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.
Quote from: rfa on 11/26/2016 11:43 pmQuote from: zen-in on 11/26/2016 11:12 pm...Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/26/2016 10:37 pmZen-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.
Quote from: zen-in on 11/26/2016 11:12 pm...Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/26/2016 10:37 pmZen-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.
...Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/26/2016 10:37 pmZen-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?
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.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 11/27/2016 05:58 amScience has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.htmlNot saying there are such things... But there could be.So true. But regarding dark matter, I think it will be a laughable matter 10 years from now. It has never been found. It was only theoretically predicted in an attempt to explain an accelerating expansion of the Universe. Bringing this back around, I believe that the same phenomenon being observed in the EM Drive is related to the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In fact, I believe them to be the very same phenomenon.
Science has room for surprises left in it. Otherwise we would not be reading things like this:http://phys.org/news/2016-11-na64-mysterious-dark-photon.htmlNot saying there are such things... But there could be.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 11/27/2016 01:38 amQuote from: Klebiano on 11/27/2016 01:26 amQuoteWell, 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 Shawyer's and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, Shawyer's emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.While it is true Woodward's test articles produce thrusts in the micro-newtons range, the applied power is also very low. Nevertheless the specific thrust achieved by Woodward's MET using a stack of PZT disks is about 10 to 50 mN/kW in a hard vacuum. This is 10x times less than Shawyer's EmDrive in ambient air, but also 10x more than Eagleworks' EmDrive in a vacuum. Theory is solid, and thrust signatures repeatable. Woodward's previous design known as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) using magnetic coils with capacitors has been replicated by others in the past, including Paul March. Woodward's newest solid-state device known as the MET (Mach-Effect Thruster) using a stack of vibrating piezoelectric ceramic PZT disks, has been very recently successfully replicated in three independent laboratories in the world, by Nembo Buldrini at Fotec GmbH (Austria), George Hathaway's Toronto lab (Canada) and Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden (Germany). More on that later as papers from their respective authors have not been published yet.
Quote from: Klebiano on 11/27/2016 01:26 amQuoteWell, 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 Shawyer's and Woodward's efforts. Shawyers recently has been picked up by others, Woodward's I am not so sure. Regardless, Shawyer's emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.
QuoteWell, 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.
Well, how else would Mill describe his work if he leads the field as the first hydrino scientist since he discovered the concept?
Flux_Capacitor:"Nevertheless the specific thrust achieved by Woodward's MET using a stack of PZT disks is about 10 to 50 mN/kW in a hard vacuum."Where did you pull that data from? Woodward's latest consistent thrust outputs range between 1.0 to 5.0 micro-Newton (uN) so lets be generous and give it 5.0 uN or 0.005 milli-Newton (mN) with ~300W of applied 36kHz reactive power. The Q-factor of Jim's current METs is 190 so the net dissipated power needed to generate the above 5.0 uN is 300W/190 = 1.58W of real power. That implies that on a good day these METs have a specific thrust of 0.005 mN / 0.00158 kW = 3.16 mN/kWe or 0.00316 N/kWe compared to a Hall thruster's specific thrust of ~0.050 N/kWe. Thus I say that your above 10-to-50 mN/kWe specific thrust estimate is off by an order of magnitude high, unless you know some of Jim's results I haven't seen.
Lets stay on topic please. i have half a mind to delete much of the off-topic discourse. One thing holds me back, this thread self moderates as a general rule. I see many of you recognize that. Any more politics and the hamilton solution will be swift and severe. This thread is almost ready for renewal, thanks for maintaining the signal to noise ratio.
In the meantime... my torsion balance is nearing completion. In the attached picture the electronics is not connected yet and only one of the dampers (oil) is in place. The balance arm of the dubbell type which is visible is meant only for exploring the dynamic behavior of the system (electronics). The beam which will hold the cavities and the RF system etc. is still under construction (see attached drawing) and is asymmetrical.It will all be enclosed in a box made out of plywood with an Al layer on the inside. As can be seen, the cavities are suspended on the left of the balance, and will be housed in a separate box, so the joined box will have a T-shape.Best, Peter
I have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.
Dark matter is an older concept, it is mandatory for the standard cosmological model to fit with observations (notably the abnormal galaxy rotation curves) in order to solve "the missing mass problem".Nowadays the standard model says the universe is made of about (the recipe varies a little day to day) 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only 5% normal matter.
Quote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 02:54 amI have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.
Quote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 08:57 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 02:54 amI have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.
