Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8  (Read 1646084 times)

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
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.

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.

Regardless, shawyers emdrive appears to be yielding more replication efforts at much higher force levels...mN compared to microN.

In Woodward's 2014 paper "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I" we have:

• Force measured:  2 microNewtons = 0.002 mN
• Power consumed: 170 Watts = 0.17 kW
• Efficiency (Force/Input Power) = 0.002/0.17 mN/kW = 0.012 mN/kW

So Woodward's MET indeed shows much less efficiency than any EmDrive, barely 3.5 times the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, and less than 1/10 of the smallest efficiency measured by Tajmar at TU Dresden for the EmDrive in a hard vacuum.

Woodward's tests are conducted in a 15×10-3 Torr vacuum which is much less of a vacuum than the 4×10-6 Torr used by Tajmar and the 5×10-4 Torr used by NASA Eagleworks for their tests.


[EDIT: thanks to Dr Rodal for clarification of numbers and the source provided]
[EDIT2: typos]
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 02:59 pm by flux_capacitor »

Offline Peter Lauwer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Setting up an exp with torsion balance
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 469
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
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.   — Richard Feynman

Offline Star-Drive

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



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.

Zen-In:

OK for the sake of argument lets say that what the EW ICFTA In-Vacuum tests primarily generated were thermal signatures in nature.  However even then lets deep dive into the 60W-1 ICFTA in-vacuum test for an example, (Most of the the other tests in this test series had these On/Off force steps.), and look at the magnified startup and shutdown force steps in the attached slides.  I've also included the dc Lorentz offset calibration run used to subtract out the Lorentz dc offsets driven primarily by the RF amplifier's net unbalanced 28Vdc bus currents for the rest of the ICFTA in-vacuum tests.  Even if we discount all the other signals we see in these in-vacuum data-plots as being thermal in nature, and I still say if, I think you might agree that these prompt ~18.5 micro-Newton (uN) steps at RF-ON and RF-OFF could be something of interest for they are definitely not Lorentz forces for they have the wrong sign as compared to the ICFTA 50 ohm dummy load test, and they are not due to switching transients for they have a constant magnitude for their 2.2 second duration.  And besides, the EMPower's RF turn-on & off signal used in these tests have a soft-start ramp for the on and off control that eliminates most On/Off switching transients.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 02:22 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
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.html

Not 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.

You're mistaking dark energy with dark matter.

Dark energy is quite new and acts as an antigravitational pressure. Astrophysicists had to bring Einstein's cosmological constant out of mothballs to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

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.

I personally think the bimetric Janus cosmologogical model is more seducing. Dark energy, dark matter and this dark photon would be several facets of the same thing. But first we'd have to consider dark matter is made of negative energy hence negative mass, and cannot be seen in our universe (it emits its own negative energy dark photons) but antigravitationally acts on normal matter like dark energy. This would account for observations with no add-hoc parameter.

That "negative dark matter" is not conventional Dirac's antimatter (C-symmetry) which has positive energy hence positive mass. It is Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry) nobody never observed, because this kind of matter can't be seen due to its negative energy dark photons (negative energy is simply T-symmetry, which is not as one would think at first sight "going backwards in time").
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 01:58 pm by flux_capacitor »

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 153
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.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline Star-Drive

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

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 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.

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.
Star-Drive

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
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.

Yes I know you are right. I mixed up numbers with an old paper until Dr Rodal pointed out my error to me, and I was correcting my post while you published yours.

Offline M.LeBel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 34
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.html

Not 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.

Dark matter? Dark energy?

IMO... Physics studies our Experience of the universe. It is like poking a black box and studying the answer back. We never really question what stuff is in the black box. Supporting this approach is the fact that everything in the universe is made of one type of stuff in different dynamic combinations, so, ...... maths is fine for that, thank you! No need to get the identity of the stuff...

But, when the time comes to do the accounting for the whole universe... it doesn’t balance off. This is when you have to find the identity of that stuff so as to factor it into the equations. Dark matter is the time process pervading the whole universe... Dark energy is the innumerable stretches and differentials in the time process across the universe, all missing from direct experience i.e. “Dark”.

Food for Thought...

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
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.
Thank you for volunteering to moderate this thread.  You and Carl G. have been doing an excellent job!


"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Richard P. Feynman
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 03:06 pm by Rodal »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 279
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 like it! But it does look like a high tech guillotine. How sensitive will it be according to your design?

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • United States
  • Liked: 4393
  • Likes Given: 1407
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

Looks nice. I'm switching to the 1.5" Faztek square 6061 extrusions for my build as well. Is that what you are using?

What material is the torsion pendulum arm made from?  Are you using non-magnetic 316 stainless steel or brass nuts and bolts for assembly? 

Instead of having two laser sensors monitor the same plane of rotation, consider having one measure any rising from thermal lift. I was able to detect a small thermal lift component doing this.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 03:49 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1339
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92

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.

{deleted all sorts of interesting stuff to keep tangential discussion brief... Good stuff though}

There are alternative explanations for the observed motions of galaxies and dwarf galaxies that do away with the need for dark matter.  (I think the following article may be the latest such theory)

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

and WRT Inflation:

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-einstein-physics.html

so the jury is kind of out on dark matter too.

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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 of 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.

EDIT: Just to put some numbers on this, a "typical" level 7 DBM (double balanced mixer) of the passive diode type, when configured as a phase detector, will output roughly +/- 1.5 volts at its IF port when properly driven at the RF and LO ports. Given a sufficiently "numb" or insensitive VCO, no further processing is required to establish phase lock, even though the mixer IF port signal contains all of the typical mixer responses. The VCO itself won't have the bandwidth to respond to anything but the DC term. In a typical lab environment, the VCO would be a broadband synthesizer, with the PLL IF signal applied to the synthesizer master oscillator. Any decent lab quality synthesizer will have this capability. This allows the experimenter to set the locking frequency using the synthesizer output frequency control, while the synthesizer internal master clock is VCO controlled by the PLL. It is trivial to monitor the IF signal with an oscilloscope to observe the loop snap into lock, and track the incoming RF. The scope could even be used to establish a 2nd order (actually 3rd order) loop to monitor the torsion pendulum force, as the IF signal is a phase/frequency modulated representation of the phase delta between the signal of interest and the reference. Keep in mind that the +/- 1.5 volt output of the phase detector IF represents a 180 degree phase shift of the RF and LO, or about 0.017 volt per degree! Exquisitely sensitive, even without IF gain. With DC IF gain, this method is commonly used to measure parameters like phase noise to levels of -215 dBc/Hz.
This is bascically the method used to measure the accuracy and drift of "atomic clocks" to levels now approaching parts in 10^-21.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 10:33 pm by rq3 »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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.

I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
As a perhaps interesting historical side note, in the 19th (and perhaps even the 17th) century horology had advanced to the point that the varying gravitational attraction caused by the moon would effect the rate of the best pendulum clocks.

Those are the kinds of forces that experimenters are dealing with here.

Offline rq3

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • USA
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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.

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.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
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.

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 not even clear whether the “thrust” exists or not. What if in a few years it is proven to be not existing? What should the theorists do with their theories? I know that arxiv.org does not allow deleting articles.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Tags:
 

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