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

[Star-Drive]

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.

PotomacNeuron

The copper frustum force production is NOT reliant on the sense antenna cable being present, which was validated with manual controlled data runs two or three years ago, so your Lorentz force diagram is not accurate when the sense antenna was not used.  Now due to the safety requirement that we had to have a single-point, green-wire ground to the torque pendulum and all its metallic parts, the EW Torque Pendulum (TP) always had some unbalance dc current loops interacting whit the ambient magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber components, thus the need to quantify these NET Lorentz forces using the dummy load test.  However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount.  Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results. 

Best, Paul M.

[spupeng7]

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.

Glad to hear that your understanding of the universe is seamless. Mine is terribly flawed and my solutions to those flaws do not even meet the requirements of common sense. Committing myself to a Machian view of dynamics isolates me from almost all experienced technicians but hey! We have ourselves a paradox here, a paradox which threatens to reveal something entirely new about the universe we live in. Who cares about personal reputation.
It is one thing to respect the reputation of an employer who deserves that, but to put your own credibility before your investigation is to loose sight of its purpose.

[rq3]

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.

To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories". Some are just shot down more quickly than others. Eventually, ALL are shot down, even the most cherished theories we know to be "true" today. They may be shot down in a rapid blaze of glory, or be slowly whittled away as more data becomes available that makes them less and less relevant. The lack of a "theory of everything", for example, is as worrisome to modern physics as it was to Einstein. I'm not talking about decimal points, I'm talking about an underlying lack of something very basic. We just don't know what it is.

People tend to be, I think, either theorists or experimentalists. Einstein actually had a patent, for a refrigerator of all things, but had the theory necessary to build a laser in the 1930's. Any good neon sign manufacturer with access to dielectric mirrors (yes, they existed in the 30's) could have built one. Einstein was a phenomenal theorist. Experimentalist, nah, not so much. It's the constant feedback between the two that advances technology (and science, in the shorter view).

Did you ever notice that it generally takes about a generation between a wing-nut idea (like quantum mechanics) to the hardware capable of proving (or disproving) the idea? The dead-wood has to die off so that the next generation can shed pre-conceived notions and built hardware.

The first LED was observed in the 1910's. There was no theory to explain its operation. The theory for the laser (or maser) was expounded by Einstein. It took until the 1950's for the first maser to be constructed. Theory and practice leap-frog each other. Both are critically necessary. Or not, as the case may be. Some theories are so off-the-wall that they don't deserve further consideration (hollow earth). Some hardware is the same (Dean drive). Neither are ever wasted. They just illuminate paths that don't warrant the effort of walking. Sometimes, it just may take more time than we like for the two to meet. Enough philosophical expounding. Keep on keeping-on. I can't play nasty devil's advocate without things to moan about, and things to suggest based on my own experience and the results I read here.

EDIT: Minor typo corrections and minor extension of my bloviation.

[rq3]

Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?

This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?

The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.

As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.

[as58]

To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".

I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.

[SeeShells]

To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".

I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.

If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell

[WarpTech]

For the DIY'ers. If we want a DC powered MW amplifier that can be integrated onto the frustum. Ideally, what would you choose? Starting a database so I can understand what is and is not possible. Thanks!

[PotomacNeuron]

For the DIY'ers. If we want a DC powered MW amplifier that can be integrated onto the frustum. Ideally, what would you choose? Starting a database so I can understand what is and is not possible. Thanks!

It was this light source, I have recommended in this forum, but it is sold out now,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PANASONIC-PT61LCZ7-Others-Light-Unit-LUXIM-LIFI-Good-LIFI-4000-G1ew1433-/151755620237

This module includes a 28V, 9.5A (14.5 at start up), 915 MHz, 200W microwave oscillator. All you need is a frustum, a feed antenna and a pick up antenna + attenuator. You need to hack the circuit, of course. It uses NXP LDMOS FET(s) that are sold for $100 a piece.

