Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1707152 times)

Offline Tetrakis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 9
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts.  If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example:  that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.

Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed  :)  ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?

Can you offer a technical point, or not? If you are going to make a QM argument about this effect, it needs to be correct mathematically. MucCulloch is wrong. Regardless of how valiant his efforts are in the face of totalitarian, Stalinist scientific orthodoxy.

If this thread is to move forward I think people should be more willing to decisively cull bad theories and experiments. Otherwise people will just keep posting them here, the same lengthy and polite debates will ensue, and no progress will be made.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
...
I remember watching a back and white film of one of his lectures in collage on this very thing. I remember so little of it though. It should be on youtube now, geez everything in on youtube.

I also understand that my beam moved a few microns to be able to measure this thrust on the digital scale and it's wrong for me to think that the power source didn't. So according to conservation of momentum the power source 3 foot away would show a equal opposing vectored force?

Shell
One would have to address conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, power flow between the power source and the antenna, Poynting's vector, and perhaps E=mc2.  This is impossible to do on the forum at this point as it would involve an intimate knowledge of your whole experiment and complete modeling of it.

I think that it would be simpler and most convincing to have the power source self-integrated with the moving EM Drive to completely eliminate this issue.

I hope that you eventually get the time to perform the experiment  :) as done by Brito, Marini and Galian to falsify a propellant-less thruster:

* self-integrated power source (batteries) with the moving EM Drive
* torsional pendulum
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 04:01 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts.  If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example:  that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.

Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed  :)  ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?

Can you offer a technical point, or not? If you are going to make a QM argument about this effect, it needs to be correct mathematically. MucCulloch is wrong. Regardless of how valiant his efforts are in the face of totalitarian, Stalinist scientific orthodoxy.

If this thread is to move forward I think people should be more willing to decisively cull bad theories and experiments....
Absolutely.  There is no name calling, scorn, derision or vituperations involved here.  No orthodoxy.
 Just a desperate request to logically address technical points and apparent contradictions.

Words are used to invocate theories that involve Plank's constant. Yet the equations do not involve Plank's constant.  There is a possible (*) disconnect between the words and the equations that needs to be addressed.

________
(*) It is courageous for McCulloch to put his theory out there. No argument about that.  And ridicule, vituperations and name calling are definitely out of line.  Instead, what I plead for here is a technical answer to Baez technical points.

Science only thrives in an atmosphere of strong arguments, as it was the case at the turn of the century (1900 to 1920's: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics). We have to vigorously attempt to prove and disprove things.  The arguments should not resort to name calling.  Today she may prove you wrong, tomorrow you may prove her wrong.  Meanwhile our knowledge of the Universe advances.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 04:17 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
...
I remember watching a back and white film of one of his lectures in collage on this very thing. I remember so little of it though. It should be on youtube now, geez everything in on youtube.

I also understand that my beam moved a few microns to be able to measure this thrust on the digital scale and it's wrong for me to think that the power source didn't. So according to conservation of momentum the power source 3 foot away would show a equal opposing vectored force?

Shell
One would have to address conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, and E=mc2.  This is impossible to do on the forum at this point as it would involve an intimate knowledge of your whole experiment and complete modeling of it.

I think that it would be simpler and most convincing to have the power source self-integrated with the moving EM Drive to completely eliminate this issue.

I hope that you eventually get the time to perform the experiment  :) as done by Brito, Marini and Galian to falsify a propellant-less thruster:

* self-integrated power source (batteries) with the moving EM Drive
* torsional pendulum
I hope to be able to self contain the entire works as well, so it's operating within it's own enclosed energy reference frame taking in account what has been talked about here recently. The builds advance and the data increases but anomalies have still remained to this point. Don't ask details, I'm still working on the papers and data I've gained.

After all these months (working towards a year now) not only my tests but the tests of EW and all the other DYIers have evolved from the simple hanging the drive on a bar and powering it with a OTS magnetron, to clean RF sources, friction-less air bearing slides, to self contained rotational test beds, and even the teeter todder designs have evolved in quality to pinpoint this anomaly. I wouldn't even know where to total up the hours spent in discussions and theories and advise from all here and all the hours spent by the people and teams building the test beds to either prove or disprove that there is a real effect that can be useful.

This isn't crackpot science, it's raw discovery and learning. Thank you all for you input, your dedication and your support.

