-
#3200 by aceshigh on 14 Nov, 2014 10:50
-
Hi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.
Thanks,
Jordan Greenhall
are you the Jordan Greenhall who founded DivX? -
#3201 by aceshigh on 14 Nov, 2014 11:01
-
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
the question is what sort of budget would be needed to build in theory a stronger enough EM device that could give conclusive results about it working or not.
why havenīt White or someone else build a device giving away 1 N and just appear on a press conference on a magic carpet floating over EM devices
? Because they donīt KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they donīt know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?
every investment means a risk... investment on an EM Device, since they are still unproved, is a big risk. It should be clear to investors this is an INVESTIGATION if it works or not (unlike Rossi trying to get money from investors by claiming his ECAT DOES work.)
of course, if the investigation to reach conclusive proof are low budget enough, and the pay-off might be ENORMOUS (founding your own Wayland Yutani Corporation haha), the very high risk may be worth a try.
people have been know to gamble a lot of money on much riskier things, like horse racing, soccer and Las Vegas -
#3202 by Rodal on 14 Nov, 2014 11:59
-
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.
1) What kind of a team can you assemble?
2) Who is on your team?
1) The best.
2) Top men.
Women don't need to apply for your team ? -
#3203 by Stormbringer on 14 Nov, 2014 12:04
-
i believe that is pop cultural reference to a line in a movie.
-
#3204 by JohnFornaro on 14 Nov, 2014 12:05
-
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.
1) What kind of a team can you assemble?
2) Who is on your team?
1) The best.
2) Top men.
Women don't need to apply for your team ?
? I've heard of them. And in fact, they are running my team at the moment and for the foreseeable future. It's a complicated, multi-coastal thing. No math whatsoever. -
#3205 by JohnFornaro on 14 Nov, 2014 12:07
-
Rodal, I think this should be enough to answer your questions about John.
Him still think math invented before language. -
#3206 by JohnFornaro on 14 Nov, 2014 12:10
-
Oh. Tryouts for the team are underway. Use the PM function. Must be willing to travel to the Hook. Must have English, manufacturing, math, and a sense of Arizona.
-
#3207 by frobnicat on 14 Nov, 2014 12:53
-
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
the question is what sort of budget would be needed to build in theory a stronger enough EM device that could give conclusive results about it working or not.
why havenīt White or someone else build a device giving away 1 N and just appear on a press conference on a magic carpet floating over EM devices ? Because they donīt KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they donīt know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?
This is not a matter of stronger but reliable, reproducible, and conclusive, yes, as a form of unknown physics.
Shawyer (2008) and Juan et al team (2011) are claiming thrusts 0.2 N or a little more, not far from 1N. It's been said that those devices are hard to make reliable because of narrow resonance bandwidth and hard to maintain at resonance, and hard to make standalone with all battery+RF amplifier+cavity(+thermal management...) in a package with only on/off remote control as interaction. I understand this would not be trivial to do, but hard to swallow that it proved that difficult to do in all those years.
Publish one single design with reproducible clean 1ĩN from 1W (operational for a few hours) and all leading private and public labs will exponentially rush on that unknown physics as soon as two or three independent labs with known sceptics at the command confirm something is going on. And that shouldn't take more than a few tens of thousands of dollar.
The most probable answer is that they don't know how to do it because it don't work as claimed (ie. no exotic physics, no application to propulsion, no application to energy generation). No matter how much money is thrown at it, impossible is impossible. And most lab chose to throw no money at it at all. Or if they did, they got negative results and kept silence about that, because there is not much credit to gain from publishing negative results, specially when everybody is convinced the results should be negative. Or they already got positive results and kept silence, for the moment, but in this case it shouldn't take long before it leaks.Quote
every investment means a risk... investment on an EM Device, since they are still unproved, is a big risk. It should be clear to investors this is an INVESTIGATION if it works or not (unlike Rossi trying to get money from investors by claiming his ECAT DOES work.)
of course, if the investigation to reach conclusive proof are low budget enough, and the pay-off might be ENORMOUS (founding your own Wayland Yutani Corporation haha), the very high risk may be worth a try.
people have been know to gamble a lot of money on much riskier things, like horse racing, soccer and Las Vegas
Yeah, managed well, king of the solar system is not out of reach. Also, should it work as claimed there would be very serious issues with devastating kinetic weapons "for everyone"... so this is also a high risk/high risk gamble.
If this is serious, at this stage it is fundamental science, not engineering. People are waiting (well, most people aren't waiting for anything from this line of research) for a reliable and reproducible effect, even small, not for a strong effect but not reliable and not reproducible.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil -- Donald Knuth
-
#3208 by JohnFornaro on 14 Nov, 2014 13:22
-
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data ...
