Author Topic: EMdrive Developments working in visible and infrared light regime.  (Read 82148 times)

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
5 experiments carried out on QI thrust:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2020/07/five-experiments.html
1. Worthless result, the uncertainty in the answer is 4 times larger than the predicted signal. This provides zero evidence to support the theory.
2. No prediction to compare with, and quotes values that have since been reduced, which he even admits may be due to reduction of error sources.
3-4. Skipping these, what needs to be shown is actual data and setup descriptions, not worth me going through everything he says one by one.
5. Outright lie about Monomorphic's experiment. He made prediction before the experiment was run. Now that the answer is unfavorable, he denies being able to do predictions.

You have provided 0 evidence to support McCulloch's theory that has anywhere near the experimental rigor and detail that Monomorphic has provided.

Any links to actual data or setup details?
Not available until they patent that thing, which is their intention.
Nonsense. Basic physics research is not patentable.

Or maybe some comments on Monomorphic's experiment which has a clear null result?
There had been some, you'll have to find them yourself.
The previous post from you linked to has a comment about it from McCulloch, as I addressed, it is nothing but a lie. (Also I am not wasting my time reading through McCulloch's twitter which is full of nonsense and conspiracy theories.)

The question was directed at you more than him though. It seems like the only thing you do usually is quote him though.

The tweets make it sound like they got a different result from a different measurement device. This rings all of the alarm bells as experimental error.
Not at all. It would be odd if they had the same results from a completely different device.
Try actually reading the rest of my post before replying to it. I mentioned that the device changed too. You simply ignore the problem that they deliberately switched to a worse measurement device.

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 148
You have provided 0 evidence to support McCulloch's theory

I had no such intention. I simply announced what new blog post and twitter messages had been posted about the experimental results, because I assume that experiments is what everyone here is interested in. Everyone can mull over the results themselves.

Based on my previous experiences I am not going to engage in any lengthy discussion with you, it is not worth my time, sorry. It does not mean that I agree or do not agree with whatever else you said.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
You have provided 0 evidence to support McCulloch's theory

I had no such intention. I simply announced what new blog post and twitter messages had been posted about the experimental results, because I assume that experiments is what everyone here is interested in. Everyone can mull over the results themselves.

Based on my previous experiences I am not going to engage in any lengthy discussion with you, it is not worth my time, sorry. It does not mean that I agree or do not agree with whatever else you said.
You repeat what McCulloch says without comment, even when it has obviously problems in it like I have pointed out.

This is a discussion forum,  if you uncritically repeat what someone else says, it generally implies your agreement with it. If you have no interest in discussion, and also don't intend to provide evidence for McCulloch' claims, I don't know what the purpose of your posts are.

Also, as a reminder, this thread is specific to a certain experiment, it is not for McCulloch's claims in general. There have been a couple attempts at such threads, but they have consistently gotten locked after things like devolving into conspiracy theories.

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 148
You repeat what McCulloch says without comment, even when it has obviously problems in it like I have pointed out.

This is a discussion forum,  if you uncritically repeat what someone else says, it generally implies your agreement with it. If you have no interest in discussion, and also don't intend to provide evidence for McCulloch' claims, I don't know what the purpose of your posts are.

Also, as a reminder, this thread is specific to a certain experiment, it is not for McCulloch's claims in general. There have been a couple attempts at such threads, but they have consistently gotten locked after things like devolving into conspiracy theories.

I simply provide with a fodder for others to discuss. All the experiments that I mentioned here are relevant to this thread (which I started, so I know what it is about!).
It does not mean that I agree with the messages that I quote or provide the links for.

I want to discuss, but not with you.

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 148
This is the original starting message (which was removed by accident by the mod, and I've been told that he was unable to reinstate it so far):


Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
I simply provide with a fodder for others to discuss. All the experiments that I mentioned here are relevant to this thread (which I started, so I know what it is about!).
It does not mean that I agree with the messages that I quote or provide the links for.

I want to discuss, but not with you.
Why not? Because you don't have any counterarguments to my points, and I have enough experience to point out multiple flaws in McCulloch's claims? Or because I request experimental evidence to be presented with enough basic rigor to even have a discussion about it?

This is the original starting message (which was removed by accident by the mod, and I've been told that he was unable to reinstate it so far):
Yes, it was a difficult to read list of twitter links that failed to provide a reasonable experimental description that could be meaningfully discussed.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • United States
  • Liked: 4392
  • Likes Given: 1407
Everyone can mull over the results themselves.