Shell

Now I'm going to be working on a real life crisis by fixing a broken water pipe in the wall of my bathroom... no building and testing today.
 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
No tackling (yet) of Baez criticisms (no discussion yet as to why Plank's constant does not appear in McCulloch's equations) in McCulloch's blog, but this, which shows McCulloch to be unique among EM Drive proponents in tackling the issue of conservation of energy by stating that there is indeed lots of energy to be obtained from it !

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/04/mihsc-in-glass-of-beer.html

Quote from: McCulloch
The point is that MiHsC is all about information horizons making the zero point field non-uniform, so that unexpected energy can be extracted. An equivalent viewpoint that I'm working on now is that information stored on horizons can be released by 'squeezing the horizon' (an intro) but that's another blog..

McCulloch also admits that his theory breaks Einstein's equivalence principle:

Quote from: McCulloch
MiHsC technically breaks equivalence, but only for tiny accelerations and also the anomalous dynamics predicted by MiHsC are 'independent of the mass' so won't show up in the torsion balance experiments that are used to test equivalence, or in the Microscope satellite just launched. Galileo's two balls still fall together, but both slightly faster.

and in comments section of http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/04/dark-energy-inflation-emdrive.html

Quote from: McCulloch
In my opinion the emdrive is only tickling the dragon, and a lot of mass-energy is there to be got out. Look at the size of dark energy (that MiHsC predicts). To get at it we need to learn how to put better horizons in the vacuum. In my view, what is mass-energy but the consequence of a horizon? Lots of scope for sci-fi there.

if one thinks that McCulloch maybe correct that the EM Drive is extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum, one must address the power source: one must have the power source self-integrated with the EM Drive moving in the same platform (with batteries).
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 07:21 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts.  If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example:  that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.

Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed  :)  ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?

Can you offer a technical point, or not? If you are going to make a QM argument about this effect, it needs to be correct mathematically. MucCulloch is wrong. Regardless of how valiant his efforts are in the face of totalitarian, Stalinist scientific orthodoxy.

If this thread is to move forward I think people should be more willing to decisively cull bad theories and experiments. Otherwise people will just keep posting them here, the same lengthy and polite debates will ensue, and no progress will be made.
McCullough is theory, so no Technical critiques from me other than Baez's approach. Now if you want technical comments on design and testing, sort through my details here on NSF and youtube videos; all there for the taking...The project is open door.

Theory is only a portion of the Threads. Design and Test and the other constituents. Some will also say Education and Information as well. All these will move the Threads forward just fine...until the time theory and test resolve the observations.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 07:27 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4372
  • Likes Given: 1404
one must have the power source self-integrated with the EM Drive moving in the same platform (with batteries).

I'm working towards this. The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1. Power a magnetron using a 12V lipo and inverter. This is a common set-up seen in recreational vehicles, and is also used by truckers. This can be accomplished relatively cheaply. The problem is the inverter relies on fans to keep cool. Those would have to be disabled and overheating dealt with another way, possibly a larger heatsink. The major downside to this method is weight, counting the batteries, magnetron, HV tranformer, capacitor, inverter, heatsink, frustum, and wiring. Tuning is limited to signal drift as the magnetron heats. 



2. Power an s-band RF amplifier using batteries. This is the method that Shawyer appears to be using with the wedge geometry and the air-track (even though batteries are not shown, that's my guess). S-band amplifiers in the ~100+ watt range, and other necessary equipment, can be very expensive. So expensive that you have to ask for a quote, they don't post the price on the web! Major benefit of this method is the RF frequency is clean and tunable. Downside is the entry cost and relatively low power.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 08:33 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
one must have the power source self-integrated with the EM Drive moving in the same platform (with batteries).

I'm working towards this. The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1. Power a magnetron using a 12V lipo and inverter. This is a common set-up seen in recreational vehicles, and is also used by truckers. This can be accomplished relatively cheaply. The problem is the inverter relies on fans to keep cool. Those would have to be disabled and overheating dealt with another way, possibly a larger heatsink. The major downside to this method is weight, counting the batteries, magnetron, HV tranformer, capacitor, inverter, heatsink, frustum, and wiring. Tuning is limited to signal drift as the magnetron heats. 

2. Power an s-band RF amplifier using batteries. This is the method that Shawyer appears to be using with the wedge geometry and the air-track. S-band amplifiers in the ~100+ watt range, and other necessary equipment, can be very expensive. So expensive that you have to ask for a quote, they don't post the price on the web! Major benefit of this method is the RF frequency is tunable. Downside is the entry cost and relatively low power.
To point 1: What if the magnetron is within a oil bath for cooling instead using the fan? The heat capacity of oil is lower than of water but it didn't leads to electrical problems. May be enough cooling for a few minutes.  :) Cooling of the inverter is also possible this way.