The question is what sort of budget would be needed to build in theory a stronger enough EM device that could give conclusive results about it working or not.
why havenīt White or someone else built a device giving away 1 N and just appear on a press conference on a magic carpet floating over EM devices ? Because they donīt KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they donīt know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?
I have already answered this question briefly:As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Why not? Because......why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Seriously, this time:
The cost and difficulty of scaling to that degree is prohibitive.
A careful reading of your line of questioning reveals to me some inaccuracy in your approach.
You ask, "bcause they donīt KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints". Budget is not the cause for lack of results. If they do know how to do it (not that "do it") they have not so demonstrated the phenomena.
The potential economic stakes are very high, but the theoretical costs, if you will, are also very high. One side effect of this is that the NASA people who direct funding are in a bit of a bind, because the math is so impenetrable, but the risks of missing out on a rewrite of physics are so formidable. Quite frankly, they ain't got what it takes to know for sure whether the effect is real or not.
What happens is that NASA people do not question the math sufficiently, by my take. Just to pick one random example: Primitive man was not so sure of his skills in questioning the handling of a simple equation, and didn't raise the point, but another fella with vastly superior math skills spotted a serious error which should have, one would think, have caused the NASA people to question the work of the experimentors more closely.
Except for one point : since when do you measure a change by subtracting a final amount from an initial amount ?
It would be a logical mistake to think that cost is immaterial in the demonstration of the experimental apparatus and protocol. But, as was illustrated on John Walker's site up thread, a very primitive methodology can be used to detect the effects of very small gravitational forces, or forces from an EM drive device. There's no way that the electronic gear could be had for around $2K, as one poster up thread suggested.
Still, it seems that the expense of replicating the results using the many suggestions in this thread, should not be insurmountable. -
#3209 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 13:41
-
Not clear, did they swept on power and recorded whopping hundreds milliNewtons all the way through ?
No. All of the highest thrusts were impulse associated with the on and off transients, which according to M-E theory is just what should happen if this is a Mach Effect Thruster. The impulses were not "hundreds' of milliNewtons. I think the highest impulse recored was 110mN. That is a respectable, commercial grade thrust given most communications sats are fitted with 20nM Hall thrusters. -
#3210 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 13:57
-
From: Robert Ludwick
I think he's right. He doesn't understand. This is a very high Q resonator. The higher the Q, the narrower the bandwidth it can resonate at. Without resonance the Q will drop off to between 1/100 and 1/10,000 what it is normally. The resonator needs to resonate. You cannot simply sweep a resonator and think you are changing the frequency only, when the Q is only for small bandwidths of specific frequencies.
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:05 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Re: Testing the EmDrive
As for the difficulty of changing the frequency and nothing else, I dont see it, but maybe I dont understand the problem that is being referred to.
The proper way to do the kind of study Dr. Ludwick mentions is as I already explained, place varying amounts of dielectric in the chamber so it has different resonant frequencies and plot points rather than a sweep. Since Eagle has a PLL resonance matching circuit, there is little trouble with this except that you need to note you have not one but two variables as you have changed the amount of active mass. According to M-E theory this should matter, and Paul knows this. -
#3211 by Rodal on 14 Nov, 2014 14:16
-
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.Not clear, did they swept on power and recorded whopping hundreds milliNewtons all the way through ?
No. All of the highest thrusts were impulse associated with the on and off transients, which according to M-E theory is just what should happen if this is a Mach Effect Thruster....
The record shows otherwise. See for example the following force measurement by Shawyer, showing instead of just an impulse, an increasing (very slowly with time when compared to electromagnetic wave speed) force response, as has been noticed and commented in this forum numerous times by @Mulletron, @aero, @zen-in, @frobnicat and others in this thread.
-
#3212 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 14:21
-
None of these explanations appeal because as you said, they violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity. However, the explanation you missed is the Mach Effect explanation, and it does not violate any well understood physics. It in fact requires conservation, GR and EEP all obtain. Also the fact these thruster seem to require the dielectric, and work best during the on and off transients, suggests this is a Mach Effect we're looking at.QuoteHi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.Quote
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
While there have been a couple of DIY types who dropped into this thread, most of the people posting are concerned with trying to figure out how and why the device works in the first place, and whether or not the reported results are the result of a 'false positive' or experimental artifact.
It must be pointed out that the explanations put forth by the creators of these devices run directly contrary to major, well established scientific laws, notably 'conservation of momentum.' That said, the reported results, from different
groups in different countries using devices differing somewhat from each other did produce what APPEARS to be positive results. The problem is reconciling or explaining those results in a manner consistent with known science.
