EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8

[zellerium]

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.

OK interesting! I'll be able to work on it Monday after 5 EST and ill come up with more questions when I get stuck 

[rfmwguy]

There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.

It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical".  They're widely used and understood terms.

You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.

I'm doing neither.  I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.

Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.

That makes no sense at all.  Did you even read what I wrote?  There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.

That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.

It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world.  Shame on you!

Modern physics has no bias against new ideas.  What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas.  To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.

They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Utter nonsense.  You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.

It's actually the opposite.  If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new.  Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory.  It's why they do their experiments.  They are looking for contradictions.  They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory.  It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.

Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.

[zen-in]

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?

DeltaV:

Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"

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...

Best, Paul M.

Best,

I disagree with that conclusion.   The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off.   The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force.  That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted.   Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.   

I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response.   That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen.   After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform.   The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.

Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction.   If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.

[rfmwguy]

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?

DeltaV:

Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"

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...

Best, Paul M.

Best,

I disagree with that conclusion.   The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off.   The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force.  That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted.   Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.   

I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response.   That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen.   After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform.   The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.

Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction.   If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.

Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.

[Bob012345]

There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.

It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical".  They're widely used and understood terms.

You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.

I'm doing neither.  I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.

Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.

That makes no sense at all.  Did you even read what I wrote?  There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.

That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.

It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world.  Shame on you!

Modern physics has no bias against new ideas.  What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas.  To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.

They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Utter nonsense.  You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.

It's actually the opposite.  If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new.  Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory.  It's why they do their experiments.  They are looking for contradictions.  They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory.  It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.

I do have a very good idea of how physics really works when you strip out the BS. I've seen first hand how new ideas can be denigrated and  the scientists who publish them are reviled. I've seen it over and over. Often they are bound by paradigms they are not allowed to question. It's true. 

[meberbs]

There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.

It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical".  They're widely used and understood terms.

You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.

I'm doing neither.  I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.

Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.

That makes no sense at all.  Did you even read what I wrote?  There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.

That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.

It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world.  Shame on you!

Modern physics has no bias against new ideas.  What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas.  To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.

They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Utter nonsense.  You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.

It's actually the opposite.  If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new.  Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory.  It's why they do their experiments.  They are looking for contradictions.  They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory.  It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.

Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.

Are you claiming that providing widely accepted definitions is a point of authority argument?

The only place he speaks on behalf of every physicist is "Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory." Obviously people all have different motivations, but this checking on this statement would be like asking lottery players "would you like to win the lottery?" Even the ones who understand that they do not have a real chance of winning would say yes.

[meberbs]

I do have a very good idea of how physics really works when you strip out the BS. I've seen first hand how new ideas can be denigrated and  the scientists who publish them are reviled. I've seen it over and over. Often they are bound by paradigms they are not allowed to question. It's true.

If by new ideas you mean to say "ideas that can be trivially proven self-contradictory, or that directly contradict available evidence" then you would be correct.

The whole point of physics is to come up with new ideas, it just turns out that physicists have already considered all of the easy ones.

[Star-Drive]

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?

DeltaV:

Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"

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...

Best, Paul M.

Best,

I disagree with that conclusion.   The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off.   The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force.  That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted.   Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.   

I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response.   That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen.   After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform.   The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.

Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction.   If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.

Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.

Zen-In:

OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier.  What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.

Best, Paul M.

[rfmwguy]

There is no written rule that experimental physicists only do thus and theoretical physicists do that.

It's the definitions of the term "experimental" and "theoretical".  They're widely used and understood terms.

You are describing an ideal that is not a formal requirement.

I'm doing neither.  I'm giving the definitions of some widely-used terms.

Besides, you are limiting physics when you require experimental physics to be in service of theoretical physics.

That makes no sense at all.  Did you even read what I wrote?  There's no way that I'm "limiting" experimental physics.

That is the main reason modern physicists often reject new ideas, such as EmDrive or the hydrino, which don't fit into their neat paradigms.

It saddens me to see such slander of the thousands of smart, open-minded physicists doing good work around the world.  Shame on you!

Modern physics has no bias against new ideas.  What it does have is a filter to figure out which new ideas are more likely to be fruitful to explore than which other new ideas.  To not have such a filter would be folly -- effort would be wasted on the wrong things.

They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Utter nonsense.  You obviously have no idea how physicists really work.

It's actually the opposite.  If anything, physicists have a bias toward wanting to believe they've found something new.  Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory.  It's why they do their experiments.  They are looking for contradictions.  They accept it when they don't find them, knowing that usually they will not, but they are always hoping to find data that contradicts known theory.  It makes for much more exciting papers and much more accolades, career advancement, and every other kind of reward.

Speaking on behalf of "every physicist" is no different than speaking on behalf of every taxpayer. I'd give the user a little bit more consideration and respect, especially considering the frequent point of authority arguments you've made on this page. There are widely held views across this country. Some might not be so obviously widespread as evidenced by the past election.

Are you claiming that providing widely accepted definitions is a point of authority argument?