I can't comment on the Spanish results as no data has been published, but I have looked at @ZKomala's results before.  It is a shame that nobody has taken the time to plot these results on a chart.   As we saw in the laser cavity tests, there is a lot one can discern when looking at a trace.

Just eyeballing the videos though, it does not appear there is any sudden movement of the interferometer fringes when the LED is powered on or off.  It appears there is some delay in the movement of the fringes.  The fringes also appear to undulate like one would expect with a VERY noisy signal. 

I am doubtful @ZKomala is able to determine that the signal is 7uN with such a noisy signal.  Without the data plotted on a chart, it's not very useful.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2020 12:44 am by Monomorphic »

Offline Hakasays

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 56
Everyone can mull over the results themselves.
Just eyeballing the videos though, it does not appear there is any sudden movement of the interferometer fringes when the LED is powered on or off.  It appears there is some delay in the movement of the fringes.

Even with a near-instantaneous force there will be some inertial delay based on the mass of the device being measured.
Thermal effects have similar delays but generally on a longer time-constant, especially if one can minimize the mass of the device under test.


You could conceivably plot the fringe shift position at each frame and determine the integral rates-of-change.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Everyone can mull over the results themselves.
Just eyeballing the videos though, it does not appear there is any sudden movement of the interferometer fringes when the LED is powered on or off.  It appears there is some delay in the movement of the fringes.

Even with a near-instantaneous force there will be some inertial delay based on the mass of the device being measured.
Thermal effects have similar delays but generally on a longer time-constant, especially if one can minimize the mass of the device under test.


You could conceivably plot the fringe shift position at each frame and determine the integral rates-of-change.
That is not how forces and inertia work.

Motion starts as soon as the force does. A delayed onset, such as that seen in Monomorphic's graph can happen with thermal signals, because the heat takes time to spread through the device to the location that causes thermal expansion, air currents, or similar issues.

A longer time constant than the measurement device's natural time constant is also a sign of thermal signatures, but that is different than the delay mentioned.

Offline Hakasays

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 56
Quote
Motion starts as soon as the force does. A delayed onset, such as that seen in Monomorphic's graph can happen with thermal signals, because the heat takes time to spread through the device to the location that causes thermal expansion, air currents, or similar issues.

A longer time constant than the measurement device's natural time constant is also a sign of thermal signatures, but that is different than the delay mentioned.

My own setup was closer to ZKomala's so I can only comment on his.

Quote
Motion starts as soon as the force does.

While the acceleration begins immediately, it may not be detectable at such a small scale until some time has passed.  This can vary by the length and design of the interferometer setup.  You even have to account for things like elasticity of the measurement arm and any magnetic/elastic dampening that may be in place to restrict spurious vibrations.     If you speak to someone who's worked at the microgram/nanogram level I'm sure they'd have some interesting stories to share.


In my setup, the thermal effects were generally proportional to the on-time, and with 25w test would begin ~1-2sec and continue for 5-20sec afterward.
The anomalous thrust effect I measured (which may have been Lorentian and not QI-based) could be detected much earlier (~0.1 to 0.25sec)


To paraphrase; while it may not be clear in the tweets, by varying the on+off time, power, and orientation the experimenter can generally get a clear picture of which effects are air/thermal/seismic and which are rapid/instantaneous anomalies.


Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Quote
Motion starts as soon as the force does.
While the acceleration begins immediately, it may not be detectable at such a small scale until some time has passed.
Take a look at Monomorphic's results in this thread for reference. There is a distinct delay. This is entirely different than taking time to ramp up to the full force value due to the time constant of the measurement setup.

The basic concepts such as minimum resolution or the damped oscillator response of the measurement apparatus are common to essentially all force measurement setups, which typically measure some sort of physical displacement as a result of the force. This can be discussed without worrying about the details of the laser displacement sensor, interferometer, or other distance measurement device.

In my setup, the thermal effects were generally proportional to the on-time, and with 25w test would begin ~1-2sec and continue for 5-20sec afterward.
The anomalous thrust effect I measured (which may have been Lorentian and not QI-based) could be detected much earlier (~0.1 to 0.25sec)
What setup?

I have seen nothing from you that resembles a description of a decent measurement apparatus. You posted one tweet with a video in it that does nothing to explain what kind of setup you have, or what device you are supposed to be measuring. (You also linked to a 3D print for your balance, but still I see no clear description of it.) If you want to discuss it, you are going to have to provide actual descriptions and actual data. (Preferably actual plotted data like Monomorphic has provided and suggested so that the results can be analyzed.)