Several options have been investigated to a greater or lesser extent over the past 150 pages or so of this thread. These include:
1) The EM Drive is pushing against 'Dark Matter,' which is just barely workable if there is a lot of Dark Matter in the area.
2) The EM Drive is a sort of Biefield - Brown device, essentially a high voltage all electric aircraft that fly's by ionizing the air underneath it. These devices are legitimate; hobbyist of various sorts have been making the things for decades. You can find videos of them in action on You-Tube under 'anti-gravity.' This possibility was rejected because the EM Drive devices are low voltage mechanisms - simply not enough power. Also, a Biefield-Brown device won't function in a vacuum.
3) The EM Drive...attracts...'Unruh Radiation,' a theoretical 'force' behind Inertia. This explanation gets into known cosmological problems involving expanding space-time. One effect: despite gravitational attraction, galaxies are being 'pushed' away from each other at a constant rate roughly equal to 1 kilometer per second. A Doctor McCulloch, noted physicist and occasional poster in this thread has published papers using Unruh Radiation as a means to explain tiny anomalies in the velocities of several spacecraft. However, this effect, while fascinating, is both unconfirmed and probably confined to 'deep space' - at least by the posters here.
4) One or two posters here have recently begun looking again into the possibility the EM Drive may, after all, really be tapping into the Quantum Vacuum. However, there remain severe problems with this.
5) The explanation most closely looked at now is that the effects produced by the EM Drive are a thermal artifact compounded by a flawed measuring device. According to this hypothesis, the devices should produce miniscule amounts of thrust in an atmosphere, and no thrust at all in space, making it effectively worthless as a space propulsion system.
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work. -
#3213 by Rodal on 14 Nov, 2014 14:56
-
No.
None of these explanations appeal because as you said, they violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity. However, the explanation you missed is the Mach Effect explanation, and it does not violate any well understood physics. It in fact requires conservation, GR and EEP all obtain. Also the fact these thruster seem to require the dielectric, and work best during the on and off transients, suggests this is a Mach Effect we're looking at.QuoteHi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.Quote
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
While there have been a couple of DIY types who dropped into this thread, most of the people posting are concerned with trying to figure out how and why the device works in the first place, and whether or not the reported results are the result of a 'false positive' or experimental artifact.
It must be pointed out that the explanations put forth by the creators of these devices run directly contrary to major, well established scientific laws, notably 'conservation of momentum.' That said, the reported results, from different
groups in different countries using devices differing somewhat from each other did produce what APPEARS to be positive results. The problem is reconciling or explaining those results in a manner consistent with known science.
Several options have been investigated to a greater or lesser extent over the past 150 pages or so of this thread. These include:
1) The EM Drive is pushing against 'Dark Matter,' which is just barely workable if there is a lot of Dark Matter in the area.
2) The EM Drive is a sort of Biefield - Brown device, essentially a high voltage all electric aircraft that fly's by ionizing the air underneath it. These devices are legitimate; hobbyist of various sorts have been making the things for decades. You can find videos of them in action on You-Tube under 'anti-gravity.' This possibility was rejected because the EM Drive devices are low voltage mechanisms - simply not enough power. Also, a Biefield-Brown device won't function in a vacuum.
3) The EM Drive...attracts...'Unruh Radiation,' a theoretical 'force' behind Inertia. This explanation gets into known cosmological problems involving expanding space-time. One effect: despite gravitational attraction, galaxies are being 'pushed' away from each other at a constant rate roughly equal to 1 kilometer per second. A Doctor McCulloch, noted physicist and occasional poster in this thread has published papers using Unruh Radiation as a means to explain tiny anomalies in the velocities of several spacecraft. However, this effect, while fascinating, is both unconfirmed and probably confined to 'deep space' - at least by the posters here.
4) One or two posters here have recently begun looking again into the possibility the EM Drive may, after all, really be tapping into the Quantum Vacuum. However, there remain severe problems with this.
5) The explanation most closely looked at now is that the effects produced by the EM Drive are a thermal artifact compounded by a flawed measuring device. According to this hypothesis, the devices should produce miniscule amounts of thrust in an atmosphere, and no thrust at all in space, making it effectively worthless as a space propulsion system.
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
Actually ThinkerX thoughtfully wrote that " The explanation most closely looked at " is that the EM Drive measured response is a thermal artifact.
It is incorrect to state that classical physics thermal effects "violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity". Thermal effects don't violate any such laws and/or principles.
