EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7

[Rodal]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

Dr. Rodal, Yang used a magnetron for her last 20 tests? I thought she used a solid state. Don't have time to dig so could you clarify for me?

Shell

Thanks I lost track of that.  I understand that Li proved that it was Solid State?

So, that's the coup de grace !

There is no way then that Dave can compare his 0.1 mN with Yang 3 mN

Dave is comparing his magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of his with Yang's using solid state for 20 independent tests.

Dave is assuming ergodicity

Yang is not assuming ergodicity

Dave is assuming that if he would have conducted 20 independent NSF flight tests without changing parameters that his measuring system would have behaved identically the same.  He has no experimental basis to justify that.

I recall that Glenn wanted more tests, but by the time that Glenn did the analyis, Dave had dismantled the setup (is that correct )

[rfmwguy]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

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

Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.

Without her time stamps, one could assume its simply 20 pulsed firings SSD or not. More details are needed.

Counting "tests" is irrelevant in comparison to power on testing. The effect is measured during power-on operations. Did she simply have 20 tests with power on for 10 seconds? No idea. So yes, Yang tests lack the data for a direct comparison. Perhaps you can ask them for more detailed info.

[Monomorphic]

Test stand update: I wanted to show to-scale the 2.45Ghz TE013 wedge geometry build mounted to my planned torsional pendulum and the current air track. I can understand why Shawyer went to c-band to shrink the wedge, but I have enough copper and this size is still manageable. 12V batteries, the necessary inverter, magnetron, high voltage transformer, capacitor - everything is self-contained.

[Rodal]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

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

Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.

Without her time stamps, one could assume its simply 20 pulsed firings SSD or not. More details are needed.

Counting "tests" is irrelevant in comparison to power on testing. The effect is measured during power-on operations. Did she simply have 20 tests with power on for 10 seconds? No idea. So yes, Yang tests lack the data for a direct comparison. Perhaps you can ask them for more detailed info.

No it is not irrelevant.  You are assuming without any experimental proof the same behavior averaged over time as averaged over the space of all the system's states (phase space). You are assuming the ergodic hypothesis of thermodynamics for a device (EM Drive) that Prof. Frobnicat has proven over and over again that it appears to not satisfy conservation of energy !

I recall that Glenn was frustrated at the small number of tests you run, and that you had already dismantled your setup. Is that right?

If so, you will soon be running more tests.

Hopefully with Glenn's help this time you can design your experiment with a statistical basis. 

Everything gets better with time.  Like red wine 

Perhaps you can ask them for more detailed info.

This whole exchange started by me saying that you could not compare your tests with Yang and now you are asking me to ask her for data??? No, what is needed is for you to realize that you cannot compare your 0.1 mN to her 3 mN

[SeeShells]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

Dr. Rodal, Yang used a magnetron for her last 20 tests? I thought she used a solid state. Don't have time to dig so could you clarify for me?

Shell

Thanks I lost track of that.  I understand that Li proved that it was Solid State?

So, that's the coup de grace !

There is no way then that Dave can compare his 0.1 mN with Yang 3 mN

Dave is comparing his magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of his with Yang's using solid state for 20 independent tests.

Dave is assuming ergodicity

Yang is not assuming ergodicity

Thanks for the reply. It seems interesting that they didn't use a magnetron powered with a pure AC inverter battery pack to match the last series of testing.

I wish there were videos or pictures to visually back up Yang's claims of her runs and how they were preformed. Graphs are ok but videos and pictures convey in depth visual content and reinforce statistical data. All I do know she did a dual wire torsion style pendulum with some SS device running it with no details like modes of operation and frequencies and frustum sizes or even RF insertion points. I would not post in my own write up so little information for fear of the repercussions of a badly designed test.

Shell

[Rodal]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

Dr. Rodal, Yang used a magnetron for her last 20 tests? I thought she used a solid state. Don't have time to dig so could you clarify for me?

Shell

Thanks I lost track of that.  I understand that Li proved that it was Solid State?

So, that's the coup de grace !

There is no way then that Dave can compare his 0.1 mN with Yang 3 mN

Dave is comparing his magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of his with Yang's using solid state for 20 independent tests.

Dave is assuming ergodicity

Yang is not assuming ergodicity

Thanks for the reply. It seems interesting that they didn't use a magnetron powered with a pure AC inverter battery pack to match the last series of testing.

I wish there were videos or pictures to visually back up Yang's claims of her runs and how they were preformed. Graphs are ok but videos and pictures convey in depth visual content and reinforce statistical data. All I do know she did a dual wire torsion style pendulum with some SS device running it with no details like modes of operation and frequencies and frustum sizes or even RF insertion points. I would not post in my own write up so little information for fear of the repercussions of a badly designed test.

Shell

Wow that's such a great comment!

I could not agree more.  One of the things I loved about NASA's tests is that we have the actual force vs time traces !

We have nothing like that from Shawyer or Yang etc

What do their force vs time look like

[rfmwguy]

....
Wrong, the several thousand data points show a series of powerups per session. Each session had two primary on/off cycles. Don't recall the sub-cycles for power up. Depends on how you want to split hairs on terminology.

