly that.  It should be a mode where the current is only traveling around in circles around the axis of the frustum.  I can't say a microwave magnetron would be ideal for this or not.

    Now why disconnect the end walls from the side walls?  It is to detect when resonance happens.  When resonance occurs energy is build up and force on the end plates will increase.  It is physically observable.  I used to observe it with a 60hz solenoid and an aluminum ring hanging down in front or behind the solenoid.  The ring will push away because of the changing magnetic field.  If the plates are held by position adjustable force sensors you can tell when it hits resonance because the force will increase.  Not only that you can control the resonant frequency of the cavity. 

    Another added benefit is if there was for some reason light was pulling on the big back plate and pushing on the small front plate or side walls, more than it should, it might show up but you would know how the force was behaving on each wall. 

    I'll attach an image. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 12/06/2015 09:37 am
    ...
    Why is everyone fixated on balance beams? If I were to build an EM drive (and I'm not), I'd suspend the frustum/microwave source from a non-magnetic/non-conductive wire (quartz perhaps), and a spring. It will seek it's own rest point. Below the spring I would mount a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). An LVDT can be capable of sub-micron resolution. They are inexpensive, and can even be easily fabricated by the do-it-yourself (DIY) crowd.

    That's a very valuable suggestion as an alternative to pricey optical linear displacement sensors. Question about the stiffness and length needed for the spring... let's say it's ok to have .1µm for 10µN sensitivity, that gives 1m for 100N or 10kg force. Suspending 10kg on a 1.5m or 2m high spring (when loaded), appears possible (contrary to my initial intuition, thought that would need a few tens of meter under roof...)

    So indeed, basically yes, possible. But have you considered all the "details" ? Spring will "isolate" frustum from vibration of support, but if the base of the distance measurement (the fixed part) is not suspended in parralel in the same way (best but adding complexity) there is no common mode noise rejection (as would be the case, to some extent when none of the parts are isolated from ambient tremors). Also vibrations can propagate along a spring, and resonate at various harmonics. How do you consider dampening in your proposed setup ? No mechanism for tuning initial rest position (what is the range of linear operation for LVDT at sub-µm resolution) ? If the frustum is suspended to the spring from above and distance reading is below the base then any thermal elongation will directly drive delta distance readings. If the distance reading is above it will have to be off center (because of the spring) making it sensitive to lateral rotations (swings) of the frustum, that is attached (if I understand you idea) laterally with a (flexible enough ?) coax (that is, not completely free)... Also, what with swings in torsion (around the vertical axis) and how good you linear measurement would be at rejecting those ?

    There are other simple alternatives too, each with various caveats when looking into the details. For instance, a simple swinging pendulum, attach the frustum in a horizontal thrusting orientation under a wire and record horizontal deviation. A 1 or 2 meter string should give the same kind of sensitivity ( .1µm per 10µN) in the horizontal plane as your idea of direct spring suspension on vertical axis. It would be hard to compare the merits of this vs. your (interesting and refreshing) idea without a fair amount of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

    Quote
    I would then fire up the rig, and measure its vertical displacement, inclusive of thermal effects. Next, I would reverse the frustum and re-run the test. With a simple cylindrical shroud around the frustum/microwave source, the thermal effects would be identical (same thermal energy injected into the same "chimney").

    The difference between the two tests would be thrust, ...

    No, with this method you are guaranteed  to see thrust even when there is none. There is no reason than the thermal would be symmetric when reversing a heating frustum in a chimney (even more since the heating itself is not the same on small plate and big plate). Like Rodal I regret the absence of contributor with expertise on fluid dynamics... but this seems obvious qualitatively (though hard to quantify by analysis).

    Quote
    The difference between the two tests would be thrust, even if you used coaxial cable injection from the microwave source to the frustum, since the weight of the coax would be automatically compensated by the suspension system. No attempting to "tare" balance beams under very fiddly conditions.
    ...

    Have you a rough idea (quantitatively) of the mechanical constraints induced by the coax linking the freely swinging frustum to the fixed microwave source, laterally I guess ? How that would conduct vibrations ? How stiff is a length of such coax compared to µm/µN of sensitivity ? Wouldn't the stiffness (and resulting force) change quite a bit when the polymers of the coax get heated by the delivered power ?

    Again, I think you have interesting suggestions here, but while balance beams may seem over-constrained, under-constrained suspension schemes are not devoid of problems. "Keep it simple" is not so simple, what is gained in simplicity in mechanical system might have to be compensated by increased sophistication elsewhere, multiple distance measurement (not necessarily a bad thing), better analysis (not necessarily a bad thing either)...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/06/2015 10:57 am

    Good engineering thoughts and I respect what you have to say, I can tell you put a lot of thought into it.

    Consider these couple things in a build as well.

    First, build the DUT to compensate for the thermal effects of 100's of watts of mode focused energy.

    1. The Metal frustum will grow and warp with a tuned phase locked loop locked or not. The tuning is only good for compensation between the end plates. When in tune they will warp and expand depending on the mode of induction, this will in turn cause the Q to drop whereby causing the PLL to try to compensate. It can't because the plate distance has remained the same but the copper endplate has warped not the distance between the plates, as your PLL tries to compensate the q still drops as will your thrust. The heat travels into the side walls where it causes the walls of the frustum to grow and expand and further reducing the Q, the PLL trys to compensate but the endplates are still warped and struggles to keep up with failing Qs and thrust as your cavity deforms.

    First build a thermally compensating frustum. Use copper endplates bonded to a ceramic plate that will not warp under the heated modes and allow the heat to travel up the sides of the frustum expanding the walls but it doesn't matter as the two endplates are locked together by a quartz rod through the center.

    Stabilize the magnetron output with some great tips found online (inverter), get rid of the splatter. Remove the magnetron off the frustum because you cannot cool it with a fan or a water jacket. Now you have a stable frequency output from your magnetron couple it directly into the coax from the 1/4 wave antenna out of the magnetron. As long as you terminate into another 1/4 wave antenna or waveguide in the frustum your VSWR will remain very low. You magnetron will not drift because you are keeping it cool away from the frustum and the testing area (heat is a killer for the magnetron being stable)

    {snip}

    The other way to handle expansion due to temperature is to design the frustum to be slightly too small so that when it heats up the chamber expands to the correct size.

     the volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion is given by

        αV = 1\V (∂V/∂T)p

    Where V is the volume, T the temperature at a pressure p

    For length L the change can be estimated by
       
        ΔL/L = αL ΔT

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: original_mds on 12/06/2015 11:12 am
    Lets see: EMDrive Wiki 2.0

    Must: Be a website, not a google docs files.  Websites are indexed by searched engines and archived.  A google drive can be lost with time, a record of a webside is more likely to remain.

    Categories:
    Introduction to the EMDrive / Press Kit
    (What we know.  What this thing can and cannot do.)

    Library
         -- Popular Press
         -- Academic Papers
    (A place where the papers that keep getting mentioned in these threads can be recorded, and a way to not see the same news story reposted every couple of weeks on reddit).

    Theories
         -- Published Academic Theories
         -- Other/Working Theories
    (Hopefully setup as a series of sandboxes so all of us with a crackpot theory can record it and supporting documents somewhere.)

    How to Conduct a Test -- Best Practices

    Plans
         -- Test Setup
         -- Frustum
    (Might encourage folks to document their test rigs.  Frustum's may be fairly easy to design, but I think having a repository of plans would be helpful).

    Parts & Materials
    (Possibly with some sandboxing to allow folks to upload things like links to good cheapish VNAs.)

    Simulations
         -- MEEP / COSMAL / Other Sims
    (Hopefully also sandboxed so that folks can upload their MEEP/COSMAL outputs.  I'd really be interested to see MEEP outputs of Shawyers reported builds.  Note, depending on the data allowed to be uploaded these could be some big files.)

    Results
         -- Reported
         -- Rumored

    Test Data Logs
    (A place to put spreadsheets and videos/links to videos)

    Data I think we need to collect on each test:

    Day/Time (UTC and Local)
    Atmospheric Pressure / Torr for Vacuum 
    Ambient Temp
    Humidity (Atmospheric Only).
    Average Duration of Test Cycle (i.e. mag on 10s, 100%, mag on 30s, 50% -- five minute run)
    Drop Down menu -- (Vertical Test, Horizontal Test, Rotating Test).

    Thrust (Actual) - Up
    Thrust (Actual) - Down
    Thrust (Large Base on TP)
    Thrust (Small Base on TP)
    Thrust (Net)
    Thrust (Net, N/kw)
    Max RPM (For rotating rig)

    Frustum Dimensions
    Frequency
    Target Mode(s)
    Q -- Tajmar
    Q -- Nasa
    Qr
    Gross Power Input into Frustum
    Power on Target Frequency
    Link to test rig setup plans/drawings/photos
    VNA / VSWR outputs
    Power Source
    Test Article Composition  (with check box for oxide free Cu).
    Before / After pictures of test article
    Peak Recorded Temp Large Base
    Peak Recorded Temp Small Base
    Peak Recorded Temp, Sidewall
    Thermal Imagery
    Measured Air Current Off Top of Frustum (Not sure how this is going to be done, but know it needs to be done for atmospheric tests).
    Data Logs

    That last point might be the most critical.  Let me emphasize how helpful we've found digitally outputted data logs.  Future logs would, hopefully, capture in standard units and include device on, off cycles.

    More for best practices:
    1.  Add safety first!
    2.  Initial Orientation
          a.  Longitudinal axis from center of small end to center of large end defines frustum vector; experimentor will need to define the origin suitably for their setup, but recommend inner surface of small end
          b.  Measured angle of frustum vector from horizontal
          c.  Measured angle of frustum vector from true North
          d.  Measured angle of frustum from local magnetic North at frustum position
          e.  Measured angle between local magnetic North and true North in nearby location free from likely obstructions/interference (add coordinates)
    3.  Applied power duty cycle, modulation waveform
    4.  Minimum clearance distance from other structures, equipment, etc.; if clearance is small (say, less than 3 m), include a description of room walls, ceiling and floor materials/construction (including presence/absence of wiring, plumbing or other significant conductors)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 11:27 am
    The format is hard to work with on nsf, but its THE place to collaborate and help one another. We'll just need to back each other up. I agree with doc, zellerium is null for his initial testing. The frustum probably didn't materialize. Kml, warptech, mulletron went dark, so who knows? Looks like me, shell and mr t for now...I'm waiting on shell to raise the bar before I attack this again. For now, I'll spend my time annoying naysayers on another forum. I know, its childish, but its fun to pretend I'm a 30-something kid with an axe to grind. Besides, I've got time on my hands...shell's giving me some breathing room, right shell?  ;)

    Thanks for reminding us about KML.  Another negative test that is not documented in the Wiki EM Drive experimental section.  KML also conducted tests with negative results: with a uniform rectangular cross-section cavity with an unsymmetrically placed dielectric.   KML test results were negative (after he addressed the initial false positives due to electromagnetic issues). 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/06/2015 01:01 pm
    Lets see: EMDrive Wiki 2.0

    Must: Be a website, not a google docs files.  Websites are indexed by searched engines and archived.  A google drive can be lost with time, a record of a webside is more likely to remain.

    Categories:
    Introduction to the EMDrive / Press Kit
    (What we know.  What this thing can and cannot do.)

    Library
         -- Popular Press
         -- Academic Papers
    (A place where the papers that keep getting mentioned in these threads can be recorded, and a way to not see the same news story reposted every couple of weeks on reddit).

    Theories
         -- Published Academic Theories
         -- Other/Working Theories
    (Hopefully setup as a series of sandboxes so all of us with a crackpot theory can record it and supporting documents somewhere.)

    How to Conduct a Test -- Best Practices

    Plans
         -- Test Setup
         -- Frustum
    (Might encourage folks to document their test rigs.  Frustum's may be fairly easy to design, but I think having a repository of plans would be helpful).

    Parts & Materials
    (Possibly with some sandboxing to allow folks to upload things like links to good cheapish VNAs.)

    Simulations
         -- MEEP / COSMAL / Other Sims
    (Hopefully also sandboxed so that folks can upload their MEEP/COSMAL outputs.  I'd really be interested to see MEEP outputs of Shawyers reported builds.  Note, depending on the data allowed to be uploaded these could be some big files.)

    Results
         -- Reported
         -- Rumored

    Test Data Logs
    (A place to put spreadsheets and videos/links to videos)

    Data I think we need to collect on each test:

    Day/Time (UTC and Local)
    Atmospheric Pressure / Torr for Vacuum 
    Ambient Temp
    Humidity (Atmospheric Only).
    Average Duration of Test Cycle (i.e. mag on 10s, 100%, mag on 30s, 50% -- five minute run)
    Drop Down menu -- (Vertical Test, Horizontal Test, Rotating Test).

    Thrust (Actual) - Up
    Thrust (Actual) - Down
    Thrust (Large Base on TP)
    Thrust (Small Base on TP)
    Thrust (Net)
    Thrust (Net, N/kw)
    Max RPM (For rotating rig)

    Frustum Dimensions
    Frequency
    Target Mode(s)
    Q -- Tajmar
    Q -- Nasa
    Qr
    Gross Power Input into Frustum
    Power on Target Frequency
    Link to test rig setup plans/drawings/photos
    VNA / VSWR outputs
    Power Source
    Test Article Composition  (with check box for oxide free Cu).
    Before / After pictures of test article
    Peak Recorded Temp Large Base
    Peak Recorded Temp Small Base
    Peak Recorded Temp, Sidewall
    Thermal Imagery
    Measured Air Current Off Top of Frustum (Not sure how this is going to be done, but know it needs to be done for atmospheric tests).
    Data Logs

    That last point might be the most critical.  Let me emphasize how helpful we've found digitally outputted data logs.  Future logs would, hopefully, capture in standard units and include device on, off cycles.

    More for best practices:
    1.  Add safety first!
    2.  Initial Orientation
          a.  Longitudinal axis from center of small end to center of large end defines frustum vector; experimentor will need to define the origin suitably for their setup, but recommend inner surface of small end
          b.  Measured angle of frustum vector from horizontal
          c.  Measured angle of frustum vector from true North
          d.  Measured angle of frustum from local magnetic North at frustum position
          e.  Measured angle between local magnetic North and true North in nearby location free from likely obstructions/interference (add coordinates)
    3.  Applied power duty cycle, modulation waveform
    4.  Minimum clearance distance from other structures, equipment, etc.; if clearance is small (say, less than 3 m), include a description of room walls, ceiling and floor materials/construction (including presence/absence of wiring, plumbing or other significant conductors)

    hmmm.... if someone grabs a domain name, I can host it for free.  Set up a basic site, put some php around it so uploads become links...  create a basic info grab form converting into a log ... make sure all links can be crawled by archive.org... I could set up a MYSQL DB where everything is in the datastore (including videos) which would result in filterable spreadsheet where the columns include live links to content retrieval... and more....

    I think a wiki within the site is better then a wiki site.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 01:25 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I know your time is limited. So anyone jump in here. Something keeps running around in my head waving a red flag and I'm not sure if it's a warning flag for engineers to not do physics or something else? ;)  I'm reviewing the beautiful work you did using the CSV data from meep.

    You did some calculations a couple of months ago focusing on the big end and Small end of the frustum cavity using the Maxwell stress tensor from the meep data. *see gif animation. I believe we came to the conclusion that the forces were asymmetrical and greater at the Big End but that's not quite the question.

    Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals? And from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?

    The reason I'm asking is I can't help but link the varying 3D Lorentz force on the copper endplates to a Casimir effect and the potential creation of VPs.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
    Editor's summary

    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor


    Onto more simpler things this morning, dishes and making an new antenna.  ::)

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 01:55 pm
    ...

    First build a thermally compensating frustum. Use copper endplates bonded to a ceramic plate that will not warp under the heated modes and allow the heat to travel up the sides of the frustum expanding the walls but it doesn't matter as the two endplates are locked together by a quartz rod through the center.

    Stabilize the magnetron output with some great tips found online (inverter), get rid of the splatter. Remove the magnetron off the frustum because you cannot cool it with a fan or a water jacket. Now you have a stable frequency output from your magnetron couple it directly into the coax from the 1/4 wave antenna out of the magnetron. As long as you terminate into another 1/4 wave antenna or waveguide in the frustum your VSWR will remain very low. You magnetron will not drift because you are keeping it cool away from the frustum and the testing area (heat is a killer for the magnetron being stable)

    Now if you still need and want to PLL the inverter you can do it and it will fine tune to a very high Q without drifting.


    Shell

    Added: in using a new style Panasonic Inverter the switching frequency is 33Khz and can be filtered out to give you a very nice output without the 50% duty cycle a old style iron cored magnetron power supply.

    Shell's you inspired me thinking with all those good ideas about a possible altercation of the Frustum.  It might not be what everyone would want to do but it might be a good way to ensure resonance and detect individual forces on the walls of the frustum.   

    The idea is to completely disconnect the small and big disk top and bottom from the side walls.  This demands as a result however that the mode excited doesn't have current crossing from the side walls to the center disks.  TE011 I think it is called, should be one of the modes, however, I am not sure it is called exactly that.  It should be a mode where the current is only traveling around in circles around the axis of the frustum.  I can't say a microwave magnetron would be ideal for this or not.

    Now why disconnect the end walls from the side walls?  It is to detect when resonance happens.  When resonance occurs energy is build up and force on the end plates will increase.  It is physically observable.  I used to observe it with a 60hz solenoid and an aluminum ring hanging down in front or behind the solenoid.  The ring will push away because of the changing magnetic field.  If the plates are held by position adjustable force sensors you can tell when it hits resonance because the force will increase.  Not only that you can control the resonant frequency of the cavity. 

    Another added benefit is if there was for some reason light was pulling on the big back plate and pushing on the small front plate or side walls, more than it should, it might show up but you would know how the force was behaving on each wall. 

    I'll attach an image.
    Air exhaust holes do not eliminate the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.
    This has been demonstrated by RFMWGUY's experiment: the walls of his cavity are made of a perforated copper mesh, yet his experiments clearly show the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.


    The use of a perforated copper mesh by RFMWGUY was a really great contribution to these EM Drive experiments, as nobody else (not Shawyer, nor Yang, nor Dresden, nor NASA), had ever published results with a copper mesh. RFMWGUY deserves kudos for conducting this experiment

    The reason for this is that as the cavity heats up (in the case of RFMWGUY's experiment it is mainly the magnetron, sitting on top of the cavity, heating up) air convection currents are set-up.

    Natural thermal convection produces time varying forces on the cavity.

    As time goes by, a main current, and force in the lifting (up) direction is established as a result of this natural convection.

    Every time that the magnetron is turned off and on, additional natural convection, time-varying forces were produced that interacted with the aforementioned main force in the lifting (up) direction.  This interaction (due to fluid dynamics, low Reynold's number, with vortices due to the geometry) is complex, time varying and it will show (as typical of low-speed-gas-dynamics) a behavior that shows complex response (appearing random)  as wells as better defined features.  The better defined feature is the lifting up air current component, and the smaller counter-effect due to the sudden dynamic effects on the fluid dynamics from turning the magnetron on and off, which produces a disturbance to the lifting current and force.

    Without a fluid dynamics simulation of the natural thermal convection forces (to clarify what is going on) it is arguable whether the forces being measured in such experiments are purely the result of fluid dynamics or something else.

    The complex effect of fluid dynamics in such experiments involving the tiny electromagnetic forces has been known for over a century.  That is why Maxwell's electromagnetic force was not able to be experimentally verified until the 20th century, and then only with experiments conducted in vacuum.

    None of the experiments by Shawyer or Yang was ever reported to be conducted in a partial vacuum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 02:00 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I know your time is limited. So anyone jump in here. Something keeps running around in my head waving a red flag and I'm not sure if it's a warning flag for engineers to not do physics or something else? ;)  I'm reviewing the beautiful work you did using the CSV data from meep.

    You did some calculations a couple of months ago focusing on the big end and Small end of the frustum cavity using the Maxwell stress tensor from the meep data. *see gif animation. I believe we came to the conclusion that the forces were asymmetrical and greater at the Big End but that's not quite the question.

    Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals? And from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?

    The reason I'm asking is I can't help but link the varying 3D Lorentz force on the copper endplates to a Casimir effect and the potential creation of VPs.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
    Editor's summary

    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor


    Onto more simpler things this morning, dishes and making an new antenna.  ::)

    Shell

    Hi Shell   :)

    QUESTION: <<Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals?>>
    ANSWER: Yes, the units as shown in one of my graphs, that you attached are shown to be in SI stress units: N/m^2, which is also known as Pascals.


    QUESTION << from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?>>
    ANSWER: No, I only calculated and displayed the stresses on the walls (force per unit area). 

    What would be the usefulness of calculating a quantity as force per unit volume?

    I guess that one could compute the force density:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_density, but it seems to me that the stress tensor is more important and relevant.

    Stress is a second order tensor.  The stress shown is actually the stress component normal to the surface (shear stress components calculated to be extremely small, of insignificant magniitude).  I suppose that one could calculate a force vector component and divide it by some volume but I don't see what would be its physical meaning.  It would not be a tensor.  It would be a vector.  In Continuum Mechanics of solid, fluids and electromagnetics usually the stress tensor is used to analyze the continuum.

    ==> What force vector component would one choose to calculate the force density and why?
    ==> What volume would one choose to calculate the force density and why?

    ____________________________
    Comment:  those calculations were based on aero's run at the times, as I recall reaching only a fraction of a microsecond of time, and the conductivity of the metal modeled in those aero's runs was 113 times greater than the physical conductivity of copper at ambient conditions
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 02:17 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I know your time is limited. So anyone jump in here. Something keeps running around in my head waving a red flag and I'm not sure if it's a warning flag for engineers to not do physics or something else? ;)  I'm reviewing the beautiful work you did using the CSV data from meep.

    You did some calculations a couple of months ago focusing on the big end and Small end of the frustum cavity using the Maxwell stress tensor from the meep data. *see gif animation. I believe we came to the conclusion that the forces were asymmetrical and greater at the Big End but that's not quite the question.

    Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals? And from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?

    The reason I'm asking is I can't help but link the varying 3D Lorentz force on the copper endplates to a Casimir effect and the potential creation of VPs.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
    Editor's summary

    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor


    Onto more simpler things this morning, dishes and making an new antenna.  ::)

    Shell

    <<Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals?>>
    Yes, the units as shown in one of my graphs, that you attached are shown to be in SI stress units: N/m^2, which is also known as Pascals.

    Comment:  those calculations were based on aero's run at the times, as I recall reaching only a fraction of a microsecond of time, and the conductivity of the metal modeled in those aero's runs was 113 times greater than the physical conductivity of copper at ambient conditions
    Thanks for your input it really helps.

    Unless he was using the perfect conductor for his drude model at that time, in that case I'm totally lost where to go.  :o 

    Other than thinking there was a smaller calculated force until the math is done comparing to the current Cu model he is running we are not sure if it is 113x less or even there.

    Shell

    Added: Someone tell this old gal you cannot type and solder at the same time, you will get a blister on your thumb.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/06/2015 02:46 pm
    Lets see: EMDrive Wiki 2.0

    Must: Be a website, not a google docs files.  Websites are indexed by searched engines and archived.  A google drive can be lost with time, a record of a webside is more likely to remain.

    Categories:
    Introduction to the EMDrive / Press Kit
    (What we know.  What this thing can and cannot do.)

    Library
         -- Popular Press
         -- Academic Papers
    (A place where the papers that keep getting mentioned in these threads can be recorded, and a way to not see the same news story reposted every couple of weeks on reddit).

    Theories
         -- Published Academic Theories
         -- Other/Working Theories
    (Hopefully setup as a series of sandboxes so all of us with a crackpot theory can record it and supporting documents somewhere.)

    How to Conduct a Test -- Best Practices

    Plans
         -- Test Setup
         -- Frustum
    (Might encourage folks to document their test rigs.  Frustum's may be fairly easy to design, but I think having a repository of plans would be helpful).

    Parts & Materials
    (Possibly with some sandboxing to allow folks to upload things like links to good cheapish VNAs.)

    Simulations
         -- MEEP / COSMAL / Other Sims
    (Hopefully also sandboxed so that folks can upload their MEEP/COSMAL outputs.  I'd really be interested to see MEEP outputs of Shawyers reported builds.  Note, depending on the data allowed to be uploaded these could be some big files.)

    Results
         -- Reported
         -- Rumored

    Test Data Logs
    (A place to put spreadsheets and videos/links to videos)

    Data I think we need to collect on each test:

    Day/Time (UTC and Local)
    Atmospheric Pressure / Torr for Vacuum 
    Ambient Temp
    Humidity (Atmospheric Only).
    Average Duration of Test Cycle (i.e. mag on 10s, 100%, mag on 30s, 50% -- five minute run)
    Drop Down menu -- (Vertical Test, Horizontal Test, Rotating Test).

    Thrust (Actual) - Up
    Thrust (Actual) - Down
    Thrust (Large Base on TP)
    Thrust (Small Base on TP)
    Thrust (Net)
    Thrust (Net, N/kw)
    Max RPM (For rotating rig)

    Frustum Dimensions
    Frequency
    Target Mode(s)
    Q -- Tajmar
    Q -- Nasa
    Qr
    Gross Power Input into Frustum
    Power on Target Frequency
    Link to test rig setup plans/drawings/photos
    VNA / VSWR outputs
    Power Source
    Test Article Composition  (with check box for oxide free Cu).
    Before / After pictures of test article
    Peak Recorded Temp Large Base
    Peak Recorded Temp Small Base
    Peak Recorded Temp, Sidewall
    Thermal Imagery
    Measured Air Current Off Top of Frustum (Not sure how this is going to be done, but know it needs to be done for atmospheric tests).
    Data Logs

    That last point might be the most critical.  Let me emphasize how helpful we've found digitally outputted data logs.  Future logs would, hopefully, capture in standard units and include device on, off cycles.

    More for best practices:
    1.  Add safety first!
    2.  Initial Orientation
          a.  Longitudinal axis from center of small end to center of large end defines frustum vector; experimentor will need to define the origin suitably for their setup, but recommend inner surface of small end
          b.  Measured angle of frustum vector from horizontal
          c.  Measured angle of frustum vector from true North
          d.  Measured angle of frustum from local magnetic North at frustum position
          e.  Measured angle between local magnetic North and true North in nearby location free from likely obstructions/interference (add coordinates)
    3.  Applied power duty cycle, modulation waveform
    4.  Minimum clearance distance from other structures, equipment, etc.; if clearance is small (say, less than 3 m), include a description of room walls, ceiling and floor materials/construction (including presence/absence of wiring, plumbing or other significant conductors)

    hmmm.... if someone grabs a domain name, I can host it for free.  Set up a basic site, put some php around it so uploads become links...  create a basic info grab form converting into a log ... make sure all links can be crawled by archive.org... I could set up a MYSQL DB where everything is in the datastore (including videos) which would result in filterable spreadsheet where the columns include live links to content retrieval... and more....

    I think a wiki within the site is better then a wiki site.
    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 02:51 pm
    ...
    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?

    Ha ha ha  :)

    I like your sense of humor.  But no, you cannot use my name:


    http://unofficialnetworks.com/2011/09/jackie-paaso-comp-footage-rodal-challenge-rodal-norway

    https://vimeo.com/29079527

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzJhUhM7_Yk
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/06/2015 03:07 pm

    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?
    [/quote]

    If you settle on a name point your nameservers as follows when you register:

    Nameservers   IP Address
    ns1.webhostinghub.com   205.134.224.133
    ns2.webhostinghub.com   173.205.127.4
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/06/2015 03:08 pm
    ...
    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?

    Ha ha ha  :)

    I like your sense of humor.  But no, you cannot use my name:


    http://unofficialnetworks.com/2011/09/jackie-paaso-comp-footage-rodal-challenge-rodal-norway

    https://vimeo.com/29079527

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzJhUhM7_Yk
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 03:14 pm
    ...
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Looking for names?...here is a name for the domain:

    RFDrivenPeople
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 03:49 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I know your time is limited. So anyone jump in here. Something keeps running around in my head waving a red flag and I'm not sure if it's a warning flag for engineers to not do physics or something else? ;)  I'm reviewing the beautiful work you did using the CSV data from meep.

    You did some calculations a couple of months ago focusing on the big end and Small end of the frustum cavity using the Maxwell stress tensor from the meep data. *see gif animation. I believe we came to the conclusion that the forces were asymmetrical and greater at the Big End but that's not quite the question.

    Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals? And from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?

    The reason I'm asking is I can't help but link the varying 3D Lorentz force on the copper endplates to a Casimir effect and the potential creation of VPs.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714
    Editor's summary

    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor


    Onto more simpler things this morning, dishes and making an new antenna.  ::)

    Shell

    Hi Shell   :)

    QUESTION: <<Does your vertical graph measure the SI units in terms of Pascals?>>
    ANSWER: Yes, the units as shown in one of my graphs, that you attached are shown to be in SI stress units: N/m^2, which is also known as Pascals.


    QUESTION << from that did you calculate the Lorentz force per unit volume?>>
    ANSWER: No, I only calculated and displayed the stresses on the walls (force per unit area). 

    What would be the usefulness of calculating a quantity as force per unit volume?

    I guess that one could compute the force density:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_density, but it seems to me that the stress tensor is more important and relevant.

    Stress is a second order tensor.  The stress shown is actually the stress component normal to the surface (shear stress components calculated to be extremely small, of insignificant magniitude).  I suppose that one could calculate a force vector component and divide it by some volume but I don't see what would be its physical meaning.  It would not be a tensor.  It would be a vector.  In Continuum Mechanics of solid, fluids and electromagnetics usually the stress tensor is used to analyze the continuum.

    Ahhh... light goes on.


    ==> What force vector component would one choose to calculate the force density and why?
    ==> What volume would one choose to calculate the force density and why?

    I simply can't answer .... yet.
    ____________________________
    Comment:  those calculations were based on aero's run at the times, as I recall reaching only a fraction of a microsecond of time, and the conductivity of the metal modeled in those aero's runs was 113 times greater than the physical conductivity of copper at ambient conditions

    On another note aero is working hard to try and fine tune meep, it's looking better. Still not quite there but making progress. It would be nice to have a good degree of confidence in the simulation and when I get my run ready we can have some solid data to compare.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 04:01 pm
    ...
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Looking for names?...here is a name for the domain:

    RFDrivenPeople



    EMC

    Electromagnetic Condrum
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/06/2015 04:38 pm
    ...
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Looking for names?...here is a name for the domain:

    RFDrivenPeople



    EMC

    Electromagnetic Condrum

    emc.com is a large data storage company
    emc.net is a marine radio company
    emc.org is a university hospital
    emc.edu seems to be available

    let me toss a few into the wall for consideration....   ;D

    electricbirds
    emdrivebuilders
    unkilledcrackpots
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/06/2015 05:09 pm
    ...
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Looking for names?...here is a name for the domain:

    RFDrivenPeople



    EMC

    Electromagnetic Condrum

    emc.com is a large data storage company
    emc.net is a marine radio company
    emc.org is a university hospital
    emc.edu seems to be available

    let me toss a few into the wall for consideration....   ;D

    electricbirds
    emdrivebuilders
    unkilledcrackpots

    My wonderful wife just got me Randall Monroe's new book "Thing Explainer" (he writes xkcd.com).  A microwave oven in here is described as a "Food Heating Radio Box"  So how about radioboxdrive.net ? ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/06/2015 05:22 pm

    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?

    If you settle on a name point your nameservers as follows when you register:

    Nameservers   IP Address
    ns1.webhostinghub.com   205.134.224.133
    ns2.webhostinghub.com   173.205.127.4
    [/quote]
    OK, done. I took Doc's suggestion and shortened it to rfdriven.com

    Glenn, its now pointing to the first nameserver.

    OK, who's going to be the webmeister. I've got as much as I can handle right now.

    Below is my contribution to a place-holder page.

    p.s. Glenn, I kinda liked amateurcrackpots.com, but someone already had that one  ;)

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 05:28 pm
    ...
    Got thru life with a sometimes offbeat sense of humor...so the pressures on you doc...need a name
    Looking for names?...here is a name for the domain:

    RFDrivenPeople



    EMC

    Electromagnetic Condrum

    emc.com is a large data storage company
    emc.net is a marine radio company
    emc.org is a university hospital
    emc.edu seems to be available

    let me toss a few into the wall for consideration....   ;D

    electricbirds
    emdrivebuilders
    unkilledcrackpots

    My wonderful wife just got me Randall Monroe's new book "Thing Explainer" (he writes xkcd.com).  A microwave oven in here is described as a "Food Heating Radio Box"  So how about radioboxdrive.net ? ;)
    Oh then we all could be....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr6KVNt-1Ek
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/06/2015 05:36 pm
    Gee, pause to go to the bathroom and you lose.

    Maxwells Orphan

    Ok, maybe I'll start an SF story and I'll have a title.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/06/2015 06:00 pm

    OK, done. I took Doc's suggestion and shortened it to rfdriven.com

    Glenn, its now pointing to the first nameserver.

    OK, who's going to be the webmeister. I've got as much as I can handle right now.

    Below is my contribution to a place-holder page.

    p.s. Glenn, I kinda liked amateurcrackpots.com, but someone already had that one  ;)

    OK, as soon as it drifts across the domains, it will be hosted now.

    I'll drop in some place holders while I get the rest of this together.

    RE:  who's the web master

    2 answers.  I have to be the overall webmaster because I'm hosting the master account, along with a bunch of other web sites.

    HOWEVER,  I'm looking at some document management tools I kinda sorta have for free, and one of them will  allow any contributor to mange their own content, so any contributor can be the web master of their content.  More after I test some things.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/06/2015 06:01 pm
    Gee, pause to go to the bathroom and you lose.

    Maxwells Orphan

    Ok, maybe I'll start an SF story and I'll have a title.

    I like that. At first glance I thought you wrote...

    Maxwell's Orpheus

    Back to trying to make a narrow cone shaped 1/4 wave antenna for 2.45GHz. Using a cone because the very tip of the antenna will have a very high potential and a thin rod of Cu just has a tough time dealing with the energy at the tip. It sounds easy but it's not. :)

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/06/2015 08:25 pm


    Shell's you inspired me thinking with all those good ideas about a possible altercation of the Frustum.

     ...

    Air exhaust holes do not eliminate the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.
    This has been demonstrated by RFMWGUY's experiment: the walls of his cavity are made of a perforated copper mesh, yet his experiments clearly show the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.


    The use of a perforated copper mesh by RFMWGUY was a really great contribution to these EM Drive experiments, as nobody else (not Shawyer, nor Yang, nor Dresden, nor NASA), had ever published results with a copper mesh. RFMWGUY deserves kudos for conducting this experiment

    The reason for this is that as the cavity heats up (in the case of RFMWGUY's experiment it is mainly the magnetron, sitting on top of the cavity, heating up) air convection currents are set-up.

    Natural thermal convection produces time varying forces on the cavity.

    As time goes by, a main current, and force in the lifting (up) direction is established as a result of this natural convection.

    Every time that the magnetron is turned off and on, additional natural convection, time-varying forces were produced that interacted with the aforementioned main force in the lifting (up) direction.  This interaction (due to fluid dynamics, low Reynold's number, with vortices due to the geometry) is complex, time varying and it will show (as typical of low-speed-gas-dynamics) a behavior that shows complex response (appearing random)  as wells as better defined features.  The better defined feature is the lifting up air current component, and the smaller counter-effect due to the sudden dynamic effects on the fluid dynamics from turning the magnetron on and off, which produces a disturbance to the lifting current and force.

    Without a fluid dynamics simulation of the natural thermal convection forces (to clarify what is going on) it is arguable whether the forces being measured in such experiments are purely the result of fluid dynamics or something else.

    The complex effect of fluid dynamics in such experiments involving the tiny electromagnetic forces has been known for over a century.  That is why Maxwell's electromagnetic force was not able to be experimentally verified until the 20th century, and then only with experiments conducted in vacuum.

    None of the experiments by Shawyer or Yang was ever reported to be conducted in a partial vacuum.

    Thanks Rodal.  I was a bit tired last night to correctly think through what I wanted to suggest.  The air holes were not for convection air currents but rather for expansion of heated air but they are likely unnecessary which I will get to.  I think I have a suggestion that even makes worrying air pressure thrust, and convection unnecessary. 

    The suggestion is to just put the thing in an insulated box and weigh the box.  Air can move all it wants in the insulated box but it will be a closed system so there should be no net thrust on the box with frustum.  An insulate box should keep its temperature constant outside long enough to get meaningful readings with out worrying about convection outside the box if it works.  Temperature inside the box could be measured and the volume of the box used to predict buoyancy.

    buoyancy of heated air can also be solved by flipping the frustum over and taking a reading again after the box cools down from the first measurement. 

    The movable plate, in which I guess only one plate is really needed, (ceramic on the other like shell was suggesting) allows detection of resonance.  -dB/dt should provide a push on the plate when the changing magnetic field builds up inside the frustum.  Detection of this force guarantees that resonance has been achieved inside the frustum and that it is working correctly.  Multiple resonance modes can be detected with adjustable plate position which could be matched up to theoretical resonance modes also. 

    could this solve some of the air convection problems while also ensuring resonance?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 08:44 pm


    Shell's you inspired me thinking with all those good ideas about a possible altercation of the Frustum.

     ...

    Air exhaust holes do not eliminate the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.
    This has been demonstrated by RFMWGUY's experiment: the walls of his cavity are made of a perforated copper mesh, yet his experiments clearly show the  (time-varying) air-convection-forces on the cavity.


    The use of a perforated copper mesh by RFMWGUY was a really great contribution to these EM Drive experiments, as nobody else (not Shawyer, nor Yang, nor Dresden, nor NASA), had ever published results with a copper mesh. RFMWGUY deserves kudos for conducting this experiment

    The reason for this is that as the cavity heats up (in the case of RFMWGUY's experiment it is mainly the magnetron, sitting on top of the cavity, heating up) air convection currents are set-up.

    Natural thermal convection produces time varying forces on the cavity.

    As time goes by, a main current, and force in the lifting (up) direction is established as a result of this natural convection.

    Every time that the magnetron is turned off and on, additional natural convection, time-varying forces were produced that interacted with the aforementioned main force in the lifting (up) direction.  This interaction (due to fluid dynamics, low Reynold's number, with vortices due to the geometry) is complex, time varying and it will show (as typical of low-speed-gas-dynamics) a behavior that shows complex response (appearing random)  as wells as better defined features.  The better defined feature is the lifting up air current component, and the smaller counter-effect due to the sudden dynamic effects on the fluid dynamics from turning the magnetron on and off, which produces a disturbance to the lifting current and force.

    Without a fluid dynamics simulation of the natural thermal convection forces (to clarify what is going on) it is arguable whether the forces being measured in such experiments are purely the result of fluid dynamics or something else.

    The complex effect of fluid dynamics in such experiments involving the tiny electromagnetic forces has been known for over a century.  That is why Maxwell's electromagnetic force was not able to be experimentally verified until the 20th century, and then only with experiments conducted in vacuum.

    None of the experiments by Shawyer or Yang was ever reported to be conducted in a partial vacuum.

    Thanks Rodal.  I was a bit tired last night to correctly think through what I wanted to suggest.  The air holes were not for convection air currents but rather for expansion of heated air but they are likely unnecessary which I will get to.  I think I have a suggestion that even makes worrying air pressure thrust, and convection unnecessary. 

    The suggestion is to just put the thing in an insulated box and weigh the box.  Air can move all it wants in the insulated box but it will be a closed system so there should be no net thrust on the box with frustum.  An insulate box should keep its temperature constant outside long enough to get meaningful readings with out worrying about convection outside the box if it works.  Temperature inside the box could be measured and the volume of the box used to predict buoyancy.

    buoyancy of heated air can also be solved by flipping the frustum over and taking a reading again after the box cools down from the first measurement. 

    The movable plate, in which I guess only one plate is really needed, (ceramic on the other like shell was suggesting) allows detection of resonance.  -dB/dt should provide a push on the plate when the changing magnetic field builds up inside the frustum.  Detection of this force guarantees that resonance has been achieved inside the frustum and that it is working correctly.  Multiple resonance modes can be detected with adjustable plate position which could be matched up to theoretical resonance modes also. 

    could this solve some of the air convection problems while also ensuring resonance?

    The insulated box is rigidly attached to the cavity somehow so that they move together.  The box must have no holes or gaps through which air can flow in and out.  Then it is a question of calculating how much insulation you need so that the box exterior does not heat more than, say 0.1 deg C, during the time span of the test.  Since the heat from the EM Drive and/or magnetron is not being convected or radiated away, the EM Drive will get hotter, faster than it would otherwise, which would involve more thermal expansion and hence drifting resonance frequency (due to the expanding shape of the EM Drive).  This has to be taken into account.  The EM Drive could be made of Invar, to ameliorate the thermal expansion.  Invar is somewhat ferromagnetic while the copper EM Drives tested up to now have been diamagnetic.  I suppose that you could have the Invar copper or silver coated to at least the skin thickness.

    Invar is somewhat expensive (I considered it for a commercial project in 1982 and at that time I decided to go with a different design that avoided Invar's expense and yet eliminated thermal expansion by design, it is funny that the document below says that the first Invar tooling is 1984 --that is NOT true !!-).  The expense and availability has to be taken into account:

    http://www.re-steel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Invar-Truths-2.0-SAMPE-2013-Final.pdf

    Quote
    Myth #3: Invar is too expensive to seriously be considered for composite tooling applications.
    When the very first Invar tools were fabricated in 1984, Invar plate products were scarce and
    Invar was procured at $35.00 /kg (or $78.00 /kg inflation adjusted into 2013 dollars). But for the
    last ten years, the price of Invar 36 plate, purchased in sizeable quantities, has ranged from about
    $9.00 /kg to $22.00 /kg with the current 2013 price of Invar 36 hovering around $13.00 /kg
    ($5.90 /lb.). What market forces explain this relatively low cost of Invar?
    The first explanation can be related to scale, that is, that Invar plate is no longer a custom product
    but is routinely produced in large quantities and stocked for immediate use. The second
    explanation is related to ongoing pricing and current surplus of elemental nickel used to produce
    Invar (recall that Invar 36 contains 36% nickel). As Figure 2 indicates, the price of nickel has
    remained relatively stable and depressed for the last 10 years (except for a short term jump in
    value around 2007). Finally, as the demand for Invar for composite tooling applications has been
    realized, more producers have entered the market and competition has affected end user pricing.
    Figure 2. Value of elemental nickel commodities at the London Metal Exchange (LME) over the
    last ten years (courtesy of Metalprices.com)
    Still at about $13.00 /kg ($5.90 /lb.), is Invar a good value for composite tooling? If Invar is
    compared to plain carbon structural steel (ASTM A36) at about $1.00 /kg, then it is probably not
    a viable option. However, if a very low thermal expansion tooling material is required then the
    Invar pricing become much more attractive. As a point of reference, carbon fiber (CF) reinforced
    / bismaleimide (BMI) tooling prepreg, another candidate material for low CTE tooling, can cost
    on the order of $120 /kg to $165.00 /kg ($55.00 /lb. to $75.00 /lb.).