The only place he speaks on behalf of every physicist is "Every physicist dreams of that Nobel prize that comes from discovering some new phenomenon that contradicts known theory." Obviously people all have different motivations, but this checking on this statement would be like asking lottery players "would you like to win the lottery?" Even the ones who understand that they do not have a real chance of winning would say yes.

"Widely accepted" is the slippery slope. It might be in your home, on your block, at your work, in your county, ad nauseum. It's my recommendation not to attack others for posting styles like your own. There are thousands commenting on the emdrive in about every language. Google it sometimes then use translate. The OP you challenged has commentary points I've read many times elsewhere. Check it for yourself. EmDrive is a leading concept to break free of rocket limitations.

[zen-in]

...

Zen-In:

OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier.  What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.

Best, Paul M.

I don't know what is going on with that data.   My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature.   Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?

[rfa]

...

Zen-In:

OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier.  What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.

Best, Paul M.

I don't know what is going on with that data.   My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature.   Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?

Hi there. I was following this thread carefully, but lost the track here. Why would you expect the same response when the issue at stake is temperature here? From what I see, you have one test off-resonance and another in resonance, both same power and temperature to use a baseline. Then you have another 3rds test in vacuum in resonance with "emdrive thrust" superposed with the thermal response, BUT you also have a calibration impulse with no thermal response because the calibration thrust was generated in a "thermally-neutral way" (not with high powered EM like the emdrive to heat stuff up).

I guess you could argue that the on and off resonance test was performed in-air and it is not certain it translates to vacuum, but that's a low-priority concern overall.

[M.LeBel]

................
M.LeBel,

I hope I'm playing in the right field, working very hard to get at least somewhere. As far as what you have seen in things zipping around the night sky with your Smith & Wesson Star Tron night scope, could be their funding is better than mine, or they have bigger brains. 

Best,
Shell

Seeshell, you`re killing me :-O

Back to our Planck universe .... The following is an outright speculation with entertainment value as it is not directly related per se to the emDrive effort here.

Everything in our universe sizzles along the Planck value. What happens if some waves or particles are NOT tuned to the Planck value? They do not interact with anything in our universe; they are not in fact in our universe.

Let’s now rewind to the very beginning. We have some starting waves with, say, the Planck value and some boundary condition, possibly a time dimension. These early waves spread and multiply like cracks in a windshield and eventually fill the set within the boundary. Are the boundary really full? No! It is only full for the Planck valued waves. To other waves (created from fluctuations or what not) this boundary is very empty. We then get waves with values h+x, h+2x, h+3x... as well as waves with h-x, h-2x, h-3x, ...etc. each in turn filling the boundary  until the boundary is really full for any possible value of whatever  h represents. Then, the boundary breaks open and spews some 240 (arbitrary number) universes all overlapping, without knowing it.

Now, these universes may have some blur or safety margins between them. Here the exotic part begins.. If we could alter the h value of our matter-wave, we could move it into the margin or our Planck universe, either upper or lower margin. Such altered matter-wave would effectively disappear to us. Laws of physics there would be unknown. Re-integrating this matter-wave back into our Planck universe would be a very a delicate procedure... Any déjà vue here? Of course! The Philadelphia Experiment!

Understanding the science and technology might open incredible doors. Imagine riding the margin of our Planck universe to get anywhere in a fraction of the time. Imagine just getting to the next floor; the next upper or lower universes...

Food for thoughts...

[rfmwguy]

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?

DeltaV:

Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"

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...

Best, Paul M.

Best,

I disagree with that conclusion.   The superposition graph should show a change in slope where the RF is switched and when it is switched off.   The "impulsive signal" is really the step response of the torque pendulum to a constant force.  That signal, in the superposition graph, should have the same shape as the finned capacitor calibration force, except inverted.   Any constant force acting on the torque pendulum will always produce a second order step response.   

I believe the correct way to analyze your data would be to do a curve fit to a first order step response.   That is the dominant signal in the waveforms I have seen.   After the first order step response signal is determined it can be subtracted from the waveform.   The remainder, if it fits a second order step response, is the force.

Since only one distance sensor was used, the displacement waveforms may have been the result of the apparatus tilting in one direction.   If multiple distance sensor had been used and the measurements averaged, any error from the apparatus tilting would have been nulled out.

Zen, let me show you what a null, thermal displacement looks like on a torsion beam. Note the difference between my trace and ew's. On mine, I was experimenting with PCM and this kept the mag frequency too high. It never slid down to resonance @ 2441 MHz where I measured 18.4 mN displacement. In effect this is a reference test for an out of resonance signal supplied to the frustum.

Zen-In:

OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier.  What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.

Best, Paul M.

Pretty clear to me Paul that I had a null test with predictable thermal patterns being quite different from your charts when RF was on resonance. In a way, you could consider my off resonance a thermal calibration run since the power was the same and so was the temperature. Only variable I had was frequency. It's easy for me to see thermal component when off resonance. It is much slower time base than the on resonance deflections I measured. Think this is what you are illustrating with your supplemental charts. Thermal pouring is slow. Cooling is slower yet. What we see is much quicker deflection responses on resonance than can be attributed to thermal heating and cooling. I studied this both on the teeter totter and torsion beam setups. I have no doubts on how to segment resonance displacement from thermal displacement. Thus my project will continue with better RF control. No microthruster test stand is immune from a thermal component. The best ones simply label the thermal baseline response with superimposed resonance deflections as yours did. Nicely done. It's not easy.

