-
#1940
by
aero
on 18 Sep, 2015 19:44
-
If we don't need to target shape modes, yet the "EM-Drive/Q-Thruster" phenomena only occurs at a particular frequency for a particular dimension than isn't it amazing we've managed to find anything at all? Indeed is not the logical experiment than to fire RF all across the spectrum for a dimension and see if, when and where we see thrust given all bets are off as to when we see something (and given anything seen was basically completely by chance?!?!?)
Well, given the use of a noisy magnetron. . .
And I wonder what happened to Dr. Notsosureofit's theory which did consider mode shapes? Is his theory now falsified?
-
#1941
by
aero
on 18 Sep, 2015 19:47
-
Just a thought on mode. I think the EMDrive might be a form of reflected energy thruster. (Similar to a photononic laser thruster). Something massless and traveling at the speed of light is, somehow, exiting the drive and being reflected back for additional bounces. Instead of a mirror we are using some kind of electromagnetic effect that reflects photons and is moving away from the drive opposite the direction of travel.
Well, there is the thought/claim that evanescent waves stay attached, looping outward and back, redepositing their energy.
So that got me wondering, could there be some form of "ghost lobes" outside the drive that extend the resonance pattern we are seeing inside it.
This is probably better off on reddit than here, but here goes anyway:
Let me make a prediction about that Yang/Shell. I bet that if you animate it, it would look like lobes form at the small baseplate, and exit the frustum at the large plate. Let me also go out on a limb and suggest that a successful EMDrive will be one who's geometry causes causes the photons in the lobes (or at least some of them) to hit at greater than the critical angle to create an evanescent wave, and then resonance (i.e. bouncing off the end plate) is somehow maintained on the other side of the plate
I've mentioned this idea before, but it needs some math backing to be taken seriously. I wonder if the evanescent photons escape the cavity by a tunnelling-like mechanism at superluminal velocity, then loop back to the cavity at light speed. It is only during the tunnelling process that the photons are superluminal carrying superluminal momentum (JMO).
That idea leaves open more than one idea for the thrust creation. It could be simply momentum variation of the evanescent photons, as I allude above, or perhaps the exchange of energy mass from the inside to outside results in a gravitational effect on the cavity. But I am not competent to broach this subject mathematically.
So um, stick an RF detector where we thinking this might be happening (which is hopefully not nanometers from the plate). If it goes off thing get interesting.
Unfortunately it will go off, otherwise the DYI'ers wouldn't be challenged with EM interference issues.
-
#1942
by
Notsosureofit
on 18 Sep, 2015 20:01
-
If we don't need to target shape modes, yet the "EM-Drive/Q-Thruster" phenomena only occurs at a particular frequency for a particular dimension than isn't it amazing we've managed to find anything at all? Indeed is not the logical experiment than to fire RF all across the spectrum for a dimension and see if, when and where we see thrust given all bets are off as to when we see something (and given anything seen was basically completely by chance?!?!?)
Well, given the use of a noisy magnetron. . .
And I wonder what happened to Dr. Notsosureofit's theory which did consider mode shapes? Is his theory now falsified?
Nope, just waiting for data.
-
#1943
by
Rodal
on 18 Sep, 2015 20:49
-
ALL of NASA Eagleworks experiments in vacuum have been performed with only (1) one mode shape: TM212
How can one make ANY scientifcally valid statements about "thrust" for other mode shapes when they have performed all their experiments in vacuum using just (1) one mode shape
Furthermore:
1) Paul March has repeatedly stated that NASA Eagleworks data does not support a unique monotonic relationship between "thrust" and Q resonance.
2) ALL of NASA Eagleworks experiments reporting thrust have been performed with dielectric inserts. Without dielectric inserts they actually reported NO thrust. The thrust/powerInput reported by TU Dresden (Tajmar) without dielectric inserts, in vacuum, is much, much smaller than NASA Eagleworks.
No, there is no fundamental shifting, unless you take statements out of their specific context and conditions under which the statements were made.
It is scientifically incorrect to generalize statements outside the conditions (theoretical and experimental) that supported the statements in the (theoretical and experimental) context in which they were made.
Dr. Rodal, the ramifications of your claim that mode shape does not impact potential thrust are huge in my opinion.
Why do you think the NASA Eagleworks experiment then saw thrust at one particular frequency for one particular dimension that happened to be a shape mode?