    The insulated case exterior would have to be thermally scanned during the test to make sure that the temperature indeed is not changing to any appreciable degree.

    You still have the issue of buoyancy, as you said that it would have to be addressed, for example as you suggest.

    Others (Frobnicat ? ) probably can think of other things to take into account.

    Other ideas that could be tried in conjunction is to have the RF Source away from the EM Drive (as planned by Shell) and somebody had a very good idea to have an identical EM drive at the other end of the beam, identical except that one EM Drive would have the magnetron excite resonance inside the EM drive while the other EM Drivei in the other end would just be producing heat from the magnetron because the RF is not directed to the inside of the cavity for that EM Drive.

    Another idea considered by Shell was to have the EM Drive immersed in a fluid.  The fluid would convect heat more efficiently than air.  However, Frobnicat came out with a number of issues with the preliminary ideas.

    Perhaps both EM Drives (as suggested above) could be in a small pool of fluid instead of air.

    A partial vacuum takes care of all these convection issues.

    Another idea is to have a MINI-EM-Drive (as designed for example by the Aachen fellows) tested in a vacuum chamber.  However this entails a significantly higher natural frequency of resonance (24 GHz for the Aachen fellows)...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: demofsky on 12/06/2015 08:56 pm
    Gee, pause to go to the bathroom and you lose.

    Maxwells Orphan

    Ok, maybe I'll start an SF story and I'll have a title.

    I like this too.  One small tweak though:

    Maxwells Orphans or MaxwellsOrphans.net

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/06/2015 09:28 pm
    I am seeing some vacuum chambers for sale on the market.  One being 15 gallons.  Maybe an experiment could be done inside one of them.  http://goo.gl/sK9Gtc .  Problem is getting RF inside.  One could include a battery or maybe some magnetic wireless power across the lid to power it.  Not sure how different batteries would behave in vacuum. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/06/2015 09:52 pm
    I am seeing some vacuum chambers for sale on the market.  One being 15 gallons.  Maybe an experiment could be done inside one of them.  http://goo.gl/sK9Gtc .  Problem is getting RF inside.  One could include a battery or maybe some magnetic wireless power across the lid to power it.  Not sure how different batteries would behave in vacuum.
    Notsosureofit had some dissasembled large vacuum chambers in his company.  If my memory is correct  :-\, he offered their use (if my memory is correct they needed some refurbishment) for DIY.  He showed pictures of it in previous threads.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/06/2015 10:03 pm

    Thanks Rodal.  I was a bit tired last night to correctly think through what I wanted to suggest.  The air holes were not for convection air currents but rather for expansion of heated air but they are likely unnecessary which I will get to.  I think I have a suggestion that even makes worrying air pressure thrust, and convection unnecessary. 

    The suggestion is to just put the thing in an insulated box and weigh the box.  Air can move all it wants in the insulated box but it will be a closed system so there should be no net thrust on the box with frustum.  An insulate box should keep its temperature constant outside long enough to get meaningful readings with out worrying about convection outside the box if it works.  Temperature inside the box could be measured and the volume of the box used to predict buoyancy.

    buoyancy of heated air can also be solved by flipping the frustum over and taking a reading again after the box cools down from the first measurement. 

    The movable plate, in which I guess only one plate is really needed, (ceramic on the other like shell was suggesting) allows detection of resonance.  -dB/dt should provide a push on the plate when the changing magnetic field builds up inside the frustum.  Detection of this force guarantees that resonance has been achieved inside the frustum and that it is working correctly.  Multiple resonance modes can be detected with adjustable plate position which could be matched up to theoretical resonance modes also. 

    could this solve some of the air convection problems while also ensuring resonance?

    Not that I had a misspent youth, but Styrofoam cut to size and seams sealed with duct tape make made it down a 5 day raft trip on the Snake River with, ahem, "essentials" inside and didn't leak a drop even with several immersions. Cheap too, and I'm probably past the statute of limitations by now...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/06/2015 11:34 pm
    Thanks Rodal.  I was a bit tired last night to correctly think through what I wanted to suggest.  The air holes were not for convection air currents but rather for expansion of heated air but they are likely unnecessary which I will get to.  I think I have a suggestion that even makes worrying air pressure thrust, and convection unnecessary. 

    The suggestion is to just put the thing in an insulated box and weigh the box.  Air can move all it wants in the insulated box but it will be a closed system so there should be no net thrust on the box with frustum.  An insulate box should keep its temperature constant outside long enough to get meaningful readings with out worrying about convection outside the box if it works.  Temperature inside the box could be measured and the volume of the box used to predict buoyancy.

    buoyancy of heated air can also be solved by flipping the frustum over and taking a reading again after the box cools down from the first measurement. 

    The movable plate, in which I guess only one plate is really needed, (ceramic on the other like shell was suggesting) allows detection of resonance.  -dB/dt should provide a push on the plate when the changing magnetic field builds up inside the frustum.  Detection of this force guarantees that resonance has been achieved inside the frustum and that it is working correctly.  Multiple resonance modes can be detected with adjustable plate position which could be matched up to theoretical resonance modes also. 

    could this solve some of the air convection problems while also ensuring resonance?

    Roger did all this back in 2002 with his Experimental EmDrive tests.

    Please read what he wrote in the 1st 2 attachments and in the links.

    http://emdrive.com/feasibilitystudy.html

    http://emdrive.com/background.html

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061205/text/61205w0031.htm (scroll to the bottom)

    Prof Tajmar, in his atmo tests, (see 3rd attachment) basically repeated Roger's maggie and frustum in a "sealed?" box, balance beam and scale test setup, where he did measure Force generation that closely matched Roger's Force generation equation prediction, despite significant buoyancy generation.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/07/2015 12:30 am

    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?

    If you settle on a name point your nameservers as follows when you register:

    Nameservers   IP Address
    ns1.webhostinghub.com   205.134.224.133
    ns2.webhostinghub.com   173.205.127.4
    OK, done. I took Doc's suggestion and shortened it to rfdriven.com

    Glenn, its now pointing to the first nameserver.

    OK, who's going to be the webmeister. I've got as much as I can handle right now.

    Below is my contribution to a place-holder page.

    p.s. Glenn, I kinda liked amateurcrackpots.com, but someone already had that one  ;)
    [/quote]

    OK, I see it propagating.

    Give the WEB 48 hours for all folks to see it, and me a bit more time to set up the data stores.  Some of you can probably see it now.

    http://www.rfdriven.com/

    I'm testing out two different document management systems.  Please be patient while I evaluate which is most user friendly.  If they are comparable, I'll solicit folks to tell me which is best.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 01:00 am

    Thank you glenn, I will take you up on your offer and buy a domain name. Now, to the name...hmmm...id like some nsf consensus here. Short, descriptive, searchable, unused, scientific, relevant, respectable...my vote is for doc's last name...pending his approval. After all, no one has been here longer and worked as hard to keep people like me focused on the need to be scientific about all of this...comments please?

    If you settle on a name point your nameservers as follows when you register:

    Nameservers   IP Address
    ns1.webhostinghub.com   205.134.224.133
    ns2.webhostinghub.com   173.205.127.4
    OK, done. I took Doc's suggestion and shortened it to rfdriven.com

    Glenn, its now pointing to the first nameserver.

    OK, who's going to be the webmeister. I've got as much as I can handle right now.

    Below is my contribution to a place-holder page.

    p.s. Glenn, I kinda liked amateurcrackpots.com, but someone already had that one  ;)

    OK, I see it propagating.

    Give the WEB 48 hours for all folks to see it, and me a bit more time to set up the data stores.  Some of you can probably see it now.

    http://www.rfdriven.com/

    I'm testing out two different document management systems.  Please be patient while I evaluate which is most user friendly.  If they are comparable, I'll solicit folks to tell me which is best.
    [/quote]
    I see it: http://rfdriven.com
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/07/2015 04:44 am


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/07/2015 04:52 am


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/07/2015 05:02 am


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell

    Remember too that the casimir effect also applies to any single mirror moving through a vacuum; I.e. it will dynamically create radiation as it interacts with what we here call "virtual particles".

    source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714

    "From early on, it was discussed if it might instead be possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the quantum vacuum. 40 years ago, Moore suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE). Using a superconducting circuit, we have observed the DCE for the first time."
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/07/2015 05:03 am

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.
    ...
    Quote the posts?   ;D

    I have been in these threads since thread 1.  Do you know how many messages is that?.  ;) I recall many of the discussions we had in the threads, but quote the posts?  I would not even be able to find the quotes of the work we did together with Notsosureofit (great cooperation) and many others, and even less the quotes regarding Zellerium.

    ;) Too much time to find those quotes and it doesn't make a difference to me. RFMWGUY stated that he had a similar recollection regarding the negative results with a uniform cross-section cavity.
    Do you think that Zellerium never conducted any tests ?
    You think that it may have been << a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests)>>  ???
    Sorry you were not around when these test discussions were taking place  :)

    Hey Steve,

    In regards to the experiment we performed over the summer, our results were inconclusive.
    We know we could measure low thrust (~1 mN) fairly accurately using the pendulum/laser setup. We also had many tests with the magnetron ON that resulted in NO deflection. However, we had several tests in which we saw significant deflection (~.1 mm) in both the axial and transverse directions.Unfortunately we did not construct our cavity well enough to prohibit arcing, and nearly all tests had some form or another.
    I'll attach the paper.

    Although we had planned to attempt to go the route of solid state amplifier with PLL, it appears to be out of our time budget and we have been unable to find other students that are sufficiently interested. However, we recently met with a microwave engineering expert who happened to be in town wanted to see our setup. He has agreed to let us borrow a professionally made magnetron SMA adapter in order to better measure where our resonant positions. We also will most likely buy a large block of HDPE to turn into a cone shaped dielectric (rather than a flat disc) and will attempt some minor recommended cavity improvements to eliminate arcing. If all goes according to plan, we will be making these improvements and going for round 2 starting in Jan.

    Apologies for my absence on the forum, I wish I had the time to keep up with you all. I'm planning on skimming the ~30 pages I've missed over my Winter break.

    -Kurt

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/07/2015 05:21 am


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell

    Shell,

    If you obtained the spherical copper endplates, you should be able to get a good ceramics shop even here in the US to cast a caramic end cap to match. Any material that could be cast and fired or set by catalyst even, could be made to match almost any shape.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/07/2015 05:25 am
    While I am waiting for my 20 mil 4’x8’ copper sheet to arrive tomorrow,  here’s a compilation of thoughts, notes and challenges about trying to replicate the EmDrive as of today:

    1.   Surprising as it is, there does NOT exist a single detailed description of a working EmDrive. There is no paper nor blog or forum post out there claiming that such-and-such exactly sized frustum with such and such exactly sized and placed coupler has produced a certain thrust at a certain RF frequency. This is actually rather strange, but hopefully the explanation is just that all those people who witnessed it working are under some form of NDA or, if not, then they are simply pursuing some career goals and do not want to publish all the details just yet. I suspect NASA may be in the latter camp (unless this work has since been classified).

    2.   All existing reports of thrust obtained from an _empty_ frustum cavity employ a magnetron (as opposite to a fixed RF feed). EW goes further and claims that they were not able to obtain _any_ thrust from an empty frustum cavity until after having added a dielectric insert to it. They also claim to have a theory about how it is absolutely necessary to have either a magnetron (which has a wide power spectrum) or a dielectric insert in order for produce any thrust. They never explain how they came up with an idea of adding a dielectric, or how they were figuring out the exact size and placement of the dielectric disk.

    3.   With this in mind, the existing Excel spreadsheet out there does not calculate dimensions of a working EmDrive. What is does compute is design factor and the specific mode resonance  frequency for the particular frustum dimensions. There is really no proof that either of these has any bearing to producing thrust at all. Still, the spreadsheet numbers seem accurate. In my case the dimensions used for 2.31 GHz TE01 resonance in spreadsheet have resulted in COMSOL simulated eigenfrequency of 2.24 Ghz for the same mode. Close enough. (JFYI, somebody here previously mentioned that COMSOL-type solver is not well-suited for solving eigenfrequency for this particular geometry. So it is quite possible that it is COMSOL number which is off here).

    4.   It has been pointed out, and I can confirm from my personal experience that COMSOL simulation for this particular geometry produces a great number of resonance modes and frequencies in a narrow frequency region. For EW sized frustum I have got nearly a dozen frequencies and all kinds of fancy modes in the 1.87-1.99 GHz range. Adding a dielectric disk (per EW dimensions) changes some modes and shifts all frequencies a little bit, but does not otherwise make any fundamental changes. My humble understanding is that when unlocked magnetron is employed there would likely be a superposition of multiple modes resonating inside the cavity (can there be such a thing?), while all the energy in between those modes would be reflected back (thus contributing to magnetron overheating). From the other hand, none of Shawyer papers is concerned with a particular RF mode, and EW further indicates they have produced trust from both TM and TE modes. It almost feels like the particular RF mode induced may not be that important as long as some resonance mode is produced and enough energy is being stored in the cavity.

    Frankly, my prediction at this point is that while I will succeed in constructing the frustum, RF feed and impedance match at resonance (at the end of the day this is just RF 101, or maybe 201), I will not see any thrust out of the empty cavity at a fixed RF frequency… Then it will be trial and error with attaching different HDPE disks and hoping to see the miracle…

    Tags: EMDriveCalc20150809a
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/07/2015 06:15 am


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell

    Any ideas why Shawyer and Nasa are reporting better results with curved endplates?  You're generating several unstable modes off a wideband source, and showing more energy in resonance at any one time than a more stable source (or at least that's what I think you're saying).  Maybe the increase in Q would be higher with a more stable approach?  If it's not Q, what's going on here?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/07/2015 06:21 am

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.
    ...
    Quote the posts?   ;D

    I have been in these threads since thread 1.  Do you know how many messages is that?.  ;) I recall many of the discussions we had in the threads, but quote the posts?  I would not even be able to find the quotes of the work we did together with Notsosureofit (great cooperation) and many others, and even less the quotes regarding Zellerium.

    ;) Too much time to find those quotes and it doesn't make a difference to me. RFMWGUY stated that he had a similar recollection regarding the negative results with a uniform cross-section cavity.
    Do you think that Zellerium never conducted any tests ?
    You think that it may have been << a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests)>>  ???
    Sorry you were not around when these test discussions were taking place  :)

    Hey Steve,

    In regards to the experiment we performed over the summer, our results were inconclusive.
    We know we could measure low thrust (~1 mN) fairly accurately using the pendulum/laser setup. We also had many tests with the magnetron ON that resulted in NO deflection. However, we had several tests in which we saw significant deflection (~.1 mm) in both the axial and transverse directions.Unfortunately we did not construct our cavity well enough to prohibit arcing, and nearly all tests had some form or another.
    I'll attach the paper.

    Although we had planned to attempt to go the route of solid state amplifier with PLL, it appears to be out of our time budget and we have been unable to find other students that are sufficiently interested. However, we recently met with a microwave engineering expert who happened to be in town wanted to see our setup. He has agreed to let us borrow a professionally made magnetron SMA adapter in order to better measure where our resonant positions. We also will most likely buy a large block of HDPE to turn into a cone shaped dielectric (rather than a flat disc) and will attempt some minor recommended cavity improvements to eliminate arcing. If all goes according to plan, we will be making these improvements and going for round 2 starting in Jan.

    Apologies for my absence on the forum, I wish I had the time to keep up with you all. I'm planning on skimming the ~30 pages I've missed over my Winter break.

    -Kurt

    I'm seeing 5mN, 2.5mN and 1mN claimed as a peak "thurst" detected.  Any idea which one of those is the most accurate?

    Any idea how much of your magnetron's energy fell within that bandwidth?

    I don't suppose there's anything in this setup that would allow say 3 to 5 watts or something to walk into a frequency band that has a Q in the thousands?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/07/2015 06:39 am
    A thought on thermals before going to bed.  If thermal currents are too chaotic to be modeled exactly, what about a worst case model?  If everything goes wrong and the thermal is giving you a sustained push in the direction the drive is suppose to produce thrust, how much thrust are we talking about?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThinkerX on 12/07/2015 06:42 am
    Quote
    Frankly, my prediction at this point is that while I will succeed in constructing the frustum, RF feed and impedance match at resonance (at the end of the day this is just RF 101, or maybe 201), I will not see any thrust out of the empty cavity at a fixed RF frequency… Then it will be trial and error with attaching different HDPE disks and hoping to see the miracle

    You might want to consider some sort of tuning device that tweaks the frustum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThinkerX on 12/07/2015 06:47 am
    Quote
    A thought on thermals before going to bed.  If thermal currents are too chaotic to be modeled exactly, what about a worst case model?  If everything goes wrong and the thermal is giving you a sustained push in the direction the drive is suppose to produce thrust, how much thrust are we talking about?

    In my view, the thermal issues are so severe that vertical testing of this device is going to produce problematic results at best.

    Best option would probably be to go for a rotary test rig, where thermal lift is irrelevant.

    So far as I know, 'The Traveler' is the only DIY type going this route at the moment.

    Which reminds me:  Traveler, I thought you posted a while back your build was underway.  Progress report? 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/07/2015 09:25 am
    Quote
    A thought on thermals before going to bed.  If thermal currents are too chaotic to be modeled exactly, what about a worst case model?  If everything goes wrong and the thermal is giving you a sustained push in the direction the drive is suppose to produce thrust, how much thrust are we talking about?

    In my view, the thermal issues are so severe that vertical testing of this device is going to produce problematic results at best.

    Best option would probably be to go for a rotary test rig, where thermal lift is irrelevant.

    So far as I know, 'The Traveler' is the only DIY type going this route at the moment.

    Which reminds me:  Traveler, I thought you posted a while back your build was underway.  Progress report?

    As for a rotary rig, Dr. Rodal has pointed out on multiple occasions how these sorts of fluid dynamics could easily produce a non-vertical force vector; a fluid moving alongside an object on its path to an upward plume, for example, will want to drag the object along with it.

    For these reasons I do think that a "worst case model" is the best way to approach this sort of a theoretical problem.  As I recall from several pages (or 10+) ago, someone attempted to do this with the stats from a DIY build by treating the emdrive cavity as though it were a hot air balloon, which seems right to me.

    A hot air balloon, after all, is a cavity designed to maximize the thrust from a hot air plume.  If a hot air balloon of the same mass and shape as the EMDrive does not produce the thrust from a heat source hotter than we know it will reach, then we can obtain a maximum threshold for a "thrust" signature to be thermally relevant in open air I think.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 11:05 am

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.
    ...
    Quote the posts?   ;D

    I have been in these threads since thread 1.  Do you know how many messages is that?.  ;) I recall many of the discussions we had in the threads, but quote the posts?  I would not even be able to find the quotes of the work we did together with Notsosureofit (great cooperation) and many others, and even less the quotes regarding Zellerium.

    ;) Too much time to find those quotes and it doesn't make a difference to me. RFMWGUY stated that he had a similar recollection regarding the negative results with a uniform cross-section cavity.
    Do you think that Zellerium never conducted any tests ?
    You think that it may have been << a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests)>>  ???
    Sorry you were not around when these test discussions were taking place  :)

    Hey Steve,

    In regards to the experiment we performed over the summer, our results were inconclusive.
    We know we could measure low thrust (~1 mN) fairly accurately using the pendulum/laser setup. We also had many tests with the magnetron ON that resulted in NO deflection. However, we had several tests in which we saw significant deflection (~.1 mm) in both the axial and transverse directions.Unfortunately we did not construct our cavity well enough to prohibit arcing, and nearly all tests had some form or another.
    I'll attach the paper.

    Although we had planned to attempt to go the route of solid state amplifier with PLL, it appears to be out of our time budget and we have been unable to find other students that are sufficiently interested. However, we recently met with a microwave engineering expert who happened to be in town wanted to see our setup. He has agreed to let us borrow a professionally made magnetron SMA adapter in order to better measure where our resonant positions. We also will most likely buy a large block of HDPE to turn into a cone shaped dielectric (rather than a flat disc) and will attempt some minor recommended cavity improvements to eliminate arcing. If all goes according to plan, we will be making these improvements and going for round 2 starting in Jan.

    Apologies for my absence on the forum, I wish I had the time to keep up with you all. I'm planning on skimming the ~30 pages I've missed over my Winter break.

    -Kurt

    Thank you so much for posting this information.

    If (whenever you get any time to do so) you could fill-in the information for your tests in the EM Drive Wiki Experimental Results page:

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results


    it would be much appreciated, as there is nobody better than you to fill-in the data the way that you think that most adequately portrays the results of your tests.  For example, under force measurements, etc., you could insert a note explaining that you think that the results were within the uncertainty error limits of your experimental measurements, and thus you see them as inconclusive.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 12:06 pm


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell

    Any ideas why Shawyer and Nasa are reporting better results with curved endplates?  You're generating several unstable modes off a wideband source, and showing more energy in resonance at any one time than a more stable source (or at least that's what I think you're saying).  Maybe the increase in Q would be higher with a more stable approach?  If it's not Q, what's going on here?

    NASA Eagleworks has NOT reported tests with curved endplates. Please refer to Brady et.al.'s report and to Paul March's posts in these NSF threads, which state that flat end plates were used.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/07/2015 12:15 pm
    Any ideas why Shawyer and Nasa are reporting better results with curved end plates?  You're generating several unstable modes off a wideband source, and showing more energy in resonance at any one time than a more stable source (or at least that's what I think you're saying).  Maybe the increase in Q would be higher with a more stable approach?  If it's not Q, what's going on here?

    Only Roger's Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EmDrives used spherical end plates. The EW copper and alum frustums have flat end plates. Paul did consider to make a spherical end plate frustum.

    Spherical end plates change the way the Em wave propogates inside the frustum (introducing minimal bounce phase distortion) versus flat end plates which generate significant bounce phase distortion as Roger comments on in his peer reviewed paper as attached.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 12:27 pm
    Any ideas why Shawyer and Nasa are reporting better results with curved end plates?  You're generating several unstable modes off a wideband source, and showing more energy in resonance at any one time than a more stable source (or at least that's what I think you're saying).  Maybe the increase in Q would be higher with a more stable approach?  If it's not Q, what's going on here?

    Only Roger's Demonstrator and Flight Thruster EmDrives used spherical end plates. The EW copper and alum frustums have flat end plates. Paul did consider to make a spherical end plate frustum.

    Spherical end plates change the way the Em wave propogates inside the frustum (introducing minimal bounce phase distortion) versus flat end plates which generate significant bounce phase distortion as Roger comments on in his peer reviewed paper as attached.
    The tests conducted at the Technische Universität Dresden in Germany by Tajmar & Fiedler also used curved endplates
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/07/2015 12:31 pm
    Best option would probably be to go for a rotary test rig, where thermal lift is irrelevant.

    So far as I know, 'The Traveler' is the only DIY type going this route at the moment.

    Which reminds me:  Traveler, I thought you posted a while back your build was underway.  Progress report?

    As I move forward, there are 5 project streams to my work.

    1) Building the copper S band test frustum that is designed to have changeable spherical and flat end plates as attached.

    2) Building the 100W coax based solid state freq tracking system system.

    3) Experimenting with a 1.2kW inverter maggie to see if the freq splatter can be controlled enough to be useful with the above frustum.

    4) Experimenting with a 900W non inverter maggie to see if the freq splatter can be controlled enough to be useful with the above frustum.

    5) Building the rotary test table, capable of supporting both battery powered 100W solid state Rf amp and 240VAC powered 1.2kW maggie (AC power would be supplied by 2 horizontal slip rings and vertical brushes located under the rotary table).


    Have on hand as of 3 Dec 2015:

    1) 1.2kW inverter microwave oven.

    2) 900W non inverter microwave oven.

    3) Sufficient electronic test equipment and skills to support all the project streams as attached.


    Have ordered:

    1) Laser cut and formed frustum components.

    2) VNA

    3) Spectrum analyser

    4) 100W Rf amp

    5) Rf pre amp

    6) USB adjustable freq source that steps +-1kHz

    7) Raspberry Pi 2B plus several I/O and peripheral boards.

    8) WiFi USB adapters.

    9) Rechargeable Lithium Ion battery pack capable of min 1 hr operation at 100W Rf output.

    My workshop is located in the Great Southern Land: Australia.

    Not much to see at the moment (see attached photos) but a Panasonic inverter microwave. Haven't been in there to work since the surgery to remove my Prostate cancer some 5 months ago. Now filled with a friends furniture as I needed 40 follow up radiation treatments over 8 weeks. Nothing special, just a few semi-retired EE toys. Bit more packed away that I will need to get the build working to plan.

    The workshop is a dedicated colorbond steel workshop, not a garage. 5m wide x 8m long x 2.4m high plus a vented pitched roof and fire brick floor. Nicely shaded by several large nearby trees during the hot +40C summer months.

    Will update this as components arrive and build events occur.

    More frequent updates here:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/07/2015 12:35 pm
    The tests conducted at the Technische Universität Dresden in Germany by Tajmar & Fiedler also used curved endplates

    Which Prof Tajmar admitted were not properly aligned / parallel and reduced the frustum Q. Not to mention the massive waveguide entry hole in the side wall of the tiny frustum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/07/2015 12:48 pm


    "Two mirrors held parallel to each other in a vacuum experience an attractive force, known as the Casimir effect, which combines aspects of quantum vacuum behavior with relativity. The force arises when vacuum fluctuations — virtual particles flitting in and out of existence — reduce the radiation pressure between the plates and generate an inward force. The static effect has been well studied, but theory also predicts a dynamical Casimir effect arising from a mismatch of vacuum modes in time rather than space. This paper presents the first observation of this phenomenon in a superconducting circuit."

    Other references this morning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

    Shell

    Don't the mirrors have to be flat for Casimir effect?  What Shawyers and Nasa were reporting with rounded endplates sounded like a concave, convex resonance cavity (interesting because the laser folks all agree that trying to make an optical resonance cavity with flat endplates is the pits).
    This is using a squid device on a very small scale where the curvature of a plate isn't a factor.

    If we were dealing with trying to use light or lasers the flat end plates would be a pain because of the shorter wavelengths.

    Flat vs curved shows a very small diff in Q and the same mode generations and are easier to make with my setup using the flat ceramic plates.

    Shell

    Any ideas why Shawyer and Nasa are reporting better results with curved endplates?  You're generating several unstable modes off a wideband source, and showing more energy in resonance at any one time than a more stable source (or at least that's what I think you're saying).  Maybe the increase in Q would be higher with a more stable approach?  If it's not Q, what's going on here?

    Look at the data. The data and simulations suggests that more than the curved endplates it's the mode  of operation and the way the RF in injected into the cavity plus the quality of the RF. I can establish a Q of lets say 5k with flat plates and going to curved runs it up to 6k, but if my RF source is splattering all over 60-70 MHz of the output BW the cavity will not lock in a mode and the Q will suffer.

    Looking at the spread sheet on the one critical item few discuss and that is the thrust vs a photon rocket (not so much the Q but it is a factor) you will see that 2 modes of operation rule. a TE012 and a TE013. My current drive is designed to be able to tune both in.
    http://imgur.com/OADVFF7

    My next generation will have curved endplates but I'll not be using ceramics for the plates. I'll be using a carbon fiber composite laid over and bonded to the copper for the thermal conductive properties and adding exceptional strength. http://www.ngfworld.com/en/en_fiber/en_high_thermal_conductivity.html


    I'm not going to drop the current build when I know I can get very good data from the design  without curved endplates, but like I said I plan on fine tuning the next generation with curved plates and capturing the plates with a thermally conductive carbon fiber with a multi layered fiber construction the thermal layout closer to the copper and strength using a crisscross pattern further out.

    I've been working on this type of layout for the last two months on and off and the numbers show I can achieve a more stable configuration than even ceramics. Plus I can do it in my lab. Cost is always a concern but better for less is a good thing. I've found a shop locally that will curve the copper on a lathe. (still wish I had my old Tool room Harrison, loved that hands on machine)

    Shell

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 12:52 pm
    The tests conducted at the Technische Universität Dresden in Germany by Tajmar & Fiedler also used curved endplates

    Which Prof Tajmar admitted were not properly aligned / parallel and reduced the frustum Q. Not to mention the massive waveguide entry hole in the side wall of the tiny frustum.

    My post strictly dealt with what tests were conducted with curved or flat plates, and not on an estimation of the quality of the tests.

    Rather than arguing about the quality of Prof. Tajmar's experiments at TU Dresden's University vis-a-vis Shawyer's personally-conducted tests , here is Prof. Tajmar's report (from the University's website), for anybody interested to draw their own conclusions:

    http://bit.ly/1XVP8yf

    Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects
    M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler
    Institute of Aerospace Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany

    Quote
    Our test campaign can not confirm or refute in any way the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far. We did find a number of side-effects in the previous setups that indeed can produce large false signals. More work is needed to assess other error sources and the source of the signals that we have observed. Next steps include better magnetic shielding, further vacuum tests and improved EMDrive models with higher Q factors and electronics that allow tuning for optimal operation. We believe that this is a good education project to track down measurement errors and as a worst case we may find how to effectively shield thrust balances from magnetic fields.

    Acknowledgement

    We would like to thank Roger Shawyer for his assistance

    The information on the fact that Tajmar's EM Drive end plates were curved (and a correction to the incorrect geometrical dimensions in the initial AIAA report) was revealed through electronic communications between Tajmar and somebody else in these EM Drive NSF threads (Flux_Capacitor if my memory serves me correctly  :-\ )

    Prof. Tajmar conducted tests in a partial vacuum at TU Dresden University while Shawyer has never reported a single test performed in partial vacuum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 01:55 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 02:04 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests with the dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency (

    mode shape TE012 at 2.168 GHz without a dielectric

    as compared to

    mode shape TE012 at 1.8804 GHz with a dielectric) ,

    which Paul March stated (in these threads) showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert (

    COMSOL analysis by Frank Davis calculated natural frequency without the dielectric was 2.1794 GHz
    while the measurement without the dielectric was at 2.168 GHz

    ) .

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.

    Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
    David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 02:18 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests without dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency, which Paul March stated showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert.

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
    Thanks Doc, makes me feel better to know they varied the freq as the insert should have slid resonance much lower. Too bad Q or Qr weren't taken.

    Here's a question unrelated, Doc, if I were to give you new frustum dimensions, in a logrithmic bell shaped design. Could you estimate the length? IOW I could give you Big diameter, Estimate small diameter and would need length. The logrithmic bell-shape (inward curve) starts out steep and becomes shallower fairly quickly.

    I could give you and pic of the generalized shape, but just wondering if you might have input on this.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/07/2015 02:57 pm

    As I said in my post, the linked report is the report that rfmwguy linked to.  Concerning the fact that this report linked by rfmwguy is a report dealing with proposed future tests instead of the report concerning Zellerium's test on uniform cross-section cavity you are just repeating what I stated in my post.

    Concerning your statement that << There simply is no data here>> again, that pertains only to the report linked by rfmwguy.  Zellerium posted  information detailing his negative results on the uniform cross section cavity. 

    Well then quote the post where he says "sorry, not getting anything on a symmetrical cavity" and let's be done with this silly argument.  If not, then maybe list it in a separate section of the wiki as a rumored result?  I'd hate to call this null (especially with the reported torque) without a direct statement to that effect.  If this thing isn't all excess heat, I don't want to hear on the documentary about it in ten or twenty years that a critical error held up the process until somebody figured out that this test had been misreported. 

    Quote
    Regarding <<Termination for lack of funding is not a null result.  >> that does not mean lack of testing and results on uniform cross-section cavities.  Apparently you may be unaware of Zellerium's work and reported information on the uniform cross-section cavity.  If you are interested, you can search for that information in previous threads.

    Can you link?  I searched for Zellerium's name and then his post history before the first time I posted and didn't see a clear null.  My concern is extrapolating more data than is reported.  If a null result was clearly reported, then saying its not null for X, Y and Z reasons has the same problem.  So if you've got a clear report -- not reading something into a switch in cavity type in a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests) -- then quote it and lets be done with it.
    ...
    Quote the posts?   ;D

    I have been in these threads since thread 1.  Do you know how many messages is that?.  ;) I recall many of the discussions we had in the threads, but quote the posts?  I would not even be able to find the quotes of the work we did together with Notsosureofit (great cooperation) and many others, and even less the quotes regarding Zellerium.

    ;) Too much time to find those quotes and it doesn't make a difference to me. RFMWGUY stated that he had a similar recollection regarding the negative results with a uniform cross-section cavity.
    Do you think that Zellerium never conducted any tests ?
    You think that it may have been << a proposal written for a class (that could well have been written that way because the assignment was to write a proposal, not carry out the proposed tests)>>  ???
    Sorry you were not around when these test discussions were taking place  :)

    Hey Steve,

    In regards to the experiment we performed over the summer, our results were inconclusive.
    We know we could measure low thrust (~1 mN) fairly accurately using the pendulum/laser setup. We also had many tests with the magnetron ON that resulted in NO deflection. However, we had several tests in which we saw significant deflection (~.1 mm) in both the axial and transverse directions.Unfortunately we did not construct our cavity well enough to prohibit arcing, and nearly all tests had some form or another.
    I'll attach the paper.

    Although we had planned to attempt to go the route of solid state amplifier with PLL, it appears to be out of our time budget and we have been unable to find other students that are sufficiently interested. However, we recently met with a microwave engineering expert who happened to be in town wanted to see our setup. He has agreed to let us borrow a professionally made magnetron SMA adapter in order to better measure where our resonant positions. We also will most likely buy a large block of HDPE to turn into a cone shaped dielectric (rather than a flat disc) and will attempt some minor recommended cavity improvements to eliminate arcing. If all goes according to plan, we will be making these improvements and going for round 2 starting in Jan.

    Apologies for my absence on the forum, I wish I had the time to keep up with you all. I'm planning on skimming the ~30 pages I've missed over my Winter break.

    -Kurt

    I'm seeing 5mN, 2.5mN and 1mN claimed as a peak "thurst" detected.  Any idea which one of those is the most accurate?

    Any idea how much of your magnetron's energy fell within that bandwidth?

    I don't suppose there's anything in this setup that would allow say 3 to 5 watts or something to walk into a frequency band that has a Q in the thousands?

    The peak 'thrust' was transverse, which was a much more difficult force to calculate with our setup, and frankly we just ran out of time. I would say if there was an anomalous thrust it is in that range, but again, inconclusive due to many reasons. We definitely did not have a Q in the thousands, unless our mock magnetron antenna was fooling us. The VNA showed Q's of ~300, maybe 700 MAX.

    Judging by rfmwguy's magnetron spectrum videos (awesome job by the way!), I would gues we could have gotten 10 W into our resonance. But we have no way of knowing for sure...

    And Dr. Rodal, I will add our results to the wiki page when I'm done with finals later this week. And also, great to see you back on the forum :)

    Also, on the curved end-plates note: it appears to be a much higher Q resonator judging by EMPro simulations I've been running. I'm hoping to have more time this month to go into more detail, but for now you can check out the pictures in the attachment. I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep persuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly. 

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 03:01 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests without dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency, which Paul March stated showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert.

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
    Thanks Doc, makes me feel better to know they varied the freq as the insert should have slid resonance much lower. Too bad Q or Qr weren't taken.

    Here's a question unrelated, Doc, if I were to give you new frustum dimensions, in a logrithmic bell shaped design. Could you estimate the length? IOW I could give you Big diameter, Estimate small diameter and would need length. The logrithmic bell-shape (inward curve) starts out steep and becomes shallower fairly quickly.

    I could give you and pic of the generalized shape, but just wondering if you might have input on this.

    I don't have the time to go over this now but I recall that (at least one) of the standard textbooks on Electromagnetic Waves goes in detail over the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet, and shows why this approximation is inexact, and inferior to exact solutions and inferior to finite element or finite difference numerical solutions.

    The reason is that the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet (which performs an integration of uniform cross-section differential segments) neglects the multiple reflections between individual differential sections (so a very large number of integration segments, even hundreds of thousands, will not be able to overcome this limitation). The textbook shows the range of validity of such an approximation (which usually results in higher natural frequencies than the natural frequency calculated by exact solutions or by Finite Element or Finite Difference solutions because the approximation used by TT neglects the multiple reflections: it does not take into account coupling interaction between the multiple integration segments). 

    I recall that the textbook also showed an exact solution for the case of a logarithmic tapered waveguide, which does not neglect the multiple reflections.   If I have the time to find it, I'll let you know (it is either in one of the books by Balanis, or Collin, or Stutzman. or Harrington, or Adler and Fano (MIT) or the one by Stratton (MIT)).

    One of the readers in this thread may recall (Notsosureofit ?,  Merberbs ?, rfcavity ? ) which textbook is the one that contains this discussion about the logarithmically tapered waveguide.  Schelkunoff may (?) have also obtained an exact solution for the logarithmically tapered cavity.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 03:22 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests without dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency, which Paul March stated showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert.

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
    Thanks Doc, makes me feel better to know they varied the freq as the insert should have slid resonance much lower. Too bad Q or Qr weren't taken.

    Here's a question unrelated, Doc, if I were to give you new frustum dimensions, in a logrithmic bell shaped design. Could you estimate the length? IOW I could give you Big diameter, Estimate small diameter and would need length. The logrithmic bell-shape (inward curve) starts out steep and becomes shallower fairly quickly.

    I could give you and pic of the generalized shape, but just wondering if you might have input on this.

    I don't have the time to go over this now but I recall that (at least one) of the standard textbooks on Electromagnetic Waves goes in detail over the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet, and shows why this approximation is inexact, and inferior to exact solutions and inferior to finite element or finite difference numerical solutions.

    The reason is that the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet (which performs an integration of uniform cross-section differential segments) neglects the multiple reflections between individual differential sections (so a very large number of integration segments, even hundreds of thousands, will not be able to address this problem which is inherent to such an integration). The textbook shows the range of validity of such an approximation (which usually results in higher natural frequencies than the natural frequency calculated by exact solutions or by Finite Element or Finite Difference solutions because the approximation used by TT neglects the multiple reflections). 

    I recall that the textbook also showed an exact solution for the case of a logarithmic tapered waveguide, which does not neglect the multiple reflections.   If I have the time to find it, I'll let you know (it is either in one of the books by Balanis, or Collin, or Stutzman. or Harrington, or Adler and Fano (MIT) or the one by Stratton (MIT)).

    One of the readers in this thread may recall (Notsosureofit ?,  Merberbs ?, rfcavity ? ) which textbook is the one that contains this discussion about the logarithmically tapered waveguide.  Schelkunoff may (?) have also obtained an exact solution for the logarithmically tapered cavity.
    And of course, it should be straightforward for aero to modify the mesh input for Meep, from the conical shape to a logarithmic tapered shape.

    You may want to post the shape of the geometry you have in mind, and/or the location of the mesh point needed by aero (if he has the time to run the analysis in Meep). 

    Or someone else reading this thread may be willing to calculate it using EM Pro (Zellerium ? ) or COMSOL, or some other package like ANSYS multiphysics. etc.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/07/2015 03:43 pm
    While I am waiting for my 20 mil 4’x8’ copper sheet to arrive tomorrow,  here’s a compilation of thoughts, notes and challenges about trying to replicate the EmDrive as of today:
    ........

    There are 5 threads at this point - a lot of discussion for you to review. NASA Eagle Works appears to have a paper in peer review so more data from them is forthcoming.

    It's obvious to say that different folks are working with different frustum/frequencies and seeking different mode excitation's. Isn't that kind of normal for science?

    On the other hand, folks here are openly kibitzing and theorizing for all to see. That is NOT normal for science investigations as far as I know (which may just be me because I'm an outsider anyway).  Standardization of experiments has been suggested by Dr. Rodal and others, and I'd bet that will occur IF what are assumed thrust measurements continue to occur.

    Jump in the pool, that water's fine. And good luck and be sure to post your data/information.
     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 03:58 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests without dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency, which Paul March stated showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert.

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
    Thanks Doc, makes me feel better to know they varied the freq as the insert should have slid resonance much lower. Too bad Q or Qr weren't taken.

    Here's a question unrelated, Doc, if I were to give you new frustum dimensions, in a logrithmic bell shaped design. Could you estimate the length? IOW I could give you Big diameter, Estimate small diameter and would need length. The logrithmic bell-shape (inward curve) starts out steep and becomes shallower fairly quickly.

    I could give you and pic of the generalized shape, but just wondering if you might have input on this.

    I don't have the time to go over this now but I recall that (at least one) of the standard textbooks on Electromagnetic Waves goes in detail over the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet, and shows why this approximation is inexact, and inferior to exact solutions and inferior to finite element or finite difference numerical solutions.

    The reason is that the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet (which performs an integration of uniform cross-section differential segments) neglects the multiple reflections between individual differential sections (so a very large number of integration segments, even hundreds of thousands, will not be able to address this problem which is inherent to such an integration). The textbook shows the range of validity of such an approximation (which usually results in higher natural frequencies than the natural frequency calculated by exact solutions or by Finite Element or Finite Difference solutions because the approximation used by TT neglects the multiple reflections). 

    I recall that the textbook also showed an exact solution for the case of a logarithmic tapered waveguide, which does not neglect the multiple reflections.   If I have the time to find it, I'll let you know (it is either in one of the books by Balanis, or Collin, or Stutzman. or Harrington, or Adler and Fano (MIT) or the one by Stratton (MIT)).

    One of the readers in this thread may recall (Notsosureofit ?,  Merberbs ?, rfcavity ? ) which textbook is the one that contains this discussion about the logarithmically tapered waveguide.  Schelkunoff may (?) have also obtained an exact solution for the logarithmically tapered cavity.
    And of course, it should be straightforward for aero to modify the mesh input for Meep, from the conical shape to a logarithmic tapered shape.

    You may want to post the shape of the geometry you have in mind, and/or the location of the mesh point needed by aero (if he has the time to run the analysis in Meep). 

    Or someone else reading this thread may be willing to calculate it using EM Pro (Zellerium ? ) or COMSOL, or some other package like ANSYS multiphysics. etc.
    Doc, pardon the rough sketch. The large diameter is 11 inch diameter. It is to scale so the small diameter will relate to the large one as well as the log taper. Question would be what the approximate length for resonance at 2.45 GHz.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 04:05 pm
    General question for Paul M or someone else familiar with the 2014 EW tests. I am curious about the tests of the frustrum with and without dielectric insert in 2014:

    Q1) Was Return Loss (resonance) measured for both conditions?

    Q2) Was either the frustum tuned or the source frequency changed to have peak resonance for both conditions?

    Obviously, if the same freq was used, the dielectric insert would significantly lower resonance frequency of the frustum. Tried looking for the answer in previous threads and could not find it.
    The tests at NASA EW without the dielectric insert were not conducted at the same frequency as the tests without dielectric insert.  The tests without the dielectric insert were conducted at a significantly higher frequency, which Paul March stated showed resonance in their measurements (although I don't recall whether a Q was ever reported for these tests in these NSF threads -it is not reported in their AIAA report-) and which Paul stated was close to the natural frequency calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis without a dielectric insert.