To paraphrase; while it may not be clear in the tweets, by varying the on+off time, power, and orientation the experimenter can generally get a clear picture of which effects are air/thermal/seismic and which are rapid/instantaneous anomalies.
Several of those won't necessarily help much at all, and sometimes a clear picture can be obtained without varying any of that, such as in Monomorphic's data presented in this thread.

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 148
Take a look at Monomorphic's results in this thread for reference.

Let's not forget that Komala is doing his experiments in a vacuum, so thermal effects and their propagation is minimized in such environment. Monomorphic is not doing it in a vacuum.


Offline Alex_O

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Russia
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 36
Just an example.

The graph here shows the speed and acceleration plots for the famous Emdrive EW NASA report. Unfortunately, I do not have the initial digital data, I used software (from the Internet) to process the raster image from the report and there are errors (by line thickness).

This picture is very informative, for example, we see with what acceleration the torsion bar moves during calibration (before and after impact) and this will allow us to estimate, for example, the mass of moving parts and the spring force.

Then, one can think that if at the beginning of the test there were two forces in the system - pulse and thermal, then knowing the general acceleration, one can try to estimate their ratio. (at the beginning the system is cold, the thermal force is small, its contribution to the overall acceleration is small).

For example, if the thermal force creates the movement of the torsion due to thermal expansions and the displacement of the center of mass of the system as a whole, then if the thermal expansions of individual parts flow at different speeds, then strange deviations will be seen on the acceleration graph (due to clicks in the hinges, etc.)) ).

And for example, a step at the top of the graph (100th second) caused a sharp jump in the acceleration graph - this is well suited for the case when the pulse force was still there, and turning off the microwave power instantly created this peak on the acceleration graph, which was obviously damped by a damper. By the way, the quality of damping can also be assessed by knowing the acceleration of the balance after calibration.

Note. If at the moment of turning off the microwave power, the damping system was also turned off, then if the pulse force was there, then the acceleration jump at around 100 seconds was several times greater, and this would show that the pulse force was actually there, and it would be possible try to calculate it - knowing the force of elasticity of the torsion, and this calculation would be quite accurate.
==
Summary.

All experiments with small pulse forces should be accompanied by reports with the analysis of speeds and accelerations in the system. Peak values ​​on the acceleration graph cannot violate Newton's laws, and allow a high degree of accuracy to estimate the dynamic loads in a machine that has moving and elastic parts.

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • United States
  • Liked: 4392
  • Likes Given: 1407
Let's not forget that Komala is doing his experiments in a vacuum, so thermal effects and their propagation is minimized in such environment. Monomorphic is not doing it in a vacuum.

It is not a perfect vacuum. In fact, the level of vacuum he is likely achieving is close to the same vacuum one would find inside a Crookes radiometer.  This can actually enhance thermal gas noise, not minimize it. 

From wikipedia:  "The effect begins to be observed at partial vacuum pressures of several hundred pascals (or a few torr), reaches a peak at around 1 pascal (7.5 x 10−3 torr) and has disappeared by the time the vacuum reaches 10−4 pascal (7.5 x 10−7 torr)"

Offline Hakasays

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 56
Quote
Motion starts as soon as the force does.
While the acceleration begins immediately, it may not be detectable at such a small scale until some time has passed.
Take a look at Monomorphic's results in this thread for reference. There is a distinct delay. This is entirely different than taking time to ramp up to the full force value due to the time constant of the measurement setup.

The basic concepts such as minimum resolution or the damped oscillator response of the measurement apparatus are common to essentially all force measurement setups, which typically measure some sort of physical displacement as a result of the force. This can be discussed without worrying about the details of the laser displacement sensor, interferometer, or other distance measurement device.

In my setup, the thermal effects were generally proportional to the on-time, and with 25w test would begin ~1-2sec and continue for 5-20sec afterward.
The anomalous thrust effect I measured (which may have been Lorentian and not QI-based) could be detected much earlier (~0.1 to 0.25sec)
What setup?
Good question.

I began late last year with a series of experiments meant to test for QI.  The initial goal was to construct an arm balance optical interferometer with a precision below 100uG using simple, inexpensive materials.  After exploring in many different directions I finally settled on a setup that with tinkering could achieve one optical fringe-shift per ~10uG with green laser light.


To avoid cluttering this forum I'll leave a search query you can dig through my build notes (Photos and Videos tab):
https://twitter.com/search?q=(QI%20OR%20QuantitizedInertia)%20(from%3AHakasays)%20-filter%3Areplies&src=typed_query&f=image

It was through this process that I gained much practical knowledge into the world of ultrasensitive measurements.  My comments on ZKomala were to clarify things that may not be clear for those that haven't worked with these things.


