-
#2080
by
Rodal
on 29 Apr, 2015 14:46
-
-
#2081
by
cfs
on 29 Apr, 2015 15:58
-
....
This may seem dumb, but why not set up a Kickstarter for this? ..
See this great post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1364627#msg1364627
by the present President (as well as a Trustee) of the renowned Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) which was originally founded by G.K. O'Neill
So if I'm reading this correctly, what we need to do is set up a Kickstarter to donate money to ISS's exotic propulsion funds, which can then in turn be given to Eagleworks
-
#2082
by
aceshigh
on 29 Apr, 2015 16:46
-
....
This may seem dumb, but why not set up a Kickstarter for this? ..
See this great post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1364627#msg1364627
by the present President (as well as a Trustee) of the renowned Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) which was originally founded by G.K. O'Neill
So if I'm reading this correctly, what we need to do is set up a Kickstarter to donate money to ISS's exotic propulsion funds, which can then in turn be given to Eagleworks
I am not sure, but I guess that they would not be able to accept donations/kickstarters to a particular project. I guess they can accept money but the distribution of the total sum is decided by them?
which would maybe somehow prevent the exact thing that makes NASA not accept donations/kickstarters.
-
#2083
by
Jared
on 29 Apr, 2015 17:13
-
Speaking of NASA, I wonder why they have just archived all previous articles about hypothetical advanced propulsion systems on their official site ...
-
#2084
by
Star One
on 29 Apr, 2015 17:16
-
Speaking of NASA, I wonder why they have just archived all previous articles about hypothetical advanced propulsion systems on their official site ...
I believe that's just the warp drive related articles.
-
#2085
by
Rodal
on 29 Apr, 2015 17:29
-
....
This may seem dumb, but why not set up a Kickstarter for this? ..
See this great post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1364627#msg1364627
by the present President (as well as a Trustee) of the renowned Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org) which was originally founded by G.K. O'Neill
So if I'm reading this correctly, what we need to do is set up a Kickstarter to donate money to ISS's exotic propulsion funds, which can then in turn be given to Eagleworks
I am not sure, but I guess that they would not be able to accept donations/kickstarters to a particular project. I guess they can accept money but the distribution of the total sum is decided by them?
which would maybe somehow prevent the exact thing that makes NASA not accept donations/kickstarters.
we established a fund to support "Exotic Propulsion" which is named (appropriately but uninspiringly*) the "Exotic Propulsion Initiative. It is possible to donate to the fund at our website. SSI is a 501(c)3 non-profit and thus contributions are tax-deductiable. Targeted contributions go almost 100% to the named projects since we have very modest overhead costs (we don't pay salaries to our volunteer staff, for example).
unless HMXHMX cares to post further answers, it is advisable that anybody having further questions on SSI donations directly addresses them to the Contact listed at
www.ssi.org Space Studies Institute
16922 Airport Blvd.
#24
Mojave, CA 93501
PHONE (661) 750-2774
EMAIL [email protected]
and further inquires about destination of funds for targeted tax-deductible contributions, particularly if they have an interest in targeting a specific effort with their funds.
-
#2086
by
Jared
on 29 Apr, 2015 17:52
-
Speaking of NASA, I wonder why they have just archived all previous articles about hypothetical advanced propulsion systems on their official site ...
I believe that's just the warp drive related articles.
Thanks, I think you're right! I wonder why, though. I must say I am going to miss that nice little chart displaying the progress of warp science / technology from conjecture to application.
-
#2087
by
Chris Bergin
on 29 Apr, 2015 18:01
-
Here we go!
Over two months of work went into this article, involving the methodical and patient work of several people involved with the massive EM Drive thread - with the goal of creating an accurate and understandable (it's still high level science) article to reflect the interest in this development.
There have been several articles - all feeding off our forum thread on this - but this is something we feel will be more of a full news overview article.
Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/Written by José Rodal, Ph.D, Jeremiah Mullikin and Noel Munson - subedited by Chris Gebhardt. Thanks also Don Domonoske and member RotoSequence for the work in the special area where we built this article. We would obviously like to thank Paul March at Eagleworks for his interesting interactions on the thread, and the numerous other high level folk who may not be too obvious behind their usernames (standard for a forum - if only you knew some of the people behind usernames on the SpaceX and such sections!)
Dedicated entry level thread for the article:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0
-
#2088
by
JasonAW3
on 29 Apr, 2015 19:55
-
I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this project!
As was suggested before, I think we have our "Chicago Pile" moment here and hopefully further development will be funded and can proceed expeditiously!
On a side note, that 0.65Hz optical frequency shift strikes me as a VERY interesting result and should be examined MUCH more closely as the implications are interesting as well.
-
#2089
by
MazonDel
on 29 Apr, 2015 20:03
-
Congrats to Dr Rodal and the others!
-
#2090
by
JasonAW3
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:02
-
Dr. Rodal,
The 0.65Hz frequency shift of light with the new experiment is very interesting, but it was pointed out to me that air has a refraction index of 1. I take it the refraction ndex of the air involved was taken into account for this interferometer test, or that it was conducted in a vacume?