Do you still agree that you need to target one or certain frequencies for certain frustrum dimensions to see EM-Drive/Q-Thruster phenomena but it isn't a shape mode as we define it or are you saying that its just resonance or the effect simply doesn't exist at all so it all doesn't matter?
If we don't need to target shape modes, yet the "EM-Drive/Q-Thruster" phenomena only occurs at a particular frequency for a particular dimension than isn't it amazing we've managed to find anything at all? Indeed is not the logical experiment than to fire RF all across the spectrum for a dimension and see if, when and where we see thrust given all bets are off as to when we see something (and given anything seen was basically completely by chance?!?!?) i.e. Was Paul March wasting his time coming up with all those shape modes?
What happened to all the talk on "thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes."
Would you agree that this is a fundamental shift in even your original thinking - I mean why did you come up with an exact solution for shape modes then relating to Q-Thruster/EM-Drive?
(Side note - huge ramifications if resonance shape and just resonance explains "thrust" with respect to Eagleworks claims to magnetohydrodynamics and QV fluidization at work).
Mr. Pichach, the literature points out that there is NO particular mode shape that is predicted to provide more thrust. On the contrary:
1) NASA Eagleworks is the only testing organization that has actually experimentally verified the mode shape that they excited: it was TM212, which is not even a TE mode. Nobody else has experimentally verified what mode shape was excited. Talk about mode shapes by others (except NASA Eagleworks) is just that: talk, and it cannot be scientifically accepted as corroboration of a any mode shape, particularly when Finite Element and exact solution analysis shows that there are several mode shapes in the frequency range of testing.
2) Neither R. Shawyer nor Prof.. Yang ever conducted a single test in a partial vacuum. Their test claims have NOT been replicated by any scientific organization whatsoever. If anything, the tests at TU Dresden and at NASA Eagleworks (resulting in thrust force/InputPower that are orders of magnitude smaller than the claims of Shawyer and Yang) have served as a scientific refutation of the claims by Shawyer and Yang, that one must objectively (in light of experiemental attempts at replication) to be subject to the well known "gas effect" (thermal convection, etc.) that has been known to plague all experimental measurements of electromagnetic pressure ever since it was predicted by Maxwell.
-
#1944
by
Rodal
on 18 Sep, 2015 20:52
-
If we don't need to target shape modes, yet the "EM-Drive/Q-Thruster" phenomena only occurs at a particular frequency for a particular dimension than isn't it amazing we've managed to find anything at all? Indeed is not the logical experiment than to fire RF all across the spectrum for a dimension and see if, when and where we see thrust given all bets are off as to when we see something (and given anything seen was basically completely by chance?!?!?)
Well, given the use of a noisy magnetron. . .
And I wonder what happened to Dr. Notsosureofit's theory which did consider mode shapes? Is his theory now falsified?
the mode dependence implied by Dr. Notsosureofit's theory, does NOT support the mode dependence being advocated by some people in these pages (e.g.: TE013
)
-
#1945
by
CraigPichach
on 18 Sep, 2015 21:00
-
Dr. Rodal,
I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to ensure understanding.
To come right down to it, do you believe that NASA Eagleworks targeting a mode shape is a mistake and that we should be targeting dimensions @ frequencies based on another concept?
I think that is huge if it turns out that thrust is independent of mode shape; and I'd urge experiments to determine just when/where do we see thrust at dimensions @ frequencies regardless of mode shape.
ALL of NASA Eagleworks experiments in vacuum have been performed with only (1) one mode shape: TM212
-
#1946
by
CraigPichach
on 18 Sep, 2015 21:01
-
Dr Notsosureof it,
Based on your theory (which I see on the Wiki now) care to hypothesize thrust for:
100kW
TE012 mode -big diameter 0.696m, small diameter 0.3953m, length 0.569m, 930MHz
TE013 big diameter 0.696m, small diameter 0.3953m, length 0.8538m, 930MHz
Also any thoughts as to what you'd get with a 1MW, 10 microsecond pulse?
Nope, just waiting for data.
