{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}
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.
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.
Quote from: glennfish on 10/27/2015 06:30 pmNow 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.QuoteIn 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.
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.
...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.
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.
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?
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 post, but then we're back to my original complaint about mathematically characterizing thermal lift:
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.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 01:57 amAttached 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.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.
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here! "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.aspxI think it is something that just might work... what do you think? ShellAdded: 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/203796126Oops another: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Speedi-Products-3-in-x-20-ft-Standard-White-Vinyl-Flexible-Hose-EX-SVH-03/202907361
Quote from: SeeShells on 10/27/2015 11:54 am" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here! "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!
" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1439633#msg1439633This whole approach requires some thought but one way or another I really think areo has a breakthrough idea here! "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!
Quote from: glennfish on 10/28/2015 02:13 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 10/28/2015 01:57 amAttached 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.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.
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.