-
#2091
by
Rodal
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:10
-
Dr. Rodal,
The 0.65Hz frequency shift of light with the new experiment is very interesting, but it was pointed out to me that air has a refraction index of 1. I take it the refraction ndex of the air involved was taken into account for this interferometer test, or that it was conducted in a vacume?
1) Air does not have a refractive index of 1. The refractive index of air is approximately 1.000293. As you know air is composed of several gases (mostly Nitrogen 78% mole fraction and Oxygen 21%, Argon almost 1%, etc.)
The issue involving air refraction was raised in this paper by Lee and Cleaver from Baylor University:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.7772.pdfSee the above paper for background.
2) The 0.65 Hz frequency you are referring to is not a "frequency shift of light".
Period of energizing/de-energizing: T=0.75s+0.75s=1.5s, hence frequency for energizing/de-energizing cycle should be f=1/T=0.66 Hz which is close to the frequecy of 0.65Hz appearing in the Power Spectrum
3) Quoting from the article:
Over 27,000 cycles of data (each 1.5 sec cycle energizing the system for 0.75 sec and de-energizing it for 0.75 sec) were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.
One possible explanation for the optical path length change is that it is due to refraction of the air. The NASA team examined this possibility and concluded that it is not likely that the measured change is due to transient air heating because the experiment’s visibility threshold is forty times larger than the calculated effect from air considering atmospheric heating.
4) Concerning this experiment please refer to previous posts by @Star-Drive, myself, @zen-in and others
5) Concerning your last question, please refer to the ending sentence in the article:
Encouraged by these results, NASA Eagleworks plans to next conduct these interferometer tests in a vacuum.
-
#2092
by
JasonAW3
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:22
-
Dr. Rodal,
The 0.65Hz frequency shift of light with the new experiment is very interesting, but it was pointed out to me that air has a refraction index of 1. I take it the refraction ndex of the air involved was taken into account for this interferometer test, or that it was conducted in a vacume?
1) Air does not have a refractive index of 1. The refractive index of air is approximately 1.000293. As you know air is composed of several gases:
Pure Gas Name Symbol Mole fraction
Nitrogen N2 0.78084
Oxygen O2 0.209476
Argon Ar 0.00934
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.000314
Neon Ne 0.00001818
Methane CH4 0.000002
Helium He 0.00000524
Krypton Kr 0.00000114
Hydrogen H2 0.0000005
Xenon Xe 0.000000087
The issue involving air refraction is dealt was raised in this paper by Lee and Cleaver from Baylor University:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.7772.pdf
See the above paper for background.
2) The 0.65 Hz frequency you are referring to is not a "frequency shift of light".
Period of energizing/de-energizing: T=0.75s+0.75s=1.5s, f=1/T=0.66 Hz ~ 0.65Hz
3) Quoting from the article:
Over 27,000 cycles of data (each 1.5 sec cycle energizing the system for 0.75 sec and de-energizing it for 0.75 sec) were averaged to obtain a power spectrum that revealed a signal frequency of 0.65 Hz with amplitude clearly above system noise. Four additional tests were successfully conducted that demonstrated repeatability.
One possible explanation for the optical path length change is that it is due to refraction of the air. The NASA team examined this possibility and concluded that it is not likely that the measured change is due to transient air heating because the experiment’s visibility threshold is forty times larger than the calculated effect from air considering atmospheric heating.
4) Concerning this experiment please refer to previous posts by Star-Drive, myself, @zen-in and others
Dr. Rodal,
No insult was intended or directed, as I said, this waas a point made by someone else to me, and I pretty much figured that this had been taken into account, otherwise it would not have been above backgroound "noise".
Again, congratulations on what appears to be a most auspicious achievement!
-
#2093
by
Rodal
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:27
-
...
No insult was intended or directed, as I said, this waas a point made by someone else to me, and I pretty much figured that this had been taken into account, otherwise it would not have been above backgroound "noise".
Again, congratulations on what appears to be a most auspicious achievement!
No insult was taken
.
If it appears that way, due to my cold, abrupt, way to answer the question, with references and quotations, it is due to the fact that I feel compelled to address this technically, carefully, and factually, because several other people are reading this as well, and it is important to avoid misinterpretations.
Particularly in view of the shocking "news" that have been posted in fringe sites referring to this thread, talking about NASA finding by accident how to warp space and secretly working on a Star-Trek Enterprise.
Actually, I thank you for your question, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify these matters.
Concerning whether a signal is or is not above "noise", that is not a trivial assessment, as randomness is ultimately undefinable. What appears random to one observer may not appear random to another. An encrypted message is a good example of this fact.
More, finer, experiments are needed.
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
-
#2094
by
LasJayhawk
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:55
-
I am somewhat curious as to why AM modulation would increase the drives output. Is it possible that the modulation scheme is increasing the average power output, or is something else in play.
