Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8  (Read 1665661 times)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes?   thnx , FL

Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.

For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.

Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.

Or take a short cut.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

;)

Interesting.

If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.

Tub 1:  Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2:  Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"

What are the resonant frequencies?

Thanks TT

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31

Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off.  Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide.  It's just a graphic addition problem...

How come the calibration pulse during cooling didn't get swallowed? Yet the much larger emdrive signal disappears without a trace.

as58:

Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 06:53 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
as58:

Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.

Best, Paul M.

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that you would expect the response to thrust from emdrive to be slower (or different in some other way) than response to a calibration pulse? And if so, how meaningful is the calibration pulse for calibration?

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view

See what you think?

In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?

The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.

How is that going to make any difference visible in those curves? Even with a Q of a million the decay timescale would be a tiny fraction of a second.

edit: with the numbers from the paper I get 1/e-folding time of ~13 us.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 07:14 pm by as58 »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view

See what you think?

In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?

The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 402
...

HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls?
Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO).  Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?

COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.

The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:

1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.

2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program.  For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q.  Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can).  But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives.  One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).

I'm using the newest version of ANSYS  HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd.
I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output

Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.

OK great, I think some of these are already standard outputs. But many aren't so hopefully we can find some work arounds

To start, does a transient solution need to be computed for all of the time derivatives? Or can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?

How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?
Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity? If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?
What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?
Are we ultimately after momentum density?



Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
as58:

Because the electrostatic-fin generated attractive-force calibration-pulse is being applied directly from the vacuum chamber structure to near the end of the Torque Pendulum (TP) arm, whereas the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) thrust signal is adding to or subtracting from the thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg)-shift signals being generated by the NET expansion and contractions of all the thermally active components that make up the ICFTA.

Best, Paul M.

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that you would expect the response to thrust from emdrive to be slower (or different in some other way) than response to a calibration pulse? And if so, how meaningful is the calibration pulse for calibration?


as58:

OK, let's try it this way.  If you have an actuator piston that is pulling a pivoted arm through a very stiff spring it takes very little time to decompress the spring sufficiently before this actuator & stiff-spring SYSTEM starts to accelerate the arm in the direction of the force.  This is how you should model the electrostatic calibrator system torquing the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion springs.  However if you have a very soft spring or multiple soft springs in-series between the same actuator and the TP pivoted arm and torsion bearings, the time signature of the moving arm from a standing start will look very different than the stiff spring example, and it will take much longer for the arm to start moving or stopping after the actuator starts or stops moving.  This multiple soft-springs in series with an actuator system is an example of the EM-drive impulsive actuator signal driving the ICFTA structure & the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion-spring system.  Does that make anymore sense?

Best, Paul M. 
Star-Drive

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view

See what you think?

In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?

The EmDrive is fully charged with energy and the higher the Q, the longer the decay time of that energy will be. The whole time it's decaying, it should still be "thrusting". So the force is not expected to immediately stop when the RF is turned off, unlike the calibration pulse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?

Sorry, I didn't think it through. TT had shown a graph where 5 x tc it took seconds, but on second thought you're correct. Q would need to be in the billions for it to last more than a second.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
  • Liked: 2717
  • Likes Given: 1134
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:

"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:

"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
OK, let's try it this way.  If you have an actuator piston that is pulling a pivoted arm through a very stiff spring it takes very little time to decompress the spring sufficiently before this actuator & stiff-spring SYSTEM starts to accelerate the arm in the direction of the force.  This is how you should model the electrostatic calibrator system torquing the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion springs.  However if you have a very soft spring or multiple soft springs in-series between the same actuator and the TP pivoted arm and torsion bearings, the time signature of the moving arm from a standing start will look very different than the stiff spring example, and it will take much longer for the arm to start moving or stopping after the actuator starts or stops moving.  This multiple soft-springs in series with an actuator system is an example of the EM-drive impulsive actuator signal driving the ICFTA structure & the Torque Pendulum (TP) torsion-spring system.  Does that make anymore sense?

Maybe... But this makes me question how reliable are your calibration pulses for force measurement, because they cannot accurately replicate the kind of effect that thrust from emdrive  would have on your measurement device.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925
Maybe something like this could be simulated? This would show thrust and conservation of momentum, per Gauss's Law. I hope I didn't make any typos.

OK great, I think some of these are already standard outputs. But many aren't so hopefully we can find some work arounds

To start, does a transient solution need to be computed for all of the time derivatives? Or can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?

How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?
Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity? If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?
What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?
Are we ultimately after momentum density?

Good questions!

"... can we convert that to a phase derivative and compute the change per cycle? That would save time and steady state operation is really what we're after right?"

I would agree that the derivative per cycle, or half-cycle even would be preferable, but "steady state" would be a pulsed, repetitive input signal they way Shawyer does it.

