Quote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.Point well taken. I admire big picture ideas, but personally prefer to take small steps first. IMHO, we need to avoid a P.T. Barnum mentality and report things as we see them...small scale then large scale.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.
QuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.
That may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0373Some troubles about definitions of momentum in general coordinates system.So the question about momentum in a tappered waveguide is not trivial.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:58 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place.Point well taken. I admire big picture ideas, but personally prefer to take small steps first. IMHO, we need to avoid a P.T. Barnum mentality and report things as we see them...small scale then large scale.How much smaller can I go?Have designed a 2.45GHz version of the Flight Thruster. Will drive it with a 100W Rf and variable frequency Rf generator being controlled by a Raspberry Pi 2B computer, using 4 x 12v 6AH SLA batteries for power on a rotary test rig.I agree with Shawyer, static testing is fraught with difficulties and so free to accelerate EMDrive testing is the way to go.Shawyer achieved ~0.4N/kW in his Flight Thruster testing. I expect to be able to do that and maybe more. With a design Q of 100k and a Df of 0.925. Expect to see around 62mN or 6gf or 0.62N/kW of Force generated from the 100Ws of Rf.In the Demonstrator EMDrive full video, the EMDrive had a 8.2g static load applied and generated 9.8g of Force for a net Force for rotation of 1.6g accelerating a 100kg mass.(...)The total rotary mass is expected to be around 20kg (20% of the SPR test above) with 6g of Force (3.75 more Force) pushing it. So expect it to accelerate much faster than the above SPR test run and reach 120 RPM very quickly.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:58 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteHow much smaller can I go?YouTube video: Test notes: http://www.emdrive.com/testnotes.pdf
Quote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuote
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuote
Quote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuote
Quote
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/16/2015 03:23 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:58 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteHow much smaller can I go?First step before you start running. No extravagant claims of your dreams of the future. Simple small first step before you leap. Running going round and round is all and that's not much to ask, is it?And not RS's video, yours. There are too many uncertainties in this build and I just detailed out one of the air bearing.Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:58 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteHow much smaller can I go?
Mr T, I have lost count on the number of times this old video has been posted...friendly hint.
For a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:40 pmFor a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/16/2015 03:45 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:40 pmFor a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:53 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/16/2015 03:45 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:40 pmFor a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?I'm not attacking you or RS. I'm asking you to be a engineer first and answer like an engineer not a marketing dude. Question everything test all. This doesn't disprove it didn't work, it says I have some serious questions and If I don't ask and question, what do you think when you run into the E Musk head bangers?I didn't become a builder or a Crazy Eddie kind of gal to supersede what took years to gain without questioning marketing hype from good scientific questioning.Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 04:07 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:53 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/16/2015 03:45 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/16/2015 03:40 pmFor a simple example. You ever took a marble, put it atop a jet of air from a air compressor nozzle? It spins. I'll point you to several papers on it if you want. These forces just in themselves could cause the error we are seeing, not dissing RS just the test.So why didn't it spin for the 1st 130 seconds of power on and only starting moving when the magnetron frequency locked onto the EMDrive's resonant frequency?Resonate harmonics within the air bearing related to the EMI signature of the magnetron power supply is one thought. What happens to the magnetron power supply right at lock?I'm not attacking you or RS. I'm asking you to be a engineer first and answer like an engineer not a marketing dude. Question everything test all. This doesn't disprove it didn't work, it says I have some serious questions and If I don't ask and question, what do you think when you run into the E Musk head bangers?I didn't become a builder or a Crazy Eddie kind of gal to supersede what took years to gain without questioning marketing hype from good scientific questioning.Shell I started out as an EMDrive agnostic. The more I studied, the more dots points in my head started to connect. When I worked on my spreadsheet model with RS, it all just fell into place. I could see how it worked as a motor engineer can see how a fuel injected, computer controlled complex engine works. I'm sure you can do that with your past projects.There comes a time when you can live inside the device or you can't and will never truly understand it.For me now this is like building a brush less DC motor for the 1st time. Something that only a few generations of engineers ago would have seemed impossible. But with a different approach to motor design, powerful PM magnets made to your design and switching semiconductors it becomes easy.Once I publish the full and detailed plans, physically building a high performance and reliable EMDrive will be simple, quick and easy. Likewise the Raspberry Pi software will be downloadable in source form. So no hidden IP or industrial trade secrets. All out in the open. All replicable.
Quote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:50 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/16/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: WBY1984 on 07/16/2015 02:24 pmQuoteThat may be true of the Eagleworks tests using a known low Force dielectric inside the frustum but it is not true of SPR's 2nd and 3rd EMDrive tests nor of Prof Yang's tests that rejected using lossey dielectrics.How much do you trust SPR, since Shawer has, as I've said before, made a number of physics blunders (just going on what others have said on other pages in the threads) and has made outlandish and even silly statements in the press. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me.Thus the genesis of these threads and independent builders. If it were taken for granted, there would be no need to be here.Indeed, I'm just put off by what seems to be a lot of 'jumping the gun' before enough independent verification has taken place."Jumping the gun" may be very much like beauty - i.e. in the eye of the beholder. I am all for more and more extensive testing - which I think the number of DIYers plus labs are going to provide soon. As I have said before I think we need data on variations in size, angle, frequency, mode and modulation. However, looking at the data already reported from a number of sources gives one the feeling (technical term for "hunch") that there is some there there. Yes - each set of data could be 1) falsified 2) results of bad methodology or 3)hidden systemic error; but that when they all seem to see "something"?? Hmmm - That is starting to stack up on the side of the "something is there". Jumping into full fledged public demos - or at least planning to once the unit is built and pushing or rotating or lifting - may seem to be jumping the gun but to me it just seems like planning ahead. Have a goal and move toward it. Herman
NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion SystemsChair(s): Gregory Meholic (The Aerospace Corporation)Co-Chair(s): Heidi Fearn (California State University, Fullerton)2:30 PM - 5:30 PM; Lake Nona A 2:30 PM - 3:00 PM AIAA-2015-4078. Atmospheric Mining in the Outer Solar System: Aerial Vehicle Mission and Design Issues Bryan A. Palaszewski3:00 PM - 3:30 PM AIAA-2015-4079. Space-to-Space Power Beaming Enabling High Performance Rapid Geocentric Orbit Transfer John Dankanich; Corinne Vassallo; Megan Tadge 3:30 PM - 4:00 PM AIAA-2015-4080. Design and First Measurements of a Superconducting Gravity-Impulse-Generator Istvan Lörincz; Martin Tajmar 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM AIAA-2015-4081. Replication and Experimental Characterization of the Wallace Dynamic Force Field Generator Martin Tajmar 4:30 PM - 5:00 PM AIAA-2015-4082. New Theoretical Results for the Mach Effect Thruster Heidi Fearn5:00 PM - 5:30 PM AIAA-2015-4083. Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects Martin Tajmar