Quote from: MikeMcCulloch on 10/06/2014 01:39 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 12:59 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:08 amhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?I would like to read this:Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamicsof the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.A very warm welcome to this forum, Prof. McCulloch
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 12:59 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:08 amhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?I would like to read this:Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamicsof the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:08 amhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?I would like to read this:Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamicsof the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.
Assuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
Quote from: aceshigh on 10/06/2014 02:58 am... i was like message boy ...You still don't get it, do ya? Take a weekend trip to AZ, and get a sense of Yuma.
... i was like message boy ...
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 12:34 pm there is only one electron in the universeAnd it's mine!
there is only one electron in the universe
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 01:28 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amhow I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?Solo chiedendo.Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amhow I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?Solo chiedendo.
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Quote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 01:31 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 01:28 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amhow I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?Solo chiedendo.Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo There is no way to say that with an arbitrary perspective, nevertheless. The design intent is a 45 degree light cone. Looking for cad errors isn't the important thing here.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 02:40 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 01:31 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 01:28 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amhow I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?Solo chiedendo.Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo There is no way to say that with an arbitrary perspective, nevertheless. The design intent is a 45 degree light cone. Looking for cad errors isn't the important thing here.Don't get me wrong. I'm not "looking" for CD errors. And I get that about perspective. Still, it looked like a 60 degree cone. As you were.
Okay, so they flipped the entire test article. I thought you were saying they had reoriented the dielectric inside the test article.Flipping the test article does work for isolating any coupling from the power leads, which you had previously been concerned about.
Quote from: DIYFAN on 10/06/2014 02:05 amLurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.For starters, here is the latest published patent application:http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=AYBCO superconducting film to line the inner cavity:http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx3GHz+ signal generators:http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0Microwave power amplifiers:http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.Trip to Home Depot in order? Like it.
Lurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.For starters, here is the latest published patent application:http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=AYBCO superconducting film to line the inner cavity:http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx3GHz+ signal generators:http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0Microwave power amplifiers:http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.
why do you think that flipping the test article would eliminate the effect of the magnetic damper with the power lead and the tested drive?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/06/2014 03:31 pmwhy do you think that flipping the test article would eliminate the effect of the magnetic damper with the power lead and the tested drive? Paul helped design the Eagle balance based upon lessons learned with Woodward's ARC Lite balance. That balance was specifically designed so one could physically reorient the thruster without reorienting the power leads to it, so that if they were coupling, that coupling would not also flip--hence isolating the spurious from the actual thrust. I can only presume Paul kept that protocol. I haven't seen the detailed explanations of the Eagle balance that have been so public with Woodward's work, but Paul knows the value of that particular practice.
Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/06/2014 04:53 pmYes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.Indeed on pages 10, 11, and 14. Dummy loads are mentioned. 10, 11 for Cannae. 14 for Emdrive. I gather that they used pretty darn good controls as experimentalist and this wasn't their first rodeo. They had lessons learned from previous campaigns. I do have issues with the seemingly small number of test campaigns, but I concede that it takes time to setup and run carefully. I have to bring up the fact that dummy loads by their very essence, convert rf to heat. How was the waste heat isolated? If, for instance, the waste heat of the dummy load were contributing to impulse EXACTLY the same as the test article, because the dominant effect was heat radiation, the dummy load null test would be invalid. So where was the dummy load? I can tell you from my own experience that dummy loads get very very hot.Also, yes you are right, if the rf mode is setup where the standing wave is at minimum E, but max I at the boundary, it would be a dummy load and dump the rf as heat.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 05:09 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/06/2014 04:53 pmYes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.Indeed on pages 10, 11, and 14. Dummy loads are mentioned. 10, 11 for Cannae. 14 for Emdrive. I gather that they used pretty darn good controls as experimentalist and this wasn't their first rodeo. They had lessons learned from previous campaigns. I do have issues with the seemingly small number of test campaigns, but I concede that it takes time to setup and run carefully. I have to bring up the fact that dummy loads by their very essence, convert rf to heat. How was the waste heat isolated? If, for instance, the waste heat of the dummy load were contributing to impulse EXACTLY the same as the test article, because the dominant effect was heat radiation, the dummy load null test would be invalid. So where was the dummy load? I can tell you from my own experience that dummy loads get very very hot.Also, yes you are right, if the rf mode is setup where the standing wave is at minimum E, but max I at the boundary, it would be a dummy load and dump the rf as heat.As way of background to @Mulletron's question, this is the excerpt from the report (p.14):<<The net force is calculated by accounting for the null force present in the system. Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.>>and Fig. 20 caption:<<Figure 20. Null Test on Torsion Pendulum – average null force is 9.6 micronewtons due to 5.6A DC current in power cable (routes power from liquid metal contacts to RF amplifier; interacts with magnetic damper system)>>and see attached picture Fig. 13 RF Resistive Load mounted on torsion pendulum
...The dummy load was inside! Processing.......Okay It wasn't elucidated that I can see, but in order to derive the 9.6 micronewton null force, you would have to take into account the thrust from the test article first, subtract the thrust (if any from the dummy load, which takes into account a lot of variables, including non linearaties of the heat produced by the dummy load itself coupled with the geometry of the test chamber. AND this is assuming the dummy load impulse effects were less than the test article, otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?).You know what? This all sounds like BS because 1, we don't have enough info and 2 the effects are way small. I'm about to abandon this level of critical analysis of the paper because there are way too many assumptions based on too little info. The emdrive's supposed thrust is so close to the noise floor, that this way of analyzing it is not effective. We're gonna have to wait and see what other people do.