Quote from: rq3 on 11/27/2016 09:43 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 08:57 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 02:54 amI have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.
Quote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 10:11 pmQuote from: rq3 on 11/27/2016 09:43 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 08:57 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 02:54 amI have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.It wasn't an analysis, merely a remark that there was insufficient data to even begin analysis, followed by observations and suppositions as to what some of the "black boxes" on your diagram might actually be. Do you have any data that indicates how much current is flowing through each ground loop? Without that data, there can be no analysis.
Quote from: rq3 on 11/27/2016 10:39 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 10:11 pmQuote from: rq3 on 11/27/2016 09:43 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 08:57 pmQuote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 02:54 amI have just drawn a Lorentz force causing ground loop that exists in the AIAA paper. The top answer by user "emdriventodrink" in another forum's physics section argued convincingly that most of the effect was likely thermal,https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/5ewj86/so_nasas_em_drive_paper_is_officially_published/Here I complement that argument for the possible explanation of the residue faster effect. It could be Lorentz. Because the components are "extensively" grounded, multiple return paths for the power supply may exist, which can form ground loops. In this drawing, I illustrate a likely one. Of course there could exist other ground loops. Those ground loops can interfere with magnetic field of the Earth or from the magnetic damper.Could I ask why nobody tried to reply to this post? Is it too basic to worth a reply, or too complicated to understand? Anyway, I drew another illustration why the dummy load test is not good enough to control for the Lorentz force. Furthermore, it also shows that the Lorentz force under dummy load can be at opposite polarity of the frustum test.There just isn't enough detail to comment upon. For example, the lower "match" connected to the sampling antenna in the frustrum is most likely not a "match" at all, but contains the phase locked loop (PLL) circuit (comparable to the "magic happens inside" seen elsewhere).IF this is true, then the sampling antenna presents a very lightly coupled load to the frustum to maintain Q as high as possible within the frustum. This microwatt level signal would then be introduced to the RF port a mixer of some sort, the second (LO) port of the mixer would receive a reference signal, and the intermediate frequency (IF) port of the mixer would then be a direct current (DC) signal varying in voltage in proportion to the phase difference of the mixer inputs. The filtered IF is then used to control the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), keeping it in direct lock with the reference signal, both in frequency and phase. The current levels involved in the PLL would be miniscule (milliamps at most), and at a first approximation should be negligable in terms of Lorentz forces.Of course the PLL reference need not be a fixed frequency. It could be another VCO whose output varies in proportion to detected force, for example. Implemented perhaps by the torsion balance motion detector output used to modulate the reference VCO, so that the PLL is now a "force locked loop" which tracks and optimizes the data of interest (force), rather than data of perhaps no use whatsoever (frequency, mode, etc.). I've mentioned this several times before.In any case, there is insufficient information to provide anything but supposition based on your sketches. But I would suppose that the PLL circuit effects on Lorentz forces would be very, very small. Not negligable (nothing is negligable when no-one knows what they are seeing), but very, very small.Sorry but your analysis is not correct. The sketches I drew were all about DC and has nothing to do with RF or PLL what so ever. They (or their shells) are only ground conductors for the DC return path. Please re-consider your "vary small" conclusion.It wasn't an analysis, merely a remark that there was insufficient data to even begin analysis, followed by observations and suppositions as to what some of the "black boxes" on your diagram might actually be. Do you have any data that indicates how much current is flowing through each ground loop? Without that data, there can be no analysis.It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz. I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
Quote from: PotomacNeuron on 11/27/2016 10:53 pmIt is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz. I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.I completely agree with you that there are many uncontrolled variables in all experiments to date. I completely disagree with you that it is pointless to talk about theories, fancy or otherwise, until all such variables, Lorentz or otherwise, are accounted for. It's admirable that you have pointed out a possible source of error that others may then take into account in their experiments, but theory and experiment tend to alternately leap-frog each other.I don't know if the PLL circuit in the EW experiment was ground isolated. Making it so would have been fairly trivial, but I just don't know. Assuming that it was not is just that. An assumption. Again, insufficient data. The devil is in the most tiny details at these force levels.
It is sad that I do not have sufficient data because they did not publish those data. In 2015 I have shown with my own experiment that the Lorentz force can be in tens of micro newtons range in similar settings with EW's. But I could not know EW's setting in detail. Today I just illustrate that the EW's dummy load test is not sufficient to control for the Lorentz force, and the small steps in their tests can still be Lorentz. I think It is pointless to talk about all the fancy theories if Lorentz force is still not controlled in the experiment.