It could be a way to reduce air convection problems due to the hot magnetron in general.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 08:12 pm by X_RaY »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
If Dr. McCulloch's theory is a total dud due to a missing Planck constant, then how come that his published calculation results for galaxy rotations and a number of phenomena seem to give the best approximations for real observations made? Also, having zero adjustable parameters and still giving the best approximations, seems to give his theory an edge over the ad-hoc hypothesis of dark matter or even MOND. So I wonder, what this is all about. I think that not having hand-tailored parameters within the theory gives Dr. McCulloch's theory some basic starting credibility, considering the precision of the calulations in regards to observations.

Oh well, it's a WIP. Perhaps there is some nonsense in there, too. I'd say trim it away, and continue from there. Maybe, just maybe.. something wonderful will happen :) .
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 08:07 pm by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
If Dr. McCulloch's theory is a total dud due to a missing Planck constant, then how come that his published calculation results for galaxy rotations and a number of phenomena seem to give the best approximations for real observations made? Also, having zero adjustable parameters and still giving the best approximations, seems to give his theory an edge over the ad-hoc hypothesis of dark matter or even MOND. So I wonder, what this is all about. I think that not having hand-tailored parameters within the theory gives Dr. McCulloch's theory some basic starting credibility, considering the precision of the calulations in regards to observations.

Oh well, it's a WIP. Perhaps there is some nonsense in there, too. I'd say trim it away, and continue from there. Maybe, just maybe.. something wonderful will happen :) .

1) Because as Einstein said:



Not simpler, because if simpler is wrong, then wrong is not better, it is worse. 

The assertion is not "If Dr. McCulloch's theory is a total dud due to a missing Planck constant" the question is why the equations McCulloch uses appear to disagree with the words he uses, since the effects he quotes (Unruh and Casimir) imply the Plank constant, yet the Planck constant does not appear in his equations.  Which appears contradictory (unless he can explain it and address Baez comments)

2) The discussion about "having zero adjustable parameters". When Dr. McCulloch addressed JPL's analysis of the Pioneer anomaly, using Finite Element Analysis to analyze the heat radiation responsible for the Pioneer anomaly, he referred to the number of finite elements as a large number of adjustable parameters.  This is completely incorrect.  The number of finite elements or nodes in a finite element mesh are not "adjustable parameters" in a theory.  On the contrary, the finer the mesh, the greater the convergence.  Instead of acting as adjustable physical parameters, the number of finite elements accomplish better modeling of the actual mathematical satisfying the partial differential equation.  Each finite element has a low order polynomial approximation to the function.  In order to model regions where the solution function changes rapidly, a greater number of finite elements are needed.  There is nothing to adjust or "fine tune": always the greater the number of finite elements the better the convergence.  Computer time limits the number of finite elements one uses in a model.

3) The assertion that "published calculation results for galaxy rotations and a number of phenomena seem to give the best approximations for real observations"  better according to what standard?  What astrophysicists agree with that assertion ? (if you would ask what astophysicists agreed with Einstein's revolutionary theory, I would say the outstanding ones at the time, for example Sir Arthur Eddington).

(According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein. Eddington's observations confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. )

McCulloch may have answers to Baez criticisms, let's wait, and let's render judgement then, but not now.  For the time being what we have are some very good points raised by Baez that it would be prudent for McCulloch to address.  That's how science has worked for many centuries: points and counterpoints.  Everything gets reviewed and questioned.  Let's enjoy this scientific method where everything gets questioned.  The truth will prevail  :)
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 09:43 pm by Rodal »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51

(..)


Thanks for this clarification doc, it makes sense. Dr. McCulloch should address these points in due time. I'm curious what he will say.
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
Geez, i miss a few days reading and everything goes manic. Serves me for trying to lead a normal life.

Exciting stuff no matter what the outcome. Especially Dr. Rodal's nondisclosure disclosure of doing something that is probably nothing but may be something. Add to that the BBC, and everyone all a-twitter, and Monomorphic using and air beam that now we see Shawyer also used.

Enough to make an old fart like me lose faith in lurking.

At least I can still cook a hot dog in my microwave. Unless it hits light speed...  ;)
I know the same goes for me, there is so much happening here if you even lose a day or so and it becomes tough to catch up.

My dogs in the microwave just warp BTW.

Shell

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Geez, i miss a few days reading and everything goes manic. Serves me for trying to lead a normal life.