"How do Q (and dampening factor) vary with time if the drive is at steady state?"

Haha, they don't! It should only thrust when charging and discharging. The magnetic flux into and out of the system is the momentum per unit charge.

"Is the mass density referring the air inside the cavity?"

No, it is referring to the EM mass density, but later I used Reactive Energy/c2, the (mass) energy stored and not dissipated.

"If this was vacuum would there be an undefined velocity vector potential?"

Yes! This is the gravito-magnetic vector potential. It's not undefined because I am equating this with the magnetic vector potential, at high Q.

"What does relative voltage potential mean, relative to what?"

It is relative to the status of the magnetic flux inside the circumference of the circle, the integral of the electric field around 2pi*r. If the magnetic flux is not increasing or decreasing, then the voltage potential around this loop is zero "0". If the flux is increasing or decreasing there is voltage, and if it that change is accelerating, there is divergence.

"Are we ultimately after momentum density?"

We are after the momentum density normal to the unit area, through the big end as one integral, and through the rest of the frustum as the other integral. Preferably expressed as a difference between the two, where the damping factor can be different in each integral.

That would express the thrust forward or backward, as positive or negative numbers, or 0.

The divergence of the force would be the time derivative.


Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes?   thnx , FL

Rogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.

For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.

Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.

Or take a short cut.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

;)

Interesting.

If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.

Tub 1:  Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
TE011~ 1.32GHz
TE012~ 2.01GHz
TE013~ 2.67GHz
TE014~ 3.39GHz


Tub 2:  Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"
TE011~ 1.05GHz
TE012~ 1.51GHz
TE013~ 2.05GHz
TE014~ 2.63GHz

What are the resonant frequencies?

..snip
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 08:24 pm by X_RaY »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a Q-factor of a million, shouldn't the RF pulse be fully dissipated in one of these test cavities within one millisecond?

Sorry, I didn't think it through. TT had shown a graph where 5 x tc it took seconds, but on second thought you're correct. Q would need to be in the billions for it to last more than a second.

TT says cavity fill time is Tc × 5
and 1 Time Constant Tc is (2 Qloaded) / ( 2 π Freq) seconds
(notice not Qunloaded)

Indeed with QL = 106 and Freq = 2.45 GHz, cavity fill time is 0.65 ms.
If Q ≥ 8 billions then cavity fill time > 1 second
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 08:46 pm by flux_capacitor »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3089
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 778
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:

"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:

"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.
I am an American taxpayer, jstepp was telling me what I think, what my neighbors think, and what millions of people he has never met think, that makes him both wrong and egotistical.

On the other hand some things are mathematical facts. A simple example is 1+1=2. This means that certain statements can be made in science that are absolute within their stated range of applicability. For example, if the emDrive works, it either breaks conservation of momentum, or pushes on something. Also, I haven't seen anyone here use "we" when referring to scientists as a whole anyway.

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 1580


Or take a short cut.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 ;)

Interesting.

If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.

Tub 1:  Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2:  Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"

What are the resonant frequencies?

Thanks TT
The website says the copper is covered with a lacquer finish. You'll need to get that all off, I suspect, and re-polish.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.

What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics.  That is way outside the charter of JSC.  Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA.  JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs.  Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers.  So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics.  None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.

When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.

I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.

The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.

The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.

True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.

You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.

Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is.  Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data.  It's about producing the data.

Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.

Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.

Engineering is something different.  Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed.  Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.

Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics.  A good example is the LHC at CERN.  It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.

So you believe that Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics and then engineered his EmDrive of today from the physics?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Not even remotely.  I can't imagine how you got that from what I said.

I was talking about what activities fall under the terms "experimental physics" and what activities fall under the terms "engineering".

Whether Shawyer began with a credible theory of physics was not covered by what I said.

In fact, it's very clear that Shawyer doesn't consider anything he's done to have anything to do with new physics.  He considers everything he's done to be engineering based on conventionally-accepted physics.  It's just as clear that Shawyer is dead wrong.  He either doesn't understand physics or is lying about it.  Either way, Shawyer is claiming to do engineering from known physics.

There can be no doubt that Shawyer's explanations for his drive are wrong.  He claims it's based on well-accepted physics, but his analysis is clearly wrong.

It's still possible for Shawyer to be wrong about the reasons and to have stumbled upon a phenomenon beyond known physics -- extremely unlikely, but possible.

What Eagle Works and some others are doing is experimenting to see if some variant of the EM Drive actually produces thrust.  The correct label for that is "experimental physics".

While it is true that experiments are being done all of the time by many working on the EmDrive concept, there is at this time no credible mechanism of physics known that results in force.

I agree with you on that.  And that's no problem.  That's what experimental physics is all about -- trying to gather data.  It's fine for the data to show an inconsistency with any currently-available theory.  That's the whole point of experimental physics.