    Quote
    We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
    Thanks Doc, makes me feel better to know they varied the freq as the insert should have slid resonance much lower. Too bad Q or Qr weren't taken.

    Here's a question unrelated, Doc, if I were to give you new frustum dimensions, in a logrithmic bell shaped design. Could you estimate the length? IOW I could give you Big diameter, Estimate small diameter and would need length. The logrithmic bell-shape (inward curve) starts out steep and becomes shallower fairly quickly.

    I could give you and pic of the generalized shape, but just wondering if you might have input on this.

    I don't have the time to go over this now but I recall that (at least one) of the standard textbooks on Electromagnetic Waves goes in detail over the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet, and shows why this approximation is inexact, and inferior to exact solutions and inferior to finite element or finite difference numerical solutions.

    The reason is that the approximation used by TT in his spreadsheet (which performs an integration of uniform cross-section differential segments) neglects the multiple reflections between individual differential sections (so a very large number of integration segments, even hundreds of thousands, will not be able to address this problem which is inherent to such an integration). The textbook shows the range of validity of such an approximation (which usually results in higher natural frequencies than the natural frequency calculated by exact solutions or by Finite Element or Finite Difference solutions because the approximation used by TT neglects the multiple reflections). 

    I recall that the textbook also showed an exact solution for the case of a logarithmic tapered waveguide, which does not neglect the multiple reflections.   If I have the time to find it, I'll let you know (it is either in one of the books by Balanis, or Collin, or Stutzman. or Harrington, or Adler and Fano (MIT) or the one by Stratton (MIT)).

    One of the readers in this thread may recall (Notsosureofit ?,  Merberbs ?, rfcavity ? ) which textbook is the one that contains this discussion about the logarithmically tapered waveguide.  Schelkunoff may (?) have also obtained an exact solution for the logarithmically tapered cavity.
    And of course, it should be straightforward for aero to modify the mesh input for Meep, from the conical shape to a logarithmic tapered shape.

    You may want to post the shape of the geometry you have in mind, and/or the location of the mesh point needed by aero (if he has the time to run the analysis in Meep). 

    Or someone else reading this thread may be willing to calculate it using EM Pro (Zellerium ? ) or COMSOL, or some other package like ANSYS multiphysics. etc.
    Doc, pardon the rough sketch. The large diameter is 11 inch diameter. It is to scale so the small diameter will relate to the large one as well as the log taper. Question would be what the approximate length for resonance at 2.45 GHz.
    Upon further thought, this shape would need to be calculated with a numerical method (Meep finite difference, or by finite element method: COMSOL etc.) because you have a very severe logarithmic shape abruptly ending into a flat end. 

    ==> I see an issue with the shape: I think that there are singularities at the corners of the severely logarithmic shape with the flat end, at the very fat end.  For this to work it may need a very curved end instead of a flat end, in order to avoid the singularities at those corners at the fat end. 

    (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=38577.0,3Battach=1084031,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.EjVSfQW0A6.webp)
    Let's wait and see whether aero would be willing.

    If I would be aero, I would ask you whether you can give me the geometrical locations of the nodes.  Aero would have to input them into Meep, as this logarithmic shape is not built-in into Meep I think.  Hence it would be helpful if somebody would do the pre-processing calculations for the geometrical locations of the nodes, and output the locations of the nodes in a format that Meep can take as an input.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Stormbringer on 12/07/2015 04:08 pm
     ;D I think i found the website! it's says Mr Magnetron...

    http://www.darwinawards.com/stupid/stupid2014-03.html

    Quote
    An Honorable Mention to an inventor just crazy enough to be... er. The maniacally cheerful fellow in this video disassembles a microwave oven, removes its magnetron and proceeds to spray 2GHz RF about the countryside, eventually exploding a radio playing really bad music. "It had to die."

    Our suspect looks like he knows what he's doing until he reveals the extent of lingering magnetron irradiation surrounding his house. Serious at-risk behavior, although it is admittedly difficult to decide if we are witnessing genius or stupidity.

    800 watts. One bright light.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 04:21 pm
    Doc, I started noticing a definite improvement in Return Loss when I put tuning bands on the copper mesh. It totally made the mesh tunable in both center freq and return loss. At the end of the day, it was forcing a bell shape very similar to the sketch I made above...except for the small diameter.

    So a Meep analysis would be great. I'm trying to experiment around with a new frustum design for Phase II testing based on all I learned from Phase I plus, my original one has been handled so much, its due for a long rest.  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/07/2015 04:29 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 04:34 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    Believe this works in a symmetrical can or waveguide, but the frustum design I believe changes it. For example, my 11 x 6.25 frustum hit 2.45 GHz resonance at 10.2, not a multiple of 4.8 inches (0.122m).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 04:38 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 05:00 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    OK Doc, I decided to give it a go. Being a trombone player back in the day, I was giving the tapered logrithmic frustum a lot of thought especially after my mesh tuned up to look similar. Trombones have smaller bells, but not baritones/euphoniums. Soooo, I found an old one for parts/display and bought it. The bell is 11 inches diameter...how convenient, huh?

    These old brass instruments are ideal, brass is heavier, they're usually not laquered and they're seamless for the most part. While this is not a Phase II part, couldn't help myself...have to "play" a bit with the bell shape.

    Crazy?...yeah, probably...but thats what got me into this in the first place  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 05:11 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    OK Doc, I decided to give it a go. Being a trombone player back in the day, I was giving the tapered logrithmic frustum a lot of thought especially after my mesh tuned up to look similar. Trombones have smaller bells, but not baritones/euphoniums. Soooo, I found an old one for parts/display and bought it. The bell is 11 inches diameter...how convenient, huh?

    These old brass instruments are ideal, brass is heavier, they're usually not laquered and they're seamless for the most part. While this is not a Phase II part, couldn't help myself...have to "play" a bit with the bell shape.

    Crazy?...yeah, probably...but thats what got me into this in the first place  ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mVfHrTaYmY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw3JuBGUiBQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yRIUuUJpJM
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/07/2015 06:03 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    OK Doc, I decided to give it a go. Being a trombone player back in the day, I was giving the tapered logrithmic frustum a lot of thought especially after my mesh tuned up to look similar. Trombones have smaller bells, but not baritones/euphoniums. Soooo, I found an old one for parts/display and bought it. The bell is 11 inches diameter...how convenient, huh?

    These old brass instruments are ideal, brass is heavier, they're usually not laquered and they're seamless for the most part. While this is not a Phase II part, couldn't help myself...have to "play" a bit with the bell shape.

    Crazy?...yeah, probably...but thats what got me into this in the first place  ;)

    That looks like an E♭ Tuba.  They do come in larger sizes.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 06:29 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    OK Doc, I decided to give it a go. Being a trombone player back in the day, I was giving the tapered logrithmic frustum a lot of thought especially after my mesh tuned up to look similar. Trombones have smaller bells, but not baritones/euphoniums. Soooo, I found an old one for parts/display and bought it. The bell is 11 inches diameter...how convenient, huh?

    These old brass instruments are ideal, brass is heavier, they're usually not laquered and they're seamless for the most part. While this is not a Phase II part, couldn't help myself...have to "play" a bit with the bell shape.

    Crazy?...yeah, probably...but thats what got me into this in the first place  ;)

    That looks like an E♭ Tuba.  They do come in larger sizes.
    Yes, alot of those had arched necks and were pretty pricey. I have my gr-grandfather's trombone as well as my old one and my son's. I'll try and sweat-solder the baritone apart rather than cut it. If nothing else I'll use it as a conversation piece in the den.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 06:48 pm
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but for resonance wouldn't you want the length to be an integral multiple of the wavelength?  Wavelength at 2.45 GHz is 0.122 meters.

    But I notice that none of the experiments listed on the wiki page have a frustrum length that is an integral multiple of the wavelength they are using, so perhaps I do not understand something.

    I had an idea about a backing for curved endplates.  A thick piece of shaped glass.  DIY astronomers have developed all these techniques for precise grinding of mirrors.  Of course they are going for a parabolic shape, but the same techniques might work.
    No, the electromagnetic natural frequencies of a (frustum of a cone in this case) cavity do not take place at integral multiples of the free space wavelength.

    Furthermore, the longitudinal direction waveform pattern is governed by Legendre Associated functions, not by trigonometric functions, so the distance between waveform nodes is not constant in the longitudinal direction.
    OK Doc, I decided to give it a go. Being a trombone player back in the day, I was giving the tapered logrithmic frustum a lot of thought especially after my mesh tuned up to look similar. Trombones have smaller bells, but not baritones/euphoniums. Soooo, I found an old one for parts/display and bought it. The bell is 11 inches diameter...how convenient, huh?

    These old brass instruments are ideal, brass is heavier, they're usually not laquered and they're seamless for the most part. While this is not a Phase II part, couldn't help myself...have to "play" a bit with the bell shape.

    Crazy?...yeah, probably...but thats what got me into this in the first place  ;)

    That looks like an E♭ Tuba.  They do come in larger sizes.
    Yes, alot of those had arched necks and were pretty pricey. I have my gr-grandfather's trombone as well as my old one and my son's. I'll try and sweat-solder the baritone apart rather than cut it. If nothing else I'll use it as a conversation piece in the den.
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    EDIT: This must be due to safety considerations, please see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454280#msg1454280 .  Be safe ! 

    (https://peninkandpaper.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/be-careful-safety-first-sign-s-4115.gif)

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/07/2015 06:55 pm

    ...

    Yes, alot of those had arched necks and were pretty pricey. I have my gr-grandfather's trombone as well as my old one and my son's. I'll try and sweat-solder the baritone apart rather than cut it. If nothing else I'll use it as a conversation piece in the den.

    Brass instruments are Silver soldered.  It is very difficult to unsolder them.   Better get the hacksaw out.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/07/2015 07:29 pm

    ...

    Yes, alot of those had arched necks and were pretty pricey. I have my gr-grandfather's trombone as well as my old one and my son's. I'll try and sweat-solder the baritone apart rather than cut it. If nothing else I'll use it as a conversation piece in the den.

    Brass instruments are Silver soldered.  It is very difficult to unsolder them.   Better get the hacksaw out.
    Or Shell's blowtorch  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/07/2015 08:04 pm

    ...

    Yes, alot of those had arched necks and were pretty pricey. I have my gr-grandfather's trombone as well as my old one and my son's. I'll try and sweat-solder the baritone apart rather than cut it. If nothing else I'll use it as a conversation piece in the den.

    Brass instruments are Silver soldered.  It is very difficult to unsolder them.   Better get the hacksaw out.
    Or Shell's blowtorch  ;)

    You might get lucky and the solder is very soft Silver solder.   You will need an oxygen - acetylene torch with a large neutral flame - maybe 1 - 2 feet, and lots of free space to wave that big flame around without setting anything on fire.  Heat the whole joint up until it is uniformly bright red or orange and let gravity pull it apart.  Brass cracks and splits easily when it is heated.   As a bonus all the lacquer will get burned off.   The metal will be soft; but being brass that won't be a problem.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tellmeagain on 12/07/2015 08:25 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Why none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test? Because what you create is called a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 08:50 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Why none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test? Because what you create is called a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".

    NASA's Eagleworks reported test that resulted in the greatest figure of merit, thrust per input power was:

    TE012 at 1.8804 GHz with only 2.6 Watts of Input Power

    I certainly would not call  that (2.6 Watts) a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".

    In order to be a weapon it would require orders of magnitude larger power. More importantly, I took it for granted (which I should never do) that NASA would always use appropriate safety shielding, for any and all of their experiments.

    Ditto for the experiments conducted by the Aachen fellows with a Mini-EM Drive at 24 GHz at very low power: 0.04 watts.  That is 4% of a single watt.

    I hope that you agree that 0.04 watts does not make a "microwave directed energy weapon".  After all, the Aachen fellows used a microwave antenna used for a common commercial application.

    I would not call all kinds of microwave communication antennas operating around us at low power "Microwave Directed Energy Weapons".

    But, your point is well taken, all testers need to be safe and use appropriate shielding, even with closed EM Drives, as many are using microwave oven magnetrons operating at over 700 watts.

    As I wrote in the opening of these threads:

    Quote
    Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.

    (https://peninkandpaper.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/be-careful-safety-first-sign-s-4115.gif)

    Yes, I assumed (but this point always requires emphasis, and I should have repeated this) that even with a closed EM Drive that all testers would be experienced in microwave devices and that they must use appropriate shielding.

    Thanks for bringing this safety issue up, it should never be taken for granted. In RFMWGUY's (or similar case) he is operating with a magnetron at over 700 Watts so he certainly needs precaution: his magnetron is on the outside surface of the EM Drive Cavity.  If he were to run with an open end he would certainly need to place appropriate shielding and be fully protected (ideally out of the room).

    This can be very dangerous stuff, as it can blind people for example.

    Unclassified report on the effects of radar on the human body (it contains data on animal experiments):


    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/273787.pdf

    Quote
    The antenna was excited by an AN/GRC-27 ultra-high frequency transmitter which operates in the 225 to 400 mc range and has a peak output of about 100 watts.  When the transmitter was turned on, the monkey was apparently unaffected for a few seconds, then it became drowsy. After a minute or so, the monkey became agitated, moving its head from side to side.  In another minute, there appeared unmistakable signs of some impending disturbance in the vital centers of the brain. Finally, the monkey was thrown into a major convulsion a few seconds before death occurred.  Examination of the brains of ten monkeys which died in the experiments
    revealed no pathological cause of death. Another ten monkeys, whose exposure was cut short of death, showed symptoms  which resembled those of Parkinson's disease in human beings.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Notsosureofit on 12/07/2015 09:30 pm
    FYI:  I guess it was just a matter of time before we heard from the peanut gallery...

    https://www.academia.edu/17018485/Metric_Engineering_the_Fabric_of_Space-Time_Dark_Energy_Propellantless_Warp_Drive_and_Wormhole
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Stormbringer on 12/07/2015 10:17 pm
    FYI:  I guess it was just a matter of time before we heard from the peanut gallery...

    https://www.academia.edu/17018485/Metric_Engineering_the_Fabric_of_Space-Time_Dark_Energy_Propellantless_Warp_Drive_and_Wormhole

    :) But Jack is not the peanut gallery. He is a serious dude. Even Dr Woodward pays him some attention in his book.


    I'm the peanut gallery dammit!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Vesc on 12/07/2015 10:33 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/07/2015 10:45 pm
    FYI:  I guess it was just a matter of time before we heard from the peanut gallery...

    https://www.academia.edu/17018485/Metric_Engineering_the_Fabric_of_Space-Time_Dark_Energy_Propellantless_Warp_Drive_and_Wormhole
    I think that about covers it all.
    Warp Drive
    Wormholes
    Dark Energy
    SpaceTime
    Propellantless Drives

    I'll read it later, it will take some time I'm sure. In every pile of data there is something to be gleaned, like I said No Bad Data.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/07/2015 10:50 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Why none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test? Because what you create is called a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".

    NASA's Eagleworks reported test that resulted in the greatest figure of merit, thrust per input power was:

    TE012 at 1.8804 GHz with only 2.6 Watts of Input Power

    I certainly would not call  that (2.6 Watts) a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".

    In order to be a weapon it would require orders of magnitude larger power. More importantly, I took it for granted (which I should never do) that NASA would always use appropriate safety shielding, for any and all of their experiments.

    Ditto for the experiments conducted by the Aachen fellows with a Mini-EM Drive at 24 GHz at very low power: 0.04 watts.  That is 4% of a single watt.

    I hope that you agree that 0.04 watts does not make a "microwave directed energy weapon".  After all, the Aachen fellows used a microwave antenna used for a common commercial application.

    I would not call all kinds of microwave communication antennas operating around us at low power "Microwave Directed Energy Weapons".

    But, your point is well taken, all testers need to be safe and use appropriate shielding, even with closed EM Drives, as many are using microwave oven magnetrons operating at over 700 watts.

    As I wrote in the opening of these threads:

    Quote
    Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.

    (https://peninkandpaper.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/be-careful-safety-first-sign-s-4115.gif)

    This can be very dangerous stuff, as it can blind people for example.

    Unclassified report on the effects of radar on the human body (it contains data on animal experiments):


    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/273787.pdf
    Nasty stuff to read and a very good warning to keep you wise and keep your sight and make new little engineers and scientists. Heed it well.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Stormbringer on 12/07/2015 10:55 pm
    Dr Woodward's book includes a short section on Jack Sarfatti's ideas about the reality of negative energy conditions in metamaterials with negative indexes of refraction.  Woodward is skeptical but open to the possibility Jack is right.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/07/2015 11:09 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?

    You are  correct.  The thrust of a photonic rocket is easily calculable, and I had calculated it and included it for  comparison on the Wikipedia page on the EM Drive

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

    in the Experimental section

    It enables you to explore how for certain testers (Tajmar in vacuum) the EM Drive is claimed to produce a lower multiple of a photon rocket: barely 8 times,  while others (most prominently, Yang) it is claimed to produce several orders of magnitude greater thrust per input power (320,000 times !!).

    If experimenters could safely run (using all shielding precautions) the EM Drive with the closed end, and also without the end (open) and if the results of the experiment are the same (or higher) with the end open, it would show that the claimed effect is not due to a closed cavity.  Shawyer and Yang claim that the EM Drive effect is intimately related to being a closed-cavity.  It is the fact that the EM Drive is a closed cavity that is most offensive to scientists, as a closed cavity that cannot leak any fields or matter to the exterior should not be capable of self acceleration.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Prunesquallor on 12/07/2015 11:21 pm
    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Why none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test? Because what you create is called a "Microwave Directed Energy Weapon".

    Reminds me of a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called "Armaments Race" where some Hollywood types were messing with electric arcs and magnetic fields trying to get some cool special effects and ended up with a disintegrator ray...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/07/2015 11:46 pm
    I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep pursuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly.

    Would agree with you. From my corro with Roger, to obtain the desired high Q from spherical end plates, the manufacturing tolerances are very high for both the curve radius and the parallelism of the end plates / ends of the frustum.

    As for the prediction match up, Roger ran my dimensions through the SPR system and gave me a TE013 resonance that matched my spreadsheet within +0.5%. So yes it is good to see my predicted resonance closely match a known reliable resonance calculating system. Should add that Dave saw that effect with my / Roger's predicted resonance calc for this NSF-1701 frustum closely matching his VNA measured resonance.

    If you like, let me know your frustum dimensions and end plate radius. Will then send you a resonant freq versus mode analysis.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/07/2015 11:55 pm
    I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep pursuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly.

    Would agree with you. From my corro with Roger, to obtain the desired high Q from spherical end plates, the manufacturing tolerances are very high for both the curve radius and the parallelism of the end plates / ends of the frustum.

    As for the prediction match up, Roger ran my dimensions through the SPR system and gave me a TE013 resonance that matched my spreadsheet within +0.5%. So yes it is good to see my predicted resonance closely match a known reliable resonance calculating system. Should add that Dave saw that effect with my / Roger's predicted resonance calc for this NSF-1701 frustum closely matching his VNA measured resonance.

    If you like, let me know your frustum dimensions and end plate radius. Will then send you a resonant freq versus mode analysis.

    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    I keep playing with dimensions but I'm having a hard time coming up with improvements. Often small changes result in simulation errors, not meeting iteration tolerance, yadda yadda, and the geometry designer is quite awful on my computer (still haven't figured out why) so I'm forced to use school computers to design and my own to test. Also running these sims brings all other functions to a snails pace... Hopefully I'll have time these next few weeks.

    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 12:13 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 12:18 am
    I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep pursuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly.

    Would agree with you. From my corro with Roger, to obtain the desired high Q from spherical end plates, the manufacturing tolerances are very high for both the curve radius and the parallelism of the end plates / ends of the frustum.

    As for the prediction match up, Roger ran my dimensions through the SPR system and gave me a TE013 resonance that matched my spreadsheet within +0.5%. So yes it is good to see my predicted resonance closely match a known reliable resonance calculating system. Should add that Dave saw that effect with my / Roger's predicted resonance calc for this NSF-1701 frustum closely matching his VNA measured resonance.

    If you like, let me know your frustum dimensions and end plate radius. Will then send you a resonant freq versus mode analysis.

    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    I keep playing with dimensions but I'm having a hard time coming up with improvements. Often small changes result in simulation errors, not meeting iteration tolerance, yadda yadda, and the geometry designer is quite awful on my computer (still haven't figured out why) so I'm forced to use school computers to design and my own to test. Also running these sims brings all other functions to a snails pace... Hopefully I'll have time these next few weeks.

    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 12:21 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 12:26 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Having been head deep in NDA litigation too many times in my copious free time...   NDAs have about a 5% chance of success in court.  There's a key factor in NDA litigation called "restraint of trade".  If I know everything about something and I have an NDA with you,  YOU cannot use the NDA to make me starve.  If my NDA with you says I have to sell my children so I can buy cheeseburgers, the court routinely says, SORRY, and he NDA goes "poof".   Been there on both sides.

    Lots of legal precedent on that one.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 12:32 am
    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    I keep playing with dimensions but I'm having a hard time coming up with improvements. Often small changes result in simulation errors, not meeting iteration tolerance, yadda yadda, and the geometry designer is quite awful on my computer (still haven't figured out why) so I'm forced to use school computers to design and my own to test. Also running these sims brings all other functions to a snails pace... Hopefully I'll have time these next few weeks.

    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    Thanks for the dimensions. End plate radius centre is the vertex of the frustum for both end plates?

    Can you share a S11 VNA rtn loss resonance image?

    Roger has told me he does, from time to time, lurk this and other forums but his commercial interests and NDA's prevent him from making comments. Even for me, he only answers about 20% of what I ask and then gives me a breadcrumb trail to follow so I can work out the answer for myself.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 12:36 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Having been head deep in NDA litigation too many times in my copious free time...   NDAs have about a 5% chance of success in court.  There's a key factor in NDA litigation called "restraint of trade".  If I know everything about something and I have an NDA with you,  YOU cannot use the NDA to make me starve.  If my NDA with you says I have to sell my children so I can buy cheeseburgers, the court routinely says, SORRY, and he NDA goes "poof".   Been there on both sides.

    Lots of legal precedent on that one.
    Well, guess I don't feel bad about my open-source emdrive design stuff if poof goes the NDA  ;)

    However, if the baritone frustum test works out, I'll be watching closely to see if there is an intergalactic probe with a bell on it launches in the next 100 years, I won't be too happy...wait...nevermind  :o
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 12:44 am


    Well, guess I don't feel bad about my open-source emdrive design stuff if poof goes the NDA  ;)

    However, if the baritone frustum test works out, I'll be watching closely to see if there is an intergalactic probe with a bell on it launches in the next 100 years, I won't be too happy...wait...nevermind  :o

    IF the sax works, I'm pulling all of my father's 78 RPM records of Duke Ellington out of storage and will host an EMDrive party in my Quonset.   All the carp you can eat.  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 12:44 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Having been head deep in NDA litigation too many times in my copious free time...   NDAs have about a 5% chance of success in court.  There's a key factor in NDA litigation called "restraint of trade".  If I know everything about something and I have an NDA with you,  YOU cannot use the NDA to make me starve.  If my NDA with you says I have to sell my children so I can buy cheeseburgers, the court routinely says, SORRY, and he NDA goes "poof".   Been there on both sides.

    Lots of legal precedent on that one.

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    Basically what Roger has helped me with is in any good Microwave Engineering text book and is in any one of a number of the papers he has published. Just need to know where to look.

    Roger did send me the 2 pdfs he sent to EW, which are from his 2002 Experimental EmDrive work. Told me to share it with this forum. Which I did.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 01:01 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Having been head deep in NDA litigation too many times in my copious free time...   NDAs have about a 5% chance of success in court.  There's a key factor in NDA litigation called "restraint of trade".  If I know everything about something and I have an NDA with you,  YOU cannot use the NDA to make me starve.  If my NDA with you says I have to sell my children so I can buy cheeseburgers, the court routinely says, SORRY, and he NDA goes "poof".   Been there on both sides.

    Lots of legal precedent on that one.

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    Basically what Roger has helped me with is in any good Microwave Engineering text book and is in any one of a number of the papers he has published. Just need to know where to look.

    Roger did send me the 2 pdfs he sent to EW, which are from his 2002 Experimental EmDrive work. Told me to share it with this forum. Which I did.

    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    EMDrive should not be hindered by "legal" stuff.  I can make "legal" stuff go away if you give me enough data to link to the "person".

    EMDrive should only be a matter of physics and experiment. I assure you that any legal issues can go away with the right law firm in tow, and believe me, I can find a law firm to support either side of potential litigation.


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 01:15 am
    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    The analysis data as attached shows a small end cutoff of just under 6GHz. As per SPR frustum design rules, the small end should never operate below cutoff. Always a bit above. As my spreadsheet follows this SPR design rule, it can't predict resonance if either end plate is operated below cutoff (using standard microwave circular waveguide equations for cutoff).

    Not saying this SPR design rule is set in concrete but it is Roger's very strong suggestion to me that operating the small end below cutoff will result in insignificant thrust generation, which I believe is what you have measured?

    Determining the cutoff freq for a 2.6 in circular waveguide, excited in TE01 mode should be simple to calculate from the 2nd and 3rd attached. Where a = circular waveguide radius in meters.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 01:18 am
    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    Why would Roger need any legal council?

    He is a UK citizen and lives / works in the UK.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 12/08/2015 01:20 am
    It still baffles me that Roger doesn't want to take part in this forum...

    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back or give everything you know unconditionally?

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Having been head deep in NDA litigation too many times in my copious free time...   NDAs have about a 5% chance of success in court.  There's a key factor in NDA litigation called "restraint of trade".  If I know everything about something and I have an NDA with you,  YOU cannot use the NDA to make me starve.  If my NDA with you says I have to sell my children so I can buy cheeseburgers, the court routinely says, SORRY, and he NDA goes "poof".   Been there on both sides.

    Lots of legal precedent on that one.

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    Basically what Roger has helped me with is in any good Microwave Engineering text book and is in any one of a number of the papers he has published. Just need to know where to look.

    Roger did send me the 2 pdfs he sent to EW, which are from his 2002 Experimental EmDrive work. Told me to share it with this forum. Which I did.

    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    EMDrive should not be hindered by "legal" stuff.  I can make "legal" stuff go away if you give me enough data to link to the "person".

    EMDrive should only be a matter of physics and experiment. I assure you that any legal issues can go away with the right law firm in tow, and believe me, I can find a law firm to support either side of potential litigation.

    IMHO. While stating I also have no idea of what NDA's Roger may or my not have. I can say that being righteous after signing a NDA and then being taken to court about that NDA does not and will not pay the legal bills or expenses and worse even when/if you win in the end. The judge does not need to award you anything for your defense expenses or have them paid in full. Unless it's an extreme case of abuse of you and the judge agrees with that assessment.

    Plus depending on how the NDA is worded and where the other parties of the NDA are located. You may need to and be forced to deal with another countries court process.

    You'd have magnitudes of better luck going to a casino blindfolded as you decide how and what to bet. If the end goal is pay off legal bills acquired during any court process of being on the receiving end of being accused of violating an NDA.

    Better said. Don't sign a NDA you can't live with now or in the future, as in ever. Facts are few ever see themselves doing just that and in many cases never thought they violated anything in a NDA where the other parties decide to start a court process about it.

    Just saying.

    Don
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 01:30 am
    Some factual information:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/billtucker/2015/12/06/the-power-of-the-force-the-curious-case-of-the-emdrive/2/

    Quote
    I reached out to the US Air Force as Shawyer claims a legal relationship with that branch of our military services. According to Ed Gulick in the Public Affairs Office,

    “The Air Force is aware of EmDrive and the ongoing research but is simply watching to see if and when the technology becomes viable. We could not find any evidence that the AF has an investment in or a licensing agreement for the technology.”
     

    Quote
    Boeing, which once allegedly had a Non-Disclosure Agreement with SPR via its Phantom Works division has even less to say about SPR, Shawyer or EmDrive. A spokeswoman for Phantom Works would only comment to say that Boeing is not working with Shawyer now but would not say whether the company has worked with the EmDrive technology or what its assessment of the technology is. 


    http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues

    Quote
    There has been little interest in the EmDrive in the West so far, and Shawyer's government funding has ended. Boeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.

     ;D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 01:37 am

    ...


    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    Basically what Roger has helped me with is in any good Microwave Engineering text book and is in any one of a number of the papers he has published. Just need to know where to look.

    Roger did send me the 2 pdfs he sent to EW, which are from his 2002 Experimental EmDrive work. Told me to share it with this forum. Which I did.

    I don't believe any of this talk about SPR having multiple licensees; at least not any part about them actually paying money.   This em-drive has been promoted now for almost 20 years and so far a working model has not seen the light of day.   It is a waste of time on this forum to be discussing this fiction.  I am interested in seeing real data from real experiments, not claims that have no evidence to back them up.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/08/2015 01:39 am
    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    The analysis data as attached shows a small end cutoff of just under 6GHz. As per SPR frustum design rules, the small end should never operate below cutoff. Always a bit above. As my spreadsheet follows this SPR design rule, it can't predict resonance if either end plate is operated below cutoff (using standard microwave circular waveguide equations for cutoff).

    Not saying this SPR design rule is set in concrete but it is Roger's very strong suggestion to me that operating the small end below cutoff will result in insignificant thrust generation, which I believe is what you have measured?

    Determining the cutoff freq for a 2.6 in circular waveguide, excited in TE01 mode should be simple to calculate from the 2nd and 3rd attached. Where a = circular waveguide radius in meters.

    Honestly, I'm a bit confused at the methodology behind the spreadsheet. But I appreciate you taking the time to run the number and I'll come back and look at it at a later time.
    Attached is the s11

    I don't understand what has taken Roger so long to bring the EM Drive to market. Are there no investors with a spare 100k to invest in a cubesat TRL 7 demonstration? Because once that has happened, every other EP will be obsolete. And it appears he's had the necessary knowledge to do this for quite awhile...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 01:39 am

    ...


    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    Basically what Roger has helped me with is in any good Microwave Engineering text book and is in any one of a number of the papers he has published. Just need to know where to look.

    Roger did send me the 2 pdfs he sent to EW, which are from his 2002 Experimental EmDrive work. Told me to share it with this forum. Which I did.

    I don't believe any of this talk about SPR having multiple licensees; at least not any part about them actually paying money.   This em-drive has been promoted now for almost 20 years and so far a working model has not seen the light of day.   It is a waste of time on this forum to be discussing this fiction.  I am interested in seeing real data from real experiments, not claims that have no evidence to back them up.

    I agree Zen-In. 

    The question is whether this forum will deal with factual information or whether it will deal with fiction.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/08/2015 01:40 am
    At the moment the resonator is not at full potential: s11 ~ -22dB and Q ~10^4
    r_top = 1.3 in
    r_bot = 4.3 in
    height = 8.2 in

    The analysis data as attached shows a small end cutoff of just under 6GHz. As per SPR frustum design rules, the small end should never operate below cutoff. Always a bit above. As my spreadsheet follows this SPR design rule, it can't predict resonance if either end plate is operated below cutoff (using standard microwave circular waveguide equations for cutoff).

    Not saying this SPR design rule is set in concrete but it is Roger's very strong suggestion to me that operating the small end below cutoff will result in insignificant thrust generation, which I believe is what you have measured?

    Determining the cutoff freq for a 2.6 in circular waveguide, excited in TE01 mode should be simple to calculate from the 2nd and 3rd attached. Where a = circular waveguide radius in meters.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 01:49 am
    Honestly, I'm a bit confused at the methodology behind the spreadsheet. But I appreciate you taking the time to run the number and I'll come back and look at it at a later time.
    Attached is the s11

    Is that an actual S11 VNA scan output or a simulation?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/08/2015 01:56 am
    Maybe this (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm) is easier to follow.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/08/2015 01:58 am
    Honestly, I'm a bit confused at the methodology behind the spreadsheet. But I appreciate you taking the time to run the number and I'll come back and look at it at a later time.
    Attached is the s11

    Is that an actual S11 VNA scan output or a simulation?

    Simulation. I have not built this frustum.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 02:00 am
    ...

    To be very clear.

    Roger's advice was the frustum's calculated small end lower cutoff freq, when applying standard microwave engineering equations for cutoff freq in a constant diameter circular waveguide as I attached, should show a lower cutoff freq that was below the excitation freq in the excitation mode, this case being TE01.

    Where is the magic in that statement?

    Do you question the attached to my statement microwave engineering equations are incorrect? If so in what way are they incorrect?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 02:01 am
    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    Why would Roger need any legal council?

    He is a UK citizen and lives / works in the UK.

    if there are contract issues that prevent him from public disclosure....   If he has something that he wants disclosed, I can direct him to legal sources to help him. Some cost bucks, some not. From my point of view his problems are not even close to what Snowden has, and THAT is something I'd take on too, albeit without joy....

    Point being, if he has something he wants to disclose, but has an NDA in the way, there are legal resources available... either through this forum, or via PM.

    As a matter of principle, I do not eat contacts without salt.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 02:03 am
    Maybe this (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm) is easier to follow.

    Those equations will generate the same constant diameter circular waveguide lower cutoff freq as the equations I published.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 02:09 am
    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    Why would Roger need any legal council?

    He is a UK citizen and lives / works in the UK.

    if there are contract issues that prevent him from public disclosure....   If he has something that he wants disclosed, I can direct him to legal sources to help him. Some cost bucks, some not. From my point of view his problems are not even close to what Snowden has, and THAT is something I'd take on too, albeit without joy....

    Point being, if he has something he wants to disclose, but has an NDA in the way, there are legal resources available... either through this forum, or via PM.

    As a matter of principle, I do not eat contacts without salt.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 02:16 am
    Honestly, I'm a bit confused at the methodology behind the spreadsheet. But I appreciate you taking the time to run the number and I'll come back and look at it at a later time.
    Attached is the s11

    Is that an actual S11 VNA scan output or a simulation?

    Simulation. I have not built this frustum.

    Might be good to try to match a real world VNA resonance scan against your resonance predictions.

    Attached is Dave's VNA scan of his NSF-1701 frustum in which he stated my spreadsheet prediction got the measured VNA resonance correct. I have yet to see any other resonance prediction system find in which mode that resonance occurred.

    The end result for any resonance prediction system is that it must be able to match real world VNA measured resonance against predictions.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 02:32 am
    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    Why would Roger need any legal council?

    He is a UK citizen and lives / works in the UK.

    if there are contract issues that prevent him from public disclosure....   If he has something that he wants disclosed, I can direct him to legal sources to help him. Some cost bucks, some not. From my point of view his problems are not even close to what Snowden has, and THAT is something I'd take on too, albeit without joy....

    Point being, if he has something he wants to disclose, but has an NDA in the way, there are legal resources available... either through this forum, or via PM.

    As a matter of principle, I do not eat contacts without salt.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.

    I get it.

    But...

    My original comment re this thread.

    If you can solve cancer, global warming  elephant poaching, whatever...  while the world will beat a path to your door and perhaps leave you without a penny to buy nothing, why hold back?

    Why hold back?   The world awaits while you consider your personal stamp collection.

    I once ran a company from basement to NASDAQ.   My gig at annual stock-holder meetings was "this is how many lives we saved this year."  Ultimately the company tossed me over the bridge, but the lives we saved were saved.  My Karma is good

    What does Roger need? 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/08/2015 02:41 am
    Sounds to me that Roger needs some legal council.  I can suggest firms that will support him, some pro-bono.

    What state in the U.S. is he in?

    Why would Roger need any legal council?

    He is a UK citizen and lives / works in the UK.

    if there are contract issues that prevent him from public disclosure....   If he has something that he wants disclosed, I can direct him to legal sources to help him. Some cost bucks, some not. From my point of view his problems are not even close to what Snowden has, and THAT is something I'd take on too, albeit without joy....

    Point being, if he has something he wants to disclose, but has an NDA in the way, there are legal resources available... either through this forum, or via PM.

    As a matter of principle, I do not eat contacts without salt.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.

    I assume that is the UK 'Ministry of Defence'. In which case he may not be worrying about an NDA but the Official Secrets Act. That sends you to jail.

    RESTRICTED normally times out after 5 years but he may not want to risk it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 02:44 am

    ...

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.

    While I am not a lawyer I can think of 2 uses for an NDA:  1.  To prevent someone from disclosing important details about an invention that works and is still being developed.  2.  To prevent someone from disclosing that an invention does not work.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/08/2015 02:49 am

    I assume that is the UK 'Ministry of Defence'. In which case he may not be worrying about an NDA but the Official Secrets Act. That sends you to jail.

    RESTRICTED normally times out after 5 years but he may not want to risk it.

    Nice theory but factually indefensible in any legal system, UK or US.  The Official Secrets Act only can apply if either the 1st party has a "thing" that potentially impacts HM security of the state, or, through alliance treaty, i.e. NATO, impacts the mutual defense.

    A EMdrive would not fulfill either requirement, unless you accept that COM has been violated and the gizmo thereby can produce near infinite kinetic energy i.e. "rods from god".

    Not a believer in this theory.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 03:09 am

    ...

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.

    While I am not a lawyer I can think of 2 uses for an NDA:  1.  To prevent someone from disclosing important details about an invention that works and is still being developed.  2.  To prevent someone from disclosing that an invention does not work.

    Good point: imagine how embarrassing (to their shareholder investors, financial institutions, hedge funds) that it would be for a large publicly owned company like Boeing to have to admit to the press (and hence to their shareholders) that they actually paid some money (however small) for a consultant so controversial that  scientists at US Universities and US Government said there was no way that it could work and when tested Boeing  proved to Boeing's satisfaction that it didn't work... Another reason why Boeing's lawyers would require Non Disclosure Agreements up front.

    Quote
    success has many fathers, failure is an orphan
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/08/2015 03:22 am

    ...

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    There may be more information disclosed in the in process BBC Horizon EmDrive episode. Roger told me Horizons filmed the SPR segment last week. They had already filmed the USAF and UK Dept of Defense segments before they filmed the SPR segment.

    While I am not a lawyer I can think of 2 uses for an NDA:  1.  To prevent someone from disclosing important details about an invention that works and is still being developed.  2.  To prevent someone from disclosing that an invention does not work.

    Good point: imagine how embarrassing (to their shareholder investors, financial institutions, hedge funds) that it would be for a large publicly owned company like Boeing to have to admit to the press (and hence to their shareholders) that they actually paid some money (however small) for a consultant so controversial that that all scientists in US Universities and US Government said it couldn't work and when tested Boeing  proved to their satisfaction that it didn't work... Another reason why Boeing's lawyers would require Non Disclosure Agreements

    And what of the alternative, that Boeing discovered that it did in fact work as reported?
    Perhaps they have observed the same phenomenon but also have yet to figure it out. It would also be embarrasing/risky to claim that it works and not provide a physical explaination.
     
    But if they did find that it worked and also figured out how, then I don't see why it wouldn't be public already.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/08/2015 03:32 am

    I assume that is the UK 'Ministry of Defence'. In which case he may not be worrying about an NDA but the Official Secrets Act. That sends you to jail.

    RESTRICTED normally times out after 5 years but he may not want to risk it.

    Nice theory but factually indefensible in any legal system, UK or US.  The Official Secrets Act only can apply if either the 1st party has a "thing" that potentially impacts HM security of the state, or, through alliance treaty, i.e. NATO, impacts the mutual defense.

    A EMdrive would not fulfill either requirement, unless you accept that COM has been violated and the gizmo thereby can produce near infinite kinetic energy i.e. "rods from god".

    Not a believer in this theory.

    You are being very naive on that one. The Official Secrets Act covers jet and rocket engines for military vehicles so it can cover EMDrives for satellites. The primary criteria is that you (or your employer) has signed a contract with the UK Government, making you a 'government contractor', and the contract contains the appropriate clause.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989)

    The Defence civil servants may have decided not to cover the EMDrive but that requires an active decision.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Bob Woods on 12/08/2015 03:37 am
    Um, a couple of thoughts.

    Free speech means the ability to speak. It also means the ability not to speak.

    Lawyers and court cases are best avoided whenever possible, or at least minimized.

    Time and testing will validate, refute, or be inconclusive in respect to Shawyers work.

    To stake out positions that the refusal to share information that may or may not effect ongoing investigations into physical phenomenons seems like a waste of time to me, because it is an evaluation of integrity, emotion, and a type of "tribal affiliation".

    Better to be spending your time on securing real data through experimentation, to the best of your abilities, within the constraints you must live with.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 03:38 am

    I assume that is the UK 'Ministry of Defence'. In which case he may not be worrying about an NDA but the Official Secrets Act. That sends you to jail.

    RESTRICTED normally times out after 5 years but he may not want to risk it.

    Nice theory but factually indefensible in any legal system, UK or US.  The Official Secrets Act only can apply if either the 1st party has a "thing" that potentially impacts HM security of the state, or, through alliance treaty, i.e. NATO, impacts the mutual defense.

    A EMdrive would not fulfill either requirement, unless you accept that COM has been violated and the gizmo thereby can produce near infinite kinetic energy i.e. "rods from god".

    Not a believer in this theory.

    You are being very naive on that one. The Official Secrets Act covers jet and rocket engines for military vehicles so it can cover EMDrives for satellites. The primary criteria is that you (or your employer) has signed a contract with the UK Government, making you a 'government contractor', and the contract contains the appropriate clause.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989)

    The Defence civil servants may have decided not to cover the EMDrive but that requires an active decision.

    I guess the reason why this forum has devolved into speculation and fictional scenerios is because there is nothing else to discuss.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 03:46 am

    I assume that is the UK 'Ministry of Defence'. In which case he may not be worrying about an NDA but the Official Secrets Act. That sends you to jail.

    RESTRICTED normally times out after 5 years but he may not want to risk it.

    Nice theory but factually indefensible in any legal system, UK or US.  The Official Secrets Act only can apply if either the 1st party has a "thing" that potentially impacts HM security of the state, or, through alliance treaty, i.e. NATO, impacts the mutual defense.

    A EMdrive would not fulfill either requirement, unless you accept that COM has been violated and the gizmo thereby can produce near infinite kinetic energy i.e. "rods from god".

    Not a believer in this theory.

    You are being very naive on that one. The Official Secrets Act covers jet and rocket engines for military vehicles so it can cover EMDrives for satellites. The primary criteria is that you (or your employer) has signed a contract with the UK Government, making you a 'government contractor', and the contract contains the appropriate clause.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989)

    The Defence civil servants may have decided not to cover the EMDrive but that requires an active decision.

    Especially, if when you open the end plate on the satellite drive it becomes a directed energy weapon!

    My original mention of a possible NDA was in response to Zelleriums question why Roger Is not involved in the discussion. I think that is what started this endlessly looped sidetrack, that can never go anywhere.

