Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 05:31 pm...The dummy load was inside! Processing.......Okay It wasn't elucidated that I can see, but in order to derive the 9.6 micronewton null force, you would have to take into account the thrust from the test article first, subtract the thrust (if any from the dummy load, which takes into account a lot of variables, including non linearaties of the heat produced by the dummy load itself coupled with the geometry of the test chamber. AND this is assuming the dummy load impulse effects were less than the test article, otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?).You know what? This all sounds like BS because 1, we don't have enough info and 2 the effects are way small. I'm about to abandon this level of critical analysis of the paper because there are way too many assumptions based on too little info. The emdrive's supposed thrust is so close to the noise floor, that this way of analyzing it is not effective. We're gonna have to wait and see what other people do.Well, these are some of the reasons why I have been bringing this up. But there are more, there are also magneto-thermo mechanical and dynamic aspects to this coupling as well. That is why the classical set-up of Cavendish has been used to measure gravitational inverse-square law and the Casimir force in classical experiments and that's why Brito et al used a Cavendish type of setup with oil damping that falsified their inverted flexure beam experiments. I understand why Dr. White's team went this way: they wanted to have the setup to be small enough to fit inside their vacuum chamber. This is the inverted pendulum they had. They did not have access to one as for example designed by Prof. Martinez-Sanchez at MIT to eliminate mode coupling between swinging and torsional modes.Fine, we have to live with this: these are the experimental results we have and we need to take these issues into account in order to assess their validity. So, we continue as we have been doing, we have made a lot of progress in analyzing this, and we should continue.So, Ron's comments and answers concerning Mulletron's and my questions would still be appreciated, because the better we understand this coupling the better we can assess the significance of the results.
...The dummy load was inside! Processing.......Okay It wasn't elucidated that I can see, but in order to derive the 9.6 micronewton null force, you would have to take into account the thrust from the test article first, subtract the thrust (if any from the dummy load, which takes into account a lot of variables, including non linearaties of the heat produced by the dummy load itself coupled with the geometry of the test chamber. AND this is assuming the dummy load impulse effects were less than the test article, otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?).You know what? This all sounds like BS because 1, we don't have enough info and 2 the effects are way small. I'm about to abandon this level of critical analysis of the paper because there are way too many assumptions based on too little info. The emdrive's supposed thrust is so close to the noise floor, that this way of analyzing it is not effective. We're gonna have to wait and see what other people do.
Guys, you are analyzing EagleWorks' set-up to death. I can understand why we need clean data to see how the force actually behaves with power, frequency, Q, dielectric, ... but don't overlook the fact that Shayer and Ling also claim results. I don't know their test set-ups but I doubt that the error modes were common to the EagleWorks set-up.In other words, "Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees!"
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/06/2014 04:53 pmYes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.thanks. And what specific kind of "Woodward's thruster" was tested by Woodward et.al. with that setup, the MLT or MET type of thruster?
Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
Okay I made a cad error...
. . .otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?)
2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.
.... for this level of mastery you generally want to run continuous, not sweep through a "sweet spot", be it resonance,...
His approach has strange consequences to time and reality, but in their theoretical approach it is step back to time we believe we are able to theorize and than confirm our theory by experiment, instead of just believing, like for example string theory
A previous lurker and a newly minted member here. I have been following this topic for some time and just want to throw in a few thoughts I have had, for what they are worth. 1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps. 2) I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). The S11 plot (voltage reflection coefficient at the input) shows this very well. Very, very little RF power is reflected back to the input at 1932.6 MHz. That is to be expected. Any RF-tight enclosure with the same ceramic resonator inside would produce a similar S11 plot. There is no mystery about it. Well, except where does the anomalous force come from?
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
I am a little lost because I don't have the paper, but just to clarify: we're here talking about 2 different geometries at once? The truncated cone/Shawyer resonator is powered AC, but the power supply for the resonator is on the balance arm and it is powered by DC? And the other device, similarly? Both have the power supply on the balance arm powered DC and that DC is coupling with the magnetic damping?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 11:09 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
It wasn't clear in one of your previous post, AC vs DC, Woodward's devices don't use a modulation of the RF signal, do they
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/06/2014 09:16 amI would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)At least I get the Bussard ramjet idea. More or less, you don't have to carry your "oxidiser", but you do have to carry your "fuel". I think.
I would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)
Quote from: Frobnicat & MulletronTo be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...No, I got that. I'm just designing that spacecraft which uses the "rectifier effect hypothesis". While you don't need an evacuated glass container for the "tube", there would be a lot of mass, and a large size associated with the spacecraft.Riffing off of caffeine at the moment, I'd guess that you'd need several families of VonNeuman devices, spread out over a large area, fed material some how, and powered, somehow, in order to build the spacecraft.Which, to my mind, gets back to wondering briefly, on the BOE, how big would that spacecraft have to be? Both the DM ramjet and the rectifier effect ones.
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...