Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 973506 times)

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree


:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

hahahaaa snort... Although he turned out to be a good Data.

Offline Tetrakis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 9
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.

Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.

Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.

I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.


. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree


:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 02:59 AM by Tetrakis »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we know nothing about you or your credentials.

Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.

Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 02:42 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
In regards to dissing people as amateurs, it is good to remember that professionals are people who are paid to do science.

Amateurs do it because they love/want to do science.

Either way, in the end it IS science, and that's all that counts.

I don't think I ever meant to insult anyone. I was stating facts; all the DIY people are amateurs. These posts aren't meant as an attack at all. They are clearly people with extensive experience in technical fields and deserve immense respect. I'm trying to provide some blunt criticism of their efforts, and act as something of a demanding peer-reviewer.

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.


. I'm after data and there is no bad data.

Shell

I disagree


:)

keep up the good work SeeShells

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".

I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 04:25 AM by SeeShells »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 877
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1?  :D

EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 07:33 AM by RotoSequence »

Offline TheTraveller

PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

Will you be targeting a thrust to weight ratio > 1?  :D

EDIT: To make a less flippant statement, I don't think it's an impossible end, but it would require thrust levels around, and at least half a newton per kilowatt. Unless the thrust is dramatically better than a newton per kilowatt, I think we're looking at foundry produced devices, with modern microprocessor level power densities, THz band transmitters (which do not currently exist), and integrated resonating cavities, with complete devices massing no more than around three grams per unit. I'd be surprised if anybody outside of Intel or IBM had the resources to make the requisite investments without a substantial infusion of venture capital or Government funding.

0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.

http://emdrive.wiki/images/4/4e/ISXClarkMars.jpg
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9810
  • UK
  • Liked: 1892
  • Likes Given: 183
Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?). Knowing a couple of the people who started the forum, I believe your statement would be highly disputed. 3 million views speaks for itself, it might trouble you that this involves "amateurs" from a scientific perspective, but that's how it is in the secretive world of product development. Many of us are the only sources of info on a potentially disruptive technology. And we no nothing about you or your credentials.

Cannot understand your insistance that this is not related to spaceflight. This forum is successful as is because of ingenuity, lack of scientific snobiness and real people doing their best.

Contact chris bergin directly if you continue to have concerns about the open nature of this thread, otherwise others might continue to suggest your behaviour is troll-like...just a friendly suggestion.

Just to put in my two cents as they say. Good for you standing your ground on this matter. Critical comment is fair enough where I have more of an issue is this talk about leaving it to the professionals & that there is no place for the amateur experimenter.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 11:25 AM by Star One »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 877
0.4N/kW EMDrives will send a 90t manned spacecraft, with a 2MWe power supply, to Mars in 2 months.

http://emdrive.wiki/images/4/4e/ISXClarkMars.jpg

Oh I know, I'm just being a dreamer. Floating a spacecraft in Earth's gravity well, and making orbit without the aid of rockets, would be the greatest trick of all.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 08:51 AM by RotoSequence »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48

Me too! (Nice First Contact reference!)

Why do you think NASA went through the trouble of doing their experiments in a microtorr environment? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. Higher pressures are known to induce thermal "gas effects" in measurements of radiation pressure. Any other experimental conditions fail the yes/no hypothesis test and do not advance understanding at all, unless they start to float over the bench.

Ambiguous data is just as bad as no data. I feel like a broken record, but even if you do extract some kind of signal from the noise, there is no way to disentangle the desired "anomalous effect" from the well known "thermal effect" outside of an ultra high vacuum chamber or orbit. I can put a heating element on the end of a balance, turn it on in various orientations, and conclude that there is an anomalous force acting in some direction. That means absolutely nothing, even if the statistical significance of the result is extremely high.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA. Such experiments will only serve to convince the experimenter of their own bias. I'm fine with other people pursuing a hobby, and a fun technical one at that. But these experiments aren't good science and I think they are irrelevant to the thread topic. The only completely unambiguous, publication-quality data will come from vacuum tests so those are where efforts and resources should be focused. If you have a device now just try to rent some time in a nearby university vacuum chamber. I know that the last hundred pages or more of the topic have been focused on these efforts, but I don't get how its relevant to the available good data or "spaceflight applications".