On the contrary, the thermal effect explanation "appeals" because of Occam's razor: the researchers should spend much more time analyzing classical physics explanations rather than exotic physics that are not generally accepted in the scientific community. -
#3214 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 14:56
-
Publish one single design with reproducible clean 1ĩN from 1W (operational for a few hours) and all leading private and public labs will exponentially rush on that unknown physics as soon as two or three independent labs with known sceptics at the command confirm something is going on. And that shouldn't take more than a few tens of thousands of dollars.
This is much more difficult and much more expensive than you understand. Just the high speed automatcher used up at George Hathaway's lab cost $150k. And make no mistake, it is the power equipment that one presumes should be easy enough to build, that costs so much. It was a big breakthrough for Eagle to get their PLL circuit in place and this is something Woodward has never been able to do.
And for Jourdan's sake let me note that providing vacuum can be extremely complex. The presumption in the industry is normally to go for relatively hard vacuum, E-6T to E-9T, at a cost of more than $150k. (Eagle spent this money and built the chamber, but never sucked it out because the test articles were not vacuum certified.) Fact is, if you don't see a signal change from normal atmo to E-3T, you know you don't have ion wind, thermal, etc., so you don't really need harder vacuum. If you are involved in a private investigation, better to spend the cash on the power system and when you need really hard vacuum, go see NASA. All science is a social activity and there's no reason for every lab to have hard vacuum. Also, if you are contented with E-5T, you can go with a polycarbonate chamber and can then put much of the instrumentation outside the chamber. This avoids all kinds of trouble. By using a poly chamber and moving the instruments away from the balance, you can qualify your rig in about 1/3 the time and reduce your setup costs by about 1/2. Also if you intend to test M-E, you can then use a doppler vibrometer, and other gear that you would normally never put into a vacuum chamber. -
#3215 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 15:02
-
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.
I was just speaking of the work at Eagle as this is what Paul told me. All the largest thrusts were from the switching transients. Since M-E theory predicts this, Woodward filed for a patent on a pulsed AC power system. I don;t know if in his patent he reverses the off transient or extinguishes it, but the two generate pulses in opposite directions (again, according to theory) so he must have dealt with it somehow.
The record shows otherwise. . . -
#3216 by Rodal on 14 Nov, 2014 15:09
-
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.
I was just speaking of the work at Eagle as this is what Paul told me. All the largest thrusts were from the switching transients. Since M-E theory predicts this, Woodward filed for a patent on a pulsed AC power system. I don;t know if in his patent he reverses the off transient or extinguishes it, but the two generate pulses in opposite directions (again, according to theory) so he must have dealt with it somehow.
The record shows otherwise. . .
It appears that there is miscommunication between you and Paul then. See for example the attached responses. They do not show an impulse spike (as in the Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device) but a rectangular pulse instead.
The Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device tested at Eagleworks is the one that only showed transient impulse response.
-
#3217 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 15:12
-
It is incorrect to state that classical physics thermal effects "violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity". Thermal effects don't violate any such laws and/or principles.
On the contrary, the thermal effect explanation "appeals" because of Occam's razor: the researchers should spend much more time analyzing classical physics explanations rather than exotic physics that are not generally accepted in the scientific community.
I think we can agree here, but it is important to note that the researchers at Eagle said they had ruled out thermal because of the promptness of the signal. Now you've done some analysis that says one should not rule out thermal, and it would be good to see what they say. I was however, responding to another poster here, who was speaking only of explanations for real thrust, not explanations of spurious sources.
You're convinced this is all hogwash, so you're arguing for thermal and this is what always happens with the skeptics. No problem there. We need skeptics. The above was speaking only of actual thrust explanations so he is not a skeptic. He's hopeful, an optimist you might say. Regardless, the proof is really in the thrusts. Sustained operation at sizable thrust would certainly put everyone's concerns about thermal to rest, as would some vacuum. Normally results that are not generated in vacuum are not even considered as real results. In fact Sonny himself chided Paul for his MLT thruster results back in 2003, since Paul was unable to get the vacuum running properly. It is therefore striking that not only did Sonny later abscond with those results and claim they were evidence for his QVF model, but he has now released a whole paper (albeit conference paper) full of results without that same control. Remarkable, really. -
#3218 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 15:18
-
It appears that there is miscommunication between you and Paul then. See for example the attached responses. They do not show an impulse spike (as in the Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device) but a rectangular pulse instead.
Guess I need to stop trusting my memory. This fig 19 is interesting but where is the power spectrum? How can you make sense of a graph with no power index?
The Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device tested at Eagleworks is the one that only showed transient impulse response. -
#3219 by Ron Stahl on 14 Nov, 2014 15:24
-
Dr. Rodal, I have sent you 4 pieces of mail the most recent of which was today, none of which you responded to. I can't even find them in my sent mail. Did you get mail from me today or in the last month?
? Because they donīt KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they donīt know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?