BTW, I sent you this via email. This chart is an undampened displacement force with red bars being power on. Notice the delay in mag lock and the overshoot. Notice the fast return when power is off. Then notice the overall drift of center as overall unit begins to heat up. A clear separation of deflection force at resonance in comparison to overall thermal "off center". HTC timestamp in seconds. Beam had not been calibrated at this point, but later results showed this run to be in the 15 mN range...can only roughly estimate however.

[RotoSequence]

I suggest you get beyond Wikipedia for your science and think for you yourself.

This is very easily an unproductive line of thought. Where humans succumb to emotion and politics, fall back on the scientific method. If you can't prove it, you can't say for sure if it's true - and if you can't prove it false, you're not making any progress in either direction. If it's outside of your means to prove or disprove something, it's probably wise to consider whether or not you're making good use of your time by endorsing it.

[Bob012345]

I suggest you get beyond Wikipedia for your science and think for you yourself.

This is very easily an unproductive line of thought. Where humans succumb to emotion and politics, fall back on the scientific method. If you can't prove it, you can't say for sure if it's true - and if you can't prove it false, you're not making any progress in either direction. If it's outside of your means to prove or disprove something, it's probably wise to consider whether or not you're making good use of your time by endorsing it.

As a physics guy I've been following the progress of Mills' ideas for over 15 years so I know the history of evidence and where it's at currently. I'm convinced it's true as are a growing chorus of scientists, engineers and informed observers. Unfortunately, too many people do a quick a google search, read the Wiki page and think they know it's B.S. They're wrong. 

[Klebiano]

Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?

Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.

[rfmwguy]

Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?

Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.

This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.

[Bob012345]

Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?

Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.

Roger Shawyer has been testing EmDrive for many years now. The Wright brothers flew around Dayton for five years while people outside their local environment refused to believe it was true. Being first is sometimes very lonely and hard, brutal even. Mills is a saint for persevering 25 years in the face of such hostility and he's a true hero as is Shawyer and those of similar brilliance.

[zen-in]

...

Zen-In:

OK lets look at similar to Dave's on- and off-resonance traces from the EW ICFTA tests I performed in-air due to the thermal limitations of the RF amplifier.  What do you consider first and second order effects in the two below slides that used the same ICFTA test setup on the EW TP with the only difference being the first one is being excited at the TM212 resonant frequency and the second example being driven at an off-resonance frequency.

Best, Paul M.

I don't know what is going on with that data.   My earlier post related to a method you used to extract a force from the waveforms that appear to be entirely thermal in nature.   Do you agree that a force applied to the torque pendulum will always produce the same response, regardless of how the force is generated?

Hi there. I was following this thread carefully, but lost the track here. Why would you expect the same response when the issue at stake is temperature here? From what I see, you have one test off-resonance and another in resonance, both same power and temperature to use a baseline. Then you have another 3rds test in vacuum in resonance with "emdrive thrust" superposed with the thermal response, BUT you also have a calibration impulse with no thermal response because the calibration thrust was generated in a "thermally-neutral way" (not with high powered EM like the emdrive to heat stuff up).

I guess you could argue that the on and off resonance test was performed in-air and it is not certain it translates to vacuum, but that's a low-priority concern overall.

Thermal effects will always show more variability than force.   When the frequency changes and a different resonant mode occurs different parts of the Copper cone will heat up.  That can change the apparent displacement.   As the metal heats up and expands it can move different ways.   That makes the resulting waveform (displacement vs time) very complex.   Even a simple device like an incandescent light bulb has a complex temperature step function.   The graph below is the temperature step response of an incandescent bulb.  The X-axis is time after it is switched on and the Y-axis is the temperature.   Below that I have shown one of the EW vacuum graphs.  The rise and fall times for these graphs have a similar shape as the incandescent lamp temperature step response.   In the third graphic I have combined these two graphs to show how close they fit.   Both diverge in their own way from a pure exponential rise time.   The last graphic shows a series of thermal step functions and the response.

[rq3]

Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?

Since it was discovered, if it is real serious stuff i'd imagine that more people would join the research as it promise so much technological advances. When you're the only one to research something for decades, is very probable that this something doesn't have so much evidence.

This is a good thought that I have applied it to both shawyers and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.

 NASA's Eagle Works DID NOT measure milliNewtons of thrust. They measured microNewtons of purported thrust with a microwave input of 40 to 80 watts, extrapolated to roughly 1.2 milliNewtons per kilowatt of microwave input. Just for scale, 1.2 milliNewtons is roughly 1/50 the weight of a United States coin referred to as a nickel. The EW results require 1 kilowatt of EFFECTIVE (applied) microwave energy to offset 1/50 the mass of that small coin.

And folks don't think this just might be thermal or other artifact?

I have a flying car for sale. It will be on Ebay in the second quarter of 2017. No, wait, the first quarter of 2018. No, wait...