    Roger isn't providing any specifics. Neither is Yang? So everyone, including Eagleworks is starting from scratch... No one knows why it works.., if it works. But I believe at this point it is good, that someone is trying to find out, if it works... And at least those here who are trying, are sharing what they know and find out.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 04:30 am
    Is that an actual S11 VNA scan output or a simulation?

    Simulation. I have not built this frustum.

    Have you built a non dielectric frustum and have a real world VNA resonance scan for it? If so please post the frustum dimensions and the VNA scan image. Will then do an analysis run and post the excitation mode data with the closest resonance to that of the VNA scan.

    Comparing the resonant freq versus excitation mode that frustum resonance prediction systems generate to real world VNA resonance scans is the only way to benchmark the resonance predictive systems.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 12/08/2015 05:56 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    Sorry I haven't posted much.  Too little free time - I can barely keep up with reading the posts here.  It is great to see so much activity!

    The test platform setup I've worked towards is a hanging torsion pendulum.
    See Wikipedia - Torsion Balance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance) for a reasonable explanation.  (Probably better web pages out there)

    I used a strong thin line to hang the apparatus (yellow in pics), which has a very low torsion spring constant, but unfortunately I still had to power the thing, so I also had to run an AC power line.  I broke out the AC into stranded 14ga wire (black,white,green) and ran it close to the center to reduce its torsion effect as much as possible.  This actually worked pretty well for a quick and easy solution.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WIINpvIoITxqBF2buc5YNO0tY_XwbICufbIRtqqkT5e5n5bULg=w1289-h739-no)

    While I haven't measured/calculated the relevant variables for its harmonic oscillations (spring contant, moment of intertia), I did experiment with the setup enough to understand how well it would apply to small force measurements.

    The pendulum was very immune to small transient pertubations (air currents, vibrations, etc.) due to the reasonably large moment of intertia.  This is a good thing to eliminate noise, but at first thought, not so great for measuring tiny forces.  However, since the spring constant (k) is very small, there is very little counter-force when the pendulum has moved through a small but detectable angle (eg. 5 degrees).  This means that an Impulse (Force x time) can be observed/measured despite its small force, if it is applied for enough time.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aVrlhEG9uWXBhEukIXfmUnUyPTjEJq0SANxFk6Qx3VY6B95eOA=w986-h739-no)

    So, in testing the setup using a weight set and pulley (shown), I observed that a 1g weight (10mN) quickly accellerated the pendulum, (motion was obvious within a second).  A 100mg weight (1mN) applied for 10 seconds had obvious motion.  And a 50mg weight (500uN) would eventually show motion (20 seconds).  (I didn't test anything smaller at this time).  These observations are on the conservative side (motion is visibly obvious at the pendulum).  For frustum testing, a laser mounted on the beam, projecting radially outward from the center gives a simple and more accurate rotation measurement.  Also, I have not yet experimented with a longer balance beam to detect smaller forces.

    (As an aside for the non-physics folks, if there are any here - for a rotating system it is Torque that is relevant.  Torque is the component of the force perpendicular to the beam multiplied by the distance to the center.  Having the emdrive far from the center increases the torque for a given force.)

    The initial frustum has been built to the dimensions Shell suggested.  I went with aluminum on this first build as it was a lot cheaper and I would worry less if I screwed something up!  The magnetron is directly injected, currently positioned in the center of the sidewall for lack of a better guess.  The mounting plate has been prepared to try other positions along the side.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YbGFHQCrZmu1NWJJulwfAI0e2MM8V8vECWuU2rUC88v1JZ-Otg=w986-h739-no)

    I have not done any tuning or resonance measurements of the cavity.  (Currently lacking equipment to perform such tests).  But I couldn't resist firing the thing up anyway.   8)   A few executions of 10-15 seconds each show ZERO motion.  Naturally, I would've loved if the thing started spinning like a propellor, but I didn't exactly expect that.  What I WAS happy with, was that the test platform showed its immunity to air currents, heating effects, (noise) at least for this first real test.   (Forgot to mention, this test used the laser pointer projecting 6m away, and it stayed perfectly still for the tests).

    Note, as others have mentioned, a rotating test setup will be trouble if you have moving mass in your rig.  For instance, if you were pumping cooling fluid around, even in a closed system, the fluid flow will likely have changing angular momentum, and this setup will obey the law of conservation of angular momentum by rotating!  We aren't trying to break that one yet too, are we?   :D

    Some material details if interested:
    - Hanging support line - dacron fishing tow line - 135lb test
    - Base beam - 3/4" plywood - 200cm x 24cm
    - Aluminum (3003H14) frustum
       - 26.6cm inner plate spacing (cone .032")
       - 16.0cm diam small endplate .032"
       - 28.0cm diam large endplate .050"

    Anyway, that's where I'm at.  I wanted to share, especially the test setup, since it seemed like there may be even more DIY projects in the works.  I felt this setup was quite easy and cost effective to construct, eliminated the thermal lift issue, and had the ability to measure reasonably small forces. 
    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/08/2015 06:44 am
    But I couldn't resist firing the thing up anyway.   8)   A few executions of 10-15 seconds each show ZERO motion.

    Thank you for sharing. This result is rather disappointing though. I was expecting that those DIYer pursuing the magnetron route would at least be able to observe a small level of thrust with ease... (and it would then be up to debate whether that thrust is real). At 450 mN/ KW Shawyer and even at 200 uN/ 16 W = 12.5 mN / KW EW, there should at least be something, right? And magnetron is forgiving in a sense that if there is even a single resonance mode in a vicinity somewhere, that mode will fire...  (Are you sure the magnetron is working?)

    2All: So... how come there is nothing? Is there more to EmDrive design which has simply NOT been disclosed at all as of yet?  The more I dig the story and the facts the stranger it looks...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Flyby on 12/08/2015 07:37 am
    I don't believe any of this talk about SPR having multiple licensees; at least not any part about them actually paying money.   This em-drive has been promoted now for almost 20 years and so far a working model has not seen the light of day.   It is a waste of time on this forum to be discussing this fiction.  I am interested in seeing real data from real experiments, not claims that have no evidence to back them up.
    110% agreed on this... I had it with futuristic projections of flying cars and interstellar probes, when at this moment we can not yet produce a signal that is significantly above the background noise threshold.
    I'll keep hammering the same nail: we need more experiments to either confirm or denounce the claims of EM propulsion...

    On a sidenote, Zen-in, do you think it is meaningful to do a rotary test with only a fish tank water pump and fake cooling rig, just to verify whether or not the sloshing makes a table turn? So far, I've stayed away from doing any testing because handling microwaves is not without risk when you do not have an engineering background... but installing some tubing and a small pump, that would be something i could manage... Question is, would that have any meaning?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 10:47 am
    2All: So... how come there is nothing? Is there more to EmDrive design which has simply NOT been disclosed at all as of yet?  The more I dig the story and the facts the stranger it looks...

    It is called "Microwave Black Magic" ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 10:59 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    Welcome to the real world of "Microwave Black Magic" (MBM).

    Suggest there may be a few issues.

    1) where along the side wall the 1/4 wave antenna stub is inserted. Should be in the centre of the 1/2 wave lobe at the big end, which is 1/4 guide wave from the big end in the excited mode. You could put the maggie antenna in the centre of the big end as Dave has done but then the main excitation will be TM modes. Would need to do a few analysis runs on your dimensions to see if any TM resonant modes are near enough to the maggie freq range so they could be pulled into the frustum bandwidth. Another dash of MBM into the cauldron.

    2) how far it protrudes beyond the interior of the sidewall or end plate. Should be ~1/4 wave of the excited frequency above the interior surface sidewall / end plate. Is not absolute as MBM is involved.

    3) how well the ground plane of the maggie's antenna is integrated with the frustum side wall. This is about making the maggie launcher in the frustum side wall to be as like the launcher in the maggie waveguide. Might be a good idea to investigate how the maggie launcher into the oven waveguide is constructed. More MBM here.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 11:35 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    Sorry I haven't posted much.  Too little free time - I can barely keep up with reading the posts here.  It is great to see so much activity!

    The initial frustum has been built to the dimensions Shell suggested.  I went with aluminum on this first build as it was a lot cheaper and I would worry less if I screwed something up!  The magnetron is directly injected, currently positioned in the center of the sidewall for lack of a better guess.  The mounting plate has been prepared to try other positions along the side.
     
    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.
    Nice job Emmett, innovative thinking with the clips to hold the plates onto the frustum plus the rest of the build is KISS, very nice. Nice write up too.

    Interesting you had no thermal rise from frustum ballooning heat indicated by the pendulum, which points to no resonance and no mode generation which is what will heat up the frustum, otherwise most of the RF is reflected back into the magnetron.

    Do you have a drawing of the way you attached the magnetron to the frustum walls as that would be the first thing to look at.

    Shell

    Added
    2.47GHz
    280 Be
    160 Se
    265 CL
    TE012
    With those close to those dimensions you'll be wanting to excite a TE012 mode and how you insert your microwaves into the cavity is critical.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/08/2015 01:22 pm
    Speaking of inserting the microwaves, the meep models I have looked at position the signal source (a half-wave dipole) along the center axis of the frustrum, at one-quarter wavelength from the small end.  Clearly nobody actually does it that way.  What would be a better approximation, especially for the side-feed builds?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 01:29 pm
    Less talk about "Microwave Black Magic" please

    Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_magic
    Black magic or dark magic has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for evil and selfish purposes

    (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/John_Dee_and_Edward_Keeley.jpg/220px-John_Dee_and_Edward_Keeley.jpg)(http://edgeba.webs.com/black-magic.jpg)
    The repeating use of the term "black magic" takes away from the credibility of this discussion.

    Countless Electrical Engineers have mastered microwave guided waves and are continuously using it to improve communications, and radar in countless applications.  Microwave guided waves are not "black magic."
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 01:48 pm
    Speaking of inserting the microwaves, the meep models I have looked at position the signal source (a half-wave dipole) along the center axis of the frustrum, at one-quarter wavelength from the small end.  Clearly nobody actually does it that way.  What would be a better approximation, especially for the side-feed builds?
    Meep models have been discussed in these threads with loops as well as dipoles, and their symmetric and unsymmetric placement, as well as excitation using waveguides.

    The Meep models with unsymmetrically placed dipole antennas resulted in very unsymmetric electromagnetic waves inside the cavity and lower quality factor (Q).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 12/08/2015 02:01 pm
    ...

    I don't understand what has taken Roger so long to bring the EM Drive to market. Are there no investors with a spare 100k to invest in a cubesat TRL 7 demonstration? Because once that has happened, every other EP will be obsolete. And it appears he's had the necessary knowledge to do this for quite awhile...

    That is fairly simple, going to a TRL 7 demo would be skipping too many steps. The EMdrive is at best TRL 1. This means basic principles observed and reported. (https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html) Since we don't even know the basic principals of how this works (if it does) including even order of magnitude numbers for the possible thrust generation, I am not sure this even qualifies for TRL1. If someone can get a clear demonstration with repeatable measurements, that might push it to TRL3.

    Might be good to try to match a real world VNA resonance scan against your resonance predictions.

    Attached is Dave's VNA scan of his NSF-1701 frustum in which he stated my spreadsheet prediction got the measured VNA resonance correct. I have yet to see any other resonance prediction system find in which mode that resonance occurred.

    The end result for any resonance prediction system is that it must be able to match real world VNA measured resonance against predictions.

    You had asked X_RaY to provide mode information before and seemed to agree with his model (There was another post after the one I quoted, where he fixed a mistake in the inputs, which made the frequency line up much better).

    Also as you say, a model needs to be verified against reality. Since rfmwguy has not had experimental verification for his mode, if there is a conflict between your model and another, how would you know which, if either, is correct? EMPro, Meep, etc. are generally well verified tools, that have been verified for various cases, so I would trust them in a conflict with your spreadsheet. Especially since Dr. Rodal recently pointed out that the method used in your spreadsheet has known fundamental issues with its approximation method. Unfortunately I don't have time to help find the source for that info.

    The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

    Hey X-Ray that is great news.

    Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

    As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

    So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
    Here it is.  8)
    I hope there are no classification problems with the mode numbers (list at the end; please let me know). Based on the results of the calculation it's a little bit like "mode jeopardy", one gets frequencies and 3D E and H field models incl. vectors. Mode diagram (as well as spreadsheet) is needed for classification ..
    I think the mesh deformation can be problematic for a definitive statement which mode we see in Dave's plot...

    Thanks X-Ray for doing that. Nice to see your TE013 guide wavelength is longer at the small end and shorter at the big end. This is important to observe.

    I calculated resonance in TE013 mode at 2.514GHz (in vac) versus your 2.328GHz (196MHz, 7.8% difference). Have attached a plot of the guide wavelength down the axis of the frustum. Can you do a plot of the guide wavelengths small end to big end in TE013 to compare?

    Phil
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RonM on 12/08/2015 02:13 pm
    On a sidenote, Zen-in, do you think it is meaningful to do a rotary test with only a fish tank water pump and fake cooling rig, just to verify whether or not the sloshing makes a table turn? So far, I've stayed away from doing any testing because handling microwaves is not without risk when you do not have an engineering background... but installing some tubing and a small pump, that would be something i could manage... Question is, would that have any meaning?

    I think that is a good idea. Replicate TheTraveller's rotary test setup design and see what happens. Then your test would either validate TheTraveller's design or help improve it. The goal is to eliminate experimental error and having someone else investigate the test setup design would be a big help.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 04:13 pm
    I don't believe any of this talk about SPR having multiple licensees; at least not any part about them actually paying money.   This em-drive has been promoted now for almost 20 years and so far a working model has not seen the light of day.   It is a waste of time on this forum to be discussing this fiction.  I am interested in seeing real data from real experiments, not claims that have no evidence to back them up.
    110% agreed on this... I had it with futuristic projections of flying cars and interstellar probes, when at this moment we can not yet produce a signal that is significantly above the background noise threshold.
    I'll keep hammering the same nail: we need more experiments to either confirm or denounce the claims of EM propulsion...

    On a sidenote, Zen-in, do you think it is meaningful to do a rotary test with only a fish tank water pump and fake cooling rig, just to verify whether or not the sloshing makes a table turn? So far, I've stayed away from doing any testing because handling microwaves is not without risk when you do not have an engineering background... but installing some tubing and a small pump, that would be something i could manage... Question is, would that have any meaning?

    All that we know about Mr. Shawyer's rotary test is that there is a lot of hardware mounted on it.   I don't think a fish tank water pump would provide enough torque.  A fractional horsepower motor, mounted with its shaft perpendicular to the table will make the table rotate when the motor is powered up.   You could use a variable speed control and gradually increase the rotational speed of the motor.   That would make the table's rotatation accelerate.  I haven't seen what happens to Mr. Shawyer's rotary test after everything is turned off.   If anyone knows about a video that shows this part of the test they should share it.   Does the table slow down and stop or does it reverse its rotation?

    A few years ago I built a rotating table with a motor mounted on it.   It was just a 6" Dia table with a small DC motor attached to it, and counterbalanced with a weight on the opposite side of the table.  There was a lot of friction in the shaft so when the motor was switched on the table turned about 90 degrees.   When the motor was switched off it returned to its original position.   There are of course lots of variations on this when other components like moving fluid, low friction bearings and other improvements are used instead.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/08/2015 04:15 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't bought things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/08/2015 04:30 pm
    The accompanying picture sure looks familiar!!

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Whisper_gallery_modes_in_Silicon_nanocones_intensify_luminescence_999.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 04:43 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 04:45 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 04:45 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.

    Kudos for contributing to this thread fact-filled information, which ends the speculation. 

    It takes considerably  time to find these financial reports and public records, thank you for taking your time in doing this.  No previous article in the media: Forbes, etc., has covered this so thoroughly as you have done.

    Outstanding job.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 04:48 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    At the start of this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432701#msg1432701) you wrote:

    Quote
    Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

    WallofWolfStreet has provided his valuable time to link to public records and financial statements: facts to answer the promotion of Shawyer in the frequent postings of TT's promoting Shawyer concerning "Roger's team" ,  and "Roger licenses".

    The criticism should instead be directed towads baseless speculation posts on NDA's and licenses of Roger Shawyer without any support from factual information and the criticism should be directed toward promotion of Roger Shawyer's business.

    Promotion of Shawyer's business (SPR) should be discouraged, as per the NSF posted guidelines ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1432701#msg1432701 ).

    Hopefully this is the end of this speculation and the NSF thread can instead deal with factual information on EM Drive developments.


    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/08/2015 05:01 pm
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    None taken, but understand that this is a reactionary post to all of the speculation of the last few pages.  Like I said, there is zero need to speculate because we can actually go look at 15 years worth of public filings, both balance sheets and annual returns and statements of investment.  It is all laid out for anyone to come and read.

    And this isn't really an ad hominem.  Calling Roger a "silly head" is an ad hominiem.  Analyzing the accounts of his corporation, and seeing that they clearly do NOT align with what Roger has claimed implies that Roger is misleading us.  I don't say that to insult him, I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.

    I don't really understand how regulations or contracts come into play here.  Actual filings say one thing, and Roger say's another.  Something has to give here. 

    Shawyer has only been granted 3 patents.  He has filed for another, but it has not been subjected to first examinatition yet.  Two of those 3 patents were filed before SPR even existed, in 1998 and 1988, so they are under his name (although he may have assigned the 1998 one to SPR).     
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 05:04 pm
    Speaking of inserting the microwaves, the meep models I have looked at position the signal source (a half-wave dipole) along the center axis of the frustrum, at one-quarter wavelength from the small end.  Clearly nobody actually does it that way.  What would be a better approximation, especially for the side-feed builds?

    Did a quick drawing showing how you could insert directly into a frustum in either a dipole or a loop or a snub.
    I expanded on this idea in how to couple to the magnetron.
    http://www.coultersmithing.com/AuxCP/uWaveIon.html
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/08/2015 05:13 pm
    I was suddenly struck with the question, for a device with a circular cross section, why not use circular polarization?  Hmm, must investigate...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 05:14 pm
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    None taken, but understand that this is a reactionary post to all of the speculation of the last few pages.  Like I said, there is zero need to speculate because we can actually go look at 15 years worth of public filings, both balance sheets and annual returns and statements of investment.  It is all laid out for anyone to come and read.

    And this isn't really an ad hominem.  Calling Roger a "silly head" is an ad hominiem.  Analyzing the accounts of his corporation, and seeing that they clearly do NOT align with what Roger has claimed implies that Roger is misleading us.  I don't say that to insult him, I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.

    I don't really understand how regulations or contracts come into play here.  Actual filings say one thing, and Roger say's another.  Something has to give here. 

    Shawyer has only been granted 3 patents.  He has filed for another, but it has not been subjected to first examinatition yet.  Two of those 3 patents were filed before SPR even existed, in 1998 and 1988, so they are under his name (although he may have assigned the 1998 one to SPR).     

    Unless any patents are owned by SPR or Shawyer's position with SPR gives SPR control over his patents and/or intellectual property rights, the corporate fillings would not prevent him from entering into contractual agreements that would not show up as part of the corporate filling.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 05:19 pm
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    None taken, but understand that this is a reactionary post to all of the speculation of the last few pages.  Like I said, there is zero need to speculate because we can actually go look at 15 years worth of public filings, both balance sheets and annual returns and statements of investment.  It is all laid out for anyone to come and read.

    And this isn't really an ad hominem.  Calling Roger a "silly head" is an ad hominiem.  Analyzing the accounts of his corporation, and seeing that they clearly do NOT align with what Roger has claimed implies that Roger is misleading us.  I don't say that to insult him, I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.

    I don't really understand how regulations or contracts come into play here.  Actual filings say one thing, and Roger say's another.  Something has to give here. 

    Shawyer has only been granted 3 patents.  He has filed for another, but it has not been subjected to first examinatition yet.  Two of those 3 patents were filed before SPR even existed, in 1998 and 1988, so they are under his name (although he may have assigned the 1998 one to SPR).     

    Unless any patents are owned by SPR or Shawyer's position with SPR gives SPR control over his patents and/or intellectual property rights, the corporate fillings would not prevent him from entering into contractual agreements that would not show up as part of the corporate filling.

    These two patent documents:

    1) Patent application GB2493361 (A) ― 2013-02-06

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20130206&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    2) Patent: Thrust producing device using microwaves Patent GB2399601 Roger J. Shawyer

    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37563.0;attach=830843

    for example, do list Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd. (SPR).

    Of course, patents that were filed prior (*) to the formation of SPR ( in 2001 according to SPR's website: http://emdrive.com/background.html ), will not list SPR
    (as SPR was not in existence at the time of the filing of those older patents).

    _____________

    (*) For example:

    3) Microwave thruster for spacecraft Patent GB2334761 Roger J. Shawyer (filed in 1998)

    4) Electrical propulsion unit for spacecraft Patent GB2229865 Roger J. Shawyer
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 05:23 pm
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    None taken, but understand that this is a reactionary post to all of the speculation of the last few pages.  Like I said, there is zero need to speculate because we can actually go look at 15 years worth of public filings, both balance sheets and annual returns and statements of investment.  It is all laid out for anyone to come and read.

    And this isn't really an ad hominem.  Calling Roger a "silly head" is an ad hominiem.  Analyzing the accounts of his corporation, and seeing that they clearly do NOT align with what Roger has claimed implies that Roger is misleading us.  I don't say that to insult him, I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.

    I don't really understand how regulations or contracts come into play here.  Actual filings say one thing, and Roger say's another.  Something has to give here. 

    Shawyer has only been granted 3 patents.  He has filed for another, but it has not been subjected to first examinatition yet.  Two of those 3 patents were filed before SPR even existed, in 1998 and 1988, so they are under his name (although he may have assigned the 1998 one to SPR).     
    That is true, I usually skip over the biz angle posts and your due diligence is regarded by all. Don't actually know much about spr except I was drawn to the project by nasa's ew work. Guess if I were honest, I've been extreemely disappointed in nasa for years and this caught my attention. I always looked at them as the leaders in scientific innovation in space travel and hoped they'd someday crack the chemical fuel dependency. Regardless, I feel at home here and appreciate ALL this community offers...even docs tommy dorsey vids  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 05:30 pm
    One of the first things I did right after joining NSF was to look up Shawyer's business and Wolf I came to the same conclusion you did. This is one reason I've taken his "bread crumbs" with a grain of salt prefering to do the research myself. If it wasn't for the team at EagleWorks and a couple others (the Chinese are questionable) I would not have taken this DYI on. EagleWorks has IMHO tried to take the necessary steps needed it either prove or disprove this effect and I'll admit it hasn't been a easy task for them or even Tajmar's team but both have ended up seeing a abnormality called thrust or Tajmar's inconclusive results. Even rfmwguy I believe has seen something. Like Paul March said "And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain..."

    So I build and I'll test.


    Shell



    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 12/08/2015 05:52 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.

    Kudos for contributing to this thread fact-filled information, which ends the speculation. 

    It takes considerably  time to find these financial reports and public records, thank you for taking your time in doing this.  No previous article in the media: Forbes, etc., has covered this so thoroughly as you have done.

    Outstanding job.

    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: wallofwolfstreet on 12/08/2015 05:54 pm
    Unless any patents are owned by SPR or Shawyer's position with SPR gives SPR control over his patents and/or intellectual property rights, the corporate fillings would not prevent him from entering into contractual agreements that would not show up as part of the corporate filling.

    This is a good point.  Rodal already covered this above, but because you said you were interested in reading them I attach all 4 patents as follows.  To read them, you have to click on "View on Espacenet" in the top left corner.

    GB 2,229,865 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2229865) - This is the very first one, filed in 1988.  It lapsed in 1997 due to non payment of fees.  It obviously has no relation to licensing.

    GB 2,334,761 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2334761) - Second filed in 1998.

    GB 2,399,601 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2399601) - filed in 2003, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    GB 1,113,261.0 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361) - filed in 2011, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    So yes, patents filed while SPR existed are owned by SPR.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: tchernik on 12/08/2015 06:01 pm
    One of the first things I did right after joining NSF was to look up Shawyer's business and Wolf I came to the same conclusion you did. This is one reason I've taken his "bread crumbs" with a grain of salt prefering to do the research myself. If it wasn't for the team at EagleWorks and a couple others (the Chinese are questionable) I would not have taken this DYI on. EagleWorks has IMHO tried to take the necessary steps needed it either prove or disprove this effect and I'll admit it hasn't been a easy task for them or even Tajmar's team but both have ended up seeing a abnormality called thrust or Tajmar's inconclusive results. Even rfmwguy I believe has seen something. Like Paul March said "And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain..."

    So I build and I'll test.


    Shell

    Fully agree. I'm really not concerned by Mr. Shawyer's demeanor and good/bad business decisions. As long as he  made testable assertions that could have a huge impact on spaceflight, I'm completely in favor and supportive of those testing these assertions.

    It's because of people like Eagle Works, Prof. Tajmar, you, Dave and the other DIYers trying to prove if this thing works or not, and putting their work and resources behind their words, and adding to the body of knowledge about it, that this discussion is kept alive, not because of Mr. Shawyer's actions.

    This may be Roger Shawyer's creation, but his baby has now taken a life on its own.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 06:03 pm
    Unless any patents are owned by SPR or Shawyer's position with SPR gives SPR control over his patents and/or intellectual property rights, the corporate fillings would not prevent him from entering into contractual agreements that would not show up as part of the corporate filling.

    This is a good point.  Rodal already covered this above, but because you said you were interested in reading them I attach all 4 patents (I see he has a german one as well from Rodal's post?) as follows.  To read them, you have to click on "View on Espacenet" in the top left corner.

    GB 2,229,865 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2229865) - This is the very first one, filed in 1988.  It lapsed in 1997 due to non payment of fees.  It obviously has no relation to licensing.

    GB 2,334,761 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2334761) - Second filed in 1998.

    GB 2,399,601 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2399601) - filed in 2003, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    GB 1,113,261.0 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361) - filed in 2011, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    So yes, patents filed while SPR existed are owned by SPR.

    Shawyer has German and English patents that predate the EM Drive efforts.  Since the German (DE) patent pertains to a subject unrelated to the EM Drive, I have deleted it from my post, since it is off-topic for this thread's discussion.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 06:05 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.

    ADDED: I knew I saved the 1/4 WL dipole aero simulation stuck in the small end very similar to injecting the maggie directly into the top.
    You can see the mode is very undefined.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 12/08/2015 06:08 pm
    ...

    I don't understand what has taken Roger so long to bring the EM Drive to market. Are there no investors with a spare 100k to invest in a cubesat TRL 7 demonstration? Because once that has happened, every other EP will be obsolete. And it appears he's had the necessary knowledge to do this for quite awhile...

    That is fairly simple, going to a TRL 7 demo would be skipping too many steps. The EMdrive is at best TRL 1. This means basic principles observed and reported. (https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html) Since we don't even know the basic principals of how this works (if it does) including even order of magnitude numbers for the possible thrust generation, I am not sure this even qualifies for TRL1. If someone can get a clear demonstration with repeatable measurements, that might push it to TRL3.

    Might be good to try to match a real world VNA resonance scan against your resonance predictions.

    Attached is Dave's VNA scan of his NSF-1701 frustum in which he stated my spreadsheet prediction got the measured VNA resonance correct. I have yet to see any other resonance prediction system find in which mode that resonance occurred.

    The end result for any resonance prediction system is that it must be able to match real world VNA measured resonance against predictions.

    You had asked X_RaY to provide mode information before and seemed to agree with his model (There was another post after the one I quoted, where he fixed a mistake in the inputs, which made the frequency line up much better).

    Also as you say, a model needs to be verified against reality. Since rfmwguy has not had experimental verification for his mode, if there is a conflict between your model and another, how would you know which, if either, is correct? EMPro, Meep, etc. are generally well verified tools, that have been verified for various cases, so I would trust them in a conflict with your spreadsheet. Especially since Dr. Rodal recently pointed out that the method used in your spreadsheet has known fundamental issues with its approximation method. Unfortunately I don't have time to help find the source for that info.

    The EMPro results are equal to the Comsol calculations (NASA;F.Davies), the max. frequency delta is less than 10MHz.

    Hey X-Ray that is great news.

    Should be easy to then input the NSF-1701 dimensions, Dave's VNA scan resonant frequently and get a readout on the excitation mode?

    As an engineer, I REALLY like to see theory models produce results that match real world measurements. Makes my engineer's gut start to trust them to base building stuff that will work as expected.

    So please share the excitation mode that couples the NSF-1701 dimensions to the VNA scan resonance frequency.
    Here it is.  8)
    I hope there are no classification problems with the mode numbers (list at the end; please let me know). Based on the results of the calculation it's a little bit like "mode jeopardy", one gets frequencies and 3D E and H field models incl. vectors. Mode diagram (as well as spreadsheet) is needed for classification ..
    I think the mesh deformation can be problematic for a definitive statement which mode we see in Dave's plot...

    Thanks X-Ray for doing that. Nice to see your TE013 guide wavelength is longer at the small end and shorter at the big end. This is important to observe.

    I calculated resonance in TE013 mode at 2.514GHz (in vac) versus your 2.328GHz (196MHz, 7.8% difference). Have attached a plot of the guide wavelength down the axis of the frustum. Can you do a plot of the guide wavelengths small end to big end in TE013 to compare?

    Phil
    Here is the link to the corrected results. :)
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1445743#msg1445743

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 06:17 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.

    Excellent point about the threaded rod.  Yang has used this in one of her papers.  An adjustable screw,

    (http://versatilemw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/coax_cavity_folded_png.png)

    or small objects (like dielectric spheres) to tune a resonant cavity have been well known for a considerable amount of time and routinely used.  Textbooks contain worked examples, including the polarizabilities of common obstacles, like prolate spheroid, oblate spheroids, spheres and circular discs.

    Tuning screws can be approximated as one-half of a prolate spheroid (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Sherrin.png) .  One can calculate the induced electric dipole moment when the tuning screw is located along the axis of the cavity.

    For example, a small tuning screw in a typical cylindrical cavity can lower the natural frequency by 0.1%

    [Example (from Collin): for a cylindrical cavity with a TM010 mode the perturbed resonant frequency  is 0.1% lower with the tuning screw present than when empty for a screw with ScrewLengthIntoCavity >> ScrewRadius.  Dimensions for this example: ScrewLengthIntoCavity= 1cm, ScrewRadius = 0.1 cm, CavityRadius=2cm, CavityLength=3cm.

    Another example is in this link for lowering of the natural frequency of a rectangular cavity:  http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~tkg/EECS210_Sp10/Documents/Lecture_Notes/Week_8/Cavity_Perturb(Pozar).pdf

    ]

    Another application is the ability to measure the complex permittivity of dielectric materials.  Say that you are considering using an asymmetrically placed dielectric for your experiment, but you don't know the value of the permittivity of the dielectric.  You could insert a small dielectric sphere inside the empty resonant cavity, then by measuring the change in the resonant frequency and the Q of the cavity, the complex permittivity can be determined.

    These subjects are usually covered in textbooks under the heading of "Perturbation"
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/08/2015 06:28 pm
    Unless any patents are owned by SPR or Shawyer's position with SPR gives SPR control over his patents and/or intellectual property rights, the corporate fillings would not prevent him from entering into contractual agreements that would not show up as part of the corporate filling.

    This is a good point.  Rodal already covered this above, but because you said you were interested in reading them I attach all 4 patents as follows.  To read them, you have to click on "View on Espacenet" in the top left corner.

    GB 2,229,865 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2229865) - This is the very first one, filed in 1988.  It lapsed in 1997 due to non payment of fees.  It obviously has no relation to licensing.

    GB 2,334,761 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2334761) - Second filed in 1998.

    GB 2,399,601 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2399601) - filed in 2003, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    GB 1,113,261.0 (https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361) - filed in 2011, with SPR and Roger Shawyer as the applicant.

    So yes, patents filed while SPR existed are owned by SPR.

    I can't say I will understand, but looking through them I can do. I did mange to figure out how to download copies. Thanks.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 06:30 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.

    I hope now that all the above business has been stated and commented on this forum can focus on current experiments like SeeShells.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/08/2015 06:48 pm
    Honestly, I'm a bit confused at the methodology behind the spreadsheet. But I appreciate you taking the time to run the number and I'll come back and look at it at a later time.
    Attached is the s11

    Is that an actual S11 VNA scan output or a simulation?

    Simulation. I have not built this frustum.

    Might be good to try to match a real world VNA resonance scan against your resonance predictions.

    Attached is Dave's VNA scan of his NSF-1701 frustum in which he stated my spreadsheet prediction got the measured VNA resonance correct. I have yet to see any other resonance prediction system find in which mode that resonance occurred.

    The end result for any resonance prediction system is that it must be able to match real world VNA measured resonance against predictions.

    Yes, building the frustum would be great, but that is much easier said than done. The university doesn't have the sheet metal warping tools to build a frustum, and accuracy is the main concern. We've considered buying a large block of aluminum and turning it on a lathe, but the most recent thoughts are leaning toward sticking with the cylinder and changing the dielectic and improving the inner electrical consistency.

    On an unrelated note, how I'm curious why Jack Sarfatti's paper hasn't been discussed more.

    Quote from: Jack Sarfatti
    However, what is required for practical low power warp drive is not propagating radiation, but a new kind of metamaterial, filled with very low frequency off-mass-shell nonpropagating near field virtual photons that are Bose-Einstein condensed into macro-quantum coherent Glauber states of sharp phase and uncertain number. It may be possible to generate them from the aforementioned strong EM field nonlinearities.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ScottL on 12/08/2015 06:52 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 06:57 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.
    Good question, I tried to keep the magnetron in its natural habitat so to speak for only one reason...impedance matching to the tube itself.

    I've been fascinated with meep and modes but never really tried to obtain a particular one. I just don't know if one works better than the other.

    Regarding Q, I focused on the cavity Q alone and used your old maggie's antenna as the vna probe. Untuned, my cavity was about 800, after I installed the tuning bands, I doubled that. I projected a Q of about 1000 weeks ago and got pretty close without tuning. Pretty surprised I could push the copper mesh design to around 1600.

    That's when the frustum took on a trombone shape...hope that answered ur questions shell.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/08/2015 07:12 pm
    2All: So... how come there is nothing? Is there more to EmDrive design which has simply NOT been disclosed at all as of yet?  The more I dig the story and the facts the stranger it looks...

    It is called "Microwave Black Magic" ;)

    Gee, when I was working on things like the worlds largest airborne phased array radar, emitting 9 megawatts peak, we used smith charts, pencils, and slide rules. I don't recall any "Microwave Black Magic" at all.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/08/2015 07:12 pm

    Look at the data. The data and simulations suggests that more than the curved endplates it's the mode  of operation and the way the RF in injected into the cavity plus the quality of the RF. I can establish a Q of lets say 5k with flat plates and going to curved runs it up to 6k, but if my RF source is splattering all over 60-70 MHz of the output BW the cavity will not lock in a mode and the Q will suffer.

    Might be more significant than it seems.  Say my crazy idea is right and that this thing is gaining momentum on a work per photon per bounce off the small endplate basis.  So lets say energy in / energy out = 10.  That means you have 10 times more photon each doing 10 times more work (energy in / energy out)^2.  Continue that on out an even at a fairly low Q, say Ei/Eo = 100 and each watt in resonance gives you the same amount of work as 10kw raw input. 

    Quote
    Looking at the spread sheet on the one critical item few discuss and that is the thrust vs a photon rocket (not so much the Q but it is a factor) you will see that 2 modes of operation rule. a TE012 and a TE013. My current drive is designed to be able to tune both in.
    http://imgur.com/OADVFF7
    I remember you had a bunch of adjacent modes.  Any idea of the bandwidth of any of them overlap?

    Quote
    My next generation will have curved endplates but I'll not be using ceramics for the plates. I'll be using a carbon fiber composite laid over and bonded to the copper for the thermal conductive properties and adding exceptional strength. http://www.ngfworld.com/en/en_fiber/en_high_thermal_conductivity.html

    Cool.  I was considering electroplating over some form of 3d printed or cast ceramic.  Know the homebuilt airplane folks are all about composites.  Need to see how difficult they are going to be to work with.

    Quote
    I'm not going to drop the current build when I know I can get very good data from the design  without curved endplates, but like I said I plan on fine tuning the next generation with curved plates and capturing the plates with a thermally conductive carbon fiber with a multi layered fiber construction the thermal layout closer to the copper and strength using a crisscross pattern further out.
    Never suggested you should.  Just hoping to somehow make more sense out of reported results, and see if they can give us some idea what's going on here.

    Quote
    I've been working on this type of layout for the last two months on and off and the numbers show I can achieve a more stable configuration than even ceramics. Plus I can do it in my lab. Cost is always a concern but better for less is a good thing. I've found a shop locally that will curve the copper on a lathe. (still wish I had my old Tool room Harrison, loved that hands on machine)
    Shell


    Hum, I wonder how much of the action has to do with the endplates v. the frustum.  RFMWguys results seem to imply high quality solid metal frustum.  On the other hand just shaping the mesh upped the Q considerably.  I wonder if the waveguide hole in one endplate has more to do with the lower Q at this point.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 07:18 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.
    Good question, I tried to keep the magnetron in its natural habitat so to speak for only one reason...impedance matching to the tube itself.

    I've been fascinated with meep and modes but never really tried to obtain a particular one. I just don't know if one works better than the other.

    Regarding Q, I focused on the cavity Q alone and used your old maggie's antenna as the vna probe. Untuned, my cavity was about 800, after I installed the tuning bands, I doubled that. I projected a Q of about 1000 weeks ago and got pretty close without tuning. Pretty surprised I could push the copper mesh design to around 1600.

    That's when the frustum took on a trombone shape...hope that answered ur questions shell.

    It was commented earlier that just using the bell from an E♭ horn will introduce a discontinuity where the bell flattens out.   Since you are using Copper mesh and have therefore can attain almost any shape it occurred to me that maybe the logarithmic bell shape that ended with a smooth curve back on itself (almost 180°) to a rounded endplate (convex as seen from the outside) would be the best shape as far as Q is concerned.   No discontinuities, many degrees of freedom for standing waves, and a large enclosed volume.  Just an idea of mine.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/08/2015 07:25 pm
    The peak 'thrust' was transverse, which was a much more difficult force to calculate with our setup, and frankly we just ran out of time. I would say if there was an anomalous thrust it is in that range, but again, inconclusive due to many reasons. We definitely did not have a Q in the thousands, unless our mock magnetron antenna was fooling us. The VNA showed Q's of ~300, maybe 700 MAX.

    Judging by rfmwguy's magnetron spectrum videos (awesome job by the way!), I would gues we could have gotten 10 W into our resonance. But we have no way of knowing for sure...

    And Dr. Rodal, I will add our results to the wiki page when I'm done with finals later this week. And also, great to see you back on the forum :)

    Also, on the curved end-plates note: it appears to be a much higher Q resonator judging by EMPro simulations I've been running. I'm hoping to have more time this month to go into more detail, but for now you can check out the pictures in the attachment. I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep persuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly.

    Out of personal curiosity, can you run that at 2.46, TE013? TT's spreadsheet showed both a stable TE013 and TM013 resonance at that frequency at the same time (with correct dimensions), and I'm a bit curious to hear if a simulation would note something strange happening.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 12/08/2015 07:28 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 07:31 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.
    Good question, I tried to keep the magnetron in its natural habitat so to speak for only one reason...impedance matching to the tube itself.

    I've been fascinated with meep and modes but never really tried to obtain a particular one. I just don't know if one works better than the other.

    Regarding Q, I focused on the cavity Q alone and used your old maggie's antenna as the vna probe. Untuned, my cavity was about 800, after I installed the tuning bands, I doubled that. I projected a Q of about 1000 weeks ago and got pretty close without tuning. Pretty surprised I could push the copper mesh design to around 1600.

    That's when the frustum took on a trombone shape...hope that answered ur questions shell.

    It was commented earlier that just using the bell from an E♭ horn will introduce a discontinuity where the bell flattens out.   Since you are using Copper mesh and have therefore can attain almost any shape it occurred to me that maybe the logarithmic bell shape that ended with a smooth curve back on itself (almost 180°) to a rounded endplate (convex as seen from the outside) would be the best shape as far as Q is concerned.   No discontinuities, many degrees of freedom for standing waves, and a large enclosed volume.  Just an idea of mine.
    Good idea as well. The higher Q with the curveback got my attention. When the horn gets here, I'll desolder the bell and be anxious to slap the vna on it. Got some pretty good desoldering tips from utoob vids. Also, remember some of the old renderings of Ezekiel's ship?  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/08/2015 07:34 pm

    Welcome to the real world of "Microwave Black Magic" (MBM).

    ...

    1) where along the side wall the 1/4 wave antenna stub is inserted. Should be in the centre of the 1/2 wave lobe at the big end, which is 1/4 guide wave from the big end in the excited mode.

    ...

    2) how far it protrudes beyond the interior of the sidewall or end plate. Should be ~1/4 wave of the excited frequency above the interior surface sidewall / end plate.


    Btw, having spent the last ~3 months going through countless books and papers and presentations on waveguides and resonant cavities, my humble understanding at the moment is that this "1/4 wave protruding above surface" is NOT applicable to exciting a resonant cavity. It may be applicable to launching a waveguide, but this is not what one is attempting here. When exciting a resonant cavity we are aiming at achieving the critical coupling (beta=1) level, which requires the feeder structure to transform the cavity impedance (which is a large and real number at resonance) to that of the power source. (In case of a coax power source the latter would be 50 Ohm. In case of a magnetron directly attached to the cavity I have no idea what that value is.). Having simulated voltage-type feeder for a simple rectangular resonant cavity in COMSOL, I was getting the best impedance /  power match to 50 Ohm coax feed with the protruding antenna length of just a couple of mm. Of course, it does also work with a 1/4 wave antenna, it is just most of the energy gets reflected back and out of the cavity.

    With this in mind, I'd say it almost does not matter how exactly the magnetron is attached in these simple cases. It is basically a brute force approach, and one should not be expecting any particular mode or energy transfer level. At the same time, given a wide spectrum and a large overall power, there is a very good change that _some_ mode will resonate and at least _some_ amount of energy will be transferred into the cavity. Then based on what has so far been disclosed about EmDrive, this should be enough to observe a non-zero thrust of at least a few hundred micro-N. Yet in this case there is none.

    Don't get me wrong, I am still a believer and I am figuring out the best dimensions to cut my new and shiny copper sheet. But at the same time I am starting to get this uneasy feeling... Well... At least if this whole EmDrive thing ends up being a fraud, it will easily qualify to be the best fraud of my life :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zellerium on 12/08/2015 07:51 pm
    The peak 'thrust' was transverse, which was a much more difficult force to calculate with our setup, and frankly we just ran out of time. I would say if there was an anomalous thrust it is in that range, but again, inconclusive due to many reasons. We definitely did not have a Q in the thousands, unless our mock magnetron antenna was fooling us. The VNA showed Q's of ~300, maybe 700 MAX.

    Judging by rfmwguy's magnetron spectrum videos (awesome job by the way!), I would gues we could have gotten 10 W into our resonance. But we have no way of knowing for sure...