On ebay you can search "luxim" to find other "light source power supply" modules. Those are microwave osc+RFamp modules that you can reuse at least the components.

A description: http://slidepapers.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Long-Life-Solid-State-RF-Powered-Light-Sources.pdf

block diagram:

[therealjjj77]

Have any of the tests on EMDrive been performed with maintaining a vacuum inside of the frustrum?

This is an excellent question. If the EW test under vacuum did indeed vent the frustum to its external environment, there must have been a vent allowing it to do so, whether intentional or not. Did this vent exist? If it did, what was the effect of this hole on the Q of the frustum? If it did not, what was the effect of the frustum expansion as its internal 1 atmosphere was exposed to external vacuum outside the frustum? Could the phase locked loop deal with this probably severe cavity distortion? If it could do so, could it maintain phase lock under mode shift? If so, what are the use of the results?

The results of these experiments should NOT be thrust versus frequency, thrust versus Q, thrust versus mode. They should be thrust versus input power based upon ONE of the above. Expected result versus controlled input. To date, absolutely no-one has done this.

As many others on this forum have suggested (including myself), a kilowatt is a kilowatt is a kilowatt. A resistive heater within the frustum dissipating the same energy would go a long way to answering quite a few of the thermal issues.

Would be intriguing to see how a vacuum inside the frustrum would affect performance considering that such a drive could easily operate in a vacuum in application(since it's intended use is in space). 

Would also be intriguing to see if it would be possible to utilize(and filter if necessary) the already existing AMPLE background radiation in space to power this. Tapping that would be like running a cruise liner in a sea of diesel fuel.

[SeeShells]

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=41881
ChrisWilson68

I respect that some people believe EM Drive works and will change the world.  But I do not respect those people who insult those who disagree and think there is good reason to think EM Drive is very unlikely to work.

[/quote]

Your rebuttal was very well put and shows a depth of knowledge on NASA and the programs few have. I agree in most part but differ in a few things. I really wished NASA had kept the ability to launch astronauts into space. Every time there is a disagreement between the US and Russia I hold my breath something will close that avenue.

The other is, why do you say the EMDrive is unlikely to work? You are entitled to your views and I respect them. Seemingly there is slowly mounting data (not perfect) but data that points to something strange. I think it deserves a "I don't know", but I'd like to hear why you think it's unlikely to work.

My Best,
Shell

[Nerm999]

Best, Paul M.

Paul, you've mentioned a couple of times that you're planning on getting a home lab up and running - do you have any concrete plans of what areas you want to investigate, or what sort of test program you are going to run?
Interested in how you think you can build on the work at EW, and what's missing from those results.

[therealjjj77]

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").

Thank you for your response. We would have to agree that Dark Energy and Dark Matter(if they exist) are two sides of the same coin in the same way that energy and matter are in our current understanding of observable physics.

I do want to thank you for the input as it has forced me to take my theory to a galactic level(which I had not done yet). After some consideration, I have come up with a diagram that helps to better explain some of these observations with the observed galaxy rotation curves. See the attached.

As r becomes larger, several things happen:
1. G decreases
2. A1 slightly increases
3. A2 increases

According to my theory, what results in the rotational velocity increasing on a galactic level as r increases is that A2 continues to increase replacing the affects of G.

A1: Antigravity force 1 - What causes the A1 force is the energy residing in the space between M and m that is converting into matter and resulting in space creation, offsetting some of the space destroyed by gravity, although I predict this to be miniscule.

A2: Antigravity force 2 - What causes A2 is the energy surrounding the space outside of the galaxy which is converting into matter and having an antigravity effect by creating space. This puts an inward pressure on the galaxy(which has been widely interpreted up to now as being caused by "dark/invisible" matter within the galaxy itself instead of an external force).

r = radius

v = rotational velocity

M = mass of galaxy center(although in the case of a galaxy, much of the mass is found throughout the galaxy and not in the center such as in a solar system like ours)

m = mass of observed galactic body

What I believe we are observing in this drive is anti-gravity.