The experiments are experiments tinkering with the engineering design, in large part as a function of trial and error. All working toward producing a drive that will produce enough thrust that the physics (physical mechanism) that produces the thrust can be explored.

Yes, exactly.

Only for those who believe that Shawyer's theory of operation is correct, does your statement hold true.

You clearly haven't understood what I was saying at all.

When I say that experimental physicists use engineering principles, I mean they use things that are known outside the area they are trying to explore.  For example, CERN uses known physics to engineer their large magnets.  That doesn't mean they're assuming known physics for everything, just using some of it to create their apparatus.

The same is true for EM Drive researchers.  They're using some of known physics, such as microwave generators and measuring devices, to explore other areas of physics.

But only to the extent that Shawyer's theory of the science is a true and accurate description of the underlying mechanism...

Look at the historical series of frustums and power supply designs, from Shawyer, to Yang, to EW and several DIYs, and what you will find is a series of engineering improvements and many just starting from scratch with a rather vague idea, of what went before.

The only solid science or scientific tools employed in the designs right now, the simulation software.., all say there should be no net thrust.., and yet it moves.

That could be because of some new physics or it could be because of some effects from known physics that weren't properly modeled.  In some cases, there's also a credibility issue -- that some people are lying can't be entirely ruled out.

There seem to be a couple of theories that may be getting close to both describing what is observed, predicting better designs and suggesting a mechanism of operation. But not quite there yet.

I do know what experimental physics is, and so far the credible physics involved seems to be saying an EmDrive should not produce thrust, and yet again.., it moves.

Again, you seem to be equating "experimental physics" with "we have a theory".  That is not true at all.

The term "experimental physics" absolutely covers what you're describing -- some unexplained effect that people are gathering data on, with no credible theory to explain it yet.  That's exactly experimental physics.  I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

Unless someone is withholding results with undeniable thrusts, we're still working on engineering a functional drive, that can be examined and tested to determine the scientific mechanism of operation.

Even the progression of Shawyer's various drives look more like a series of engineering improvements than the realization of any credible underlying scientific mechanism of operation.

There is a difference between experiments refining an engineering design and scientific experiments based on an underlying scientific theory/model.

You still aren't getting that experiments to get better data on a phenomenon that does not match current theory is still experimental physics.

The first aims to improve or maybe just prove a functional result like thrust, while the second is both designed to meet the requirements of and prove the accuracy of a theoretical model.

No, not at all.  Again, you seem to want to call all of experimental physics by the label "engineering" instead.  But it's still really experimental physics.

Experimental physics is not just there to "prove the accuracy of a theoretical model".  It's there to gather data.  That data is the basis for new theories if it doesn't fit the existing theories.

We are all, speculating about theory, but so far.., and again unless someone is holding back.., we are still working our way through engineering designs, with the hope of achieving something new and wonderful.

And all of that is experimental physics.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
  • Liked: 2717
  • Likes Given: 1134
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
I like your thoughts on the matter. In fact, the criticism of you is the criticism I have against a few here and elsewhere:

"No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

Lets change this to a more appropriate and common sentence I tend to see:

"No, you do not speak for all Physics or Science. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical."

So jstepp, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Keep that in mind when point of authority posters attack you personally. You are neither egotistical nor incorrect. Hope your haven't gotten a bad impression on reactions to some of your posts.
I am an American taxpayer, jstepp was telling me what I think, what my neighbors think, and what millions of people he has never met think, that makes him both wrong and egotistical.

On the other hand some things are mathematical facts. A simple example is 1+1=2. This means that certain statements can be made in science that are absolute within their stated range of applicability. For example, if the emDrive works, it either breaks conservation of momentum, or pushes on something. Also, I haven't seen anyone here use "we" when referring to scientists as a whole anyway.

Gotcha...but no hard feelings  ::)

"The result of the discussion was based on the fact that not enough physicists were finding the theory worth discussing to consider it a notable topic, regardless of whether said physicists found the theory to be correct or not."

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611209#msg1611209

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Do it!
  • Statesville, NC
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 1925


Or take a short cut.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 ;)

Interesting.

If I knew the size, could quickly determine what freq is need to resonate in TE013 mode.

Tub 1:  Big Dia: 15", Small Dia. 12", Height 7.5"
Tub 2:  Big Dia: 19", Small Dia. 15", Height 9.5"

What are the resonant frequencies?

Thanks TT
The website says the copper is covered with a lacquer finish. You'll need to get that all off, I suspect, and re-polish.

These are stainless steel. I would need to get them polished and plated with silver.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008X65L2A/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2NWKLMIW64H56

They are double wall insulated, so there is a gap where a cooling fluid could be injected in the jacket around the frustum. :)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
but none of them wanted to be the ones paying for its development.  However and more importantly, other than Dr. White, they didn't want to risk their reputations if it didn't work.