    And Dr. Rodal, I will add our results to the wiki page when I'm done with finals later this week. And also, great to see you back on the forum :)

    Also, on the curved end-plates note: it appears to be a much higher Q resonator judging by EMPro simulations I've been running. I'm hoping to have more time this month to go into more detail, but for now you can check out the pictures in the attachment. I've been targeting the TE013 mode at 2.45 GHz, unsure if I'll keep persuing this avenue due to manufacturing challenges, it looking like pretty much everything has to be within 5 thou, and as you can see in our paper from the summer, EMPro and reality don't match up perfectly.

    Out of personal curiosity, can you run that at 2.46, TE013? TT's spreadsheet showed both a stable TE013 and TM013 resonance at that frequency at the same time (with correct dimensions), and I'm a bit curious to hear if a simulation would note something strange happening.

    I've been aiming for 2.45 to leave the possibilty of magnetron engineering open. But it's actually slightly above 2.48, currently introducing small stub perturbations to shift it. Its pretty amazing the improvements you can make by guessing and checking. I have not seen a TM mode at these frequencies.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 07:57 pm

    Welcome to the real world of "Microwave Black Magic" (MBM).

    ...

    1) where along the side wall the 1/4 wave antenna stub is inserted. Should be in the centre of the 1/2 wave lobe at the big end, which is 1/4 guide wave from the big end in the excited mode.

    ...

    2) how far it protrudes beyond the interior of the sidewall or end plate. Should be ~1/4 wave of the excited frequency above the interior surface sidewall / end plate.


    Btw, having spent the last ~3 months going through countless books and papers and presentations on waveguides and resonant cavities, my humble understanding at the moment is that this "1/4 wave protruding above surface" is NOT applicable to exciting a resonant cavity. It may be applicable to launching a waveguide, but this is not what one is attempting here. When exciting a resonant cavity we are aiming at achieving the critical coupling (beta=1) level, which requires the feeder structure to transform the cavity impedance (which is a large and real number at resonance) to that of the power source. (In case of a coax power source the latter would be 50 Ohm. In case of a magnetron directly attached to the cavity I have no idea what that value is.). Having simulated voltage-type feeder for a simple rectangular resonant cavity in COMSOL, I was getting the best impedance /  power match to 50 Ohm coax feed with the protruding antenna length of just a couple of mm. Of course, it does also work with a 1/4 wave antenna, it is just most of the energy gets reflected back and out of the cavity.

    With this in mind, I'd say it almost does not matter how exactly the magnetron is attached in these simple cases. It is basically a brute force approach, and one should not be expecting any particular mode or energy transfer level. At the same time, given a wide spectrum and a large overall power, there is a very good change that _some_ mode will resonate and at least _some_ amount of energy will be transferred into the cavity. Then based on what has so far been disclosed about EmDrive, this should be enough to observe a non-zero thrust of at least a few hundred micro-N. Yet in this case there is none.

    Don't get me wrong, I am still a believer and I am figuring out the best dimensions to cut my new and shiny copper sheet. But at the same time I am starting to get this uneasy feeling... Well... At least if this whole EmDrive thing ends up being a fraud, it will easily qualify to be the best fraud of my life :)
    Good thing about this is exercising my old builders skills, not to mention test stand design, all on a budget. Its enough to convince something is there, being open minded, it still could be a large measurement error, but nobody's been smart enough to nail that hypothesis. Lorentz force is many factors too weak. Air turbulence I don't think would pause, reverse or attenuate the lift like I saw. Beam oscillations were too quickly dampened by the oil. Nope, I couldn't find anything that jumped out at me as being measurement error, just like dresden and nasa reports...and they have all the cool gear.

    Just build it...pick your design and have fun. Gotta keep us updated with pics and vids, tho...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/08/2015 08:04 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.
    Good question, I tried to keep the magnetron in its natural habitat so to speak for only one reason...impedance matching to the tube itself.

    I've been fascinated with meep and modes but never really tried to obtain a particular one. I just don't know if one works better than the other.

    Regarding Q, I focused on the cavity Q alone and used your old maggie's antenna as the vna probe. Untuned, my cavity was about 800, after I installed the tuning bands, I doubled that. I projected a Q of about 1000 weeks ago and got pretty close without tuning. Pretty surprised I could push the copper mesh design to around 1600.

    That's when the frustum took on a trombone shape...hope that answered ur questions shell.

    It was commented earlier that just using the bell from an E♭ horn will introduce a discontinuity where the bell flattens out.   Since you are using Copper mesh and have therefore can attain almost any shape it occurred to me that maybe the logarithmic bell shape that ended with a smooth curve back on itself (almost 180°) to a rounded endplate (convex as seen from the outside) would be the best shape as far as Q is concerned.   No discontinuities, many degrees of freedom for standing waves, and a large enclosed volume.  Just an idea of mine.
    Good idea as well. The higher Q with the curveback got my attention. When the horn gets here, I'll desolder the bell and be anxious to slap the vna on it. Got some pretty good desoldering tips from utoob vids. Also, remember some of the old renderings of Ezekiel's ship?  ;)

    Urm, I suspect that the physics of wind instruments has been well described.  What do they have to say about these shapes? 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 08:18 pm
    rfmwguy,

    Please don't take any offence here, you're a fine engineer and put together something I'm still working on doing.

    But I wondered why you inserted the microwave directly into the frustum with the little 1/4 wave snub out of the maggie? I remember aero running meep a few months ago and if I need to dig to find it I will but the summary was that a vertical snub into the frustum gave very bad Q's and the mode generation wasn't well defined.

    I know this is your build but have you considered for your TM212 mode to excite 1/4 WL from the small end using a dipole parallel to the plate instead of the direct injection?
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QFPTQMX8R0I/hqdefault.jpg
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454544#msg1454544

    Also if you used threaded rods to set the antenna length you could fine tune the antenna inside of the frustum.

    Just a thought.

    Shell

    It would be cheap to do with some coax. copper pipe, threaded rods and a few other dodads.
    Good question, I tried to keep the magnetron in its natural habitat so to speak for only one reason...impedance matching to the tube itself.

    I've been fascinated with meep and modes but never really tried to obtain a particular one. I just don't know if one works better than the other.

    Regarding Q, I focused on the cavity Q alone and used your old maggie's antenna as the vna probe. Untuned, my cavity was about 800, after I installed the tuning bands, I doubled that. I projected a Q of about 1000 weeks ago and got pretty close without tuning. Pretty surprised I could push the copper mesh design to around 1600.

    That's when the frustum took on a trombone shape...hope that answered ur questions shell.

    It was commented earlier that just using the bell from an E♭ horn will introduce a discontinuity where the bell flattens out.   Since you are using Copper mesh and have therefore can attain almost any shape it occurred to me that maybe the logarithmic bell shape that ended with a smooth curve back on itself (almost 180°) to a rounded endplate (convex as seen from the outside) would be the best shape as far as Q is concerned.   No discontinuities, many degrees of freedom for standing waves, and a large enclosed volume.  Just an idea of mine.
    Good idea as well. The higher Q with the curveback got my attention. When the horn gets here, I'll desolder the bell and be anxious to slap the vna on it. Got some pretty good desoldering tips from utoob vids. Also, remember some of the old renderings of Ezekiel's ship?  ;)

    Urm, I suspect that the physics of wind instruments has been well described.  What do they have to say about these shapes?
    Acoustic  ==> speed of sound
    Electromagnetic ==> speed of light

    Acoustic fundamental natural frequencies are millions of times less than the fundamental natural frequencies in electromagnetic cavities.  Wavelengths are correspondingly vastly different.  Mode shapes are different too

    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278850437/figure/fig1/%28Color-online%29-Animation-of-the-%2821%29-elliptical-mode-shape.-The-predicted-frequency-is.png)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 08:38 pm
    Its all new ground with these asymmetric cavities. Air and sound wave propagation are totally different than rf, altho I've seen horn antennas look similar to a frustum but with flat sides. Its all new stuff best I can tell, concentrating high power rf into a closed, asymmetric box just doesn't seem to have precedence that I could find. Trillions of photons reflected and slamming around in a confined space without an absortive target is not your typical lab experiment.

    Universities tend to replicate successful experiments as a teaching tool. Some change an element or two to demonstrate new things...safe stuff, mainly. Now imagine launching an unprecedented experiment...I can hear the cackles from the balcony...Sooo, we diy it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 08:50 pm
    Its all new ground with these asymmetric cavities. Air and sound wave propagation are totally different than rf, altho I've seen horn antennas look similar to a frustum but with flat sides. Its all new stuff best I can tell, concentrating high power rf into a closed, asymmetric box just doesn't seem to have precedence that I could find. Trillions of photons reflected and slamming around in a confined space without an absortive target is not your typical lab experiment.

    Universities tend to replicate successful experiments as a teaching tool. Some change an element or two to demonstrate new things...safe stuff, mainly. Now imagine launching an unprecedented experiment...I can hear the cackles from the balcony...Sooo, we diy it.
    Like I say "No Bad Data".
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 09:07 pm
    Its all new ground with these asymmetric cavities. Air and sound wave propagation are totally different than rf, altho I've seen horn antennas look similar to a frustum but with flat sides. Its all new stuff best I can tell, concentrating high power rf into a closed, asymmetric box just doesn't seem to have precedence that I could find. Trillions of photons reflected and slamming around in a confined space without an absortive target is not your typical lab experiment.

    Universities tend to replicate successful experiments as a teaching tool. Some change an element or two to demonstrate new things...safe stuff, mainly. Now imagine launching an unprecedented experiment...I can hear the cackles from the balcony...Sooo, we diy it.

    There are several universities that encourage NEW, different experiments

    (http://caltech.discoverygarden.ca/islandora/object/ct1%3A578/datastream/JPG/view)

    (http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/content/images/mit-hacks-police.jpg)

    I was a founding member of the piano drop "experiment" at Baker House at MIT (together with C.B. and others), which has become an annual event ever since   ;)

    (http://mit81.com/baker/sites/default/files/images/piano_drop_mit_museum.jpg)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/08/2015 09:28 pm
    The piano drop doesn't rely as much on muscle power now.  That looks like a Lesage piano.   They sound horrible and are best suited for dropping off high buildings.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/08/2015 09:33 pm
    Good thing about this is exercising my old builders skills, not to mention test stand design, all on a budget. Its enough to convince something is there, being open minded, it still could be a large measurement error, but nobody's been smart enough to nail that hypothesis...

    Hey! I have seen your youtube videos and some of the earlier reports here. I am not sure I have seen the latest though... Do you have a link / place where it is all summarized? Then, if you're getting some non-zero thrust and you still have time and energy to spend on this, it seems like it would be very beneficial to do a "sensitivity" analysis on as many variables as possible. I mean, change the particular thrustum dimension a bit (one at a time), record the change in thrust; modify the cavity Q (hang a potato inside :) ) and again, record the change in thrust. For anyone trying to come up with a theory behind this effect the info would be of great help.

    ...Brute force magnetron approach, while simple, cheap and fun, is just not the best way to convince oneself (and others) due to a large number of uncertainties involved. The more so when measuring in the vertical direction. I fully expect anyone with a magnetron to detect some level of movement to their test platform just based on large voltages, currents and an ungodly amount of dissipated heat involved. This is not to say that any and all observed movement is due to those artifacts, it is just a lot harder to separate. Well, this is unless the damn thing just begins to rotate :) Hard to argue with that.

    ...My 2 biggest EmDrive concerns at the moment:

    1. The news that Boeing is no longer working with Shawyer (yet they have been, and we all know it takes just a few months to verify feasibility for this project given enough time and money).

    2. The claim by EW that an empty cavity does not produce thrust under pure single freq RF excitation (yet it does product thrust under some secret sauce "dielectric" insert, which they are for some reason telling us nothing about).

    This is just bizarre.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: frobnicat on 12/08/2015 09:44 pm
    ...
    On a sidenote, Zen-in, do you think it is meaningful to do a rotary test with only a fish tank water pump and fake cooling rig, just to verify whether or not the sloshing makes a table turn? So far, I've stayed away from doing any testing because handling microwaves is not without risk when you do not have an engineering background... but installing some tubing and a small pump, that would be something i could manage... Question is, would that have any meaning?

    Why not experiment with asymmetric shape convection testing instead ? It's relatively straightforward to derive analytically (with reasonable accuracy) expected effects (on a balance or rotating assembly) of known rate of flow in pipes of known path. It's all on Roger Shawyer to give such detailed information of this setup, but for whatever reason he won't (he hasn't, has he ?), so precise replication (experimental) or quantitative assessment (analytical) of this aspect of this experiment is impossible anyway.

    On the other hand we have all the fine open sourcing DIYers there, and thermal convection is a known issue for all, and it is difficult to treat analytically (and not trivial by simulation either). An experiment with a (ideally full size) frustum mock-up and heating pads, on a balance of similar sensitivity as reached by Rfmwguy for instance, would give precious data points for the whole community to assess the validity (or limits of validity) of subtracting forces (between reversed orientations) to infer a thrust (for instance).

    I'm only suggesting this because I'm a bit frustrated I can't do it myself  ;D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/08/2015 10:14 pm
    2. The claim by EW that an empty cavity does not produce thrust under pure single freq RF excitation (yet it does product thrust under some secret sauce "dielectric" insert, which they are for some reason telling us nothing about).

    This is just bizarre.

    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 10:16 pm
    Good thing about this is exercising my old builders skills, not to mention test stand design, all on a budget. Its enough to convince something is there, being open minded, it still could be a large measurement error, but nobody's been smart enough to nail that hypothesis...

    Hey! I have seen your youtube videos and some of the earlier reports here. I am not sure I have seen the latest though... Do you have a link / place where it is all summarized? Then, if you're getting some non-zero thrust and you still have time and energy to spend on this, it seems like it would be very beneficial to do a "sensitivity" analysis on as many variables as possible. I mean, change the particular thrustum dimension a bit (one at a time), record the change in thrust; modify the cavity Q (hang a potato inside :) ) and again, record the change in thrust. For anyone trying to come up with a theory behind this effect the info would be of great help.

    ...Brute force magnetron approach, while simple, cheap and fun, is just not the best way to convince oneself (and others) due to a large number of uncertainties involved. The more so when measuring in the vertical direction. I fully expect anyone with a magnetron to detect some level of movement to their test platform just based on large voltages, currents and an ungodly amount of dissipated heat involved. This is not to say that any and all observed movement is due to those artifacts, it is just a lot harder to separate. Well, this is unless the damn thing just begins to rotate :) Hard to argue with that.

    ...My 2 biggest EmDrive concerns at the moment:

    1. The news that Boeing is no longer working with Shawyer (yet they have been, and we all know it takes just a few months to verify feasibility for this project given enough time and money).

    2. The claim by EW that an empty cavity does not produce thrust under pure single freq RF excitation (yet it does product thrust under some secret sauce "dielectric" insert, which they are for some reason telling us nothing about).

    This is just bizarre.

    Secret sauce dielectric insert ?

    Paul March from NASA was kind enough to provide all kinds of details, geometry and material for the dielectric he used. 

    Paul March has certainly disclosed the dielectric size, location and material.  If you are interested, you need to take a look at previous NSF threads, they were very informative. 

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26@1-3GHz.   They purchased the inexpensive, run of the mill, extruded HDPE rod from McMaster Carr  :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/08/2015 10:33 pm
    It was commented earlier that just using the bell from an E♭ horn will introduce a discontinuity where the bell flattens out.

    Urm, I suspect that the physics of wind instruments has been well described.  What do they have to say about these shapes?

    A dead short across the end is also a discontinuity, and that is what the frustrum end plates are doing.  If there was no impedance discontinuity, you would not get any reflection and thus no resonance effect.  The E♭ horn counts on there being a reflection as well (at least, a partial reflection).  The musician does not control the pitch with just his lip tension - the resonance of the horn feeds back and changes the lip frequency.  About all the musician can do with lip tension is force which harmonic gets preference.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 10:34 pm
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    None taken, but understand that this is a reactionary post to all of the speculation of the last few pages.  Like I said, there is zero need to speculate because we can actually go look at 15 years worth of public filings, both balance sheets and annual returns and statements of investment.  It is all laid out for anyone to come and read.

    And this isn't really an ad hominem.  Calling Roger a "silly head" is an ad hominiem.  Analyzing the accounts of his corporation, and seeing that they clearly do NOT align with what Roger has claimed implies that Roger is misleading us.  I don't say that to insult him, I say that because that is what the evidence suggests.

    Without a great deal more knowledge about British Corporate regulations and Shawyer's specific contractual obligations with SPR, the corporate records say nothing about Shawyer as an individual.

    You know.., I have never actually looked at any of Shawyer's patents. Are they in his name or the corporations? If they are in the corporate name, corporate records are relevant. If they are in is own name, they may not be significant at all.

    Now I have to go back and see if any of the patent papers have been linked in the thread and take a look.

    I don't really understand how regulations or contracts come into play here.  Actual filings say one thing, and Roger say's another.  Something has to give here. 

    Shawyer has only been granted 3 patents.  He has filed for another, but it has not been subjected to first examinatition yet.  Two of those 3 patents were filed before SPR even existed, in 1998 and 1988, so they are under his name (although he may have assigned the 1998 one to SPR).     

    Why do you seem to assume SPR is a trading company and not just a IP holding company as it's filings seem to indicate?

    Fairly normal to have a non trading company to hold the IP and shareholder interests. Then to have 1 or more trading companies that actually do the work, employ people, incur debts and liabilities, on license the IP, receive the licensee fee income, do licensee support work, further R&D, etc but if set up properly, not to put the IP at risk of a failure of 1 or more of the trading companies.

    The above structure can be much more complex but is, in a minimum the way, how secure and protect the IP while engaging in making money from the IP.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/08/2015 10:34 pm
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/08/2015 10:41 pm

    Secret sauce dielectric insert ?

    Paul March from NASA was kind enough to provide all kinds of details, geometry and material for the dielectric he used.  Please take a look at previous threads, they were very informative. 

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26@1-3GHz.   They purchased the inexpensive, run of the mill, extruded HDPE rod from McMaster Carr  :)

    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 10:46 pm

    Secret sauce dielectric insert ?

    Paul March from NASA was kind enough to provide all kinds of details, geometry and material for the dielectric he used.  Please take a look at previous threads, they were very informative. 

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26@1-3GHz.   They purchased the inexpensive, run of the mill, extruded HDPE rod from McMaster Carr  :)

    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).
    For general information to readers that are unfamiliar with previous threads, Paul March also discussed (in the same NSF threads) <<why_ they decided to use it in the first place and>> and therefore <<how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location.>>
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 10:46 pm
    I've been aiming for 2.45 to leave the possibilty of magnetron engineering open. But it's actually slightly above 2.48, currently introducing small stub perturbations to shift it. Its pretty amazing the improvements you can make by guessing and checking. I have not seen a TM mode at these frequencies.

    Excitation freq is not an issue. TE01x and TM11x modes have the same guide wavelength. One is degenerative of the other. Need to have care how you excite the cavity or you may get the wrong mode excited.

    Have seen VNA scans showing both can also be excited but of course at a degraded Q / VSWR for the desired mode.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/08/2015 11:01 pm

    Secret sauce dielectric insert ?

    Paul March from NASA was kind enough to provide all kinds of details, geometry and material for the dielectric he used.  Please take a look at previous threads, they were very informative. 

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26@1-3GHz.   They purchased the inexpensive, run of the mill, extruded HDPE rod from McMaster Carr  :)

    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).

    From my understanding Roger sent the attached to EW to assist their initial efforts.

    Note in this build that the big end adjusts in and out, the small end dielectric rod adjusts in and out and there is an impedance matching adjustment in the Rf energy feed in waveguide. So lots to physically tune to get an optimal Force generated.

    This is from his Experimental EmDrive which used a dielectric rod at the small end. Note it was longer than wide and was, I believe, internally resonant at 1/2 wave of the internal to the dielectric guide wavelength.

    Inside an air filled cavity, the guide wavelength is longer than the free wavelength.
    Inside a dielectric, the guide wavelength is shorter than the free wavelength.

    Why EW decided to use a fixed disc when Roger used an adjustable rod is unknown.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ScottL on 12/08/2015 11:03 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don

    What was brought up about SPR is found in evidence readily available and linked. I'm more than happy not to talk about SPR, but like has been mentioned, a certain individual keeps repeating claims of NDAs and licensing/licensees that simply is not found in evidence, fact, or reality. If they can stop, then I can certainly agree that everyone should stop discussing it. It's not an attack, it's simply fact based on very credible evidence. So if you'd like the moderators to come in and moderate, by all means do so. Hopefully they stop incorrect speculation of NDAs\Licensing\etc. I would love for it to be just about the science.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: francesco nicoli on 12/08/2015 11:11 pm
    Okay, so it seems like people have either ignored or forgotten about the fact that you can actually go and look up Satellite Propulsion Limited's (SPRs) financial data and investors.  There is no need for this completely baseless speculation into NDA's, corporate contracts and investors, licensing agreements, the SPR "team", etc, because you can actually look at the balance sheet of the company and tell right then and there what's what. 

    I'm going to do my best in the following post to:
    1) Summarize and link everything I previously posted on the subject.
    2) Address some of the specific concerns raised in the last few pages.
    3) Illustrate that Shawyer, while not necessarily a fraud, has been obviously misleading TheTraveller (TT).

    First, here is the link to UK Companies House (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history) where all of this data is publicly available.  Don't take my word for it.  Anyone who has had accounting 101 can read the balance sheets and come to their own conclusions.


    Here is a list of every post I have made on the subject of SPRs financials:
    SPR has no employees, it has no licensing agreements, it has no recent investors. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1418556#msg1418556)
    SPR has been in debt to the tune of roughly 230,000 pounds since 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1394575#msg1394575), with no appreciable change in their balance sheet.   It is an inactive company.
    I summarize SPRs Intellectual property (IP) position (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396231#msg1396231), and demonstrate that SPR has burned through over a million USD since inception in October, 2000.
    Once again, over a million USD, and no employees. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396346#msg1396346)
    More info. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396365#msg1396365)

    To those who don't want to read all that and don't want to work through the companies house list on their own, I will summarize:

    1) Here is the annual return (which shareholder owns what) (https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/b0KQjGIE83N53N5UAWFWfpl-G8xc5tS8GkshV5PitO8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ6IMVJP4F6IMDKEA&Expires=1449593125&Signature=kQ7hnWa674dkR4rRNSnZ3AMkg78%3D&x-amz-security-token=AQoDYXdzEI3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEa4AOszbexPi9kEDV%2Fh4WcMYLGie8BGo%2B6I0tdY1LII%2F%2BY987T7kQR1jY8LfEwDAIbgza3NqBCUtJhkZXUgIxHNspYlBXIHK3npxUPgck3uMOKgszFovbNTIOQOTrf2lSpacymMcx1GU2p8UwQHqs7mi4ETz%2B45fJDLKSw2t3BYERWcMlgFuMUKed8%2FdJHeR%2BXENwOs1UMpQOf9XXjHR%2BwkesPTElvtyOTYCYr%2B69tc7hsZMWAglLdq970%2FWmN2twJqj64r%2F7amN0OJol0XOh6u03vtiWi182YLKiyGyw%2FVcoe7e5sTIlzlUM4A%2BCQ2%2BY2mDDnhIP%2Fd5SeJ%2FdJBY3AYIy1tK6RY3%2FUa1xcX7vUSSMdMJjzh8fA0nUuriTI1z0R6hXVeB1qT0G%2Fmtse%2BtqH0%2BRsB%2Fo%2FANVUe1C2WnpA9%2BzmWJZ9oMGiz71sDalwwyAw8OlhSr6JCcb4REqWz3Mn46GqCCq2BgXtG9OHgQYw4faboNeuRgnVyB%2BH6Cq%2BwfHSuo2TUFI2R0G%2BkzRJjC4OCQiiTbdFIF3ZculaMwf6egqMddeZFrhBeMTRjg4xnNFgmxZ%2FrezkDAP0TO5rJTwuN6lGdCD72fcuYBdY1SiQiKamYpC%2BiIQmwgiJPwVriMpzFmggu5abswU%3D) made up to Oct.21st/2015.  It has not changed in years.  There are no corporate investors. 
    2) Looking at the balance sheet, there have been no changes in tangible assets since at least 2011.  This means that SPR doesn't actually buy stuff.  It is to all extents and purposes inactive, since even R&D companies have to buy stuff now and then.
    3) Looking at the balance sheets, it is impossible to imagine SPR ever having an employee or employees, much less the SPR "team".  Unless these employees were magically unpaid...
    4) If SPR has these licensee's, they sure as hell don't get paid for them.  Once again, look at the balance sheets.  No need to speculate.

    So:
    IMHO

    There are two possibilities.

    1.  He's got a working system that really works and he's beating off investors with an oak rod negotiating tax free dollars and a house in Majorca,

    OR

    2.  He can't replicate squat and is refocusing his life on commercial real estate sales while the market is good


    I don't know which is real, but IMHO, the force is with you, or not.

    Simple question. 

    If you found the cure for all cancers, would you hold back to maximize your personal ROI or give everything you know unconditionally?

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy, but it sure isn't option 1.

    Sounds like Roger has some corporate funding that includes an NDA.

    Question about your frustum dimensions... With a frustum that small how would you introduce microwaves, without significantly altering the resonance. It seems that might have been one of the problems that Tajmar and Fielder ran into.

    Roger unequivocally does NOT have corporate funding as of Oct 21st of this year.

    Wasn't there mention somewhere that Roger had some funding/contract with Boeing? That would very likely come with property rights and an NDA.

    Roger does not have a funding contract with Boeing (He himself has said as much in an aviation week interview).

    Roger has told me SPR has multiple licensees, which I suspect pay fees. Not good for Roger to disclose what they consider to be proprietary information and have a bunch of angry licensees.

    No.  Roger has no licensees that pay fees, and never has.

    To my understanding, Roger has disclosed as much as he wishes to disclose. Apparently he has no desire to upset any contracts and/or NDA obligations that are current binding on him.

    Maybe, by the magic of terrible business practices, Roger has signed NDAs with external parties without actually getting paid for them.  It is at least a possibility, and stupider things have happened.  Personally, I have a hard time thinking anyone could be that clueless.  I highly doubt Roger has an NDA.

    So now to point (3).  In my opinion, Roger has been deliberately misleading in the information he has given to TT and which has been subsequently passed on to this forum.  If you look through the balance sheets and the annual returns which are all right here (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04097991/filing-history), you'll see there is no team, or licensees, or big contracts that would necessitate an NDA.  SPR hasn't [/b]bought[/b] things in years.  It has moved a few pounds between accounts; that's it.  It never had cash flows that would have been commensurate with employees or contracts. 

    So we really only have two options:
    1) SPR has intentionally misfiled it's public records.
    2) Roger has been intentionally misleading about the state SPR is in.

    It leave it to the audience of this forum to choose which one they think it is.
    Wolfy, while all this is possible, not sure it has a place here if I understand the purpose of the nsf threads. On another forum, I was struck by the repetitive and negative tone against, not the theories or experiments, but against individuals. You would agree this is a poor substitute for relevant discussion on the device itself.

    While I have no say so here, id like to think we're a cut above that ad hominem style, for this place seems to be the focus on specifics, not individuals.

    Like I say, I'm no official here, but all should probably stick to theory and experiments to avoid becoming considered reputable. Just a humble suggestion and no offense intended pal.

    Issue with is that someone has repeatedly prevented discussion of technical details based upon claims concerning NDAs & asking to ground the discussion on the credibility of a person....
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 11:15 pm

    Secret sauce dielectric insert ?

    Paul March from NASA was kind enough to provide all kinds of details, geometry and material for the dielectric he used.  Please take a look at previous threads, they were very informative. 

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26@1-3GHz.   They purchased the inexpensive, run of the mill, extruded HDPE rod from McMaster Carr  :)

    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).

    From my understanding Roger sent the attached to EW to assist their initial efforts.

    Note in this build that the big end adjusts in and out, the small end dielectric rod adjusts in and out and there is an impedance matching adjustment in the Rf energy feed in waveguide. So lots to physically tune to get an optimal Force generated.

    This is from his Experimental EmDrive which used a dielectric rod at the small end. Note it was longer than wide and was, I believe, internally resonant at 1/2 wave of the internal to the dielectric guide wavelength.

    Inside an air filled cavity, the guide wavelength is longer than the free wavelength.
    Inside a dielectric, the guide wavelength is shorter than the free wavelength.

    Why EW decided to use a fixed disc when Roger used an adjustable rod is unknown.
    Not unknown.

    They decided to

    1) Calculate beforehand with COMSOL Finite Element Analysis the natural frequency/amplitude spectrum with the dielectric insert. 

    2) Rather than use an adjustable rod to fine-tune the natural frequency of the cavity to achieve optimal resonance at a fixed excitation frequency, they decided (since they thought they had that ability), to fine-tune the excitation frequency in order to achieve the peak resonance without the need of the adjustable rod.

    3) Shawyer has never reported the ability to model (with finite element analysis, or other suitable means like finite differences, etc.) the adjustable rod to fine-tune the natural frequency.  Such a method implies a change of the geometry of the cavity, hence the reason for NASA's choice as they preferred to keep the geometry constant and well known.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/08/2015 11:19 pm
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: francesco nicoli on 12/08/2015 11:20 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don

    if the guy and his company are lying, this is for sure a development because it weakens the credibility of one of the main fields of research in the area, as far as I understand. I am no phisicist, but I happen to be an economist, and it looks really like the guy is lying.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/08/2015 11:48 pm
    Good thing about this is exercising my old builders skills, not to mention test stand design, all on a budget. Its enough to convince something is there, being open minded, it still could be a large measurement error, but nobody's been smart enough to nail that hypothesis...

    Hey! I have seen your youtube videos and some of the earlier reports here. I am not sure I have seen the latest though... Do you have a link / place where it is all summarized? Then, if you're getting some non-zero thrust and you still have time and energy to spend on this, it seems like it would be very beneficial to do a "sensitivity" analysis on as many variables as possible. I mean, change the particular thrustum dimension a bit (one at a time), record the change in thrust; modify the cavity Q (hang a potato inside :) ) and again, record the change in thrust. For anyone trying to come up with a theory behind this effect the info would be of great help.

    ...Brute force magnetron approach, while simple, cheap and fun, is just not the best way to convince oneself (and others) due to a large number of uncertainties involved. The more so when measuring in the vertical direction. I fully expect anyone with a magnetron to detect some level of movement to their test platform just based on large voltages, currents and an ungodly amount of dissipated heat involved. This is not to say that any and all observed movement is due to those artifacts, it is just a lot harder to separate. Well, this is unless the damn thing just begins to rotate :) Hard to argue with that.

    ...My 2 biggest EmDrive concerns at the moment:

    1. The news that Boeing is no longer working with Shawyer (yet they have been, and we all know it takes just a few months to verify feasibility for this project given enough time and money).

    2. The claim by EW that an empty cavity does not produce thrust under pure single freq RF excitation (yet it does product thrust under some secret sauce "dielectric" insert, which they are for some reason telling us nothing about).

    This is just bizarre.
    All 24 videos are here http://youtu.be/lVXhynPYj6E?list=PLXewH43ZGxxlti0ZETtkON6zWKZ60IENl
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/08/2015 11:50 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don

    if the guy and his company are lying, this is for sure a development because it weakens the credibility of one of the main fields of research in the area, as far as I understand. I am no phisicist, but I happen to be an economist, and it looks really like the guy is lying.

    Except he's never been doing any research in the area, just what looks like promotion.  The people at EW/this forum/etc. are the ones that constitute the main body of actual science in this field.

    And Dr. Rodal, I'm not sure that quoting war propaganda from 2000+ years ago is going to help, given the conversation where we all just agreed to leave Shawyer out of the discussion excepting the technical details.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/08/2015 11:52 pm
    Why I wrote "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    Well, Hannibal's invasion of Italy in the Second Punic War culminated in the Carthaginian victory at Cannae.

    For a short while I thought that the Cannae EM Drive drive was named after that historical battle, but then I was told that the name refers to the engineer Scotty in the Star Trek series and his recurring and plaintive protest that he (Scotty)

    'cannae change the laws of physics'  ;)

    (https://v.dreamwidth.org/636795/628117)

    Seeing Francesco's  signature (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454739#msg1454739)  "Delenda Carthago!" reminded me of that. 

    (https://miepvonsydow.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/e2809ccarthago-delenda-est-carthage-must-be-destroyed-e2809d.jpg?w=590)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 12:12 am
    There is no bad data. No bad data unless it's tainted with misinformation and speculations. I've seen it with SPR and even EagleWorks when Dr. White goes on about getting to Mars in incredible times, or the Chinese posting in a paper they have a version that's 320,000 the thrust of a photon rocket, even Cannae LLC has published a force of 285,500 times a photon rocket. They all are publishing hard to believe results or speculating about flying cars and warp travel or Mars in a weekend. As an Engineer it drives me crazier than a Crazy Eddie from a "Mote in God's Eye".

    You must take it with a grain of salt and not too seriously if your going to be building and testing. It has been one of the harder parts of what I'm doing, to weed out the hyperbola and find the solid data because I seriously wanted to build the best with what I have.

    I'm not quite ready to publish any results, I'm going to need much more time, to check and cross check, and recheck and log data and then recheck everything again. I said I was going to pick this apart bit by bit piece by piece and I have. Now I recheck it all because I want there to be no question (well some I'm sure) with my results.

    Bear with me.


    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/09/2015 12:25 am
    Well, Hannibal's invasion of Italy in the Second Punic War culminated in the Carthaginian victory at Cannae.

    For a short while I thought that the Cannae EM Drive drive was named after that historical battle, but then I was told that the name refers to the engineer Scotty in the Star Trek series and his recurring and plaintive protest that he (Scotty)

    'cannae change the laws of physics' ;)
    ...

    That's hilarious!! I hadn't heard that.   ;D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tellmeagain on 12/09/2015 12:28 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WIINpvIoITxqBF2buc5YNO0tY_XwbICufbIRtqqkT5e5n5bULg=w1289-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aVrlhEG9uWXBhEukIXfmUnUyPTjEJq0SANxFk6Qx3VY6B95eOA=w986-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YbGFHQCrZmu1NWJJulwfAI0e2MM8V8vECWuU2rUC88v1JZ-Otg=w986-h739-no)


    Good job! Actually I think you can obtain thrust with your current setting. You need only to do the following. I believe NASA and Dresden got their thrusts this way. First, align your balance so it's on the North-South direction. Second, do not let your ground wire (the white wires) rest on the board. Lift them to the air, the higher the better. See my image. Then you fire your experiment again and you will likely get thrust. Enjoy!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheUberOverLord on 12/09/2015 12:45 am
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don

    What was brought up about SPR is found in evidence readily available and linked. I'm more than happy not to talk about SPR, but like has been mentioned, a certain individual keeps repeating claims of NDAs and licensing/licensees that simply is not found in evidence, fact, or reality. If they can stop, then I can certainly agree that everyone should stop discussing it. It's not an attack, it's simply fact based on very credible evidence. So if you'd like the moderators to come in and moderate, by all means do so. Hopefully they stop incorrect speculation of NDAs\Licensing\etc. I would love for it to be just about the science.

    Can I make myself more clear. Since it seems you're missing the point?

    If a certain individual keeps repeating that a famous living person is gay? Is it ok to take this topic off topic when they do that? Is it ok to not quote the person saying what they are so others reading posts understand why suddenly who is gay matters here?

    Worse, that others know that this famous person being said to be gay here has never stated here. That they are gay here.

    The issues are:

    1. Context is being lost. It's easy to come here thinking that Roger is posting false claims here, about what he or SPR is doing. Since in many cases it becomes impossible to determine why this is even being talked about here. Since no linkage is provided in many cases. That someone is making claims about someone else who has not said anything personally here about those claims being made about them by others.

    2. Is it justifiable to take a topic off topic because someone says something else about someone else here? What's next? Someone here claims that someone who's not posting here in this forum thread is broke and then the topic here changes to dig and see how much money that someone has?

    Those are the issues. If you wan't to argue about things the actual person being talked about here has never stated here personally. Then at least please ("always") link back on WHY you are doing that. So that others don't think someone is making claims about themselves here. When they have not.

    So the readers here ("always") know whom is making false claims here and clearly understand that the person in question is not here making claims about themselves.

    Don
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rq3 on 12/09/2015 01:03 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/09/2015 01:05 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.

    I have no background in microwave resonance, but I have wondered about the Quartz rod having some affect. Could you elaborate?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/09/2015 01:16 am
    @rfmwguy,

    Is this a picture of what is sticking into your cavity or did you make a modification? See Attached.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 01:18 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.

    I have no background in microwave resonance, but I have wondered about the Quartz rod having some affect. Could you elaborate?

    EDIT: Summary: the quartz rod will  have an effect on the natural frequency, the reflection/transmission of microwaves, and the Quality Factor (Q), which depends on its geometrical dimensions and its complex permittivity, as follows:

    1) EFFECT ON NATURAL FREQUENCY and on REFLECTION/TRANSMISSION of microwaves

    The effect of a dielectric (on the natural frequency,the reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.) is related to the value of its relative permittivity.   The relative permittivity of vacuum is exactly one , and the relative permittivity of air is practically one.

    For a given dielectric geometry, the greater the value of the relative permittivity, the greater its effect on the natural frequency (it will lower the natural frequency, when compared to an empty cavity).

    Tefllon (PTFE) has a relative permittivity = 2

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26

    Glycol modified Polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) has a relative permittivity=2.6

    The relative permittivity of Quartz is 4.5, which is twice as high as the relative permittivity of the dielectric used by NASA.  EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of 3.75

    The effect of the dielectric is also related to its geometrical shape.   I imagine (but don't know this for a fact) that the rod contemplated here might have a smaller volume than the volume of the dielectric insert used by NASA, and if so its smaller volume will ameliorate the effect

    __________________________________________________

    2) EFFECT ON QUALITY OF RESONANCE (Q)

    In addition to the effect of the real part of the permittivity on the natural frequency, and the reflection/transmission of microwaves (discussed above), the imaginary part is also important, as it is the imaginary part of the permittivity is related to power losses, that decrease the quality factor (Q)

    All these materials have different values of the imaginary part of the relative permittivty and hence will produce different effects on Q. 

    For a given dielectric geometry, the higher the value of TanDelta, the smaller the quality factor (Q).

    Loss Factor "TanDelta"  (the ratio of the imaginary part of the permittivty to the real part) :

    Teflon (PTFE) has a TanDelta = 0.00028 at 3 GHz

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a TanDelta = 0.00031 at 3 GHz

    Quartz has a TanDelta = 0.00006 @ 3 GHz  (about 1/5 th of the value of HDPE)

    EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of TanDelta < 0.0004

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/09/2015 01:24 am
    @rfmwguy,

    Is this a picture of what is sticking into your cavity or did you make a modification? See Attached.
    This is it exactly
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 01:33 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.
    I'm somewhat versed in the PETGs and PTFEs and HDPEs, (not like Dr. Rodel, his pores ooze Polyethylene). One of my patents used a PTEG as a Semi Wafer Carrier and fracturing platform... and we tried much of the Polyethylene and gads there must have been 20 different materials we profiled.

    http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    As far as the glass rod, I'm not so sure if I could have picked a better material...but
              Electrical Resistivity (350°C)   7 x 107 ohm cm
              Dielectric Properties (20°C, 1 MHz)   
              Constant   3.75
              Strength   5 x 107 V/m
              Loss Factor   <4 x 10-4
              Dissipation Factor   <1 x 10-4

    If you know something I haven't looked into please let me know, I need to profile it into my data.

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 01:42 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.

    I have no background in microwave resonance, but I have wondered about the Quartz rod having some affect. Could you elaborate?
    It is one of the few materials I could use that the microwaves simply don't see very well at all. It doesn't react to any great extent to the magnetic or the electrical fields and thermally is 5.5 x 10-7 cm/cm °C for it's TEC Thermal Expansion Coefficient. Means it doesn't grow as it gets hot.

    The real plus is when I get to the point in doing a Laser interferometer I can use it to shine a laser through the middle onto a mirrored end and measure results.

    Hope it helps.

    Shell

    Added: I think NASa was using the High Density PolyeEthylene because they were looking for magneto-chiral matter and High Density PolyeEthylene.

    Ref.
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1800

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/09/2015 01:45 am
    @rfmwguy,

    Is this a picture of what is sticking into your cavity or did you make a modification? See Attached.

    Microwave oven engineers use a launcher with a turned lip to bite into the metal mesh grounding washer surrounding the maggie antenna so to mount the maggie to the waveguide as attached. The launcher alters the depth of penetration of the maggie antenna into the waveguide.

    Please refer to pages 12 & 13 of the attached for details of the launcher and waveguide design used in most microwave ovens.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: dustinthewind on 12/09/2015 01:47 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WIINpvIoITxqBF2buc5YNO0tY_XwbICufbIRtqqkT5e5n5bULg=w1289-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aVrlhEG9uWXBhEukIXfmUnUyPTjEJq0SANxFk6Qx3VY6B95eOA=w986-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YbGFHQCrZmu1NWJJulwfAI0e2MM8V8vECWuU2rUC88v1JZ-Otg=w986-h739-no)


    Good job! Actually I think you can obtain thrust with your current setting. You need only to do the following. I believe NASA and Dresden got their thrusts this way. First, align your balance so it's on the North-South direction. Second, do not let your ground wire (the white wires) rest on the board. Lift them to the air, the higher the better. See my image. Then you fire your experiment again and you will likely get thrust. Enjoy!

    You also might consider as one possible test to put the frustum inside and attached to a cardboard or sealed box which is sprayed with styrafoam as an insulator outside so as to eliminate thrust from convection currents (uneven rising hot air flowing towards the back of the frustum, or expanding air from inside the frustum.)  Still I am uncertain the effects of buoyancy.  When the frustum heats up you might have to adjust the weight to keep it balanced (buoyancy) but maybe it would be negligible.  Do you have a way to ensure you are achieving resonance inside the frustum? (thermal camera, observing antenna, does it bulge outward?, ect.)  There should be some resistance to rotation, unless I am mistaken, due to the twisting cord holding the board. 

    Nice job. 

    P.S. another possibility below

    ...

    Other ideas that could be tried in conjunction is to have the RF Source away from the EM Drive (as planned by Shell) and somebody had a very good idea to have an identical EM drive at the other end of the beam, identical except that one EM Drive would have the magnetron excite resonance inside the EM drive while the other EM Drivei in the other end would just be producing heat from the magnetron because the RF is not directed to the inside of the cavity for that EM Drive.

    ...
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 02:32 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.

    I have no background in microwave resonance, but I have wondered about the Quartz rod having some affect. Could you elaborate?