[as58]

To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".

I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.

If there was no data to evaluate you would have no idea that a test was flawed or not.
Shell

Yes, obviously. But not all data are useful. With the rush of DIYers there have been a lot of substandard experiments, where for example characterisation of the tested device and description of methods used to measure thrust are very lacking or completely missing. Just have a look at the (IMO mostly legitimate) criticism EM paper got on reddit, and that was the best (by far) emdrive measurement report seen in public.

About bad theories: to pick one example, I can't be the only one here who thinks that Shawyer's theory fits that description.

[flux_capacitor]

However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount.  Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results. 

Best, Paul M.

Paul, it is my understanding that in the D-B test, the frustum was in resonance in TM212 mode with a PE disc at small end and the reaction force vector was measured big to small.
Can you at least confirm the direction of thrust on these dynamic air bearing rotary experiments, and the presence or absence of an internal polymer insert (or if the two possibilities were tested)?

[Peter Lauwer]

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?

Thank you, Bob. I will put it in a box, so no heads or limbs will be chopped off.
The sensitivity will depend on the noise level and drift it has in this new setup. At other sites, and with other constructions, the smallest forces I could measure were ~ 0.3 micronewton. That is approx. the resolution. I will make some modifications to the electronics, so I hope to even improve on these numbers. The sensitivity of course also depends on the amplification factor of the electronics and the damping, and the range which is required (at least 200 uN).

[Peter Lauwer]

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

Thank you, Monomorphic.
The extrusions are from Item (I think it's a German company http://www.item24.com/ ), probably about the same as the Faztek you mention. Only 40 x 40 mm.

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

The torsion pendulum arm will also be from Al Item profiles, 30 x 30 mm. On this arm I will use only brass nuts and bolts. Also on the frame parts which are close to the pendulum arm (on the picture, some stainless steel bolts can be seen which will be replaced by brass ones).

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.

Yes, good idea. I have a 3rd sensor to do that.
I use two position sensors because the servo system which powers the solenoid only compensates for rotation and not for translation of the beam (due to tilt or swinging mode). The signals of the two sensors are subtracted from each other.
It are no laser sensors, btw. They are home-made: a red LED above a photodiode (BPW21). The current through the LED is stabilized with a circuit that also enables adjustment so both sensors give the same output. A blocking vane is attached to the balance beam which partly interrupts this opto coupler. Works very well, very reliable, I'm using this type for more than two decades now, very cheap. Has micrometer resolution and ~ 1 mm linear range.

[therealjjj77]

Would a material like this: http://anomet.com/aluminum/ be more effective than copper? Thoughts?

[Peter Lauwer]

TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes?   thnx , FL

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

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

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

Or take a short cut.

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

This one is a bit too small. Or you have to go to higher freqs, of course. But altogether it is cheaper than making it completely yourself out of sheets of copper, I found out.

[Bob012345]

To quote SeaShells on this forum, "There is no bad data". I would extend that to say, "there are also no bad theories".

I disagree: there are both bad data and bad theories, and there's been no shortage of either in emdrive threads.

When dealing with something completely new like the EmDrive, one shouldn't be overconfident they can fit the phenomenon within their current understanding thus not be so adamant a new idea or theory is bad. 

[Peter Lauwer]

Coupling of these two copper bowls with flanges in the middle will suppress TM modes, I guess. No problem. But good resonance in TE012 will be possible, isn't it?
I want to use this cavity (coupled it will be a cylinder 179.5 mm inside diam., 179 mm length, edges rounded, radius ~15 mm) to experiment with coupling loops and dielectric inserts.

TE012 is at ~2.64 GHz, and ough, TE113 at 2.69 GHz, according to my calculations.

Planned exps with loops are, a.o., according to the ideas by put forward by Monomorphic [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608248#msg1608248], dustinthewind [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608434#msg1608434, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1609040#msg1609040]  and SeeShells [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608617#msg1608617, can't find the message about the clover leaf antenna's] (and prob forgetting someone).