-
#1947
by
Rodal
on 18 Sep, 2015 21:06
-
How can one make ANY scientifcally valid statements about "thrust" for other mode shapes when NASA has performed all their experiments in vacuum using just (1) one mode shape
and ONLY NASA has experimentally verified the mode shape???
and ONLY NASA and TU Dresden have reported experiments in vacuum
(but TU Dresden did not experimentally verify what mode shape was excited)
(as discussed NOBODY else -other than NASA- has bothered to experimentally verify the mode shape excited)
Dr. Rodal,
I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to ensure understanding.
To come right down to it, do you believe that NASA Eagleworks targeting a mode shape is a mistake and that we should be targeting dimensions @ frequencies based on another concept?
I think that is huge if it turns out that thrust is independent of mode shape; and I'd urge experiments to determine just when/where do we see thrust at dimensions @ frequencies regardless of mode shape.
ALL of NASA Eagleworks experiments in vacuum have been performed with only (1) one mode shape: TM212
-
#1948
by
CraigPichach
on 18 Sep, 2015 21:19
-
Dr. Rodal,
Should not the concern be then that why aren't we all designing frustrums @ frequency for TM212 ("NASA has performed all their experiments in vacuum using just (1) one mode shape") as opposed to expecting that a frustrum designed for a mode shape at one frequency would work for other frequencies given the same dimensions?
I don't see how anyone can make scientifically valid statements right now without more data which is what we are seeking here and it seems like part of the more data is trying more mode shapes? Isn't that why NASA Eagleworks was calculating mode shapes? I don't see the big tragedy in wanting to see more experiments at mode shapes and the hypothesis that given thrust was achieved at a mode shape, that mode shape is a potential function?
How can one make ANY scientifcally valid statements about "thrust" for other mode shapes when NASA has performed all their experiments in vacuum using just (1) one mode shape
and ONLY NASA has experimentally verified the mode shape???
and ONLY NASA and TU Dresden have reported experiments in vacuum (but TU Dresden did not experimentally verify what mode shape was excited)
(as discussed NOBODY else has bothered to experimentally verify the mode shape excited)
Dr. Rodal,
I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to ensure understanding.
To come right down to it, do you believe that NASA Eagleworks targeting a mode shape is a mistake and that we should be targeting dimensions @ frequencies based on another concept?
I think that is huge if it turns out that thrust is independent of mode shape; and I'd urge experiments to determine just when/where do we see thrust at dimensions @ frequencies regardless of mode shape.
ALL of NASA Eagleworks experiments in vacuum have been performed with only (1) one mode shape: TM212
-
#1949
by
SteveD
on 18 Sep, 2015 22:24
-
Unfortunately it will go off, otherwise the DYI'ers wouldn't be challenged with EM interference issues.
What about that idea a while back to use carbon paper to image the mode shape? Put it above a test unit and if it looks like a mode then it isn't random scatter. (For all we know reflection of the RF leakage might be what's causing the suspected effect).
-
#1950
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Sep, 2015 23:08
-
TE103 is a typo. Go with TE013.
-
#1951
by
ThinkerX
on 19 Sep, 2015 03:46
-
I can support wallofwolfstreet's comment that these so called "simulations" do not represent a real physics process.
Professionally, I'm using a similar 3D program with an almost identical rigid & softbody dynamics module.
The confusing originates from the arbitrary use of the word "simulation".
There is a distinct difference between an animation and a simulation:
An animation is designed with a certain intend. Their dynamics module is not designed for physical accuracy, but for efficiency and speed, consequently, these processes are hugely simplified.
From the outside they do appear to be simulations, but in reality , they're not...
A simulation uses genuine physics data and formulas in an attempt to replicate real events. It has no intend. There are software packages that are capable of simulating real natural events (fluid dynamics, nuclear explosion, etc) but these usually need a massive amount of computing power for days.
These 3D packages are all ANIMATION software packages, designed to make or support story telling.
Their dynamic modules are designed to be near real time and do cut a lot of corners to achieve that.
Sadly, animations are often disguised and sold as "simulations", because those carry a lot more public credibility, because they're used in the scientific, industrial and military world.
Bottom line:
I would not base any scientific conclusion based on the dynamics engine you find in Maya, 3DStudio, Softimage, etc.
Their proper use of those software packages is to make wonderful renders of how the EMdrive spaceship IXS Clark would/could look like...To tell a story, to spark imagination....
not to simulate a difficult and complex physics problem...
Thank you for clearing that up. I was looking at the video and going....'this has to be wrong, but I can't figure out how, unless there really is some weird loophole.'