    EDIT: Summary: the quartz rod will  have an effect on the natural frequency, the reflection/transmission of microwaves, and the Quality Factor (Q), which depends on its geometrical dimensions and its complex permittivity, as follows:

    1) EFFECT ON NATURAL FREQUENCY and on REFLECTION/TRANSMISSION of microwaves

    The effect of a dielectric (on the natural frequency,the reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.) is related to the value of its relative permittivity.   The relative permittivity of vacuum is exactly one , and the relative permittivity of air is practically one.

    For a given dielectric geometry, the greater the value of the relative permittivity, the greater its effect on the natural frequency, reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.

    Tefllon (PTFE) has a relative permittivity = 2

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26

    Glycol modified Polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) has a relative permittivity=2.6

    The relative permittivity of Quartz is 4.5, which is twice as high as the relative permittivity of the dielectric used by NASA.  EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of 3.75

    The effect of the dielectric is also related to its geometrical shape.   I imagine (but don't know this for a fact) that the rod contemplated here might have a smaller volume than the volume of the dielectric insert used by NASA, and if so its smaller volume will ameliorate the effect

    __________________________________________________

    2) EFFECT ON QUALITY OF RESONANCE (Q)

    In addition to the effect of the real part of the permittivity on the natural frequency, and the reflection/transmission of microwaves (discussed above), the imaginary part is also important, as it is the imaginary part of the permittivity is related to power losses, that decrease the quality factor (Q)

    All these materials have different values of the imaginary part of the relative permittivty and hence will produce different effects on Q. 

    For a given dielectric geometry, the higher the value of TanDelta, the smaller the quality factor (Q).

    Loss Factor "TanDelta"  (the ratio of the imaginary part of the permittivty to the real part) :

    Teflon (PTFE) has a TanDelta = 0.00028 at 3 GHz

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a TanDelta = 0.00031 at 3 GHz

    Quartz has a TanDelta = 0.00006 @ 3 GHz  (about 1/5 th of the value of HDPE)

    EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of TanDelta < 0.0004
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Edit 12/09/2015: corrected incorrect image Posted TM013 should have been TE013.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 02:42 am
    As I recall, the null test at EW was run without the dialectic registered anomalous forces, which I recall because many believed this to be a strong indicator of experimental error.

    If I recall correctly you have the bizarre aspects switched around.

    From Brady at page 18 (this has already been posted here before though):

    "There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust."

    They also keep saying how they are using COMSOL to "arrive at a viable thrust solution" without revealing anything about what that solution is based on.

    Also, from the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/):

    "These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert..."

    So they have a theory / a model of some kind, I don't really care how controversial it is, what I do care about is that until they have disclosed their (proposed) way to come up with a proper dielectric size and location, everyone else is in the dark, and replicating this effort remains essentially a voodoo.
    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    It's in my testing schedule.


    Shell

    Careful! PETG is Polyethylene terephthalate - glycol modified. PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). HDPE is high density polyethylene. If you folks are splitting millimeters on the frustum fab, inclusion of one dielectric while assuming the properties of another won't work. Just saying. In fact, the quartz rod running up your frustum is going to have one hell'uv an effect.

    I have no background in microwave resonance, but I have wondered about the Quartz rod having some affect. Could you elaborate?

    EDIT: Summary: the quartz rod will  have an effect on the natural frequency, the reflection/transmission of microwaves, and the Quality Factor (Q), which depends on its geometrical dimensions and its complex permittivity, as follows:

    1) EFFECT ON NATURAL FREQUENCY and on REFLECTION/TRANSMISSION of microwaves

    The effect of a dielectric (on the natural frequency,the reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.) is related to the value of its relative permittivity.   The relative permittivity of vacuum is exactly one , and the relative permittivity of air is practically one.

    For a given dielectric geometry, the greater the value of the relative permittivity, the greater its effect on the natural frequency, reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.

    Tefllon (PTFE) has a relative permittivity = 2

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26

    Glycol modified Polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) has a relative permittivity=2.6

    The relative permittivity of Quartz is 4.5, which is twice as high as the relative permittivity of the dielectric used by NASA.  EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of 3.75

    The effect of the dielectric is also related to its geometrical shape.   I imagine (but don't know this for a fact) that the rod contemplated here might have a smaller volume than the volume of the dielectric insert used by NASA, and if so its smaller volume will ameliorate the effect

    __________________________________________________

    2) EFFECT ON QUALITY OF RESONANCE (Q)

    In addition to the effect of the real part of the permittivity on the natural frequency, and the reflection/transmission of microwaves (discussed above), the imaginary part is also important, as it is the imaginary part of the permittivity is related to power losses, that decrease the quality factor (Q)

    All these materials have different values of the imaginary part of the relative permittivty and hence will produce different effects on Q. 

    For a given dielectric geometry, the higher the value of TanDelta, the smaller the quality factor (Q).

    Loss Factor "TanDelta"  (the ratio of the imaginary part of the permittivty to the real part) :

    Teflon (PTFE) has a TanDelta = 0.00028 at 3 GHz

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a TanDelta = 0.00031 at 3 GHz

    Quartz has a TanDelta = 0.00006 @ 3 GHz  (about 1/5 th of the value of HDPE)

    EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of TanDelta < 0.0004
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Correct that is true as long as you are successful to excite a transverse electric fundamental mode like TE012 or TE013 (the blue arrows are the Electric Field).

    I should have noted that the dielectric effect of the rod being discussed would take place primarily for transverse magnetic (TM) low modes, in which case you would have an electric field in the longitudinal direction.

    I was  recalling that the Meep simulations had a very hard time exciting TE modes.  The Meep simulations at the time I was involved were TM modes, and aero was trying different kinds of loops.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/09/2015 02:43 am
    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).
    For general information to readers that are unfamiliar with previous threads, Paul March also discussed (in the same NSF threads) <<why_ they decided to use it in the first place and>> and therefore <<how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location.>>

    A link (or a good search term to use) would be very much appreciated. If something does not come up in the first few pages of search results (either from Google or even when searching here at nsf) then for all practical purposes it does not exist… Searching at nsf for “Paul March” does not reveal much. Browsing through the entire 1000+ posts of the 5 EmDrive threads is not feasible.


    From my understanding Roger sent the attached to EW to assist their initial efforts.

    (2002 Notes for NASA0001.pdf)
    ...
    Why EW decided to use a fixed disc when Roger used an adjustable rod is unknown.

    “… where a dielectric section is used to partially compensate for the wavefront phase error caused by tapered waveguide section.”.  Sure, this helps a lot. :) Sarcasm aside, these are actually very important papers (which IMHO should be at the front of the wiki design section, yet they aren’t), indicating that thrust is not a given even when powering with a magnetron. Furthermore, the paper basically tells that there are 3 knobs, and one is welcome to tune those somehow until thrust is obtained. I do not envy those folks here who’ve chosen to take the magnetron route, as it turns out that even with magnetron wide power spectrum some level of manual cavity tuning is apparently still required.

    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    Shell

    Yes, absolutely there is enough data out there to replicate the EW device exactly. My problem is that I do not have a wide-band 30W RF power amplifier to excite their geometry at 1932 MHz. I have 30W at 2.30-2.35 GHz (or 15-20W between 2.25-2.45 GHz). I know how to re-size the frustum (or, at least, what the resize process is supposed to be based on), I know how to match the coupler and to excite a desired mode. Yet I have absolutely no idea what to do about the dielectric insert. If anybody knows then, please, advise me, and I promise to shut up, go build the cavity, power it up and report the results.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/09/2015 02:55 am
    Meep can help you discover both the resonant frequency and the mode(s) of the frustrum.  In fact, the programming necessary to set this up is already in the NSF-1701.ctl file.   It just needs to be switched on.   The process is explained in the Meep tutorial (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Meep_Tutorial).

    It works by hitting the cavity with a gaussian pulse and then analyzes the 'ringing'.  Pretty cool.  I have not tried it yet.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 03:00 am
    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).
    For general information to readers that are unfamiliar with previous threads, Paul March also discussed (in the same NSF threads) <<why_ they decided to use it in the first place and>> and therefore <<how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location.>>

    A link (or a good search term to use) would be very much appreciated. If something does not come up in the first few pages of search results (either from Google or even when searching here at nsf) then for all practical purposes it does not exist… Searching at nsf for “Paul March” does not reveal much. Browsing through the entire 1000+ posts of the 5 EmDrive threads is not feasible.


    From my understanding Roger sent the attached to EW to assist their initial efforts.

    (2002 Notes for NASA0001.pdf)
    ...
    Why EW decided to use a fixed disc when Roger used an adjustable rod is unknown.

    “… where a dielectric section is used to partially compensate for the wavefront phase error caused by tapered waveguide section.”.  Sure, this helps a lot. :) Sarcasm aside, these are actually very important papers (which IMHO should be at the front of the wiki design section, yet they aren’t), indicating that thrust is not a given even when powering with a magnetron. Furthermore, the paper basically tells that there are 3 knobs, and one is welcome to tune those somehow until thrust is obtained. I do not envy those folks here who’ve chosen to take the magnetron route, as it turns out that even with magnetron wide power spectrum some level of manual cavity tuning is apparently still required.

    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    Shell

    Yes, absolutely there is enough data out there to replicate the EW device exactly. My problem is that I do not have a wide-band 30W RF power amplifier to excite their geometry at 1932 MHz. I have 30W at 2.30-2.35 GHz (or 15-20W between 2.25-2.45 GHz). I know how to re-size the frustum (or, at least, what the resize process is supposed to be based on), I know how to match the coupler and to excite a desired mode. Yet I have absolutely no idea what to do about the dielectric insert. If anybody knows then, please, advise me, and I promise to shut up, go build the cavity, power it up and report the results.

    The main reason why Paul March used the dielectric (it was Paul March's idea) has to do with the Mach Effect as March worked on the Mach effect for a considerable time, and as Prof.Woodward is on record as stating that that is the only way that an EM Drive can have thrust.

    You can (if you are interested) read Mach effect papers.  Woodward has a book (Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes (Springer)), and NSF has various threads particularly dedicated to the Mach effect.  If you are not familiar with Woodward's theory, it will take you a considerable time to go through that.

    Paul March used to say that the Woodward's Mach Effect and White's QV are two signs of the same coin.

    The most straightforward thing to do (that would save all that time) is to replicate exactly what NASA did, including the excitation frequency with a dielectric, at around 1.9 GHz.  If you excite at 2.3 GHz you are not exactly replicating their experiments.

    ____________________

    The Search button here at NSF is unworkable and using  Google search is not much better.

    That's why the threads are replicated in the EM Drive wiki:

    http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

    so that they can be searched much easier within the wiki. 





    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/09/2015 03:12 am
    Yes, I know what they used and even the exact size and placement. What I don't know is _why_ they decided to use it in the first place and, more importantly, _how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location. (And hence what particular size and location am I supposed to use for my build targeted at 2325 MHz).
    For general information to readers that are unfamiliar with previous threads, Paul March also discussed (in the same NSF threads) <<why_ they decided to use it in the first place and>> and therefore <<how_ they arrived at using this particular size and location.>>

    A link (or a good search term to use) would be very much appreciated. If something does not come up in the first few pages of search results (either from Google or even when searching here at nsf) then for all practical purposes it does not exist… Searching at nsf for “Paul March” does not reveal much. Browsing through the entire 1000+ posts of the 5 EmDrive threads is not feasible.


    From my understanding Roger sent the attached to EW to assist their initial efforts.

    (2002 Notes for NASA0001.pdf)
    ...
    Why EW decided to use a fixed disc when Roger used an adjustable rod is unknown.

    “… where a dielectric section is used to partially compensate for the wavefront phase error caused by tapered waveguide section.”.  Sure, this helps a lot. :) Sarcasm aside, these are actually very important papers (which IMHO should be at the front of the wiki design section, yet they aren’t), indicating that thrust is not a given even when powering with a magnetron. Furthermore, the paper basically tells that there are 3 knobs, and one is welcome to tune those somehow until thrust is obtained. I do not envy those folks here who’ve chosen to take the magnetron route, as it turns out that even with magnetron wide power spectrum some level of manual cavity tuning is apparently still required.

    There is enough out there looking at the blog here and the pictures of the tests to ascertain with a good degree of confidence what NASA was doing with the PETG and it's related to the Quantum Vacuum Plasma thruster theory of Dr. White.

    Shell

    Yes, absolutely there is enough data out there to replicate the EW device exactly. My problem is that I do not have a wide-band 30W RF power amplifier to excite their geometry at 1932 MHz. I have 30W at 2.30-2.35 GHz (or 15-20W between 2.25-2.45 GHz). I know how to re-size the frustum (or, at least, what the resize process is supposed to be based on), I know how to match the coupler and to excite a desired mode. Yet I have absolutely no idea what to do about the dielectric insert. If anybody knows then, please, advise me, and I promise to shut up, go build the cavity, power it up and report the results.

    The main reason why Paul March used the dielectric (it was Paul March's idea) has to do with the Mach Effect as March worked on the Mach effect for a considerable time, and as Prof.Woodward is on record as stating that that is the only way that an EM Drive can have thrust.

    You can (if you are interested) read Mach effect papers.  Woodward has a book (Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes (Springer)), and NSF has various threads particularly dedicated to the Mach effect.  If you are not familiar with Woodward's theory, it will take you a considerable time to go through that.

    Paul March used to say that the Woodward's Mach Effect and White's QV are two signs of the same coin.

    The most straightforward thing to do (that would save all that time) is to replicate exactly what NASA did, including the excitation frequency with a dielectric, at around 1.9 GHz.  If you excite at 2.3 GHz you are not exactly replicating their experiments.

    ____________________

    The Search button here at NSF is unworkable and using  Google search is not much better.

    That's why the threads are replicated in the EM Drive wiki:

    http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

    so that they can be searched much easier within the wiki. 


    Thanks for that last bit about the search button and Wiki alternate, I had been having so much trouble trying to search I extracted all five threads as PDFs I could search offline, but even that has serious difficulties.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 03:17 am
    http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

    This page has been accessed 63,044 times.

    That's an impressive amount of people.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/09/2015 03:18 am
    Yes, absolutely there is enough data out there to replicate the EW device exactly. My problem is that I do not have a wide-band 30W RF power amplifier to excite their geometry at 1932 MHz. I have 30W at 2.30-2.35 GHz (or 15-20W between 2.25-2.45 GHz). I know how to re-size the frustum (or, at least, what the resize process is supposed to be based on), I know how to match the coupler and to excite a desired mode. Yet I have absolutely no idea what to do about the dielectric insert. If anybody knows then, please, advise me, and I promise to shut up, go build the cavity, power it up and report the results.

    If you want to build a frustum would suggest you excite in TE013 and don't use a dielectric. I can then supply the frustum design.

    Very strongly suggest you:

    1) buy a miniVNA Tiny.

    2) devise a method to measure the forward and reflected power from your Rf amp. Sure the VNA can give you numbers but you need to see what your Rf amp is seeing as you vary the excitation freq.

    3) have the ability to step the freq input into the Rf amp +-1kHz to find TE013 resonance.

    4) use the attached 2 or 3 loop, middle of the big end plate, antenna to excite TE013 mode. TM113 mode has the same guide wavelength and may be excited as a degenerative mode in place of or alongside the desired TE013 mode. This centre of the big end plate antenna arrangement eliminates doubt about where along the side wall to place the excitation antenna.

    This multi 1/2 loop antenna design is what I'll be testing for my build. The lead author has a 4 loop printed antenna paper out but paywalled.

    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=6354228

    Have emailed him asking to receive a copy and to be able to share the paper with other solid state Rf exciter EmDrive builders. Also will share what I'm building with him as he may have a few suggestions for a 2.45GHz design.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: meberbs on 12/09/2015 03:26 am
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Correct that is true as long as you are successful to excite a transverse electric fundamental mode like TE012 or TE013 (the blue arrows are the Electric Field).

    I should have noted that the dielectric effect of the rod being discussed would take place primarily for transverse magnetic (TM) low modes, in which case you would have an electric field in the longitudinal direction.

    I was  recalling that the Meep simulations had a very hard time exciting TE modes.  The Meep simulations at the time I was involved were TM modes, and aero was trying different kinds of loops.

    Am I missing something? That picture says TM013 directly in the picture. Also considering the boundary conditions, it looks like a TM with Red E fields, since the red lines indicate strong field normal to the end plates (and side walls). Plus the blue lines have significant components near and parallel to the surfaces.

    A TE mode I expect to be similar, with the red and blue switched, but the E field would decrease in strength near the walls (similar to how the lowest blue slice looks in that picture, but for the middle slices). Plus related changes to the B field due to its boundary conditions.

    Also, if this picture is a TM mode, I'd agree with Rodal's statement that TM modes plus the center rod dielectric would cause complications, since there is strong central E field parallel to the rod.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/09/2015 04:33 am
    Aero and I have been working to bring me up to speed on meep - now have it running in VirtualBox on my Intel i7 laptop and have run the NSF-1701.ctl successfully.  Working hard to understand the data and control file. His help has been INVALUABLE, I never would have been able to do this on my own.  My goal is to be able to fully animate the complete data set with E and H fields at about 100 time slices to the cycle.  Figuring out how to visualize that in a reasonable way will be fun :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/09/2015 05:22 am
    The main reason why Paul March used the dielectric (it was Paul March's idea) has to do with the Mach Effect as March worked on the Mach effect for a considerable time, and as Prof.Woodward is on record as stating that that is the only way that an EM Drive can have thrust.

    You can (if you are interested) read Mach effect papers.  Woodward has a book (Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes (Springer)), and NSF has various threads particularly dedicated to the Mach effect.  If you are not familiar with Woodward's theory, it will take you a considerable time to go through that.

    Paul March used to say that the Woodward's Mach Effect and White's QV are two signs of the same coin.

    Thank you for the info. Much appreciated. And it does indeed look very applicable to what may be happening inside the EmDrive cavity. But then, reading “Woodward-Effect-Math-Modeling-by-Paul-March-2006.pdf”, they claim to be getting a few mN of thrust simply from a couple of high-voltage capacitors and a few turns of wire on top. So why are we messing up with all these cumbersome structures? :) Anyway, this will be something to try up next, right after confirming thrust from one of these flying buckets of copper.

    If you want to build a frustum would suggest you excite in TE013 and don't use a dielectric. I can then supply the frustum design.

    See, there is a disconnect... EW claims there will be no thrust without a dielectric, no matter the mode. I am thinking.. what the hell.. at about $100 in copper costs per frustum I can afford to build another one, with a dielectric, if the empty one produces nothing. (I cannot just attach a dielectric to the same cavity, as it will move the resonant frequencies, most likely moving it out of my 2.3-2.35 GHz band).

    Very strongly suggest you:

    1) buy a miniVNA Tiny.

    2) devise a method to measure the forward and reflected power from your Rf amp. Sure the VNA can give you numbers but you need to see what your Rf amp is seeing as you vary the excitation freq.

    3) have the ability to step the freq input into the Rf amp +-1kHz to find TE013 resonance.

    I very strongly agree. This is why I have already got:

    -NWT-4000 scalar NA (to 4.4 GHz)
    -NWT-70-like spectrum analyzer (to 4.4 GHz)

    Both are certainly crappy, but good enough for the task.

    - windfreaktech.com SynthUSBII generator with EEPROM (to 4.4 GHz, 2.5 ppm, 1KHz per step)
    - Mini Circuits Wideband RF Amplifier ZX60-6013E-S+ pre-amp
    - 30W Class A Linear RF amplifier 2.3-2.45 GHz power RF.

    Also a working and calibrated BOONTON 4210 RF power meter.

    I am getting 30W at 2.3 GHz on a 50 Ohm dummy load when measured through a 20 dBm directional coupler.
    And the entire setup is powered by a 14V LiPo battery. I am reasonably sure I will be able to excite the cavity.

    Re: Dualloop29.12032613.pdf - Yeah, I've already googled the same paper :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 05:32 am
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Correct that is true as long as you are successful to excite a transverse electric fundamental mode like TE012 or TE013 (the blue arrows are the Electric Field).

    I should have noted that the dielectric effect of the rod being discussed would take place primarily for transverse magnetic (TM) low modes, in which case you would have an electric field in the longitudinal direction.

    I was  recalling that the Meep simulations had a very hard time exciting TE modes.  The Meep simulations at the time I was involved were TM modes, and aero was trying different kinds of loops.

    Am I missing something? That picture says TM013 directly in the picture. Also considering the boundary conditions, it looks like a TM with Red E fields, since the red lines indicate strong field normal to the end plates (and side walls). Plus the blue lines have significant components near and parallel to the surfaces.

    A TE mode I expect to be similar, with the red and blue switched, but the E field would decrease in strength near the walls (similar to how the lowest blue slice looks in that picture, but for the middle slices). Plus related changes to the B field due to its boundary conditions.

    Also, if this picture is a TM mode, I'd agree with Rodal's statement that TM modes plus the center rod dielectric would cause complications, since there is strong central E field parallel to the rod.
    This was done by Frank Davies of NASA and quite respected. His assessment is correct for the TE013 mode.

    This frustum was designed to excite as well as the Rf insertion to excite a TE mode.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 05:59 am
    I was doing some research on the different endcaps on a magnetron I ran across this video on IdiotTube, I mean youtube.

    This is one of the scariest video's I've seen playing with a magnetron. DO NOT DO THIS!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phf4tfKuuzo

    And you wonder why Dr. Rodal was posting to be very very careful.


    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/09/2015 06:28 am
    EDIT: Summary: the quartz rod will  have an effect on the natural frequency, the reflection/transmission of microwaves, and the Quality Factor (Q), which depends on its geometrical dimensions and its complex permittivity, as follows:

    1) EFFECT ON NATURAL FREQUENCY and on REFLECTION/TRANSMISSION of microwaves

    The effect of a dielectric (on the natural frequency,the reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.) is related to the value of its relative permittivity.   The relative permittivity of vacuum is exactly one , and the relative permittivity of air is practically one.

    For a given dielectric geometry, the greater the value of the relative permittivity, the greater its effect on the natural frequency, reflection/transmission of microwaves, etc.

    Tefllon (PTFE) has a relative permittivity = 2

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a relative permittivity =2.26

    Glycol modified Polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) has a relative permittivity=2.6

    The relative permittivity of Quartz is 4.5, which is twice as high as the relative permittivity of the dielectric used by NASA.  EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of 3.75

    The effect of the dielectric is also related to its geometrical shape.   I imagine (but don't know this for a fact) that the rod contemplated here might have a smaller volume than the volume of the dielectric insert used by NASA, and if so its smaller volume will ameliorate the effect

    __________________________________________________

    2) EFFECT ON QUALITY OF RESONANCE (Q)

    In addition to the effect of the real part of the permittivity on the natural frequency, and the reflection/transmission of microwaves (discussed above), the imaginary part is also important, as it is the imaginary part of the permittivity is related to power losses, that decrease the quality factor (Q)

    All these materials have different values of the imaginary part of the relative permittivty and hence will produce different effects on Q. 

    For a given dielectric geometry, the higher the value of TanDelta, the smaller the quality factor (Q).

    Loss Factor "TanDelta"  (the ratio of the imaginary part of the permittivty to the real part) :

    Teflon (PTFE) has a TanDelta = 0.00028 at 3 GHz

    The dielectric insert used by NASA was extruded High Density PolyeEthylene having a TanDelta = 0.00031 at 3 GHz

    Quartz has a TanDelta = 0.00006 @ 3 GHz  (about 1/5 th of the value of HDPE)

    EDIT: Shell quotes a value for the one she chose of TanDelta < 0.0004

    What's interesting is only EW claims the dielectric insert is necessary for thrust.   If we assume (just for the sake of argument) everyone who has built a cone shaped em fustrum has measured an anomalous thrust then the dielectric should not be needed.   So why did the EW fustrum show evidence of anomalous thrust with a dielectric insert but no thrust without?   Earlier Paul March stated the nylon screws holding the insert in place would melt and there was also a problem with arcing (I forget the term he used) in air.    Maybe there is more heating under the dielectric insert and that localized heating conducts more heat to the Aluminum balance arm of the torque pendulum.  This causes expansion of the arm which registers as a movement.   We don't know how much testing they did before arriving at the conclusion the dielectric insert was needed.   But they were disposed to using one from their earlier tests of Woodward's ideas.  We don't know how much they experimented with the mounting of the fustrum to the balance arm.  Mechanical considerations may be a larger factor than the use or omission of the dielectric.

    It would be interesting to see what results others find.  The dielectric does change the center of mass of the fustrum.   Maybe that's the reason for the difference.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/09/2015 06:51 am
    I was doing some research on the different endcaps on a magnetron I ran across this video on IdiotTube, I mean youtube.

    This is one of the scariest video's I've seen playing with a magnetron. DO NOT DO THIS!

    And you wonder why Dr. Rodal was posting to be very very careful.


    Shell

    Suggest the guy in the video should be nominated for the next Darwin Award! But then again, I'm sure he will make the list fairly soon.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 07:02 am
    I was doing some research on the different endcaps on a magnetron I ran across this video on IdiotTube, I mean youtube.

    This is one of the scariest video's I've seen playing with a magnetron. DO NOT DO THIS!

    And you wonder why Dr. Rodal was posting to be very very careful.


    Shell

    Suggest the guy in the video should be nominated for the next Darwin Award! But then again, I'm sure he will make the list fairly soon.
    Posthumously?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: TheTraveller on 12/09/2015 07:31 am
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    Hi Emmett,

    Have created a public Google Drive archive of your work to date. If you have more to add, please let me know and I'll upload it.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iZkZhSGwxRHlfRVk&usp=sharing

    BTW clever way to fold up a flange at each end of the frustum. I just might copy that idea for quick and simple frustum builds. Might add 2 sized rings at each end of the frustum to ensure the frustum is very round as Dave did.

    With your bent up flange and Dave's rings sure is now simple to make a frustum. Aluminium should do fine as a starter.

    Probably best to put the maggie antenna in the centre of the big end plate. Ok sure it will probably excite TM11x mode instead of TE01x mode but as both those modes have the same guide wavelength, such a frustum excitation system should be able to achieve resonance and generate measurable thrust.

    =========================

    Damn I'm really tempted to make such a simple Alum test rig as I now have both a linear 600W and switch mode powered 1,200W maggies at hand.

    OK folks this super simple build is gonna happen.


    Frustum dimensions:

    Big diam: 280 mm
    Small diam: 160 mm
    Length: 274 mm
    Material soft Alum sheet: 0.5 mm thick
    TE103 / TM113 resonance: 2.45GHz
    Maggie antenna feed: Centre of the big diam end plate.
    Frustum end flanges formed as per Emmett.
    Frustum circulation formed as per Dave.
    Force measurement initially as per Iulian. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0idDdYeXJfQ0tLLTA/view?usp=sharing
    All cutting done via hand.

    Alum should drop the Q about 25%, so should still be ok.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: francesco nicoli on 12/09/2015 08:31 am
    Dr. Rodal,

    With all due respect.

    1. Nobody is 100 percent certain what if any contractual obligations Roger and/or SPR is currently under.

    2. I find it odd why this ("Constantly") is repeated and sometimes even encouraged that some have 100 percent certainty due to simply not being able to locate this or that in the ("Public Domain") that because of that. Roger and/or SPR could not be under obligation(s) that are currently unknown.

    Your opinions and the opinions and/or encouragement of a others here to focus ("At moments") on the credibility of Roger and/or SPR has been repeated ad nauseam. While some might not like the man. Why not just let him do as he pleases and accept that most likely that's what he will do?

    All of us are here in this forum. Some normally lurking like myself and many taking the time to do EM Drive building.  Roger and/or SPR are not here to defend their reputations.

    I'm sure that you would not like to see someone encouraging others to trash-talk you where you were not active in that discussion?

    Can I be selfish and ask to focus on the task(s) at hand here? Without the continued need to from time to time, to expose ANYONE for WHO they really are or aren't?

    I don't read this forum thread to get the latest information on who can and cannot be trusted. Who is bad or good. I come here to get the latest information about EM Drive related opinions, suggestions and the status and results of analysis of EM Drive builders and testers. Not if Roger and/or SPR are trustworthy or are good or bad. Please think about that!

    Many people here look for your guidance. This type of "guidance" in relation to who Roger or SPR is or is not only encourages trash-talking of someone who is not here to defend themselves and just because they choose not to come here to defend themselves does not mean they deserve what is being encouraged to be said about them here.

    Thanks

    Don

    1. Yes we can be certain 100% of SPR's dealings year to date. This likely spills over to Shawyer himself due to his newer patents being owned by SPR.

    2. This posts have a purpose and that is to discredit false claims of NDAs, licensing, etc.

    The rest of what you have posted doesn't apply. It appears it rubs you the wrong way that they putting an end to speculatory fluff. It's not trash talking, it's simply fact-based truth.

    You're kidding me right?

    Do I need to ask a moderator to determine if this continued babble about can Roger or SPR be trusted applies here, in this thread in this forum as repeated subject matter?

    Please let me know. Because I won't argue about what is typical common sense.

    What does that have to do with: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications.

    Are you claiming that there are new "Developments" that show that Roger and/or SPR are worse than repeated here. Ad nauseam. Even so, what does that have to do with "Developments - related to space flight applications"?

    I suggest you get a "Peer Review" on this specific subject "character of" matter and afterwards ask a moderator if the results of it, belong here.

    Don

    What was brought up about SPR is found in evidence readily available and linked. I'm more than happy not to talk about SPR, but like has been mentioned, a certain individual keeps repeating claims of NDAs and licensing/licensees that simply is not found in evidence, fact, or reality. If they can stop, then I can certainly agree that everyone should stop discussing it. It's not an attack, it's simply fact based on very credible evidence. So if you'd like the moderators to come in and moderate, by all means do so. Hopefully they stop incorrect speculation of NDAs\Licensing\etc. I would love for it to be just about the science.

    Can I make myself more clear. Since it seems you're missing the point?

    If a certain individual keeps repeating that a famous living person is gay? Is it ok to take this topic off topic when they do that? Is it ok to not quote the person saying what they are so others reading posts understand why suddenly who is gay matters here?

    Worse, that others know that this famous person being said to be gay here has never stated here. That they are gay here.

    The issues are:

    1. Context is being lost. It's easy to come here thinking that Roger is posting false claims here, about what he or SPR is doing. Since in many cases it becomes impossible to determine why this is even being talked about here. Since no linkage is provided in many cases. That someone is making claims about someone else who has not said anything personally here about those claims being made about them by others.

    2. Is it justifiable to take a topic off topic because someone says something else about someone else here? What's next? Someone here claims that someone who's not posting here in this forum thread is broke and then the topic here changes to dig and see how much money that someone has?

    Those are the issues. If you wan't to argue about things the actual person being talked about here has never stated here personally. Then at least please ("always") link back on WHY you are doing that. So that others don't think someone is making claims about themselves here. When they have not.

    So the readers here ("always") know whom is making false claims here and clearly understand that the person in question is not here making claims about themselves.

    Don

    wrong.

    Those who claim SPR is a fake company have provided full & comprehensive links to official public documents on the basis of which there is no alternative than either 1) SPR is faking public accounts or 2) SPR is a dead company and its owner has repeatedly lied to one of the recurrent posters here. And this is of uttermost relevance for any discussion on the topic, and indeed constitutes, by its own right, a development.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/09/2015 10:36 am
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 11:10 am
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Correct that is true as long as you are successful to excite a transverse electric fundamental mode like TE012 or TE013 (the blue arrows are the Electric Field).

    I should have noted that the dielectric effect of the rod being discussed would take place primarily for transverse magnetic (TM) low modes, in which case you would have an electric field in the longitudinal direction.

    I was  recalling that the Meep simulations had a very hard time exciting TE modes.  The Meep simulations at the time I was involved were TM modes, and aero was trying different kinds of loops.

    Am I missing something? That picture says TM013 directly in the picture. Also considering the boundary conditions, it looks like a TM with Red E fields, since the red lines indicate strong field normal to the end plates (and side walls). Plus the blue lines have significant components near and parallel to the surfaces.

    A TE mode I expect to be similar, with the red and blue switched, but the E field would decrease in strength near the walls (similar to how the lowest blue slice looks in that picture, but for the middle slices). Plus related changes to the B field due to its boundary conditions.

    Also, if this picture is a TM mode, I'd agree with Rodal's statement that TM modes plus the center rod dielectric would cause complications, since there is strong central E field parallel to the rod.

    Yes, you are correct, Shell had attached the TM mode instead of the TE mode.  Thank you for pointing that out. I admit that I didn't take the time to look at what was written on the graph she had attached, because her text was referring to the TE mode, and because we know that the TE012 is the opposite of TM012.  This is shown as follows.  The TE012 mode is on page 18 of http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1084336  which does NOT include the TE013 mode because its frequency is too high: it is outside the frequency range investigated.

    What I wrote ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454789#msg1454789 ) applies to the TE012 mode, which has a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction, and the electric field is concentrated in the outer periphery (azimuthal) transverse direction. 

    meberbs  what you pointed out about the effect of the quartz rod is excellent, because the ONLY electromagnetic mode that has been verified by any tester is a transverse magnetic mode: TM212 by NASA, the only outfit that showed, with a thermal camera measurement that the mode excited was TM212.

    If Shell uses a quartz rod inside the cavity she is going to lower the natural frequency of the TM modes. 

    Additionally, Meep simulations have shown that it is difficult to excite the TE modes in these cavities.   

    Neither Shawyer nor Yang ever showed a single measurement proving what mode they actually excited.  They may have excited TM modes, for all we know. .

    The burden is on the tester's to prove what mode was excited in a test.   The audience should be deeply skeptical of claims about what actual mode was excited in tests.

    Besides NASA's experiments, that verified TM212, all the talk about modes by other testers is just that: talk.  Talk is cheap  ;)  .  A tester (Shawyer, Yang, etc.) needs to MEASURE the mode shape (NOT just the frequency) to show what mode was excited (if they want the audience to take their talk of mode shape seriously). 

    One would have to run an analysis with the rod inside the cavity (and any other objects one may want to place inside the cavity) to have an idea of what modes are present in the range of frequency one wants to excite. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 11:33 am
    Interestingly enough very little actions are present in the center at this TE013 mode
    Copper Frustum modes where the quartz rod is running. Well maybe actions that are very interesting.  :o
    Frank Davies NASA/JSC/EP5
    2/6/2014

    Correct that is true as long as you are successful to excite a transverse electric fundamental mode like TE012 or TE013 (the blue arrows are the Electric Field).

    I should have noted that the dielectric effect of the rod being discussed would take place primarily for transverse magnetic (TM) low modes, in which case you would have an electric field in the longitudinal direction.

    I was  recalling that the Meep simulations had a very hard time exciting TE modes.  The Meep simulations at the time I was involved were TM modes, and aero was trying different kinds of loops.

    Am I missing something? That picture says TM013 directly in the picture. Also considering the boundary conditions, it looks like a TM with Red E fields, since the red lines indicate strong field normal to the end plates (and side walls). Plus the blue lines have significant components near and parallel to the surfaces.

    A TE mode I expect to be similar, with the red and blue switched, but the E field would decrease in strength near the walls (similar to how the lowest blue slice looks in that picture, but for the middle slices). Plus related changes to the B field due to its boundary conditions.

    Also, if this picture is a TM mode, I'd agree with Rodal's statement that TM modes plus the center rod dielectric would cause complications, since there is strong central E field parallel to the rod.

    Yes, you are correct, Shell had attached the TM mode instead of the TE mode.  Thank you for pointing that out. I admit that I didn't take the time to look at what was written on the graph she had attached, because her text was referring to the TE mode, and because we know that the TE012 is the opposite of TM012.  This is shown as follows.  The TE012 mode is on page 18 of http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38577.0;attach=1084336  which does NOT include the TE013 mode because its frequency is too high: it is outside the frequency range investigated.

    What I wrote ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1454789#msg1454789 ) applies to the TE012 mode, which has a magnetic field in the longitudinal direction, and the electric field is concentrated in the outer periphery (azimuthal) transverse direction. 

    meberbs  what you pointed out about the effect of the quartz rod is excellent, because the ONLY electromagnetic mode that has been verified by any tester is a transverse magnetic mode: TM212 by NASA, the only outfit that showed, with a thermal camera measurement that the mode excited was TM212.

    Meep simulations have shown that it is difficult to excite the TE modes in these cavities.   

    Neither Shawyer nor Yang ever showed a single measurement proving what mode they actually excited.  They may have excited TM modes, for all we know. 

    The burden is on the tester's to prove what mode was excited in a test.   The audience should be deeply skeptical of claims about what actual mode was excited in tests
    It was my mistake in posting the incorrect mode. Thank you meberbs and Dr. Rodal for pointing it out.

    Shell

    added: You'll notice on page 28 the TE013 is included in the report.

    To verify my modes without meep I have secured a thermal camera and will be posting them in the near future.

    You are correct Dr. Rodal it was difficult in meep to excite a TE mode.
     
    Limitations of meep being able to simulate a loop antenna feed and terminations that are used in the real world testing.

    Software programming limitations in modeling.

    We tried snubs in the side walls, square loops and even loop loops. Loops positioned directly into the modes all with limited success.

    When we did get a pseudo loop working we positioned in meep on the side walls like EagleWorks used (EagleWorks had taken a picture of their setup using a loop in the sidewall close to the base we copied it), we got a severe rotational mode component. You did the poynting vectors and I'll post the gif animation if anyone would like.

    This left me with perusing the one course left and that was using dual waveguides in the bottom of the frustum. Meep has correctly simulated the mode.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/09/2015 12:17 pm
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/09/2015 12:51 pm
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)

    One thing I noticed in the upload feature is the ability to transfer files from one URL into the directory.  It's a verry fast option.  It took about 3 seconds to move in the meep tar file.

    Also, there's a bit of display flakiness I'm debugging.  If your directories start looking weird, just refresh the whole page.

    Right now it's set up that when you get a login, you get a specific folder (and sub folders) that you can add to.  For now, if you want to add to Theories, and Best Practices, that requires two different login accounts.  I'll try to fix that, but that's the way it is for now.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/09/2015 01:58 pm
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WIINpvIoITxqBF2buc5YNO0tY_XwbICufbIRtqqkT5e5n5bULg=w1289-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aVrlhEG9uWXBhEukIXfmUnUyPTjEJq0SANxFk6Qx3VY6B95eOA=w986-h739-no)

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YbGFHQCrZmu1NWJJulwfAI0e2MM8V8vECWuU2rUC88v1JZ-Otg=w986-h739-no)


    Good job! Actually I think you can obtain thrust with your current setting. You need only to do the following. I believe NASA and Dresden got their thrusts this way. First, align your balance so it's on the North-South direction. Second, do not let your ground wire (the white wires) rest on the board. Lift them to the air, the higher the better. See my image. Then you fire your experiment again and you will likely get thrust. Enjoy!
    Welcome to the board, PotomacNeuron, why not post with your Reddit name? Are you suggesting that "thrust" is Lorentz force or do you believe something else is at work here?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/09/2015 02:25 pm
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.

    Looks like you can remove either base plate and run Dr. Rodal's suggested experiment with one removed.

    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?

    You are  correct.  The thrust of a photonic rocket is easily calculable, and I had calculated it and included it for  comparison on the Wikipedia page on the EM Drive

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

    in the Experimental section

    It enables you to explore how for certain testers (Tajmar in vacuum) the EM Drive is claimed to produce a lower multiple of a photon rocket: barely 8 times,  while others (most prominently, Yang) it is claimed to produce several orders of magnitude greater thrust per input power (320,000 times !!).

    If experimenters could safely run (using all shielding precautions) the EM Drive with the closed end, and also without the end (open) and if the results of the experiment are the same (or higher) with the end open, it would show that the claimed effect is not due to a closed cavity.  Shawyer and Yang claim that the EM Drive effect is intimately related to being a closed-cavity.  It is the fact that the EM Drive is a closed cavity that is most offensive to scientists, as a closed cavity that cannot leak any fields or matter to the exterior should not be capable of self acceleration.

    You expect to put the whole room in a faraday cage or just make another exposed magnetron YouTube video?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 02:42 pm
    A tester (Shawyer, Yang, etc.) needs to MEASURE the mode shape (NOT just the frequency) to show what mode was excited (if they want the audience to take their talk of mode shape seriously). 

    Each TEmn and TMmn mode has a different cutoff wavelength and from that a different guide wavelength and for cavity resonance modes TEmnp and TMmnp a different number of p 1/2 guide waves fitting from end plate to end plate and from that a different resonance freq. However that is not true for TE01x and TM11x modes as the guide wavelength and resonance freq are the same as long as the p is the same.

    EW did align S21 VNA scan resonance peaks with predicted frustum resonance frequencies as in the attached.

    1) Cut-off wavelength is a concept associated with open waveguides, and not with closed resonating cavities (please refer to undergraduate textbooks).  The EM Drive is a closed resonating cavity, not an open waveguide.  Closed cavities (unlike open waveguides) can resonate at wavelengths beyond the cut-off (frequencies lower than the cutoff for a waveguide).

    2) The audience should note that the EM Drive tested by Shawyer, Yang, Tajmar, NASA and others, is a frustrum of a cone, instead of a circular cylindrical cavity.  Thus, the use of the cylindrical cavity nomenclature  TEmnp and TMmnp , TE01x and TM11x, has to be used with extreme caution.   For frustums of a cone that are close in geometrical shape to a cylindrical cavity, there are mode shapes in the frustrum of a cone that correspond to the mode shapes of a cylindrical cavity (for example TE012).  However, as has been discussed before in these threads, and showed numerous times (including the analysis of Frank Davis) there are mode shapes in a frustum of a cone that have no analog in the cylindrical cavity.  There is no accepted nomenclature to designate these mode shapes that are unique to a frustum of a cone and do not appear in a cylindrical cavity.

    Thus, the use of approximate models (i.e. spreadsheet of TT) that model the frustrum of a cone by integration of a large number of constant cross section cylindrical differential segments has to be used with caution.  Such analysis will miss modes that are unique to the frustrum of a cone.  Even finite difference and finite element methods have convergence issues, the accuracy of the solution is tied to the number of nodes used in the analysis (and the order of the element for finite elements, or the order of the finite difference scheme).  Finite elements are based on variational principles, finite difference methods are not.  Experimenters should measure and verify instead of rely on modeling to discuss mode shapes.

    Furthermore, the geometrical shapes of the EM Drives by Yang, Shawyer, Tajmar and NASA are of course imperfect, hence there are imperfections in geometry, material properties, etc., that will make further differences between an idealized perfect shape and the actual tested unit.

    Therefore there is NO substitute for direct verification of a mode shape.  S21 measurement is not a verification of a mode shape.  Particularly for geometries like a frustrum of a cone that has mode shapes that are not present in cylindrical cavities.   Such use of S21 measurements can only rely on having faith on one's modeling of the amplitude vs. frequency response.  Experimenters measure and verify, instead of relying on faith.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 02:47 pm
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.

    Looks like you can remove either base plate and run Dr. Rodal's suggested experiment with one removed.

    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?