Exciting stuff no matter what the outcome. Especially Dr. Rodal's nondisclosure disclosure of doing something that is probably nothing but may be something. Add to that the BBC, and everyone all a-twitter, and Monomorphic using and air beam that now we see Shawyer also used.

Enough to make an old fart like me lose faith in lurking.

At least I can still cook a hot dog in my microwave. Unless it hits light speed...  ;)
I know the same goes for me, there is so much happening here if you even lose a day or so and it becomes tough to catch up.

My dogs in the microwave just warp BTW.

Shell
Hopefully Prof. Baez will not be commenting on those warped dogs not properly satisfying the warp field equations, in his blog  ;)

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 173
EMDrive talk on "new age" science show starts about 29 minutes in. NSF and Chris Bergin get a plug @ about 33 minutes in.


I'm very involved with TMRO and have been a guest 6 times.  I was at Hershey Park on Saturday.  I'm quite embarrassed for them, this show was not up to their usual standard - they didn't even pronounce 'magnetron' correctly.

It's not really 'new age' science, it's mostly space and space news (where they do have expertise).

I am, in fact, here on the forum because they asked me to do a short video on the EMDrive last August.  It's taken me until about now to be able to understand most of the physics discussed here :)  I'm going to respond to their show, probably with a short video which I hope will get played next week...
Thanks Emory...new age as in younger, more hip science shows I guess is what I was thinking  8)

Great! Feel free to download any of my youtube clips if you need some filler. Here they are:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videos

Royalty free as well ::) Give us a peek at the vid if you get the chance. - Dave

I was actually going to suggest they have you on as a guest for a follow-up show :D

TMRO did an update on the EMDrive this week and got me to comment - segment starts here:

Also our very own rfmwguy (Dave) will be on the show next week to give a more authoritative presentation on what's going on with the EMDrive.
They had to cut my comments short for time (2 minutes), but I posted the whole video (4:30) I created here:
So stay tuned :)
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
Breaking news! Yang's new result ---- submitted in Oct, 2014 and published in Feb, 2016 ---- was negative. See Wikipedia for details. Under the section "Chinese Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU)".

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
Breaking news! Yang's new result ---- submitted in Oct, 2014 and published in Feb, 2016 ---- was negative. See Wikipedia for details. Under the section "Chinese Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU)".

The link on wiki was slow. See attached for the paper. It is in Chinese, but abstract and all figures are in English.

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 63
Abstract from Yangs Paper:

Quote
Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.

1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?

2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.'  If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work?  Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?

3 - 2014 paper.  Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research? 

« Last Edit: 05/01/2016 08:53 am by ThinkerX »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • United States
  • Liked: 4372
  • Likes Given: 1404
Abstract from Yangs Paper:

Quote
Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.

1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?

2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.'  If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work?  Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?

3 - 2014 paper.  Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research?

I just finished reading a very poorly translated version of the PDF. Here is what I gather.

1. The experiment was performed two ways: with a battery and with power provided externally.

2. I did not see any mention of dialectric inserts

3. Their conclusion is that "heat distortion power line has caused a very large dry interference" and "thus thrust measurement result is mainly produced by dry wire connection interferences."

EDIT: Just saw this from /u/pomezi: "It should be noted, however, that the measurement system was only capable of measuring performance greater than 3mN. This is much more than the results claimed by Eagleworks and Tajmar."
« Last Edit: 05/01/2016 01:44 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
Abstract from Yangs Paper:

Quote
Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.

1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?

2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.'  If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work?  Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?

3 - 2014 paper.  Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research?

I just finished reading a very poorly translated version of the PDF. Here is what I gather.

1. The experiment was performed two ways: with a battery and with power provided externally.

2. I did not see any mention of dialectric inserts

3. Their conclusion is that "heat distortion power line has caused a very large dry interference" and "thus thrust measurement result is mainly produced by dry wire connection interferences."

EDIT: Just saw this from /u/pomezi: "It should be noted, however, that the measurement system was only capable of measuring performance greater than 3mN. This is much more than the results claimed by Eagleworks and Tajmar."

Thank you. These points (less the dialectic part) were also what I summarized in Wikipedia. One other important point is that they nullified the 720mN 2008 result.

 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5558
Abstract from Yangs Paper:

Quote
Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.

1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?

2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.'  If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work?  Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?

3 - 2014 paper.  Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research?

I just finished reading a very poorly translated version of the PDF. Here is what I gather.

1. The experiment was performed two ways: with a battery and with power provided externally.

2. I did not see any mention of dialectric inserts

3. Their conclusion is that "heat distortion power line has caused a very large dry interference" and "thus thrust measurement result is mainly produced by dry wire connection interferences."