I'm wondering what it would do with pulsed RF at a high rep rate?
-
#2095
by
Rodal
on 29 Apr, 2015 22:19
-
I am somewhat curious as to why AM modulation would increase the drives output. Is it possible that the modulation scheme is increasing the average power output, or is something else in play.
I'm wondering what it would do with pulsed RF at a high rep rate?
That amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave results in greater thrust force is a prediction from Dr. White's computer code, and not yet an experimentally proven fact. What we know in this regard is that the experimenters in the UK and China
claim to have measured greater thrust force using a magnetron (for whatever reason) and that a magnetron performs amplitude, frequency and phase modulation of the carrier wave. We should exercise caution as neither the UK, nor the Chinese teams have been as forthcoming with data as NASA Eagleworks. Those experiments (using a magnetron) remain to be replicated at NASA Eagleworks.
Concerning what a pulsed RF at a high rep rate would do, I expect that is something that Dr. White should be able to input in his code and give you an answer, but again whether such an answer from his computer code would be correct remains to be confirmed.
My understanding is that NASA Eagleworks is planning to replicate this June the experiments in the UK and China using a magnetron.
-
#2096
by
JackFlash
on 29 Apr, 2015 22:29
-
My apologies for the post I just removed; it was up only for a few seconds, and was an (accidental) reply to a very old post.
Thanks
-
#2097
by
JasonAW3
on 29 Apr, 2015 23:39
-
...
No insult was intended or directed, as I said, this waas a point made by someone else to me, and I pretty much figured that this had been taken into account, otherwise it would not have been above backgroound "noise".
Again, congratulations on what appears to be a most auspicious achievement!
No insult was taken .
If it appears that way, due to my cold, abrupt, way to answer the question, with references and quotations, it is due to the fact that I feel compelled to address this technically, carefully, and factually, because several other people are reading this as well, and it is important to avoid misinterpretations.
Particularly in view of the shocking "news" that have been posted in fringe sites referring to this thread, talking about NASA finding by accident how to warp space and secretly working on a Star-Trek Enterprise.
Actually, I thank you for your question, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify these matters.
Concerning whether a signal is or is not above "noise", that is not a trivial assessment, as randomness is ultimately undefinable. What appears random to one observer may not appear random to another. An encrypted message is a good example of this fact.
More, finer, experiments are needed.
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
Thanks, I was hoping I hadn't stepped beyond the bounds of propriety.
Out of curiosity, what is the approximate ratio of watts to newtons, or millinewtons as the case may be, that you've been able to produce on the average?
-
#2098
by
Rodal
on 30 Apr, 2015 01:55
-
...
No insult was intended or directed, as I said, this waas a point made by someone else to me, and I pretty much figured that this had been taken into account, otherwise it would not have been above backgroound "noise".
Again, congratulations on what appears to be a most auspicious achievement!
No insult was taken .
If it appears that way, due to my cold, abrupt, way to answer the question, with references and quotations, it is due to the fact that I feel compelled to address this technically, carefully, and factually, because several other people are reading this as well, and it is important to avoid misinterpretations.
Particularly in view of the shocking "news" that have been posted in fringe sites referring to this thread, talking about NASA finding by accident how to warp space and secretly working on a Star-Trek Enterprise.
Actually, I thank you for your question, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify these matters.
Concerning whether a signal is or is not above "noise", that is not a trivial assessment, as randomness is ultimately undefinable. What appears random to one observer may not appear random to another. An encrypted message is a good example of this fact.
More, finer, experiments are needed.
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
Thanks, I was hoping I hadn't stepped beyond the bounds of propriety.
Out of curiosity, what is the approximate ratio of watts to newtons, or millinewtons as the case may be, that you've been able to produce on the average?
It is not possible at this point to discuss "an average" because the experimental results are not consistent enough, and because there are not enough statistical experimental samples to perform meaningful statistics.
Therefore, let's point out instead the experimental range.
The complete range of experimental results for electromagnetic drives that appear to break the law of conservation of momentum is (I had to go back to look at page 1 of this thread for this
):
MAXIMUM: 1 Newton/kiloWatt for Prof. Yang's experiments in China with an EM Drive microwave non-superconducting cavity and also for Cannae's Superconducting EM Drive microwave cavity
to
MINIMUM: 0.00001176 Newton/kiloWatt for Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser's Woodward-Mach-Effect device experiment
As you can see, this is a large range: almost 10^5
I mention Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser's for completness and because Paul March wrote in one of his latest posts that he still considers the Mach-Effect as a possible explanation for the EM Drive -based on the PCB silicone surface coating-, but I would like not to get this thread derailed: any arguments for ME go in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0while EM remains in this thread
-
#2099
by
MATTBLAK
on 30 Apr, 2015 03:28
-
I remain firmly skeptical. And it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media starts calling it a 'warp drive'. As it is; mainstream media keeps harping on about VASMR every flipping time a manned Mars mission gets talked about
. 