    You are  correct.  The thrust of a photonic rocket is easily calculable, and I had calculated it and included it for  comparison on the Wikipedia page on the EM Drive

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

    in the Experimental section

    It enables you to explore how for certain testers (Tajmar in vacuum) the EM Drive is claimed to produce a lower multiple of a photon rocket: barely 8 times,  while others (most prominently, Yang) it is claimed to produce several orders of magnitude greater thrust per input power (320,000 times !!).

    If experimenters could safely run (using all shielding precautions) the EM Drive with the closed end, and also without the end (open) and if the results of the experiment are the same (or higher) with the end open, it would show that the claimed effect is not due to a closed cavity.  Shawyer and Yang claim that the EM Drive effect is intimately related to being a closed-cavity.  It is the fact that the EM Drive is a closed cavity that is most offensive to scientists, as a closed cavity that cannot leak any fields or matter to the exterior should not be capable of self acceleration.

    You expect to put the whole room in a faraday cage or just make another exposed magnetron YouTube video?
    I seriously thought about doing just that inside of my Faraday cage but it's towards the end of my tests and would require a different configuration modifying and drilling holes to make it more open in the large endplate.
    (http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a472/shells2bells2002/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20004_zpsy1ndnolx.jpg)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/09/2015 03:16 pm
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.

    Looks like you can remove either base plate and run Dr. Rodal's suggested experiment with one removed.

    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?

    You are  correct.  The thrust of a photonic rocket is easily calculable, and I had calculated it and included it for  comparison on the Wikipedia page on the EM Drive

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

    in the Experimental section

    It enables you to explore how for certain testers (Tajmar in vacuum) the EM Drive is claimed to produce a lower multiple of a photon rocket: barely 8 times,  while others (most prominently, Yang) it is claimed to produce several orders of magnitude greater thrust per input power (320,000 times !!).

    If experimenters could safely run (using all shielding precautions) the EM Drive with the closed end, and also without the end (open) and if the results of the experiment are the same (or higher) with the end open, it would show that the claimed effect is not due to a closed cavity.  Shawyer and Yang claim that the EM Drive effect is intimately related to being a closed-cavity.  It is the fact that the EM Drive is a closed cavity that is most offensive to scientists, as a closed cavity that cannot leak any fields or matter to the exterior should not be capable of self acceleration.

    You expect to put the whole room in a faraday cage or just make another exposed magnetron YouTube video?
    I seriously thought about doing just that inside of my Faraday cage but it's towards the end of my tests and would require a different configuration modifying and drilling holes to make it more open in the large endplate.
    (http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a472/shells2bells2002/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20004_zpsy1ndnolx.jpg)

    I guess that assumes an insignificant thrust from your current build? Since no one knows how thrust is developed.., if it is developed, you souldn't destructively tear a successful build apart, until.., maybe allowing it to be retested by another builder...

    As an aside, since not long ago someone sold a first gen Apple computer for how much?.. And mine went into the trash! I suggest anyone who gets any unidentified thrust from any build (rfmwguy) store that baby carefully, until all of the dust settles.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/09/2015 04:21 pm

    Every so often someone complains about the search on this site. Agree - it could be better - next someone complains about Google searches of this web site ...

    Search technique that I have found to be quite good is, in Google, search the key words "Advanced Search." that brings up Google Advanced Search, here:

    https://www.google.ca/advanced_search (https://www.google.ca/advanced_search)

    But of course one must learn how to use the Advanced search features.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 12/09/2015 05:35 pm
    A big thanks to everyone for your kind comments and great suggestions!

    I uploaded some more photos here since there was interest in various aspects of the build.
    https://goo.gl/photos/2z9JZWWuXxxocjZn9 (https://goo.gl/photos/2z9JZWWuXxxocjZn9)

    If I had no job or kids I'd have more time for this!  But I need to keep both of those...

    Re: Original oven mount & frustum mount
    - As someone mentioned, I also noticed the original mount had a thin ring that jutted out into the wire mesh of the magnetron.  I figured that was trying to give the best and tightest electrical coupling to the magnetron ground.  I tried to ensure a tight electrical coupling on the frustrum mount.  The mount plate is brazed (used aluminum brazing rods) around the mount hole to the curved cone.  Additionally, the mount plate is slightly curved back (in the direction of the cone) so the magnetron mount screws pull the center of it tight to the center circle.   (The Binder clips at the corners of the mount plate bend it back, these will change to screws at some point)

    Re: Is the magnetron working?
    - Good point - I was going to test this myself too.  I placed a mug of water in the frustum  (large end down), and made myself a cup of tea.  :)   Ok, I only warmed it to about 40C.

    Re: No pendulum rise?
    - The pendulum has two distinct degrees of freedom for motion, the horizontally rotational which is very sensitive and meant to measure the frustum drive force.  And then the vertical deflection like a traditional balance beam.  The vertical sensitivity is much less (by design).  The pivot point of the balance is raised (about 10cm) to be above the center of mass (see pics).  This gives the balance stability in this direction even if the weight is slightly unbalanced.  To quantify, I placed a 1g weight at the end of the beam (1m) and the end only deflected by 1mm.

    Re: Meep
    - I'm well versed in computers, but I've never used Meep.  If someone has a Meep model already that can model the frustum shape and magnetron, I'd like to use it as a starting point and learn to use Meep.

    Re: Measuring modes
    - I'd love to be able to do this.  Not sure how, and I'm certainly lacking in the RF test equipment side of things.  If there are any billionaires lurking, I'd gladly accept funding!  :D

    Re: Raised ground wire suggestion
    - I'm sure with the right current loop, you might be able to move the thing with the earth's magnetic field, but I'm trying to avoid such forces.

    Re: Eliminating other forces (air currents etc.)
    - If thrust is observed in this simple setup, then I will certainly adapt the test platform to rule out other explanations.  Some good suggestions were made, but I'll keep things simple until I have a device that 'appears' to have thrust.

    Re: Flange & Clips  TT - "I just might copy that idea for quick and simple frustum builds."
    - Copying is the highest form of flattery!  Complement accepted.
    - I think I actually got the clip idea from one of your pics (which had more permanent clips)
    - The binder clips are great in these early stages for quickly attatching/detatching.  How else could I make my cup of tea?  I wish they were just a little tighter, but overall they worked quite well.  I'd use them again.
    - Dave's rings are also a good idea.  I considered adding them too.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tellmeagain on 12/09/2015 05:54 pm
    A big thanks to everyone for your kind comments and great suggestions!
    ...
    Re: Raised ground wire suggestion
    - I'm sure with the right current loop, you might be able to move the thing with the earth's magnetic field, but I'm trying to avoid such forces.
    ...

    This suggestion is rather simple. I beg you to do it for the sake of calibration and get a sense of how big Lorentz force can be. It will cost you only 5 minutes. Thanks!
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Tellmeagain on 12/09/2015 06:00 pm
    Welcome to the board, PotomacNeuron, why not post with your Reddit name? Are you suggesting that "thrust" is Lorentz force or do you believe something else is at work here?

    Thanks. The reason is that this name was registered earlier than that one. I believe Lorentz force was at work in the NASA and in the Dresden experiments. Emmett Brown is in a good position to show what NASA and Dresden missed in their experiments.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/09/2015 06:48 pm
    Re: Is the magnetron working?
    - Good point - I was going to test this myself too.  I placed a mug of water in the frustum  (large end down), and made myself a cup of tea.  :)   Ok, I only warmed it to about 40C.

    This actually proves that not just magnetron is working, but that you also do have enough RF energy inside the frustum. At this point there are really only 2 options:

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...

    2. There is no thrust. (I am in this camp). Everything I have been reading lately points that it is not enough to just push some RF energy into the cavity and to excite some mode. There is more to it, yet nobody (in the public domain) knows what it is. It may all just be BS. Or it may indeed require some manual tuning to optimize some (unknown) metric. From that earlier Shawyer paper to NASA: "Here's 3 knobs for you. Keep trying".

    If a few more people try it out with an empty cavity excited with a pure RF and will come out with no thrust, I will be convinced that the original EmDrive concept per Shawyer (that is, all one needs is an assymmetric geometry and RF energy/mode inside) is bs.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/09/2015 09:22 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/09/2015 09:39 pm
    Re: Is the magnetron working?
    - Good point - I was going to test this myself too.  I placed a mug of water in the frustum  (large end down), and made myself a cup of tea.  :)   Ok, I only warmed it to about 40C.

    This actually proves that not just magnetron is working, but that you also do have enough RF energy inside the frustum. At this point there are really only 2 options:

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...

    2. There is no thrust. (I am in this camp). Everything I have been reading lately points that it is not enough to just push some RF energy into the cavity and to excite some mode. There is more to it, yet nobody (in the public domain) knows what it is. It may all just be BS. Or it may indeed require some manual tuning to optimize some (unknown) metric. From that earlier Shawyer paper to NASA: "Here's 3 knobs for you. Keep trying".

    If a few more people try it out with an empty cavity excited with a pure RF and will come out with no thrust, I will be convinced that the original EmDrive concept per Shawyer (that is, all one needs is an assymmetric geometry and RF energy/mode inside) is bs.

    Hum, mini-EMDrive reported an apparent Null with a tuning screw inserted but claimed a result with secured flat endplates.  I'd suggest securing the plates with something other than pressure clips.  At the very least try c-clamps.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/09/2015 10:37 pm
    Here's a quick update on my build.

    If motion ever is detected, it's easy to do re-orientation tests (north,east,south,west), and it can be extended with boxing-in the frustum section (eg. plexiglass) to further reduce heated air current effects.

    Looks like you can remove either base plate and run Dr. Rodal's suggested experiment with one removed.

    I agree with WarpTech that this would work with the big end completely open.

    Actually, a scientific comparison test that could be performed is to test the EM Drive with the end completely OPEN and compare the results with the end closed ( in both cases with the magnetron at the opposite end ).

    The OPEN end drive would work as a microwave guide photon rocket without violating conservation of momentum.

    Curiously, none of the EM Drive testers have reported such a test.  Can you imagine the consequences of showing that the EM Drive with the big end open would show the same force, or a bigger force than the EM Drive with both ends closed ?

    All it would take is to build the EM Drive with a removable end.

    Dr. Rodal I'm a long time lurker on this thread and don't have much to contribute beyond those that regularly post to this thread but your comment here made me pause. It is beyond my competence, but surely it would be possible to *estimate*, based on theory, how much "photonic thrust" one could obtain from such a configuration? How would those estimates compare to what Eagleworks and others have reported using a closed cavity? Are we in the same ballpark? Or orders of magnitude greater or smaller?

    You are  correct.  The thrust of a photonic rocket is easily calculable, and I had calculated it and included it for  comparison on the Wikipedia page on the EM Drive

    http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

    in the Experimental section

    It enables you to explore how for certain testers (Tajmar in vacuum) the EM Drive is claimed to produce a lower multiple of a photon rocket: barely 8 times,  while others (most prominently, Yang) it is claimed to produce several orders of magnitude greater thrust per input power (320,000 times !!).

    If experimenters could safely run (using all shielding precautions) the EM Drive with the closed end, and also without the end (open) and if the results of the experiment are the same (or higher) with the end open, it would show that the claimed effect is not due to a closed cavity.  Shawyer and Yang claim that the EM Drive effect is intimately related to being a closed-cavity.  It is the fact that the EM Drive is a closed cavity that is most offensive to scientists, as a closed cavity that cannot leak any fields or matter to the exterior should not be capable of self acceleration.

    You expect to put the whole room in a faraday cage or just make another exposed magnetron YouTube video?
    I seriously thought about doing just that inside of my Faraday cage but it's towards the end of my tests and would require a different configuration modifying and drilling holes to make it more open in the large endplate.
    (http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a472/shells2bells2002/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster/CrazyEddie%20build%209-22-15%20004_zpsy1ndnolx.jpg)

    I guess that assumes an insignificant thrust from your current build? Since no one knows how thrust is developed.., if it is developed, you souldn't destructively tear a successful build apart, until.., maybe allowing it to be retested by another builder...

    As an aside, since not long ago someone sold a first gen Apple computer for how much?.. And mine went into the trash! I suggest anyone who gets any unidentified thrust from any build (rfmwguy) store that baby carefully, until all of the dust settles.
    :-X
    Your good at analytical thinking.... but that's not quite the case.  8)

    Shell
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/09/2015 11:22 pm
    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) Assuming a travelling wave with positive time dependence (exp^(+ i ω t) the sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/09/2015 11:38 pm
    Zen mentioned a couple of pages back...man this thread is quick...about ew being the only lab to mention no thrust without dielectric. This is a very keen observation. I agree that it ew may have folded in woodwards principle for the mach effect with a dielectric medium.

    That being said, I wanted to test without to validate ews claim. Doc and I chatted about dielectric some time ago. He felt it was worth trying, just like Iulian did.

    A medium such as a dielectric might work, but its purpose is to reduce volume (not mass) while maintaining resonance. Its not without a price, dielectric can impact q and losses. Look at it as condensed air, a much higher dielectric constant than its fundamental reference...air, in which dc = 1.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/10/2015 12:10 am
    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 01:12 am
    Don't let Doc make you nervous Aero...his IQ is the same as ours...about 235.  ::)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 12/10/2015 01:22 am

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...


    You can see the seam of the cone in this pic.  It's pretty tight, but it hasn't been soldered yet.  (There's a few inches of overlap where those clips at the back are).  I've done some brazing on this (the maggie mount plate) already.  Yes, it's not the easiest, but if you can get it clamped properly, it's not too bad.

    I was still debating on when to make it permanent - whether I was going to just run simulations, or bite the bullet and get the miniVNA to tune it.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ofF3LpfRp-rLE2AcOx6zb396WdRs97zeOT2gXkjTXuKK0VTgzZLc8wS-QdTxu_B3HFdfc-cZgStV6DXuH5_NWS07LXcjPCpejyI9CmU-JH8Jb8CD9GSgcrcJE6Ypl0-Z_42BMhOgJMGHv1E4Tjb--ZhADLnTjveLFdr958a66gpSW04etmbx3eSO_a3maVBTbHFw6t-UrQ91FJzeiujoc34JNksRukHxdk4M_o0kFBJT7GKpD4ALi07rhnEDkxFQaQSw2gk99OV6oNsw8gkgxWloYQVV5cpd7JmZuRA7lXQegineEonf5t000lXPd-IJheVKua8rBcV3dXpVha-3GRiaF_grAC45Z5AP0TWrNV0l2Qrne2VvsYplzcoCDFwrcz2p72Y_XAo4gOdWnDOy7hPBwI5Z5j8qEGM44SmxE5eUrPQTTc3ZqkLDr4VAFU9IVpnGzQa3uMpHqXsoz9g5HAkQuNTNe5HCiQzlLprAGTYYUHf2QXnT1leipSuXzQX_aYQVxK__3Oz22NA35dMdYb6txNaLXPoE26WmZkvDTiR_7zRU2ckczg2JPbBmyvfEYc0=w1078-h808-no)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 01:32 am
    By 235, he probably thinks that I am heavy, very heavy, that I weigh 235 lbs  :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.

    No, it is not true that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d


    Here it is step by step (I'm using a positive conductivity, you can add the negative sign):

    We know that the conductivity in SI units is σ=ω ε“

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“
      = 2 π f (ε“/ε') ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe (ε'/ εo) εo
      = 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    Then (from http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity σD and the conductivity σ (in SI units) is:

    σD = (a/c) σ /( εr εo)
                         = 2 π f (a/c)  tan δe
                       
    where

    a= length scale (I think that aero chose a = 0.3 meters)
    c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 meters / second)
    f = frequency (in Hertz = 1 / second)

    where you can interpret

    σD is the dimensionless Meep conductivity

    f (a/c) is the dimensionless frequency (notice that a/c has units of time)

    tan δe is the dimensionless expression corresponding to the dimensional imaginary permittivity ε“
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 02:00 am

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...


    You can see the seam of the cone in this pic.  It's pretty tight, but it hasn't been soldered yet.  (There's a few inches of overlap where those clips at the back are).  I've done some brazing on this (the maggie mount plate) already.  Yes, it's not the easiest, but if you can get it clamped properly, it's not too bad.

    I was still debating on when to make it permanent - whether I was going to just run simulations, or bite the bullet and get the miniVNA to tune it.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ofF3LpfRp-rLE2AcOx6zb396WdRs97zeOT2gXkjTXuKK0VTgzZLc8wS-QdTxu_B3HFdfc-cZgStV6DXuH5_NWS07LXcjPCpejyI9CmU-JH8Jb8CD9GSgcrcJE6Ypl0-Z_42BMhOgJMGHv1E4Tjb--ZhADLnTjveLFdr958a66gpSW04etmbx3eSO_a3maVBTbHFw6t-UrQ91FJzeiujoc34JNksRukHxdk4M_o0kFBJT7GKpD4ALi07rhnEDkxFQaQSw2gk99OV6oNsw8gkgxWloYQVV5cpd7JmZuRA7lXQegineEonf5t000lXPd-IJheVKua8rBcV3dXpVha-3GRiaF_grAC45Z5AP0TWrNV0l2Qrne2VvsYplzcoCDFwrcz2p72Y_XAo4gOdWnDOy7hPBwI5Z5j8qEGM44SmxE5eUrPQTTc3ZqkLDr4VAFU9IVpnGzQa3uMpHqXsoz9g5HAkQuNTNe5HCiQzlLprAGTYYUHf2QXnT1leipSuXzQX_aYQVxK__3Oz22NA35dMdYb6txNaLXPoE26WmZkvDTiR_7zRU2ckczg2JPbBmyvfEYc0=w1078-h808-no)
    Nice build! Don't be afraid to move the mag around. Iulian had side insertion like others. With mesh, I used top and bottom insertion. No results until I centered it on large diameter. Solder on aluminum? Or solder paste/epoxy?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/10/2015 03:55 am

    Acoustic  ==> speed of sound
    Electromagnetic ==> speed of light

    Acoustic fundamental natural frequencies are millions of times less than the fundamental natural frequencies in electromagnetic cavities.  Wavelengths are correspondingly vastly different.  Mode shapes are different too

    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278850437/figure/fig1/%28Color-online%29-Animation-of-the-%2821%29-elliptical-mode-shape.-The-predicted-frequency-is.png)

    While all of this is true, if the thing looks like a horn, I'd think at least a cursory check of the acoustical literature might be in order to see if it points to mathematical function describing the shape that rfmwguy experimentally arrived at.  The questions, as I see it, are 1. why does the proposed optimal frustum shape look like this, 2. what formula produces the shape and 3. does that formula suggest further optimization.  At the very least, a search of acoustical literature might turn up some elegant math to describe the shape.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/10/2015 04:12 am
    I'm not going to take sides on this and I am not going to send an email to Chris.   Everyone should just settle down and get back on track before Chris gets so annoyed at the whole lot of us that he shuts down the thread for good.   Let's see some experimental results and focus on what we know and what we can do to get to the bottom of this em-drive phenomena.  Enough with the distractions.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Emmett Brown on 12/10/2015 04:15 am
    Nice build! Don't be afraid to move the mag around. Iulian had side insertion like others. With mesh, I used top and bottom insertion. No results until I centered it on large diameter. Solder on aluminum? Or solder paste/epoxy?

    Thanks!  Yes, I've planned to move it around like you suggested.   That's why the mounting plate went the full length of the sidewall and has some pre-drilled holes.  For brazing the aluminum, I used Bernzomatic AL3 rods.

    http://www.bernzomatic.com/product/al3-aluminum-brazing-welding-rods/ (http://www.bernzomatic.com/product/al3-aluminum-brazing-welding-rods/)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/10/2015 04:30 am
    By 235, he probably thinks that I am heavy, very heavy, that I weigh 235 lbs  :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.

    No, it is not true that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d


    Here it is step by step (I'm using a positive conductivity, you can add the negative sign):

    We know that the conductivity in SI units is σ=ω ε“

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“
      = 2 π f (ε“/ε') ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe (ε'/ εo) εo
      = 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    Then (from , the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity]http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )[\url) σD and the conductivity σ (in SI units) is:

    σD = (a/c) σ /( εr εo)
                         = 2 π f (a/c)  tan δe
                       
    where

    a= length scale (I think that aero chose a = 0.3 meters)
    c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 meters / second)
    f = frequency (in Hertz = 1 / second)

    where you can interpret

    σD is the dimensionless Meep conductivity

    f (a/c) is the dimensionless frequency (notice that a/c has units of time)

    tan δe is the dimensionless expression corresponding to the dimensional imaginary permittivity ε“

    I think I've got it now, but I'm having a hard time reconciling this reference:
    http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki (http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki)
    with this reference:
     http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity)
     They seem to be the inverse of one another.
    I chose to follow your example and calculated sigma_d =  Q_D_conduct = -1.670715037160664e-12

    I did read the previous reference on Fused Quartz more closely and noticed that the data was at 1 MHz, so found another reference which gave data at 100MHz and 3GHz. This reference gave
    tan δe     0.0002 @ 100 MHz, 0.00006 @ 3 GHz so I've coded 0.00006 as the loss tangent at 3 GHz.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/10/2015 04:43 am


    I guess that assumes an insignificant thrust from your current build? Since no one knows how thrust is developed.., if it is developed, you souldn't destructively tear a successful build apart, until.., maybe allowing it to be retested by another builder...

    :-X
    Your good at analytical thinking.... but that's not quite the case.  8)

    Shell

    Betting pool is now open.  Whoever gets the number closest to the reported amount gets a green star (gold stars have some morbid history).

    I've got 0.38N and 0.04N.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 11:47 am

    Acoustic  ==> speed of sound
    Electromagnetic ==> speed of light

    Acoustic fundamental natural frequencies are millions of times less than the fundamental natural frequencies in electromagnetic cavities.  Wavelengths are correspondingly vastly different.  Mode shapes are different too

    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278850437/figure/fig1/%28Color-online%29-Animation-of-the-%2821%29-elliptical-mode-shape.-The-predicted-frequency-is.png)

    While all of this is true, if the thing looks like a horn, I'd think at least a cursory check of the acoustical literature might be in order to see if it points to mathematical function describing the shape that rfmwguy experimentally arrived at.  The questions, as I see it, are 1. why does the proposed optimal frustum shape look like this, 2. what formula produces the shape and 3. does that formula suggest further optimization.  At the very least, a search of acoustical literature might turn up some elegant math to describe the shape.
    1) "A cursory review" of what rfmwguy wrote reveals that  rfmwguy already knows what mathematical function describes the shape that rfmwguy proposed.  It is called the logarithmic function, or equivalently the mathematical inverse of the exponential function (depending on how you pose the variables).

    2) There is no "elegant math" unique to the acoustical literature.  Acoustics uses the same mathematical tools as other branches of physics and engineering  The logarithmic function is the mathematical inverse of the exponential function, which is one of the most elementary mathematical functions because it has very nice properties for the solution of differential equations:

    the derivative of the exponential function is ...  the exponential function
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 11:57 am
    By 235, he probably thinks that I am heavy, very heavy, that I weigh 235 lbs  :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.

    No, it is not true that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d


    Here it is step by step (I'm using a positive conductivity, you can add the negative sign):

    We know that the conductivity in SI units is σ=ω ε“

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“
      = 2 π f (ε“/ε') ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe (ε'/ εo) εo
      = 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    Then (from , the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity]http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )[\url) σD and the conductivity σ (in SI units) is:

    σD = (a/c) σ /( εr εo)
                         = 2 π f (a/c)  tan δe
                       
    where

    a= length scale (I think that aero chose a = 0.3 meters)
    c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 meters / second)
    f = frequency (in Hertz = 1 / second)

    where you can interpret

    σD is the dimensionless Meep conductivity

    f (a/c) is the dimensionless frequency (notice that a/c has units of time)

    tan δe is the dimensionless expression corresponding to the dimensional imaginary permittivity ε“

    I think I've got it now, but I'm having a hard time reconciling this reference:
    http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki (http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki)
    with this reference:
     http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity)
     They seem to be the inverse of one another.
    I chose to follow your example and calculated sigma_d =  Q_D_conduct = -1.670715037160664e-12

    I did read the previous reference on Fused Quartz more closely and noticed that the data was at 1 MHz, so found another reference which gave data at 100MHz and 3GHz. This reference gave
    tan δe     0.0002 @ 100 MHz, 0.00006 @ 3 GHz so I've coded 0.00006 as the loss tangent at 3 GHz.

    1) the two references for conversion of Meep conductivity pointed above agree with each other, if one overlooks the subscript "D" (the meaning of the subscript is different in the two references).  Rather than looking at the subscript, start from the concept that the Meep conductivity is dimensionless, which shows which interpretation is correct.  The Meep conductivity is dimensionless and the usual conductivity (as in textbooks) is dimensional.

    2) you don't point out the reference you found for fused quartz data so it is impossible to comment on its veracity, but on principle I don't agree with choosing properties based on which Internet reference you find based solely on frequency (unless your reference is from a peer-reviewed reference showing the actual measurement vs frequency).

    There are different qualities of materials, dependent not only on their material make up but also on their manufacturing method.  Shell may have selected her source for properties based on the supplier of her quartz.  It would be a mistake to ignore that if the data is from her supplier.

     RF Cafe data is notoriously unreliable (as previously discussed in these threads).  Microwaves 101 (http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/quartz) has data that is pretty close to the one given by Shell. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: glennfish on 12/10/2015 11:59 am
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)

    Well, I'm not sure if this is an idea that people are going to support.

    I've got exactly one contributor request, although 26 folks have taken a look, without comment.

    Interesting spread of interest (map below).

    Thoughts?
    (http://www.rfdriven.com/map.jpg)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 12:04 pm
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)

    Well, I'm not sure if this is an idea that people are going to support.

    I've got exactly one contributor request, although 26 folks have taken a look, without comment.

    Interesting spread of interest (map below).

    Thoughts?
    (http://www.rfdriven.com/map.jpg)
    I support it, no time this week to start uploading.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 12:08 pm
    I'm not going to take sides on this and I am not going to send an email to Chris.   Everyone should just settle down and get back on track before Chris gets so annoyed at the whole lot of us that he shuts down the thread for good.   Let's see some experimental results and focus on what we know and what we can do to get to the bottom of this em-drive phenomena.  Enough with the distractions.

    I have been on this EM Drive thread since thread number one.  Some people presently contributing to these threads were not present at that time and may be unfamiliar with its history, and how these threads are such a headache for the NSF moderators and for NSF administration.

    Thread number had to be closed, completely shut down by NSF administration for several days because of exchanges that also resulted in banning of individuals.  At that time it was unknown whether the EM Drive would continue to exist.

    This kind of stuff happens on the EM Drive thread much more often than in the conventional threads about NASA and Space X.

    Multiple people have been banned and are sorely missed.

    If the audience wants these threads to continue it is a question of self moderation and not arguing with moderators on their established guidelines, in order to make the moderator and NSF administration's job easier - or at least more similar to their regular monitoring of other threads-.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 12:11 pm
    Nice build! Don't be afraid to move the mag around. Iulian had side insertion like others. With mesh, I used top and bottom insertion. No results until I centered it on large diameter. Solder on aluminum? Or solder paste/epoxy?

    Thanks!  Yes, I've planned to move it around like you suggested.   That's why the mounting plate went the full length of the sidewall and has some pre-drilled holes.  For brazing the aluminum, I used Bernzomatic AL3 rods.

    http://www.bernzomatic.com/product/al3-aluminum-brazing-welding-rods/ (http://www.bernzomatic.com/product/al3-aluminum-brazing-welding-rods/)
    Whoa...nice thoughts...looks like we have the real deal here! Btw, the vna is a painful $$$ but well worth it imho.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 12:26 pm
    From horn antenna on wikipedia:

    "The horn shape that gives minimum reflected power is an exponential taper. Exponential horns are used in special applications that require minimum signal loss, such as satellite antennas and radio telescopes. However conical and pyramidal horns are most widely used, because they have straight sides and are easier to design and fabricate."

    While they call it exponential, I've always heard logrithmic. So, I'm all stoked up about the baritone  when it arrives. Note: my wife is already wondering about me, the arrival of the baritone will convince her to summon the white coats  ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_antenna
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/10/2015 12:45 pm

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...


    You can see the seam of the cone in this pic.  It's pretty tight, but it hasn't been soldered yet.  (There's a few inches of overlap where those clips at the back are).  I've done some brazing on this (the maggie mount plate) already.  Yes, it's not the easiest, but if you can get it clamped properly, it's not too bad.

    I was still debating on when to make it permanent - whether I was going to just run simulations, or bite the bullet and get the miniVNA to tune it.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ofF3LpfRp-rLE2AcOx6zb396WdRs97zeOT2gXkjTXuKK0VTgzZLc8wS-QdTxu_B3HFdfc-cZgStV6DXuH5_NWS07LXcjPCpejyI9CmU-JH8Jb8CD9GSgcrcJE6Ypl0-Z_42BMhOgJMGHv1E4Tjb--ZhADLnTjveLFdr958a66gpSW04etmbx3eSO_a3maVBTbHFw6t-UrQ91FJzeiujoc34JNksRukHxdk4M_o0kFBJT7GKpD4ALi07rhnEDkxFQaQSw2gk99OV6oNsw8gkgxWloYQVV5cpd7JmZuRA7lXQegineEonf5t000lXPd-IJheVKua8rBcV3dXpVha-3GRiaF_grAC45Z5AP0TWrNV0l2Qrne2VvsYplzcoCDFwrcz2p72Y_XAo4gOdWnDOy7hPBwI5Z5j8qEGM44SmxE5eUrPQTTc3ZqkLDr4VAFU9IVpnGzQa3uMpHqXsoz9g5HAkQuNTNe5HCiQzlLprAGTYYUHf2QXnT1leipSuXzQX_aYQVxK__3Oz22NA35dMdYb6txNaLXPoE26WmZkvDTiR_7zRU2ckczg2JPbBmyvfEYc0=w1078-h808-no)

    Don't know where your budget is but two options on the VNA.
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
    I have this one, ~$70-100 bucks, the software I have is buggy (I think it was corrupted) and I had a very hard time getting them to responding to my emails for new software. The reports are basically favorable, but mention the software issue and make sure you get it  with your order.

    The second one is around $600 miniVNA tiny http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
    Software is clean and the device works well. rfmwguy, TheTraveler and I have bought this model.

    Shell

    PS: Nice work and a thought on coupling the parts together.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: VrilMachine on 12/10/2015 12:50 pm
    I'm not going to take sides on this and I am not going to send an email to Chris.   Everyone should just settle down and get back on track before Chris gets so annoyed at the whole lot of us that he shuts down the thread for good.   Let's see some experimental results and focus on what we know and what we can do to get to the bottom of this em-drive phenomena.  Enough with the distractions.

    I have been on this EM Drive thread since thread number one.  Some people presently contributing to these threads were not present at that time and may be unfamiliar with its history, and how these threads are such a headache for the NSF moderators and for NSF administration.

    Thread number had to be closed, completely shut down by NSF administration for several days because of exchanges that also resulted in banning of individuals.  At that time it was unknown whether the EM Drive would continue to exist.

    This kind of stuff happens on the EM Drive thread much more often than in the conventional threads about NASA and Space X.

    Multiple people have been banned and are sorely missed.

    If the audience wants these threads to continue it is a question of self moderation and not arguing with moderators on their established guidelines, in order to make the moderator and NSF administration's job easier - or at least more similar to their regular monitoring of other threads-.


    As a layperson following these threads I cannot stress enough the need for civility. I hope these threads are preserved and studied in the years to come because people like me dont get to see science as it happens. These threads have done more to inspire me and my children than any of you can imagine. I am in my 40s contemplating going back to school and getting a mechanical engineering degree because I am so inspired by what some of you wrote.
     I absolutely love the nature of the correspondence between most of you and have made a few of you heroes to my children. One of my daughters said she wants to be an inventor like SeeShells when she grows up.


     So much science happens behind doors and being able to experience something like this feels very special to me. Please mods do not lock and ban.




    "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." -Clarke
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/10/2015 12:53 pm
    I'm not going to take sides on this and I am not going to send an email to Chris.   Everyone should just settle down and get back on track before Chris gets so annoyed at the whole lot of us that he shuts down the thread for good.   Let's see some experimental results and focus on what we know and what we can do to get to the bottom of this em-drive phenomena.  Enough with the distractions.

    Too late. ;)

    I've had a look. I see what the mods have to deal with and there have been *a lot* of complaints about that member's posts, more than anyone else on this thread (despite several attempts to advise that member) - to the point his own decision to leave resulted in many of the main players in this thread returning from lurking to posting - after they said they wouldn't post here again while he was here).

    I'll get him back later, but with a final reminder on forum rules.

    It's worth noting 19 people (as in active members with posts etc, not Chinese shoe discount spammers) have been banned in the history of NSF (10+ years. NINETEEN. I doubt there's any forum in the world this size with that few bans. However, nine are from the EM Drive threads, which is crazy considering EM Drive isn't even a "real" NSF subject thread (like Shuttle, SLS, SpaceX, ULA, etc).

    A good solution for a satellite topic like this is to NSF (where most aren't part of the overall NSF community, but are a bunch of people in a shed in the garden, or an outdoor hot tub  - sadly....as in it's a leftfield topic outside of the main NSF domain!) is to have an objective/non-controversial EM Drive regular moderate these threads, as opposed to the mods more used to the more naturally civil and on topic areas (everywhere else on the forum). Self moderation should be a given, not a request.

    I'll pop back into this thread over the coming days and see who looks like a good candidate for that.

    ---

    Now please return to discussing the subject matter.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 12:54 pm
    From horn antenna on wikipedia:

    "The horn shape that gives minimum reflected power is an exponential taper. Exponential horns are used in special applications that require minimum signal loss, such as satellite antennas and radio telescopes. However conical and pyramidal horns are most widely used, because they have straight sides and are easier to design and fabricate."

    While they call it exponential, I've always heard logrithmic. So, I'm all stoked up about the baritone  when it arrives. Note: my wife is already wondering about me, the arrival of the baritone will convince her to summon the white coats  ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_antenna

    It depends on what variables you chose to define the problem.  Suppose that you have only two variables, x and y, related by:

    x = y^2

    this square function formula (which is well-behaved: there is only one value of x for a given value of y) can also be written in terms of its mathematical inverse:

    y = Sqrt[ x]

    but the formulation in terms of the inverse, the square root, introduces a number of complexities (there are two possible values of y for a given value of x, and for negative values of x, y becomes imaginary).  It is better to solve the problem in terms of x = y^2. 

    Similarly the problem can be posed in terms of the exponential or its inverse, the logarithmic function.  The preferred formulation is in terms of the exponential which has nicer properties, including the beautiful fact that the derivative of the exponential function is the same function: the exponential.  Ditto for its integral.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/10/2015 12:55 pm
    I like it, I'll be happy to support it.

    Shell


    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)

    Well, I'm not sure if this is an idea that people are going to support.

    I've got exactly one contributor request, although 26 folks have taken a look, without comment.

    Interesting spread of interest (map below).

    Thoughts?
    (http://www.rfdriven.com/map.jpg)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 01:48 pm
    By 235, he probably thinks that I am heavy, very heavy, that I weigh 235 lbs  :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.

    No, it is not true that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d


    Here it is step by step (I'm using a positive conductivity, you can add the negative sign):

    We know that the conductivity in SI units is σ=ω ε“

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“
      = 2 π f (ε“/ε') ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe (ε'/ εo) εo
      = 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    Then (from , the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity]http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )[\url) σD and the conductivity σ (in SI units) is:

    σD = (a/c) σ /( εr εo)
                         = 2 π f (a/c)  tan δe
                       
    where

    a= length scale (I think that aero chose a = 0.3 meters)
    c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 meters / second)
    f = frequency (in Hertz = 1 / second)

    where you can interpret

    σD is the dimensionless Meep conductivity

    f (a/c) is the dimensionless frequency (notice that a/c has units of time)

    tan δe is the dimensionless expression corresponding to the dimensional imaginary permittivity ε“

    I think I've got it now, but I'm having a hard time reconciling this reference:
    http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki (http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki)
    with this reference:
     http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity)
     They seem to be the inverse of one another.
    I chose to follow your example and calculated sigma_d =  Q_D_conduct = -1.670715037160664e-12

    I did read the previous reference on Fused Quartz more closely and noticed that the data was at 1 MHz, so found another reference which gave data at 100MHz and 3GHz. This reference gave
    tan δe     0.0002 @ 100 MHz, 0.00006 @ 3 GHz so I've coded 0.00006 as the loss tangent at 3 GHz.

    1) the two references for conversion of Meep conductivity pointed above agree with each other, if one overlooks the subscript "D" (the meaning of the subscript is different in the two references).  Rather than looking at the subscript, start from the concept that the Meep conductivity is dimensionless.

    2) you don't point out the reference you found for fused quartz data so it is impossible to comment on its veracity, but on principle I don't agree with choosing properties based on which Internet reference you find based solely on frequency (unless your reference is from a peer-reviewed reference showing the actual measurement vs frequency).

    There are different qualities of materials, dependent not only on their material make up but also on their manufacturing method.  Shell may have selected her source for properties based on the supplier of her quartz.  It would be a mistake to ignore that if the data is from her supplier.

     RF Cafe data is notoriously unreliable (as previously discussed in these threads).  Microwaves 101 (http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/quartz) has data that is pretty close to the one given by Shell.

    Let's check some numbers, (always a good hygienic thing to do prior to implementing any model), in SI units:

    σ= 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    for

    tan δe = 0.0001 (fused quartz as per Shell's supplier reference)
    εr = 3.75 (fused quartz as per Shell's supplier reference)
    f = 2.4 E+09 (the same frequency, in Hertz, you used previously)
    εo = 8.854187817 E-12  (permittivity of free space vacuum)

    hence

    σ=  2 π 2.4 E+09  0.0001 3.75  8.854187817 E-12
      = 5.006925 E-05

    Which is a small number (about the conductivity of drinking water [at very low frequencies, not at microwave frequencies]), as one would require for a dielectric

    However, this number (5.006925 E-05) is much larger than the published value for conductivity of fused quartz [at very low frequencies](see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity)

    σ=1.30 E−18

    which is actually 13 orders of magnitude smaller.

    The reason suggested (in http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )  for using a fictitious conductivity σ=ω ε“  instead of the imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity ε“ to model the dielectric in Meep is in order to save computer time and for numerical stability since the analysis in terms of complex numbers is much more time consuming and much less numerically stable (a big problem for a Finite Difference formulation ! ).

    Quote
    Often, you only care about the absorption loss in a narrow bandwidth, where you just want to set the imaginary part of ε (or μ) to some known experimental value, in the same way that you often just care about setting a dispersionless real ε that is the correct value in your bandwidth of interest.
    One approach to this problem would be allowing you to specify a constant (frequency-independent) imaginary part of ε, but this has the disadvantage of requiring the simulation to employ complex fields (doubling the memory and time requirements), and also tends to be numerically unstable. Instead, the approach in Meep is for you to set the conductivity σD (or σB for an imaginary part of μ), chosen so that \mathrm{Im}\, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_\infty \sigma_D / \omega is the correct value at your frequency ω of interest. (Note that, in Meep, you specify f = ω / 2π instead of ω for the frequency, however, so you need to include the factor of 2π when computing the corresponding imaginary part of ε!) Conductivities can be implemented with purely real fields, so they are not nearly as expensive as implementing a frequency-independent complex ε or μ. 

    If working on this, I would check both formulations (the analysis in terms of the fictitious conductivity and the analysis in terms of complex numbers, using the imaginary permittivity) for a small problem with known solution, that can be readily solved by Meep with the complex formulation to double check that the analysis in terms of fictitious conductivity is indeed a good model for the dielectric.

    What does your Meep-expert friend (Dr. Dominic if I recall his name correctly) have to say on this matter ?

    You can never take these numerical codes on faith.  The reference points to an important bug for calculations using the complex field formulation, in one of the Meep versions, for example.

    Quote
    The behavior for complex fields was changed for Meep 0.10. Also, in Meep 0.9 there was a bug: when you specified χ(3) in the interface, you were actually specifying \chi^{(3)}/\varepsilon_\infty^4. This was fixed in Meep 0.10.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: rfmwguy on 12/10/2015 03:51 pm
    From horn antenna on wikipedia:

    "The horn shape that gives minimum reflected power is an exponential taper. Exponential horns are used in special applications that require minimum signal loss, such as satellite antennas and radio telescopes. However conical and pyramidal horns are most widely used, because they have straight sides and are easier to design and fabricate."

    While they call it exponential, I've always heard logrithmic. So, I'm all stoked up about the baritone  when it arrives. Note: my wife is already wondering about me, the arrival of the baritone will convince her to summon the white coats  ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_antenna

    It depends on what variables you chose to define the problem.  Suppose that you have only two variables, x and y, related by:

    x = y^2

    this square function formula (which is well-behaved: there is only one value of x for a given value of y) can also be written in terms of its mathematical inverse:

    y = Sqrt[ x]

    but the formulation in terms of the inverse, the square root, introduces a number of complexities (there are two possible values of y for a given value of x, and for negative values of x, y becomes imaginary).  It is better to solve the problem in terms of x = y^2. 

    Similarly the problem can be posed in terms of the exponential or its inverse, the logarithmic function.  The preferred formulation is in terms of the exponential which has nicer properties, including the beautiful fact that the derivative of the exponential function is the same function: the exponential.  Ditto for its integral.
    Aha! Believe it or not, I follow you Doc and it makes sense.

    Now, if Meep could calculate an exponential frustum with resonance of 2.45 GHz given only one fixed value: large diameter 11 inches (279.4 mm). Length and small diameter would be defined by ideal Return Loss resonance of +30dB or so at 2.45 GHz

    My apologies in advance if Meepers just put their fists through their monitors  ;)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/10/2015 04:57 pm
    A draft data store is available for critique, review, testing.

    http://www.rfdriven.com

    Currently, there's no content, just a draft structure.  The database has two views:
    1.  A web directory view (so archive.org can grab the content) which is read only
    2.  A user DB view (where folks can add content or search for content

    Nothing is frozen so now would be a good time to suggest changes, variations, etc.

    Ultimately I'll migrate the user DB view to something a bit more robust, but for archive.org, we have to use a directory structure of some kind, else it won't be found.

    If anyone wants to start adding content, PM me, and I'll set up an account for you.  Please be specific where you want write permissions.  Write includes delete so don't ask for everything.   :)  Ultimately delete will mean "archive" but not today.

    The default DB view login is Guest and the password is Guest
    Looking good Glenn, let me know via PM when you're ready to get my data, I'll try and input it. Or, if you prefer, ask me the questions and I'll give you everything I know...which varies from day to day...64K of memory should do the trick. ;)

    Well, I'm not sure if this is an idea that people are going to support.

    I've got exactly one contributor request, although 26 folks have taken a look, without comment.

    Interesting spread of interest (map below).