EDIT: Just saw this from /u/pomezi: "It should be noted, however, that the measurement system was only capable of measuring performance greater than 3mN. This is much more than the results claimed by Eagleworks and Tajmar."

Thank you. These points (less the dialectic part) were also what I summarized in Wikipedia. One other important point is that they nullified the 720mN 2008 result.
Thank you for posting these news which are a great triumph for Science ! These news are among the biggest news on the EM Drive thread since thread 1.

This must be a headache for theories like Shawyer's and McCulloch's that used Yang's results as support for their theories! How do their theories reconcile this nullification of results?

These news also validate the DIY experiment of RFPlumber, who obtained insignificant force/InputPower that did not match the extravagant claims of Yang and Shawyer.

1) This is now at least the second time that institutional R&D scientists have nullified their prior tentative claims regarding propellant-less thrusters:

1a) the first ones were Brito, Marini and Galian in Argentina that nullified the decades-long R&D work of Brito on his type of Mach Lorentz Thruster, supported by various institutions including the US Air Force, using a battery-powered torsional pendulum to nullify the previous results

1b) now Yang using a torsional pendulum has nullified her prior results which claimed the highest force/InputPower of any microwave resonant cavity: 1 Newton/kiloWatt

this shows that those that wrote that institutional R&D scientists are not likely to nullify their prior results are wrong.  Institutional R&D scientists are motivated by Science and not by "beliefs" or promotion of private company goals.  They are not motivated by fulfilling dreams. Scientists are motivated in finding the truth.

2) The nullification of Yang's prior results pretty much nullifies the claims of Shawyer as well. She used the same mode shapes as Shawyer, was coached by Shawyer and quoted Shawyer's "theories" in her works.  Shawyer repeatedly quoted her claimed results as support for his own claims.  Although Shawyer has been testing the EM Drive longer than anyone else, his tests stand out for: Shawyer never reporting a single test in a vacuum chamber, Shawyer never reporting a single test in a torsional pendulum, Shawyer never reporting a single test powered by a battery self-integrated in the moving device.

3) There is still a small window opened: the fact that NASA reported that without a polymer insert, NASA was not able to achieve significant force/InputPower even when using over 10 times higher power. And the fact that the Aachen Germany, Hackaway team is presently reporting "good" results using a polymer insert in a  battery-powered tiny EM Drive. (*)

4) Given Yang's results, it is clear that, for any EM Drive test to gain credibility, it should be performed in:

4a) torsional pendulum (teeter-totters and scales can be shown to be flawed devices, as known in Aerospace R&D of over 50 years of testing in micro-thrusters)

4b) self-integrated power source (i.e. battery powered) in the same moving platform (having the power come from a stationary source is fundamentally flawed from a conservation of energy viewpoint).  No power cables going to an external power source !

4c) partial vacuum (to eliminate thermal convection, as it has been known since the 19th century that all radiation pressure tests under ambient conditions are plagued by the effect of thermal convection).






(*) As repeatedly stated, people should not be confused by reports that NASA "MAY" ("may" in capital letters) have obtained some thrust without a polymer insert without taking into account:

*a) the figure of merit for EM Drive's is the force/Input power.  The numerical value of different test results should be compared on the basis of the force/InputPower achieved (and not based on "force" without taking into account the power input)

*b) the statistical significance of any value of force/inputPower

*c) the testing apparatus: tests performed at NASA's teeter-totter should not be compared to tests performed on NASA's torsional pendulum.  Experimental values should be compared in the same testing device, preferably the torsional pendulum, as is known in Aerospace R&D of micro-thrusters, for over 50 years, that the torsional pendulum is the best type of measurement and the teeter-totter is among the worst.

*d) as I have shown elsewhere, the function of the polymer insert in NASA's EM Drive was never to be a dielectric, due to its electric permittivity.  NASA obtained insignificant force/InputPower when using inorganic dielectrics with relative electric permittivity ~38 as used by Shawyer.  Such dielectrics reduce the Q.  Instead NASA used polymers with relative electric permittivity ~2 closer to the value of air or vacuum ~1.  The polymer insert in NASA'and Aachen teams EM Drives should not be described as "dielectrics". That is a false narrative.  Instead their function may be justified on the basis of Woodward's theory, of Dr. White's QV theory.  It cannot be justified on its dielectric properties. Since it may be justified based on its piezoresistive properties or its piezoelectric and electrostrictive properties, instead of being described as a dielectric it should be described as piezoresistive, piezoelectric or electrostrictive material.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2016 02:48 pm by Rodal »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0