No, you cannot compare like that.  Prof Yang also used a magnetron, and her magnetron might have been firing on and off during each of her 20 tests.  You don't have access to her magnetron time history.  You cannot compare thousands of times of your magnetron firing on and off during A SINGLE TEST of yours, with Yang's 20 separate tests.

It seems to me like Glenn might have assumed an ergodic process

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

Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.

Without her time stamps, one could assume its simply 20 pulsed firings SSD or not. More details are needed.

Counting "tests" is irrelevant in comparison to power on testing. The effect is measured during power-on operations. Did she simply have 20 tests with power on for 10 seconds? No idea. So yes, Yang tests lack the data for a direct comparison. Perhaps you can ask them for more detailed info.

No it is not irrelevant.  You are assuming without any experimental proof the same behavior averaged over time as averaged over the space of all the system's states (phase space). You are assuming the ergodic hypothesis of thermodynamics for a device (EM Drive) that Prof. Frobnicat has proven over and over again that it appears to not satisfy conservation of energy !

I recall that Glenn was frustrated at the small number of tests you run, and that you had already dismantled your setup. Is that right?

If so, you will soon be running more tests.

Hopefully with Glenn's help this time you can design your experiment with a statistical basis. 

Everything gets better with time.  Like red wine 

Perhaps you can ask them for more detailed info.

This whole exchange started by me saying that you could not compare your tests with Yang and now you are asking me to ask her for data??? No, what is needed is for you to realize that you cannot compare your 0.1 mN to her 3 mN

This topic of conversation with you is ended due to unnecessary drama. Review my test report and videos for yourself. Her data is lacking in time stamps as shell alludes to, not to mention the other details. I consider it sub-DIY for reasons aforementioned.

[SeeShells]

I've got to go and get more hardware in town. You all be good, we're on the same team.

Shell

[SeeShells]

Thanks for the reply. It seems interesting that they didn't use a magnetron powered with a pure AC inverter battery pack to match the last series of testing.

I wish there were videos or pictures to visually back up Yang's claims of her runs and how they were preformed. Graphs are ok but videos and pictures convey in depth visual content and reinforce statistical data. All I do know she did a dual wire torsion style pendulum with some SS device running it with no details like modes of operation and frequencies and frustum sizes or even RF insertion points. I would not post in my own write up so little information for fear of the repercussions of a badly designed test.

Shell


Wow that's such a great comment!

I could not agree more.  One of the things I loved about NASA's tests is that we have the actual force vs time traces !

We have nothing like that from Shawyer or Yang etc

What do their force vs time look like

Dr. Rodal,

You're very correct! Force vs time data is critically important even post a digital frame grab off a scale or VNA or O-Scope, or a cheap video from your iPhone or camera. Even with the little funding I have I've got three video cameras and one thermal coupled with log data from a digital scale. Even in rfmwguy's tests I found good data because it was time stamped and videoed.  Almost every build I've seen has been accompanied with pictures, time stamped logs and or video data.

The data from NASA's EagleWorks is a step above and the team truly needs to be thanked for that.

Shell

[Monomorphic]

Almost every build I've seen has been accompanied with pictures, time stamped logs and or video data.
Shell

What's the saying? Pics or it didn't happen.

Yang and TT are the only builders I know of who have not shared any real images of their builds. Though to TT's credit, he did show some early images of his workshop and some hardware.

[Rodal]

I have updated the EM Drive Wiki Experimental Results page:

http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

with Prof. Yang's 2016 results,

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1113532

using a torsional pendulum, with batteries and solid-state (instead of a magnetron as used in her prior tests)

That the EM Drive dimensions and excitation frequency are the same as the one in her prior tests is justified here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527238#msg1527238

if the EM Drive is the same as prior, the natural frequencies and mode shape must also be, and hence when excited at the same frequency, the quality factor of resonance (Q) should at most be the same as prior:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527409#msg1527409

This is assuming that no significant corrosion or other surface deterioration decreased the quality factor which was already very low (1531), for her previous tests (one of the lowest quality factors of any experimenter, perhaps because of over-coupling due to a large opening from a waveguide ?)

The experimental results of her 20 tests with a battery are shown here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=39772.0,3Battach=1113597,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.Qa6Tn3QlVY.jpg

other supporting figures are here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527220#msg1527220

[Rodal]

...You're very correct! Force vs time data is critically important even post a digital frame grab off a scale or VNA or O-Scope, or a cheap video from your iPhone or camera. ...

Shell

I am confident that one of (several) reasons you are taking your time to report your experiments is because you appreciate the importance of running many tests without changing parameters under well controlled conditions, in order to be able to quantify uncertainty    . 

Godspeed !

[SeeShells]

...You're very correct! Force vs time data is critically important even post a digital frame grab off a scale or VNA or O-Scope, or a cheap video from your iPhone or camera. ...

Shell

I am confident that one of (several) reasons you are taking your time to report your experiments is because you appreciate the importance of running many tests without changing parameters under well controlled conditions, in order to be able to quantify uncertainty    . 

Godspeed !

That is a understatement Dr. Rodal!