Along the way I did have two tentatively positive QI tests, but due to the nature of the setups I could not conclusively rule out Lorentz effect.

Instead of pursuing that further I focused instead on creating predominantly 3d-printable designs so that high-schools and other amateurs can begin to delve into the world of micro-gram-precision analysis.

(The core motif being: "what purpose would it be to have a successful test if nobody else can replicate it?") :o


A fair chunk of this was posted to Thingiverse, and after publishing I took a sabbatical to work on other projects.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4261409

In addition to what's already posted there I do also have a stepper-motor-based design that has the potential to be much more sensitive as it does not require hand-adjustments.


Hope that clears things up a bit :P

Offline cvbn

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 148
It is not a perfect vacuum.

Of course it is not perfect. He's achieving probably about 100 Pa, because the vacuum pump from X-Ray spectrometer he is using can achieve that pressure.

When knowing the pressure it is possible to make some calculations and adjust the results, like for example:
https://twitter.com/ZKomala/status/1282777402704375808

Also see:
https://twitter.com/ZKomala/status/1292344916253843456
https://twitter.com/ZKomala/status/1292343763558424576
« Last Edit: 08/09/2020 02:50 pm by cvbn »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • United States
  • Liked: 4392
  • Likes Given: 1407
Instead of pursuing that further I focused instead on creating predominantly 3d-printable designs so that high-schools and other amateurs can begin to delve into the world of micro-gram-precision analysis.

We tried interferometers, teeter-totter balances, bouncing lasers across rooms, and just about any other method you can think of to make these types of measurements many years ago in the old Emdrive forums.

For simplicity, ease of use, while also producing quality data, there is not really a better system than a torsional pendulum with laser displacement sensor.

Perhaps you can use a program like Fiji to plot the video recordings to a chart like we did in the following links.  The fringe pattern change is different than plotting the movement of a laser dot, but this method could be modified to work.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1544217#msg1544217

Thanks to Croppa for providing a tutorial:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1543029#msg1543029

This method was tedious as it required a lot of work for each data run.  With a laser displacement sensor and a decent ADC, tests can be run one after another quickly and the results exported to excel with two clicks.

This is the company that made the ADC I use:  https://www.dataq.com/
« Last Edit: 08/09/2020 02:54 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
It is not a perfect vacuum.

Of course it is not perfect. He's achieving probably about 100 Pa, because the vacuum pump from X-Ray spectrometer he is using can achieve that pressure.

When knowing the pressure it is possible to make some calculations and adjust the results, like for example:

Those calculations are worthless. They have nothing to do with the Crookes radiometer effect that was mentioned and completely ignores that in the vacuum range being used there can be more force from thermal effects on the air.

The point about not knowing details is his fault, he is the one responsible for sharing them. Simply dismissing comments and criticism from someone with years of experience running related experiments is not a good sign.

Offline Hakasays

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 56
Instead of pursuing that further I focused instead on creating predominantly 3d-printable designs so that high-schools and other amateurs can begin to delve into the world of micro-gram-precision analysis.

We tried interferometers, teeter-totter balances, bouncing lasers across rooms, and just about any other method you can think of to make these types of measurements many years ago in the old Emdrive forums.

For simplicity, ease of use, while also producing quality data, there is not really a better system than a torsional pendulum with laser displacement sensor.

Perhaps you can use a program like Fiji to plot the video recordings to a chart like we did in the following links.  The fringe pattern change is different than plotting the movement of a laser dot, but this method could be modified to work.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1544217#msg1544217

Thanks to Croppa for providing a tutorial:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1543029#msg1543029

This method was tedious as it required a lot of work for each data run.  With a laser displacement sensor and a decent ADC, tests can be run one after another quickly and the results exported to excel with two clicks.

This is the company that made the ADC I use:  https://www.dataq.com/

At the time I was not aware of displacement sensors (or rather I was under the impression they would cost more than a new car).
I think you were the one that turned me onto the idea earlier in this thread ;D

Any future tests I do will very likely be using those rather than interferometry, if only for data-gathering sake.

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11542
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7672
  • Likes Given: 74951
Moderator:
Unlocking thread after performing several post deletions.

Off-topic posts, and replies to off-topic-ness.

Content of which I am unsure if the poster comprehends what they are discussing. Repeatedly.

Personal attacks.

Uncivil discourse.

(Subset of uncivil discourse: Discussion that is not discussion--it's just someone re-stating their original assertion. Again and again and again.)

This is the conduct that causes post deletions and thread locks. It happens a lot here in the New Physics sub-forum; just look at the thread index page.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1