Morning people.Encouraging stuff from Paul March!The conversation on the elimination of thermal effects has been a bit lumpy, but there is no doubt that it is very important, and unless properly addressed will likely provide an 'out' for skeptics.I've said before I think TT's rotating table will do it: on his spec, 120 rpm will be hard to dismiss!Here is an idea for eliminating thermal effects in a setup locked into a balance-beam/vertical lift system.The test setup could electrically *heat* the magnetron and frustrum (a hot jacket round them, if you will) to a temperature above normal operating temperature. It should then use thermostatic control to keep the temperature in tight bounds irrespective of whether the magnetron is on or off and the frustrum in/out of resonance. So the power to the magnetron heating jacket will fall when the magnetron is powered on, keeping the temperature fixed, and the heating power to the frustrum jacket will fall when the power gets into the frustrum at resonance. However, there is no need for complex logic to control the heaters, just a thermostat. If the magnetron and frustrum jacket heaters were both rated at the power of the magnetron, it should be possible to control them to keep temperature steady under all conditions.I'm not any kind of heating engineer, so I don't know how tight the control of temperature could be.I think it's fair to say that a differential force signal with magnetron on/off at constant temperature might be helpful.
Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 amUnless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.My design is 2nd image.
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
I'm actually pretty optimistic given Star Drive's post. It's obvious EW has continued vacuum testing, has obtained some interesting results, is publishing, and is moving forward with IV&V. The other encouragement is that since they have been working on a shoe-string budget and have obtained interesting results, NASA and/or others may be willing to make the necessary investment to take the next steps.
I'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:0: The team have a paper in peer review.1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.This potentially means one of two things:0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post...
I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?
@TT: Have you taken a look at Bae's work on a photonic laser thruster, re: that a gain medium in an active resonance cavity will self tune to keep the signal at the resonant frequency. Could a Maser do this? (And does ammonia produce a signal in too tight a range to be useful for this application.)@Everyone else: Swamped, have sworn off EMDrive until not swamped.
Quote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 amI'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say.I mean, a couple of months ago Jim Woodward was interviewed on the Space Show, and he was asked about the EM Drive by the show host (Dr David Livingston) who complained that he could not reach Dr White to give updates on their EM Drive research, because NASA would block contact! Dr Woodward (who is totally skeptical of any Quantum Vacuum explanation for the EM Drive) then told the show host he would give Paul March's (Dr March? I never knew if he has a PhD) PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER (I take it that Dr Woodward is still friends with Paul March).Well, there was never a follow up to that, and I gather that Paul had to tell The SpaceShow that he still could not disclose any info, because NASA probably pulled their ears some months ago after all the EM Drive and Warp Drive hype. (ps: Paul, can you confirm if you were contacted by The Space Show?)My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Quote from: RonM on 10/13/2015 04:13 pmQuote from: Flyby on 10/13/2015 11:28 amI'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?It's not a matter of a failed or successful test. The experiment is to measure the EM drive thrust. If they measure a thrust of zero and thereby disprove the EM drive, Eagleworks might want another lab to confirm it.Whatever the results are, if you have definitive results, you would send it to a major journal and that publication would do a peer review.Why would Paul March leave suggestions for improving the thrust results in DIY experiments if Eagleworks had already shipped off their own devices for independent verification of a null result?
[speculation on]I'm unsure what the NASA policies are, but does a failed test still needs validation by another 3rd party lab and needs peer review before report release ?Consequently, I'm inclined to assume that the result was indeed positive and the verification goal of 100µN or more was achieved.If this peer-reviewed report by EagleWorks gets out, and it is as positive as I think it is, it is going to make considerable waves in both the scientific world as the "normal" world. The media will be all over it. It is going to be HUGE.Assuming this is the real thing, from a science point of view, it is going to be an interesting search to find where the thrust comes from....[/speculation]
...The fact that P.March now suggest to the DIY crowd to focus on a rotary setup with a curved plate seems to indicate they've found something with a build setup in that direction...
I'm not saying they had a null result. I'm saying that science reports good data no matter what the result.
Quote from: andygood on 10/13/2015 02:59 pmI'm excited by his post! I take two main points from what was written:0: The team have a paper in peer review.1: The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware.This potentially means one of two things:0: They have demonstrated an anomalous force.1: They have isolated a source of experimental error.While I hope that they've found the anomalous force, either way I keenly anticipate publication of their results.PS. In case it's not obvious, I'm a software engineer who (stereotypically) sees the world in terms of ones and zeroes... I'm gonna stick my head back in the ground, now, and pretend that there can't be a third option where they find inconclusive results, which require 'Further Study'TM... PPS. I look forward to the potential media frenzy of speculation that could be triggered by his post... You have overdone it. The only carry away information is that "The team are pursuing an independent test of their hardware".