Actually if you read the paper it say “We found that e.g. magnetic interaction from cables and amplifiers with Earth’s magnetic field can be a significant error source for EMDrives.” The Mach-Effect Thruster did not show this as a problem as shown by their their graph @ 90 deg.
Paper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed.
If the interaction with Earth magnetic field is the cause, they should be able to rotate their test apparatus (the entire thing, not the resonance cavity) horizontally to find an angle with which the interaction is minimized (theoretically, zero).I am happy to see that they cited our father-and-daughter paper about the NASA experiment.
Quote from: Star One on 05/20/2018 08:39 pmPaper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed.~20 twitter followers of Fraser Cain is hardly general consensus. Looking at the pictures of Tajmar's experiment, no wonder they are seeing nothing but Lorentz. First of all their twisted pairs do not appear to be twisted enough. There should be at least two twists per inch. In the image below it appears that there is maybe one twist per two inches or so. And then look at the location of the main amplifier and the length of the main leads! At only 2W of RF power, no wonder they are only seeing Lorentz. It's almost like they designed their experiment to be susceptible to this form of error.
As I said in my OP that was merely an example of a wider discussion, or would you rather I have filled the post with Twitter links?
Quote from: ThinkerX on 05/17/2018 06:51 amQuoteAnd so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous. To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field. To quote the paper:QuoteThis clearly indicates that the “thrust” is not coming from the EMDrive but from some electromagnetic interaction. People should read the paper for details, but basically, they did a good null test that showed comparable thrust. Looking at the data in the paper, it looks like out of the 2 mN/kW that they measured, if there was a hidden real signal I estimate it would be below 0.5 mN/kW. Keep in mind that 0.003 mN/kW is a laser pointer, by which point an experiment would have to account for all forms of emitted and incident radiation.They make a good point in the conclusion, which I agree with and is one reason I continue to read this thread:QuoteAt least, SpaceDrive is an excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating theoretical models and possible experimental errors. It’s a great learning experience with the possibility to find something that can drive space exploration into its next generation.The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.
QuoteAnd so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous. To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.
This clearly indicates that the “thrust” is not coming from the EMDrive but from some electromagnetic interaction.
At least, SpaceDrive is an excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating theoretical models and possible experimental errors. It’s a great learning experience with the possibility to find something that can drive space exploration into its next generation.
Tajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单
Quote from: oyzw on 05/23/2018 09:29 amTajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单Translation:Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.
Translation:Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2018 09:40 amTranslation:Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.The big problem is that when Tajmar flips his frustum, he flips the entire experiment box, including the amplifier, other electrical components, and most of the wiring along with it. This doesn't really make much sense if you want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.
If the whole experiment can be rotated including the long wires, it is indeed not at all an experiment to measure the possible thrust produced by an EmDrive cavity, what a pity.
Tajmar measured ~ 1 µN of force with only 2W of input power. According to Mike McCulloch (according to his theory of quantised inertia) thrust to power ratio does not add up in this 2018 experiment. At least his previous experiment (using a tiny oxidized cavity not even at full resonance and with a giant hole in the side wall to fit a waveguide) was consistent with QI.