    Thoughts?
    (http://www.rfdriven.com/map.jpg)

    You need to login to get to the library.  The site is still in a very basic state.  Directory view needs to become a side menu on the main page.  Suggest more graphics and layout to increase accessibility.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/10/2015 05:07 pm

    Acoustic  ==> speed of sound
    Electromagnetic ==> speed of light

    Acoustic fundamental natural frequencies are millions of times less than the fundamental natural frequencies in electromagnetic cavities.  Wavelengths are correspondingly vastly different.  Mode shapes are different too

    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278850437/figure/fig1/%28Color-online%29-Animation-of-the-%2821%29-elliptical-mode-shape.-The-predicted-frequency-is.png)

    While all of this is true, if the thing looks like a horn, I'd think at least a cursory check of the acoustical literature might be in order to see if it points to mathematical function describing the shape that rfmwguy experimentally arrived at.  The questions, as I see it, are 1. why does the proposed optimal frustum shape look like this, 2. what formula produces the shape and 3. does that formula suggest further optimization.  At the very least, a search of acoustical literature might turn up some elegant math to describe the shape.

    Ok, if it's so simply prove it.  What is the function for the optimal shape (highest Q) of an asymmetrical resonance cavity?"

    Don't be silly, there is no such function, this question cannot be answered in principle. Any cavity with perfect reflection has the highest Q, the modes of resonance will affect Q, all of which are in principle "correct," and moreover, a cavity like a trombone is not meant to maximize a quantity like Q, it is meant to maximize the harmonic over/undertones of acoustic vibration given a certain frequency. It has nothing to do with Energy efficiency, although power in vs power out is of some relevancy to a trombone's ability to hold a note correctly.  Note though that there is no solution to "the optimal trombone shape;" it's a question that requires more information.

    To answer your question I think you would have to specify a mode, frequency, and the properties of your reflector-- change any of these variables and the "highest Q" configuration may change, and for any given set of those variables, there is probably an infinite number of "optimal shapes," many of which would be simpler than others.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/10/2015 05:08 pm

    1. You have thrust but it is small for your test bench to measure. How did you make the aluminum frustum? I mean it is hard to solder aluminum... so how is it held together? One possibility is that your frustum has a very low Q and hence a very low thrust level...


    You can see the seam of the cone in this pic.  It's pretty tight, but it hasn't been soldered yet.  (There's a few inches of overlap where those clips at the back are).  I've done some brazing on this (the maggie mount plate) already.  Yes, it's not the easiest, but if you can get it clamped properly, it's not too bad.

    I was still debating on when to make it permanent - whether I was going to just run simulations, or bite the bullet and get the miniVNA to tune it.

    (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ofF3LpfRp-rLE2AcOx6zb396WdRs97zeOT2gXkjTXuKK0VTgzZLc8wS-QdTxu_B3HFdfc-cZgStV6DXuH5_NWS07LXcjPCpejyI9CmU-JH8Jb8CD9GSgcrcJE6Ypl0-Z_42BMhOgJMGHv1E4Tjb--ZhADLnTjveLFdr958a66gpSW04etmbx3eSO_a3maVBTbHFw6t-UrQ91FJzeiujoc34JNksRukHxdk4M_o0kFBJT7GKpD4ALi07rhnEDkxFQaQSw2gk99OV6oNsw8gkgxWloYQVV5cpd7JmZuRA7lXQegineEonf5t000lXPd-IJheVKua8rBcV3dXpVha-3GRiaF_grAC45Z5AP0TWrNV0l2Qrne2VvsYplzcoCDFwrcz2p72Y_XAo4gOdWnDOy7hPBwI5Z5j8qEGM44SmxE5eUrPQTTc3ZqkLDr4VAFU9IVpnGzQa3uMpHqXsoz9g5HAkQuNTNe5HCiQzlLprAGTYYUHf2QXnT1leipSuXzQX_aYQVxK__3Oz22NA35dMdYb6txNaLXPoE26WmZkvDTiR_7zRU2ckczg2JPbBmyvfEYc0=w1078-h808-no)

    Don't know where your budget is but two options on the VNA.
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
    I have this one, ~$70-100 bucks, the software I have is buggy (I think it was corrupted) and I had a very hard time getting them to responding to my emails for new software. The reports are basically favorable, but mention the software issue and make sure you get it  with your order.

    The second one is around $600 miniVNA tiny http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
    Software is clean and the device works well. rfmwguy, TheTraveler and I have bought this model.

    Shell

    PS: Nice work and a thought on coupling the parts together.

    This software might be of interest to anyone going the solid state / software defined radio route: 

    https://code.google.com/p/pysdrvna/ (https://code.google.com/p/pysdrvna/)

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SteveD on 12/10/2015 05:39 pm

    Acoustic  ==> speed of sound
    Electromagnetic ==> speed of light

    Acoustic fundamental natural frequencies are millions of times less than the fundamental natural frequencies in electromagnetic cavities.  Wavelengths are correspondingly vastly different.  Mode shapes are different too

    (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278850437/figure/fig1/%28Color-online%29-Animation-of-the-%2821%29-elliptical-mode-shape.-The-predicted-frequency-is.png)

    While all of this is true, if the thing looks like a horn, I'd think at least a cursory check of the acoustical literature might be in order to see if it points to mathematical function describing the shape that rfmwguy experimentally arrived at.  The questions, as I see it, are 1. why does the proposed optimal frustum shape look like this, 2. what formula produces the shape and 3. does that formula suggest further optimization.  At the very least, a search of acoustical literature might turn up some elegant math to describe the shape.

    Ok, if it's so simply prove it.  What is the function for the optimal shape (highest Q) of an asymmetrical resonance cavity?"

    Don't be silly, there is no such function, this question cannot be answered in principle. Any cavity with perfect reflection has the highest Q, the modes of resonance will affect Q, all of which are in principle "correct," and moreover, a cavity like a trombone is not meant to maximize a quantity like Q, it is meant to maximize the harmonic over/undertones of acoustic vibration given a certain frequency. It has nothing to do with Energy efficiency, although power in vs power out is of some relevancy to a trombone's ability to hold a note correctly.  Note though that there is no solution to "the optimal trombone shape;" it's a question that requires more information.

    To answer your question I think you would have to specify a mode, frequency, and the properties of your reflector-- change any of these variables and the "highest Q" configuration may change, and for any given set of those variables, there is probably an infinite number of "optimal shapes," many of which would be simpler than others.

    So um, doesn't that described the banned ones spreadsheet?  I think we've just argued our way to the answer to an important question: why a frustum.  That answer would seem to be that it is a horn antenna delivering power between the two endplates with minimal loss.  That would suggest that the maths related to this type of antenna could be tied into TTs spreadsheet to produce an optimized shape for a particular mode or set of modes. 

    Assuming this thing actually does anything besides generate complex measurement errors, we can now say that some of this seems to reflect known physics.  Those known physics suggest that the unknown involves the endplates.  Assuming the reports of curved endplates working are correct, we also know that the unknown does not require flat endplates.  That's a much smaller unkknown than we started with.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 12/10/2015 06:01 pm
    From horn antenna on wikipedia:

    "The horn shape that gives minimum reflected power is an exponential taper. Exponential horns are used in special applications that require minimum signal loss, such as satellite antennas and radio telescopes. However conical and pyramidal horns are most widely used, because they have straight sides and are easier to design and fabricate."

    While they call it exponential, I've always heard logrithmic. So, I'm all stoked up about the baritone  when it arrives. Note: my wife is already wondering about me, the arrival of the baritone will convince her to summon the white coats  ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_antenna

    It depends on what variables you chose to define the problem.  Suppose that you have only two variables, x and y, related by:

    x = y^2

    this square function formula (which is well-behaved: there is only one value of x for a given value of y) can also be written in terms of its mathematical inverse:

    y = Sqrt[ x]

    but the formulation in terms of the inverse, the square root, introduces a number of complexities (there are two possible values of y for a given value of x, and for negative values of x, y becomes imaginary).  It is better to solve the problem in terms of x = y^2. 

    Similarly the problem can be posed in terms of the exponential or its inverse, the logarithmic function.  The preferred formulation is in terms of the exponential which has nicer properties, including the beautiful fact that the derivative of the exponential function is the same function: the exponential.  Ditto for its integral.
    Aha! Believe it or not, I follow you Doc and it makes sense.

    Now, if Meep could calculate an exponential frustum with resonance of 2.45 GHz given only one fixed value: large diameter 11 inches (279.4 mm). Length and small diameter would be defined by ideal Return Loss resonance of +30dB or so at 2.45 GHz

    My apologies in advance if Meepers just put their fists through their monitors  ;)

    I suggest a series of cylinders with a height at most one half the pixel size/resolution of the simulation (perhaps one tenth? analysis could be done to determine the optimum divisions).  The radius would be determined by an exponential/logarithmic function based on the minimum/maximum diameter and the desired length.  For instance, in pseudo code (z is along the axis of symmetry):


    small_rad = 1
    big_rad = 5.5
    length = 5
    step = .1
    constant = 10^(log10(big_rad/small_rad)/length)
    z = 0
    while z <= length :
        current_radius = (constant^z)*small_rad
        make_cylinder(radius = current_radius, height = step, center = (0,0,z))
        z = z + step


    This will make cylinders patterned on the logarithmic shape posted by Dr. Rodal above.  Doing a "make_cylinder(radius = current_radius + thickness, ..." first, then subtracting the above will make a frustum shape.  A "make_cylinder(radius = small_rad, height = thickness, center=0,0,0)" will put in a small end cap, something similar would put in the large end cap.  Offset in the "z" direction can be accomplished by changing the "z=0" line to something like "z=height/2" for centering on (0,0,0).  Somewhat obviously, swapping "z" out for "x" or "y" and (0,0,z) with (x,0,0) etc. will change the axis of the frustum, I forget which convention Aero uses.

    Implementing the above in meep should be straightforward.  The shape will be inexact, but then, so is meep.  Setting a finer resolution for the cylinders than for meep should result in a nicely anti-aliased boundary.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/10/2015 06:10 pm
    Now, if Meep could calculate an exponential frustum...

    The easy way to define shapes in meep is to build it out of the primitives sphere, cylinder, cone, block, and ellipsoid.  Anything other than that will require manual construction of the shape.  Unless it proves really necessary,  lmbfan's suggestion to approximate it with a series of primitives should work, though I think using the 'cone' primitive would give a better approximation of the horn shape.

    Given the equation for the shape, we can have it calculate the indiviual cones.  Meep is controlled through a general purpose programming language (Scheme) so many things are possible.  What the documentation calls the "ctl file" is actually a Scheme source file.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/10/2015 06:31 pm

    Don't know where your budget is but two options on the VNA.
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
    I have this one, ~$70-100 bucks, the software I have is buggy (I think it was corrupted) and I had a very hard time getting them to responding to my emails for new software. The reports are basically favorable, but mention the software issue and make sure you get it  with your order.

    The second one is around $600 miniVNA tiny http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
    Software is clean and the device works well. rfmwguy, TheTraveler and I have bought this model.

    Just a minor correction: the $70 device above is not a VNA, it is not even a scalar NA, it is actually a spectrum analyzer (I own this device, this is what I call a NWT-70-like spectrum analyzer). There is apparently a way to use it as poor-man's scalar NA by utilizing a source of flat wide-band noise (they sell the module), but IMHO this is a really perverted way. The corresponding scalar NA is nwt-4000 http://www.ebay.com/itm/NWT4000-138M-4-4G-sweep-simple-spectrum-analyzer-generator-Case-/181745836241?hash=item2a50e560d1:g:MmoAAOSwstxVVV0t (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NWT4000-138M-4-4G-sweep-simple-spectrum-analyzer-generator-Case-/181745836241?hash=item2a50e560d1:g:MmoAAOSwstxVVV0t), and it will already set you back $245. I own this one too. The reason I say "corresponding" is that these are all clones of the original projects by a German guy BG7TBL http://www.dl4jal.eu (http://www.dl4jal.eu) (The page is in German, but the credit is still due). He also wrote the software ("WinNWT") which is what will be enclosed with those ebay shipments from China. The software is half-English and half-German, and it has been written to support all kinds of devices by BG7TBL, so a large part of it is not even applicable to the particular functionality provided by each of these 2 devices. At the end of the day it does work though, so the $245 price tag is likely the lowest one can get a scalar NA for.

    If I knew about miniVNA back then I would likely order one instead of these, but, also, not everyone needs a vector NA. A scalar one is just fine for finding resonance frequencies.

    I wish I could advise you on what mode to tune the cavity for, but as I keep repeating, my understanding is that nobody really knows the answer.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: lmbfan on 12/10/2015 06:55 pm
    Now, if Meep could calculate an exponential frustum...

    The easy way to define shapes in meep is to build it out of the primitives sphere, cylinder, cone, block, and ellipsoid.  Anything other than that will require manual construction of the shape.  Unless it proves really necessary,  lmbfan's suggestion to approximate it with a series of primitives should work, though I think using the 'cone' primitive would give a better approximation of the horn shape.

    Given the equation for the shape, we can have it calculate the indiviual cones.  Meep is controlled through a general purpose programming language (Scheme) so many things are possible.  What the documentation calls the "ctl file" is actually a Scheme source file.
    Great idea!  The loop would look like:


    ...
    last_radius = small_radius
    while z <= length :
        current_radius = (constant^z)*small_rad
        make_truncated_cone(radius1 = last_radius, radius2 = current_radius, height = step, center = (0,0,z))
        last_radius = current_radius
        z = z + step


    The values of "radius1" and "radius2" may have to be swapped, depending on how meep builds the cylinder.  This would replace step-wise with linear interpolation between the shapes, which will fit the small end of the cavity well, but as the curvature increases, will become increasingly poorly fitted.  But it's still much better than step-wise.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/10/2015 06:58 pm

    Don't know where your budget is but two options on the VNA.
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?hash=item19f582dea5
    I have this one, ~$70-100 bucks, the software I have is buggy (I think it was corrupted) and I had a very hard time getting them to responding to my emails for new software. The reports are basically favorable, but mention the software issue and make sure you get it  with your order.

    The second one is around $600 miniVNA tiny http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
    Software is clean and the device works well. rfmwguy, TheTraveler and I have bought this model.

    Just a minor correction: the $70 device above is not a VNA, it is not even a scalar NA, it is actually a spectrum analyzer (I own this device, this is what I call a NWT-70-like spectrum analyzer). There is apparently a way to use it as poor-man's scalar NA by utilizing a source of flat wide-band noise (they sell the module), but IMHO this is a really perverted way. The corresponding scalar NA is nwt-4000 http://www.ebay.com/itm/NWT4000-138M-4-4G-sweep-simple-spectrum-analyzer-generator-Case-/181745836241?hash=item2a50e560d1:g:MmoAAOSwstxVVV0t (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NWT4000-138M-4-4G-sweep-simple-spectrum-analyzer-generator-Case-/181745836241?hash=item2a50e560d1:g:MmoAAOSwstxVVV0t), and it will already set you back $245. I own this one too. The reason I say "corresponding" is that these are all clones of the original projects by a German guy BG7TBL http://www.dl4jal.eu (http://www.dl4jal.eu) (The page is in German, but the credit is still due). He also wrote the software ("WinNWT") which is what will be enclosed with those ebay shipments from China. The software is half-English and half-German, and it has been written to support all kinds of devices by BG7TBL, so a large part of it is not even applicable to the particular functionality provided by each of these 2 devices. At the end of the day it does work though, so the $245 price tag is likely the lowest one can get a scalar NA for.

    If I knew about miniVNA back then I would likely order one instead of these, but, also, not everyone needs a vector NA. A scalar one is just fine for finding resonance frequencies.

    I wish I could advise you on what mode to tune the cavity for, but as I keep repeating, my understanding is that nobody really knows the answer.
    RFPlumer, Thanks!!!

    I'll pull this software down to see if I can get it running as a second check. I knew it wasn't the best when I bought it but I got it before I had any funding and was using personal funds.

    Shell

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: X_RaY on 12/10/2015 07:23 pm
    Some Time ago i had a short general discussion with Dr. Rodal about consequences using different materials for the frequency tuning of a cavity resonator. However, I like to share the EMPro results.
    I focused on TE011 and TM010 only in this analysis, nevertheless the result is surprising.
    I found very interesting differences for these modes using both dielectric and conductive tuning elements.
    For TM010 and TE011 the frequency shifts down with a dielectric tuning element what's in agreement with well known theory.
    The reaction of the resonant frequency of these modes is very different using a conductive tuning rod instead of a dielectric.
    The TE011 shifts slightly to a higher frequency while the TM010 frequency travel rapidly to a much lower value! Interesting fact so far.

    Results are in the  .ods file below.

    Description:
    The used model is cylindrically, 30mm long and 40mm in diameter. The tuning rod is 4mm in diameter. I shifted the length from 0...15mm in 5mm increments. The rod is placed at one of the end plates along the central z-axis.
    The material of the tuning element was defined as Copper and
    Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) with epsilon=3.5
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/10/2015 07:24 pm
    By 235, he probably thinks that I am heavy, very heavy, that I weigh 235 lbs  :)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dr. Rodal,

    I'm still missing something in the terminology.
    I want to model SeeShells Quartz rod in her CE3 cavity but it is fruitless if I don't get it right.

    I have from Shell, here http://www.technicalglass.com/technical_properties.html

    that disapation factor < 1E-4, which equals tan delta, and the constant = 3.75 so I calculate the imaginary part of relative permittivity as 3.75E-4 . Now I get shakey. I think I have
    epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4 and now the terminology changes and I get more confused.

    You wrote CONDUCTIVITY = omega * epsilon"

    and the meep units wiki gives meep electrical conductivity = sigma_d = e_r *e_o * c/a . I know e_o, c and a, but if e_r is the real part = the constant, where is epsilon"?

    It seems self evident to me that epsilon" must factor into sigma_d somehow.

    Or is it so simple as sigma_d = transformation factor * epsilon"  and I misinterpreted above?

    If you define the following values for the constitutive properties of fused quartz:

    (real value of) relative electric permittivity = εr
                                                                   = 3.75

    tan δ (electric) = 0.0001

    then, it follows that:

    relative complex permittivity = εr*(1 - i* tan δe)
                                                = εr*(1 - i* 0.0001)

                                               
    relative complex permittivity =  3.75(1 - i* 0.0001)
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.0001*3.75
                                                = 3.75 - i * 0.000375
                                           


    COMMENTS:

    1) I don't understand why you wrote 3.25 instead of 3.75 in your expression (epsilon = 3.25 +i3.25E-4)

    2) The sign of the imaginary part should be negative, because a negative imaginary part results in power loss.  A positive sign (as in your expression) would result in power production, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (dielectric materials entail power loss, not power production). (As pointed out in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1453316#msg1453316)

    3) I don't understand your discussion of electric conductivity in this context or the questions that follow.  Quartz is a dielectric material, not a metal conductor.  Please try to re-word your question on conductivity to explain the intended context or purpose (are you talking about the conductivity of copper ? )

    First, 3.25 was a nervous slip. You make me nervous   :-[

    Second, in the meep code,
    (material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))
    the parameter : CU-D-conduct should be less than zero, that is, negative..

    Third, I think that I was still confused, but the light dawned. Is this the correct expression?

    sigma-d = epsilon" * e_r *e_o * c/a .
    so that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d.

    I'll code that up (using the negative sign), print it out and re-post here for validation.

    No, it is not true that conductivity = Omega * sigma_d


    Here it is step by step (I'm using a positive conductivity, you can add the negative sign):

    We know that the conductivity in SI units is σ=ω ε“

    σ=ω ε“
      =2 π f ε“
      = 2 π f (ε“/ε') ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe ε'
      = 2 π f tan δe (ε'/ εo) εo
      = 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    Then (from , the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity]http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )[\url) σD and the conductivity σ (in SI units) is:

    σD = (a/c) σ /( εr εo)
                         = 2 π f (a/c)  tan δe
                       
    where

    a= length scale (I think that aero chose a = 0.3 meters)
    c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 meters / second)
    f = frequency (in Hertz = 1 / second)

    where you can interpret

    σD is the dimensionless Meep conductivity

    f (a/c) is the dimensionless frequency (notice that a/c has units of time)

    tan δe is the dimensionless expression corresponding to the dimensional imaginary permittivity ε“

    I think I've got it now, but I'm having a hard time reconciling this reference:
    http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki (http://meepunits.wikia.com/wiki/Meep_unit_transformation_Wiki)
    with this reference:
     http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 ), the conversion between the (dimensionless) Meep conductivity)
     They seem to be the inverse of one another.
    I chose to follow your example and calculated sigma_d =  Q_D_conduct = -1.670715037160664e-12

    I did read the previous reference on Fused Quartz more closely and noticed that the data was at 1 MHz, so found another reference which gave data at 100MHz and 3GHz. This reference gave
    tan δe     0.0002 @ 100 MHz, 0.00006 @ 3 GHz so I've coded 0.00006 as the loss tangent at 3 GHz.

    1) the two references for conversion of Meep conductivity pointed above agree with each other, if one overlooks the subscript "D" (the meaning of the subscript is different in the two references).  Rather than looking at the subscript, start from the concept that the Meep conductivity is dimensionless.

    2) you don't point out the reference you found for fused quartz data so it is impossible to comment on its veracity, but on principle I don't agree with choosing properties based on which Internet reference you find based solely on frequency (unless your reference is from a peer-reviewed reference showing the actual measurement vs frequency).

    There are different qualities of materials, dependent not only on their material make up but also on their manufacturing method.  Shell may have selected her source for properties based on the supplier of her quartz.  It would be a mistake to ignore that if the data is from her supplier.

     RF Cafe data is notoriously unreliable (as previously discussed in these threads).  Microwaves 101 (http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/quartz) has data that is pretty close to the one given by Shell.

    Let's check some numbers, (always a good hygienic thing to do prior to implementing any model), in SI units:

    σ= 2 π f tan δe εr εo

    for

    tan δe = 0.0001 (fused quartz as per Shell's supplier reference)
    εr = 3.75 (fused quartz as per Shell's supplier reference)
    f = 2.4 E+09 (the same frequency, in Hertz, you used previously)
    εo = 8.854187817 E-12  (permittivity of free space vacuum)

    hence

    σ=  2 π 2.4 E+09  0.0001 3.75  8.854187817 E-12
      = 5.006925 E-05

    Which is a small number (about the conductivity of drinking water [at very low frequencies, not at microwave frequencies]), as one would require for a dielectric

    However, this number (5.006925 E-05) is much larger than the published value for conductivity of fused quartz [at very low frequencies](see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity)

    σ=1.30 E−18

    which is actually 13 orders of magnitude smaller.

    The reason suggested (in http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Conductivity_in_Meep#Conductivity_and_complex_.CE.B5 )  for using a fictitious conductivity σ=ω ε“  instead of the imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity ε“ to model the dielectric in Meep is in order to save computer time and for numerical stability since the analysis in terms of complex numbers is much more time consuming and much less numerically stable (a big problem for a Finite Difference formulation ! ).

    Quote
    Often, you only care about the absorption loss in a narrow bandwidth, where you just want to set the imaginary part of ε (or μ) to some known experimental value, in the same way that you often just care about setting a dispersionless real ε that is the correct value in your bandwidth of interest.
    One approach to this problem would be allowing you to specify a constant (frequency-independent) imaginary part of ε, but this has the disadvantage of requiring the simulation to employ complex fields (doubling the memory and time requirements), and also tends to be numerically unstable. Instead, the approach in Meep is for you to set the conductivity σD (or σB for an imaginary part of μ), chosen so that \mathrm{Im}\, \varepsilon = \varepsilon_\infty \sigma_D / \omega is the correct value at your frequency ω of interest. (Note that, in Meep, you specify f = ω / 2π instead of ω for the frequency, however, so you need to include the factor of 2π when computing the corresponding imaginary part of ε!) Conductivities can be implemented with purely real fields, so they are not nearly as expensive as implementing a frequency-independent complex ε or μ. 

    If working on this, I would check both formulations (the analysis in terms of the fictitious conductivity and the analysis in terms of complex numbers, using the imaginary permittivity) for a small problem with known solution, that can be readily solved by Meep with the complex formulation to double check that the analysis in terms of fictitious conductivity is indeed a good model for the dielectric.

    What does your Meep-expert friend (Dr. Dominic if I recall his name correctly) have to say on this matter ?

    You can never take these numerical codes on faith.  The reference points to an important bug for calculations using the complex field formulation, in one of the Meep versions, for example.

    Quote
    The behavior for complex fields was changed for Meep 0.10. Also, in Meep 0.9 there was a bug: when you specified χ(3) in the interface, you were actually specifying \chi^{(3)}/\varepsilon_\infty^4. This was fixed in Meep 0.10.

    Here is another explanation of what we are doing.  The Maxwell equation attached below shows the relationship between the field H and the field E (this is the usual formulation, Meep uses the field (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/images/math/4/d/1/4d1b081e28422cb584f38b105eedb2fa.png) instead to define the conductivity (http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/images/math/3/f/7/3f7e95dcf51b67d05ec05d1458d2f061.png))

    where, in the equation attached below,

    σs = static conductivity

    In conductors, this first term (inside the parenthesis in the equation below): σs/(ωε'), dominates the last term ε′′/ε′ .  In metals, the real part of the permittivity is usually equal to the permittivity of free space (in other words, for metals, the relative permittivity is practically one), and the imaginary part is close to zero. (That's how DeltaMass modeled copper, remember ? ).  For metals,the conductivity is due almost entirely to  σs, which is due to the collisions of electrons, while the polarization dependent term  ε′′/ε′ is negligible.

    The ε′′/ε′ term describes how much power supplied by an external electric field is dissipated as motion and heat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating). In dielectrics,  the conductivity is due almost entirely to polarization loss (dipole motion): in a dielectric this term ε′′/ε′ usually dominates the first term  σs/(ωε').

    In order to avoid the trouble of having to use a numerical solution involving complex terms (which is very computer time consuming and fraught with numerical instabilities, a big problem for a finite difference solution) it is suggested that instead of using the tiny, correct static conductivity for the dielectric (in this case fused quartz), that a fictitious, much higher conductivity is input into the program such that

    σfictitious/(ωε') =  ε′′/ε′

    or

    σfictitious = (ωε') (ε′′/ε′)
                   = ω  ε′′

    For fused quartz, we previously showed:

    σstatic=1.30 E−18

    while

    σfictitious = 5.006925 E-05

    The fictitious conductivity σfictitious is 13 orders of magnitude higher than the static conductivity σstaticSo indeed we verify that for the dielectric (fused quartz) conductivity is due almost entirely to polarization loss (dipole motion), as expressed by the last  ε′′/ε′ term which completely dominates the first term  σs/(ωε') due to static conductivity.


    It is simply a neat way to get to input into Meep the dielectric power loss due to the ε′′/ε′ term in Maxwell's equation, as if it would be due to an inherent static conductivity.  Mathematically, it should be completely equivalent to inputting the complex permittivity, but numerically is much better behaved, and therefore much more preferable.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: demofsky on 12/10/2015 08:29 pm
    I'm not going to take sides on this and I am not going to send an email to Chris.   Everyone should just settle down and get back on track before Chris gets so annoyed at the whole lot of us that he shuts down the thread for good.   Let's see some experimental results and focus on what we know and what we can do to get to the bottom of this em-drive phenomena.  Enough with the distractions.

    I have been on this EM Drive thread since thread number one.  Some people presently contributing to these threads were not present at that time and may be unfamiliar with its history, and how these threads are such a headache for the NSF moderators and for NSF administration.

    Thread number had to be closed, completely shut down by NSF administration for several days because of exchanges that also resulted in banning of individuals.  At that time it was unknown whether the EM Drive would continue to exist.

    This kind of stuff happens on the EM Drive thread much more often than in the conventional threads about NASA and Space X.

    Multiple people have been banned and are sorely missed.

    If the audience wants these threads to continue it is a question of self moderation and not arguing with moderators on their established guidelines, in order to make the moderator and NSF administration's job easier - or at least more similar to their regular monitoring of other threads-.

    Self moderation or self censorship?  How do you avoid groupthink?

    This is not an area of settled science.  There were literal fistfights when quantum mechanics were first introduced so I am not surprised there are conflicts.

    What I like is that there are many folks trying mightily to build and improve experimental rigs so we can resolve whether there is an actual signal or not. 

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RFPlumber on 12/10/2015 08:34 pm
    Just a minor correction: the $70 device above is not a VNA, it is not even a scalar NA, it is actually a spectrum analyzer...
    RFPlumer, Thanks!!!
    I'll pull this software down to see if I can get it running as a second check. I knew it wasn't the best when I bought it but I got it before I had any funding and was using personal funds.
    Shell

    You're welcome :) Take this device, connect its freq output to its input directly, and then in WinNWT software go to "sweepmode" tab and run any freq scan. You will get a flat line at like -70 dBm, which is not what one woud expect from a scalar NA in such a configuration. However, if one attaches an external rf source to its input then the same freq scan will show a nice spectrum plot :) The same device can also be used as an RF generator (using the VFO tab). It cannot be used as RF power meter (so forget about the wattmeter tab). Note that apparently this is device is not the same as the original spectrum analyzer "adaptor" or an "add-on" by BG7TBL, and hence all references to "spectrum analyzer" ("SA") in the WinNWT software are not applicable to this device.

    The other one mentioned (NWT-4000) will come with the exact same software, but the sweepmode will work as expected for a scalar NA, and the wattmeter tab will be working as well (though it requires calibration with a good known power meter if it is to be used for absolute power measurements).

    Figuring all this out was a royal pain... :)
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: oliverio on 12/10/2015 08:49 pm
    On the subject of achieving a resonance lock, I don't think this is possible with an analog-type setup. 

    I think what needs to be done here is coupling a miniVNA Tiny with a source of software-defined radio, determining the resonant frequency of your frustrum given a mode you wish to elicit, and then running a constant loop between the VNA and the SDR such that any variation in the resonance conditions is equilibriated by a shift in the output from the SDR source (by modulating power on the fly).

    This is the most simple, guaranteed way to achieve a constant resonance.  The resonant properties of an object are so complicated that for everything excepting an ideal material you are going to see fluctuations vs. time-- and if I am correct about this (I may not be), small perturbations to a resonant state in a cavity like this will cause a series of wildly spiraling effects.  Those who are familiar with tuning a string instrument will no doubt have noticed that if you play two very dissonant strings at once, it sounds stable.  If you play a note that is slightly out of resonance instead (but very close to the same frequency or a harmonic interval of it) you will observe a phenomenon sometimes called "unraveling;" the two notes will start to oscillate and form other subtones with a frequency and intensity that varies.

    If I am correct you will see the same thing happening if, for example, you whack an operant EMdrive with a hammer.  If you want to achieve a semistable mode generation, you're almost certainly going to have to couple software monitoring (at the least) with a variable power source.

    If you have an EMdrive and the hardware, and you can show me how data is sent from the relevant hardware, I will write you a program in C that does this.  Should be simple enough as long as you can identify the output from the VNA you wish to achieve-- at that point it's just vary-and-check.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/10/2015 09:58 pm
    @ Dr. Rodal,

    I need to thank you for your efforts to teach me a little, and your results. "Thank You!"

    I do not have a background in E&M and as such should probably never taken up meep. It is not a cookbook program even for these simple problems. You found the error that has been hounding us for months when you asked me why I wrote e = e' + je''.  I didn't know any better and you educated me. After changing the sign to minus and making runs, it seems as though the Q values in the millions are gone, and likely hundreds of thousands are gone, too.

    I have not yet any final numbers on any cavity quality factor so this is preliminary, almost premature, but I also want to inform all meepers that the models which I wrote, and some have been distributed, all contain this very serious error. Let me call it a bug, The sign change can easily be made in the line next after the term CU-D-conduct is defined and calculated. Just use:
    (set! CU-D-conduct (- 0 CU-D-conduct))
    The actual numeric value that is calculated is about 113 times to large. Dr. Rodal has gone to great lengths explaining the correct way to calculate the value, I suggest you look through the preceding several pages and follow along. Or, wait until there is a new version provided, which may take some time.

    Dr. Rodal - Unfortunately the reference I found for permittivity of fused Quartz was RFcafe. I have looked for other sources but they are rare. I did find this one reference that seems to confirm Shells' original reference values.

    http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_77/rsnz_77_05_008500.pdf (http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_77/rsnz_77_05_008500.pdf)

    So at this time, I am wondering which value to use. The national Lab data above should be reliable. 

    One thing I did notice though while searching is that the dielectric constant of fused Quartz is sensitive to temperature, doubling in value at 200 degrees C. Though I don't know that the temperature in the cavity will change dramatically, it may change in the Quartz enough to have an effect.

    For now, I think I am going to remove the Quartz rod model and focus on nailing some results with the corrected copper model.

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/10/2015 10:03 pm
    I have a meep resonance run going as we speak, using SeeShell's project dimensions and the corrected permittivity number for Copper.   It should be complete later this evening.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/10/2015 11:32 pm
    And the results are in: resonance at 2.4959 GHz with a Q of 8155.   It works!

    Deriving the mode shape will take a bit more work.

    Edit:  oops I misread the results.  The Q came out -8937, which can't be right.  The 8155 figure was from the NSF1701 model.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: OnlyMe on 12/10/2015 11:51 pm
    And the results are in: resonance at 2.4959 GHz with a Q of 8155.   It works!

    Deriving the mode shape will take a bit more work.

    So the question now is how the quartz rod affects resonance and Q.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/10/2015 11:53 pm
    Except I have already achieved Q > 20,000.

    What bandwidth and resolution did you use?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/11/2015 12:01 am
    Resolution was 100.  Runtime was 1 hour.  No symmetry optimization.  BW was whatever was in the original NSF-1701.ctl file;  I have not touched it.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/11/2015 12:31 am
    Resolution was 100.  Runtime was 1 hour.  No symmetry optimization.  BW was whatever was in the original NSF-1701.ctl file;  I have not touched it.

    Oh, I see. Except that I don't know what your BW is either. Maybe you could search your control file for the parameter
    " BW ", that is, BW with leading and trailing spaces, and tell us what it is set to. And are you running NSF-1701 model or are you running Shell's dimensions?

    My Q = 20,146   at frequency = 2.46554 was Shell's model at resolution = 100 and bandwidth = 0.05 * 2.47 GHz. Drive was 2.47 GHz.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/11/2015 12:56 am
    Resolution was 100.  Runtime was 1 hour.  No symmetry optimization.  BW was whatever was in the original NSF-1701.ctl file;  I have not touched it.

    Oh, I see. Except that I don't know what your BW is either. Maybe you could search your control file for the parameter
    " BW ", that is, BW with leading and trailing spaces, and tell us what it is set to. And are you running NSF-1701 model or are you running Shell's dimensions?

    My Q = 20,146   at frequency = 2.46554 was Shell's model at resolution = 100 and bandwidth = 0.05 * 2.47 GHz. Drive was 2.47 GHz.

    When I run Shell's a long time ago I got quality of resonance around Q ~ 80,000 with a transverse electric mode  but that was with Shell's geometry at that time, using spherical ends (at the time that I was also posting the stresses).
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Fugudaddy on 12/11/2015 01:46 am
    ...and mankind dreamed of nearly unlimited energy:
    The first plasma: the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device is now in operation
    http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15

    It isn't a well tuned microwave, but what was once seriously unattainable is becoming closer to reality.

    Yes, I know y'all skeptics... Fusion is a long well understood science that we've not had the technology to develop and that's different than this.

    Mankind put in over a million hours of work on that piece of machinery to make microscopic suns that last a half an hour then die.

    People like to build. There's a lot of people on this forum that *really* like to build. I have an odd tickling that says that maybe what their tinkering with has the potential to be something fascinating. If you don't believe it; great. There's room for skeptics and necessary room as well. Nobody learns a thing if everybody is rah-rah'ing everything.

    There's more than a handful of people here who have been following this thread from Dr. Rodal's article back nearly six months ago; and who are still following it to see where this goes. This is drama at the edge of human understanding. Busted or Confirmed, the search to figure out what's going on has been a fascinating one. I wholeheartedly encourage those who are building to keep it up. :D

    Be excellent to each other.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/11/2015 02:35 am
    Sorry, I was not at my desk before.  Here are all the parameters I used:

    Frustrum dimension that SeeShells told me to use: L=0.2479m Big=0.295m Small=0.170m
    Flat end-plates, 8/32" thick.  Permittivity of Copper: -2*pi*2.4GHz*3.252698E+8i

    Center frequency of the gaussian noise pulse, 2.47 GHz.  BW used by the harminv search algorithm, 0.025*F

    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/11/2015 02:54 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: JonathanD on 12/11/2015 02:55 am
    ...and mankind dreamed of nearly unlimited energy:
    The first plasma: the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device is now in operation
    http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15

    It isn't a well tuned microwave, but what was once seriously unattainable is becoming closer to reality.

    Yes, I know y'all skeptics... Fusion is a long well understood science that we've not had the technology to develop and that's different than this.

    Mankind put in over a million hours of work on that piece of machinery to make microscopic suns that last a half an hour then die.

    People like to build. There's a lot of people on this forum that *really* like to build. I have an odd tickling that says that maybe what their tinkering with has the potential to be something fascinating. If you don't believe it; great. There's room for skeptics and necessary room as well. Nobody learns a thing if everybody is rah-rah'ing everything.

    There's more than a handful of people here who have been following this thread from Dr. Rodal's article back nearly six months ago; and who are still following it to see where this goes. This is drama at the edge of human understanding. Busted or Confirmed, the search to figure out what's going on has been a fascinating one. I wholeheartedly encourage those who are building to keep it up. :D

    Be excellent to each other.

    Awesome.  And compared to the cost of ITER?  Sigh, don't get me started.  It is OT but it's hard not to get jazzed about it. 

    For heavy metal fans, I would think General Fusion would create quite a beat as well with all those pistons!

    http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion (http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion) 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: zen-in on 12/11/2015 03:07 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.

    A Q=0 means no energy is stored.   A negative Q means energy is materializing inside the cavity.   I don't believe that is possible. 
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: RotoSequence on 12/11/2015 03:21 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.

    A Q=0 means no energy is stored.   A negative Q means energy is materializing inside the cavity.   I don't believe that is possible.

    That would be a handy explanation for the anomalous thrust and Eagleworks' interferometry research if it wasn't clearly wrong, though.  ;D
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/11/2015 03:49 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.

    A Q=0 means no energy is stored.   A negative Q means energy is materializing inside the cavity.   I don't believe that is possible.

    That would be a handy explanation for the anomalous thrust and Eagleworks' interferometry research if it wasn't clearly wrong, though.  ;D

    Meep calculates Q using the formula Q = -Re(w) / 2 * Im(w)   so what is wrong is that the run has terminated when  Im(w), which would like to be zero has became positive. A numerical artefact in other words, undesirable though it may be.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/11/2015 03:57 am
    Sorry, I was not at my desk before.  Here are all the parameters I used:

    Frustrum dimension that SeeShells told me to use: L=0.2479m Big=0.295m Small=0.170m
    Flat end-plates, 8/32" thick.  Permittivity of Copper: -2*pi*2.4GHz*3.252698E+8i

    Center frequency of the gaussian noise pulse, 2.47 GHz.  BW used by the harminv search algorithm, 0.025*F

    We still need to know the resolution you used. --- Sorry, I see you posted that before.

    And what is the calculated value of the parameter CU-D-conduct? Just print it from the control file.
    If you're using different names, then I am asking about the numerical value of D-conductivity in your material instruction.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: aero on 12/11/2015 03:59 am
    Resolution was 100.  Runtime was 1 hour.  No symmetry optimization.  BW was whatever was in the original NSF-1701.ctl file;  I have not touched it.

    Oh, I see. Except that I don't know what your BW is either. Maybe you could search your control file for the parameter
    " BW ", that is, BW with leading and trailing spaces, and tell us what it is set to. And are you running NSF-1701 model or are you running Shell's dimensions?

    My Q = 20,146   at frequency = 2.46554 was Shell's model at resolution = 100 and bandwidth = 0.05 * 2.47 GHz. Drive was 2.47 GHz.

    When I run Shell's a long time ago I got quality of resonance around Q ~ 80,000 with a transverse electric mode  but that was with Shell's geometry at that time, using spherical ends (at the time that I was also posting the stresses).

    Yes, I remember that. That is one of the reasons I'm not finished with my convergence check on Q.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/11/2015 11:39 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.
    Was the conductivity you used in your input a negative or positive number ?
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Rodal on 12/11/2015 11:50 am
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.

    A Q=0 means no energy is stored.   A negative Q means energy is materializing inside the cavity.   I don't believe that is possible.

    That would be a handy explanation for the anomalous thrust and Eagleworks' interferometry research if it wasn't clearly wrong, though.  ;D
    It is very positive that a negative Q is immediately recognized as something wrong and not as a manifestation of negative mass, dark energy, dark masss, or something else not present in Meep's formulation.

    We will fix this.  It is very positive that we have more people running Meep.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: SeeShells on 12/11/2015 01:17 pm
    Looking back at the number I see I misread the spreadsheet.  The reported Q for Shell's model was negative 8937.  Something is wrong.

    A Q=0 means no energy is stored.   A negative Q means energy is materializing inside the cavity.   I don't believe that is possible.

    That would be a handy explanation for the anomalous thrust and Eagleworks' interferometry research if it wasn't clearly wrong, though.  ;D
    It is very positive that a negative Q is immediately recognized as something wrong and not as a manifestation of negative mass, dark energy, dark masss, or something else not present in Meep's formulation.

    We will fix this.  It is very positive that we have more people running Meep.

    Yes, something is more than a little disconcerting with negative Q, in many ways. I'll be around if anyone needs any information on the build numbers.

    (Meepers, do we have the sidewalls correct and are we sure we are not leaking RF, if we don't use the tune chamber for the different tune points TE012 and TE013 and we just extend the Se top plate will leave a large gap.)

    Shell




    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: ThereIWas3 on 12/11/2015 02:54 pm
    I did a little Googling and found that many meep users (not just here - everywhere) ran into the negative Q problem.  It is an artifact of the way meep works, and is an indication that the simulation did not run long enough.  Decreasing the bandwidth helps too.

    After some other attempts, hunting around, I finally set BW to 0.015, set the center frequency to 2.4959 GHz where it wanted to resonate anyway, and increased the runtime by a factor of 1.25.  (aero: I did this by increasing 'gc' from 8 to 10)  Now I get a positive Q, that is closer to Rodal's earlier result.  I got Q=99,938.   Also absolute amplitude went up from 4.9 to 23.5.   Error is 4.12E-7.  Runtime was about 2 hours.  Resonant frequncy came out 2.4959-1.248E-5i.

    The equation I used for CU-D-conduct (which is the imaginary part of the relative complex permittivity (I should change the variable name) was posted earlier, -2*pi*2.4GHz*3.252698E+8i.  That evaluates to -4.9083E+9.   The "2.4GHz" term is actually in "meep units" so it is 2.4E+9 times 'a' divided by 'c'.
    Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5
    Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/11/2015 02:54 pm
    Ok guys, new era with the next in the series of EM Drive threads:

    Thread 6 - with a new moderation structure where a well known "EM Driver" is now the caretaker, not one of the regular mods.
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0