I couldn't disagree more in making this vacuum testing the first step. You forget that this is my first step and that first step not only runs a test of the frustum, but it also irons out any other issues I might have with the design of the test bed. To me this isn't only about seeing or getting thrust it's about starting the process to define the why, something I've stated many times. A careful choreographed sequence of well thought out steps.

A vacuum chamber at this point in testing would only throw a series of unknowns into this first step. I've said before I'm here to pick apart the EMDrive and jumping up to a vacuum chamber right now when the entire test bed is untested is very unwise.

I'm not saying a vacuum chamber isn't in the plans for that would be not good planning on my part. To reinforce this thought I remember a test by a world class Professor and testing facility in Dresden that was sadly riddled with small errors. TU Dresden, Tajmar & Fiedler  tested his EMDrive and even with the assistance of Shawyer it still wasn't out of the errors. Design errors, equipment errors, thermal errors, were rampant. They may not have occurred if they would have taken small steps to ramp up instead of going for the vacuum chamber tests.

I do have contacts in the Semiconductor industry that I've looked into and foretasted cost layouts for a vacuum chamber plus the hardware I'd need to interface with it. It is doable, but not right now.

So my tests will take these first small steps to pick apart the why, it's no more complicated than that.

Shell

PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?
I am 110% with you on this, Shell.

Although I found the initial remarks of Tetrakis a bit harsh and brutal, I do think it is good to have highly critical people on the sidelines that ask pesky questions....
For a part I can relate to his observations, as my self I was a bit disappointed to see the inability to produce a signal above the background noise.
I do however not side with his conclusions that only vacuum and a professional lab/team will lead to meaningful results.

There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

And in order to answer this question, we need to follow the method that Shell's proposing: attempting to understand what's happening in that "tin can", with small incremental steps.
Going vacuum will solve nothing if you do not understand what is needed to generate that presumed mysterious force...
To keep on track with the Wright brothers: many before them tried and tried (with some hilarious results) and failed... it is until the brothers started experimenting with wing profiles that they started to understand  what "airlift" really meant for flight...

Consider the 5 pages of the NSF forum to be just that: the search for answers, be them on a theoretical level or a more pragmatic engineering/DIY level...
I think we came a long way already from Iulian's fast shotgun approach to what rfmwguy did and others will do in the future...

If each of these incremental steps turns out to be inconclusive, then yes, we might consider that it all turned out to be a hoax, but we're not there yet. A fuzzy signal is not a null signal, but means it needs further investigation to understand where the fuzzy signal comes from...

To me, the main question is now: what did Shawyer and Yang do, to get their claimed results. I'm not dismissing possible fraud (harsh word here) but it is NOT in my nature to assume fraud (deliberate or not) from start. Let's first make a serious attempt to understand what they did and any info provided by DIY builders can contribute.

5 pages of high level discussions inhere thought me that the possible effects inside the microwave filled frustum are not simple to understand...Rushing to the end result might not be the right thing to do.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 11:58 AM by Flyby »

Offline Fugudaddy

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Rochester NY
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 70

But thanks for suggesting that professional scientists don't love or want to do science.

Props for being a professional scientist; I would consider the 'DIYers' here far better scientists then a lot of those who are still in the field being paid to do science. In many ways, home scientists have always done better when unfettered from the restrictions and, dare I say, biases, of the ruling class, or the money class.

Nobody here is naive enough to not understand the literal billions of dollars that influence scientific research in corporations, universities, and governments. And this here little ol' technology may be worth more than those billions.