Thanks,

Shell

[Monomorphic]

There is ~15% difference in scale between TE013 and TE012 in the wedge geometry. In anticipation of signal drift from the hot magnetron, I optimized wedge dimensions for strongest TE012 at 2.445Ghz - so that as the magnetron heats up, resonance should grow stronger.

I am thinking the TE013 is a little too cumbersome and may go with the smaller mode wedge.

[Rodal]

There is ~15% difference in scale between TE013 and TE012 in the wedge geometry. In anticipation of signal drift from the hot magnetron, I optimized wedge dimensions for strongest TE012 at 2.445Ghz - so that as the magnetron heats up, resonance should grow stronger.

I am thinking the TE013 is a little too cumbersome and may go with the smaller mode wedge.

...

TE013 is strongly recommended (over TE012) because:

1) TT quoting direct communications with Shawyer attributes to Shawyer a recommendation for TE013 over TE012

2) As I am showing in detail, step by step elsewhere (post under construction) the electromagnetic stress field is due to the energy density.  The energy density is close to the small end for TE013 while it is in about the middle of the frustum for TE012.

3) The recent falsification of Yang's prior results apparently involve TE012

4) According to Dr. White's theory the QV effect is most related to the energy density, which supports TE013 much more than TE012.  Ditto for gravitational theories.

5) TE013 larger frustum may also result in higher Q and the ability to input more power into it while keeping the same energy density.

Energy density for TE012: located in the middle of the truncated cone cavity:



Energy density for TE013:  clearly located towards the small end of the truncated cone cavity:

[Monomorphic]

The energy density is close to the small end for TE013 while it is in about the middle of the frustum for TE012.

This is seen in the wedge geometry clearly.

[JaimeZX]

Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.

50 points! This clearly is the most obscure possible impassioned statement in the English language.

//BREAK BREAK//

I understand that Yang's previously-reported force was two orders of magnitude higher than McCullough's theory predicts, and significantly higher than all other reported data.

That said, [Conspiracy Theory] what are the odds this follow-up is a track-covering mechanism for a device with clear national security implications? Let's say she still actually had a significant measurable effect (within the optimistic side of the "realistic" range reported by other experimenters). It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the ChiCom Authorities appropriated her research and directed a clever nullification paper be "released" to throw other countries off the track... even if it just sets them back a few years. The time between papers should be sufficient to come up with realistic-looking fake data; and then  [/Conspiracy Theory]

Love these threads.

[Rodal]

...But we still have hope, not for human beings to go to outer space, but for artificial intelligence to go to outer space for us. I feel that a great revolution is imminent, and the project to build a true AI is the very last project for human beings. Maybe you should be like me, to spend almost all spare time in that direction.

Please note that a Wikipedia user who signs Wikipedia under the name Shengchao Alfred Li, and started editing the RF resonant cavity thruster Wikipedia article since August 2015, this last May 1, 2016 has edited the previously called EM Drive article to now read:

which they later pointed out to suffer from excessive force caused by heat related deformation of the flexible waveguide used to connect the microwave source and the cavity

Mr. Li, could you be so nice as to go over Prof. Yang's latest paper (2016  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1113532 ) again to clarify whether the thermal deformation addressed by Prof. Yang in her latest paper is due to:

1) the thermal expansion (and resulting thermal stresses) of the power cable connecting the power source to the resonant cavity (as described in several of the last posts in the NSF EM Drive thread)

or

2) the thermal deformation of the waveguide used to connect the microwave source and the cavity as recently edited by Shengchao Alfred Li in Wikipedia

Thanks

[Rodal]

Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.

50 points! This clearly is the most obscure possible impassioned statement in the English language. ...

No impassioned statement was implied.  Link to a brief introductory article on ergodicity was provided:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodicity 

The study being addressed in the post must have assumed ergodicity IMHO (whether openly stated or not, whether previously recognized or not; as I don't recall being provided the actual statistical study to review) since only 1 (or at most 2) independent experiments were conducted and the statistics addressed the time domain of one experiment instead of the statistical space of a (non-existent) large number of independent experiments. (Where I use"experiments" as per Ronald Fisher definition of experiments) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher.

My understanding is that as a result of the exchange, a useful conclusion was agreed to: that the addressed experiment cannot be compared to Yang's latest experimental report, including her uncertainty threshold of +/- 3 mN .

[Tcarey]

...You're very correct! Force vs time data is critically important even post a digital frame grab off a scale or VNA or O-Scope, or a cheap video from your iPhone or camera. ...

Shell

I am confident that one of (several) reasons you are taking your time to report your experiments is because you appreciate the importance of running many tests without changing parameters under well controlled conditions, in order to be able to quantify uncertainty    . 

Godspeed !

Dr Rodal, I am perplexed by your willingness to declare that the recently reported Yang results nullify all of her previous results.  By Yang changing from an Magnetron, presumably powered by an AC supply, to Solid State RF source powered by DC, it seems that more then enough experimental conditions have changed to make these different experiments beyond the changing of measurement techniques.  While the results may be suggestive, to say that they nullify the previous work is to assume that the change in RF source and power supplies are not consequential. I don't think that is a supportable assumption.