-
#1952
by
DavidR NASA
on 19 Sep, 2015 10:59
-
Good morning guys. Been following some of this since the article was published on site, but saw it referenced in a advanced concept meeting yesterday. Nothing specific, but direct mention and a reference to this site. Would anyone be kind enough to proivde a one post overview of current status per your testing and evaluations?
-
#1953
by
X_RaY
on 19 Sep, 2015 11:42
-
Good morning guys. Been following some of this since the article was published on site, but saw it referenced in a advanced concept meeting yesterday. Nothing specific, but direct mention and a reference to this site. Would anyone be kind enough to proivde a one post overview of current status per your testing and evaluations?
The wiki page may be of interest
http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page
-
#1954
by
Flyby
on 19 Sep, 2015 12:02
-
Good morning guys. Been following some of this since the article was published on site, but saw it referenced in a advanced concept meeting yesterday. Nothing specific, but direct mention and a reference to this site. Would anyone be kind enough to provide a one post overview of current status per your testing and evaluations?
As I do not own a science degree, I'll not risk making a status report of the past months. I might inadvertently misinterpret some findings...
I guess that Dr. Rodal is the best placed person to give you a scientific rundown of this forums findings so far, since the publication of the article.
But a good alternative are the weekly summaries of this forum, that you can find on Reddit.
try this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/search?q=As+The+Frustum+TurnsIt is an excellent way of keeping informed, without plowing through pages and pages of discussions on this forum...
-
#1955
by
SeeShells
on 19 Sep, 2015 12:29
-
Good morning guys. Been following some of this since the article was published on site, but saw it referenced in a advanced concept meeting yesterday. Nothing specific, but direct mention and a reference to this site. Would anyone be kind enough to proivde a one post overview of current status per your testing and evaluations?
Sure.
I'm one of the builders of a test stand and Drive. Since this picture was taken a little over 2 weeks ago I've completed the testing of the Faraday cage (the large white structure in the foreground). This surrounds the composite fulcrum arm with the frustum attached to it. The fulcrum arm is a multiple section secured carbon fiber wound fulcrum pivoting on 2 knife edges. The fulcrum allows 2 modes of measuring force and movement. It can be allowed to freely move providing a acceleration curve or set on a digital scale to measure force down to .01 mg.
I'm driving the frustum that negates thermal expansion of the side walls by attaching the 2 resonator plates with a 1/2" quartz rod that is allowed to turn and adjust the small plate and thereby the cavity length for fine tuning of the frustum. The end plates are made of ceramic plates 165mm and 312mm plated with copper. The small plate is attached to the sliding end cavity by using a Beryllium flexible seal to allow thermal expansion of the outer O2 free copper walls of the cavity.
I'm driving the frustum with a inverter style power supply into a magnetron into a waveguide>coax to the frustum that will allow me to vary power to a multiple set of phased, highly modified loop antennas through the small plate. These antennas lock in a Mode TE012 within the frustum.
My second phase is to inject directly into the sidewalls of the frustum with opposing waveguides.
Currently I'm finishing up on the final evaluations and testing of the test rig and waiting for the waveguide and a few other parts. If the hardware arrives soon I'll begin powered testing in 2-3 weeks.
Shell
http://imgur.com/a/hDkTG
-
#1956
by
rfmwguy
on 19 Sep, 2015 13:19
-
Good morning guys. Been following some of this since the article was published on site, but saw it referenced in a advanced concept meeting yesterday. Nothing specific, but direct mention and a reference to this site. Would anyone be kind enough to proivde a one post overview of current status per your testing and evaluations?
Welcome to the forum! My build/testing videos are here:
It starts out as static thermal testing, then moves to balance beam testing. Build started in June of this year. Test stand now being upgraded to datalog displacement of balance beam at micrometer level resolution.
Experiment is named NSF-1701, which can be searched on this forum and googled elsewhere:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nsf-1701%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl
-
#1957
by
Mulletron
on 19 Sep, 2015 15:26
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
-
#1958
by
rfmwguy
on 19 Sep, 2015 19:11
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
-
#1959
by
aero
on 19 Sep, 2015 19:33
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
But I'm looking for Cherenkov radiation from superluminal evanescent photons. Of course, being photons, they might not radiate other photons.