You complained earlier of a 'lack of interest' in this thread; it's already been discussed that there are many research efforts ongoing currently on this technology. There *are* peer reviewed papers, there *is* money going into research. Those facts alone make the discussion and group experimentation that's happening here a reasonable and very worthwhile exercise.

Don't confuse amateur with skill, or being professional with being unbiased.

I stand by my conclusion that DIY efforts in air do not advance understanding of the possibly interesting results from NASA.

Where did you learn to science, dude? Since when does experimentation and reproduction of results to add to data sets not count as 'science'. There continue to be experiments that show that something is happening beyond "well known" thermal effects, however small. Can these self-funded experiments generate specific pico-data points to 'prove' what is happening? Probably not. But that doesn't mean the macro-level results (there is a force beyond thermal happening in a frustum of shape X, energy Y etc) aren't worth a *huge* amount, too.

If you want to be helpful here's some questions:
1) what is shell and rfmwguy not doing well enough to counter the "well known" thermal effects? Shell's experiment is removing heat sources from the frustum, and Dave's ran control on the thermal expansion. Now that they're both thinking about and working on tests is the time to show your stripes.

2) what can be done to counter the "well known" thermal effects when this experiment is moved to vacuum? Just because there isn't air doesn't mean there isn't heat to deal with, no? Where does that heat go? Do you have a large sized vacuum chamber you can let somebody borrow?

But hey, don't ask me, I really am an amateur when it comes to all of this EM Drive and the physics behind it and all. But I am enough of a professional in my own rights to know science when I see it.

Thank you for inspiring me enough to write.
Ronald
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 11:39 AM by Fugudaddy »

Offline TheTraveller

There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 01:51 PM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.

Phil,

Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error.  Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.  ::)

Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.

It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.

So why do I do it and fight for my right to?

"Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"



Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • United States
  • Liked: 1576
  • Likes Given: 2312
That is, the EM field periodically gains and looses momentum, because of its interaction with the frustrum. The trivial expectation would be that the frustrum looses and gains momentum such that the combined momentum remains always conserved. This is not true in this case? Where does the quantum vacuum enter the picture?

A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please?  We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.

Tekatris...I find your continuing suggestion that this forum needs only high level lab discussions is nonsequitor. Lab or industry data is not forthcoming as of yet.

You seem to suggest diy has no place here, or anywhere on nsf(?).


I will point out that Paul March at Eagleworks also does much of his work from his kitchen table.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 03:32 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • 92129
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 285
Quote
PS: If I do decide to ramp my testing up to a point where it would be a business would that fact make it not as amateurish?

No Shell, that wouldn't do it. You'd need to hire a helper who would then be the professional. It would be OK for you to remain unpaid as the boss, most bosses are amateurs anyway.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 731
  • Likes Given: 1431


A great deal of discussion was spent in earlier EMDrive threads that the QV might have nothing to do with the EMDrive's observed thrust, and that it is phase transitions that does (and many other therories as well). Rather than to derail the conversation, can someone post the knowledge wiki link again please?  We have some new readers who may not know it's out there.



http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page


« Last Edit: 10/12/2015 03:36 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
There is still that elephant in the room that everybody sees but does not want to talk about. The rotary test R.Shawyer made and the test results of Dr. Yang. It is a good right to doubt their results and ask for those tests to be reproduced. but both these tests DID reproduce thrust signals well beyond the background noise. It can mean 2 things: either their tests were wrong, or all the other tests do not understand what's needed to make "it" work.

The latter is the reality. Yang doesn't, AFAIK, communicate. Roger has offered a trail of useful bread crumbs but is largely ignored or worst. EWs has stopped discussing their work.

Which leaves Roger as a source of "how to make it happen at a level well above the noise / thermal effects and snowflake equivalent Force generation".

Anyone listening to what the man is sharing?

BTW it was Roger who helped Prof Yang to understand now to make it happen.