Geez, don't they realize that it could be a win-win decision. Looking at their perspective... If it doesn't work you have debunked years of hype that it does, you win. If it works it's a bigger win.

That's not a realistic view of the situation.  Whether or not you think EM Drive works, you should be realistic about what other people believe and how a situation like this would really play out.

First of all, you're saying that if they spent taxpayer money and showed no results and that debunked the idea, it would be seen as a good use of taxpayer money.  But to most of the establishment, that wouldn't be seen as a good use of taxpayer money.  To most of the establishment, there's nothing to debunk.  To most of the establishment, it's only crackpots who believe there's actually anything to EM Drive.  To most of the establishment, spending money to convince crackpots of something that should have been obvious to them without spending the money is a waste of money.

Secondly, most of the establishment believes that negative results won't convince any of the EM Drive believers anyway.  So, to most of the establishment, if you spent taxpayer dollars on building an EM Drive and doing a robust test of it and it didn't work, all the believers would just assume that either (1) the test was rigged as part of a conspiracy to suppress the EM Drive or (2) there was something that was done wrong and that's why it didn't seem to work in the tests.  So, to most of the establishment, it would again be a waste of taxpayer money to show EM Drive didn't work because it wouldn't change anyone's mind.

You can think the establishment is 100% wrong about EM Drive, but you should still have a realistic view of what the establishment thinks.
Look, I am not an engineer or physicist, I am the taxpayer that pays for the budgets of the publicly funded "establishment". As far as we are concerned we the taxpayer have a goal, the goal of space for our country and children.

Don't pretend to speak for "we the taxpayer".  I'm a taxpayer also.  Different taxpayers have different opinions.  You don't speak for them all.

We don't care about hurt feelings,

You seem to be implying that opposition to spending taxpayer dollars on EM Drive research is because of "hurt feelings".  Please try to be more mature and respectful.  Recognize that those who disagree with you can have their own good reasons to do so.

we honestly do not care whether the EMDrive works or not. The reason we follow this is because it is, outside of Elon Musk, literally the only game in town.

This reminds me of an old joke.  A man walks up to another man who is drunk and looking for his keys under a light post at night.  The first man offers to help the second man find his keys, and asks where he last saw them.  The second man points down the street to a dark patch of sidewalk and says he fell down there and then couldn't find his keys afterwards.  The first man asks him why he's looking over here if he knows he lost his keys over there.  The drunk man says the light is better here.

We do not care about theoretical physics for the most part.

If you care about technological progress, in space or anywhere else, you should care about theoretical physics.  It's what makes all that technological progress possible.  It's what tells us where it's useful to spend our effort and where it's a waste.

We do not care about CERN and outside of a base sympathy do not care about people's reputations or careers there.

You seem to be assuming that there is some irrational bias against EM Drive that would hurt people's reputations for being involved in it.  But what about the possibility that there's very good reason to doubt EM Drive and good reason to doubt the judgement of people who would put resources into it?

There is only one thing we care about. We care about leaving this planet, and we are not that picky about the technologies or physics used to accomplish it as long as they are affordable for the average citizen of this country who are paying for this research.
We cheered and venerate the Apollo missions because they actually accomplished something. The went places and did things, not sat on their behinds hiding behind institutional inertia and fear.

There's no reason to assume lack of interest in EM Drive is based on institutional inertia or fear.  There's every reason to believe it's based on sound reasoning.

President Kennedy didn't say we needed to go to the moon because it was easy or risk free did he? I don't recall hearing that.

People who don't want to spend taxpayer resources on EM Drive aren't opposed to risk in general, they're opposed to something they see as so unlikely it's not worth spending resources on compared with much better uses of those resources.

Give us mass drivers to move heavy objects off of the earth affordably. Give us safer and cheaper reaction mass drives to move people out there affordably and safely. Give us Orion rockets. Give us nuclear rockets. Give us a functional EMDrive. We do not care.

If you don't care and the experts agree EM Drive is not a good bet for our resources, why would you disagree with that?  Apparently, you do care.

We want space, just like we wanted air travel, just like we wanted to cross the oceans or the next ridge to see what is on the other side.

Wanting something doesn't mean it's a realistic goal.

One thing I do know is that if the establishment continues to suck up resources that are not getting us to space

The incremental approach may be more effective in the long run than throwing money at hopes for miracle cures.

it will be very easy for politicians to defund them for their own myriad reasons. If the establishment gives us, the public, plans and concepts we can use to move this country forward we will drag the politicians along by their hair if we have to, and you will not have to worry about funding. At the root this is the motivations we are facing.
We the public are fickle, unless you understand our base motivation. If Elon Musk lands us a colony on the moon and builds reusable rockets that are affordable for the average citizen, then we will want our money back from agencies with acronyms so we can really do something besides having a faceless agency write another paper we will never read anyway.
Just saying.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0