Phil,

Please realize when we are testing an impossible drive it's going to require virtually unquestionable results from a test bed and drive. That's in itself is impossible. Even when thrusts are out of a noise level or error.  Every test is going to come under question regardless of the quality of the test or level of thrust gained. You could lift a car and they will say it's a trick with hidden wires. You launch a ship and they will say it's a Hollywood trick... like the moon landings.  ::)

Even after a hundred years have passed Einstein's theories are questioned and tested and the same thing will hold true if this device works the way many claim it does. That not only goes for the theories, but the test beds and the actual devices tested.

It's our nature to question and choose sides. It can be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness.

So why do I do it and fight for my right to?

"Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. Michelle Broyles"


Michelle:

Bravo girl, way to go!!  We are in this business because we are dreamers that see the light on the distant hill that we want to be part of.

Now back to how to get there. 

BTW, Tetrakis is right to be very concerned about accounting for the thermal effects in these EmDrive experiments for they can make an otherwise straight forward thruster test into a nightmare of conflicting results.  Been there, done that.  However we've found that going to vacuum operations just changes one set of thermal effects for another set that still have to be analytically accounted for and subtracted from any impulsive signal that may be present in the experimental data.

Phil:

The Eagleworks (EW) Lab ultimately works for the taxpayers of the USA and the data we are accumulating and vetting will be made public, but only after its been further vetted in a known peer reviewed journal, which is happening now, but sadly that process can take months to accomplish, so please be patient.  We are also preparing to test our copper frustum in another NASA test facility as part of an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) requirement mandated by JSC management, but again that is several months off, so it will take even more time to divulge those test results, pro or con. 

All:

In the meantime I cheer on all the DIY experimenters who are pursuing these EmDrive replications either in-air or in-vacuum for both approaches brings illumination to the dark-estate we are exploring.  I also suggest that all of us should look deeper into how Roger Shawyer designed and built his 2nd generation, 100kg rotary copper frustum test rig.  Why?  Because I think Roger's use of spherical end-caps in his 2nd gen copper frustum and on, AND the use of resonant mode frequency tracking and active feedback driven tuning of the frustum RF system, either mechanically and/or electronically, are the key elements needed to produce large impulsive thrust signals that measure in the hundreds of milli-Newton (mN).

Best, Paul March

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3109
  • Likes Given: 2671
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?
"Uhhh, am I delusional?" Whoa big guy, I'm not going there. You're just a "Crazy Eddie" like me.

I think if you can divert the major component of heat from a vertical rising to a horizontal one and let it rise outside the frustum boundary. I forget who posted a top plate over the magnetron but it was a good idea and shoot the hot air out to the sides you should remove the vertical column of hot air dragging the frustum upwards and force it to dissipate out into the room.

Shell

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • 92129
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 285
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.

Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.

Don't know - might help.

I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs.  :)
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Brainstorming time...airflow up into and above magnetron is the cause of thermal lift. Thinking about a cold air induction "downward moving" system on top plate of frustum, perhaps offsetting lift.

So, make a solid "fence" around mag...sucking cold air down onto top side of frustum plate (a few inches away from mag) and the horizontally over to base of mag which will then rise up after heating.

Tying to cheat mother nature here. As it is now, cold air is drawn into mag from below and horizontally. Divert this cold airflow to an intake from top of frustum away from mag.

Uhhh, am I delusional?

So what you are proposing is a structure to entrain the air flow to be vertically downward, symmetrically around the corners and magnetron, then vertically upwards. The idea seems to be to control the momentum of the air flow to be the same downward as it is upward.

Wouldn't there still be buoyancy caused by the heated column of rising air? It's moving upward faster due to the reduced density caused by the added heat so mv is constant, but heated air column is still less dense than it was before heat was added.

Don't know - might help.

I liked the idea of embedding your magnetron in paraffin, then throwing the thing in the freezer between runs.  :)
Yep, lower air pressure above will remain, just trying to offset it a bit by downward flowing cold air. Will not be a 100% balance to lift I don't think. I was just surprised how strong and quickly lift developed.

Tags: