-
#1960 by Notsosureofit on 19 Jan, 2016 15:28
-
@ RFPlumber
What Q did you use to calculate that number: the 6.56mN expected by the Notsosureofit Hypothesis?
FWIW: The hypothesis gives 6.56mN for your numbers.
2300
-
#1961 by SteveD on 19 Jan, 2016 15:38
-
Frustum test on 01/17/2016.
Nicely done. Can you normalize the data between the two sets of runs?
...
Also, when you get time, can you give an official final statement as to measured Q and power into the frustum?
-edit can you clarify. Is rf on a measurement with rf and hv both on and hv on a measurement with hz on but no rf entering the frustum? (If that is the case, suggest also conducting a run in the "west" orientation.)
Thank you. How do you suggest to normalize it? Test force will be always different as it is never the same across sets of runs (those plates are on X-stage, and I am just eyeballing the distance between those before starting).
The runs themselves will never be the same because of all kinds of noises present (air movement, thermal forces, vibration, etc.). Take a look at the 2 idle runs - there is a lot of error sources in there.
The only runs ever having both RF and HV on at any one time (that is, partially overlapping as RF starts at 20s, HV - at 30 s and then both are turned off at 40s) are those which have the "HvOverRfAt30s" tag in their name. One can always just open up the particular csv and check data for Ch 2 (HV) vs Ch 3 (RF) to get their timing relationship.
Measured (loaded, at -3 dB S11) Q for this test is ~2000. Power is 27-28W.
EDIT: Attaching an example of one idle run (no RF no HV). Also, is the normalization request to just diff the displacement from its initial value at t=0? Right now all charts show absolute position of the pendulum platform (from some random base location).
Well here are my issues.
1. Differing time dimensions. Looking at that control run it seems like you had an oscillation of about 400uN from peak to trough over 37 seconds. You fired up the thing and the oscillations dropped to around 37uN and their frequency increased. I'd like to see your control test data (everything off) superimposed with your test run data showing the same time dimensions and using an absolute displacement.
2. Your first run showed a retrograde force after power off that you attributed to air inflow. I think that also needs to be shown on the second run. Also data from the first run in the East direction shows a record result at rf on of about 0. The bar graphs you are presenting to us this time around shows a recorded of result of max about 100uN in the East direction. I think you need to explain why the data is different.
Also, what are you showing here? You claim only a 37 uN change in the presented data chart from one run but I see a recorded change of max 100 uN on the summary bar graph. What run do the presented data points correspond to (or are they an average of all runs)?
3. Why are you running the high voltage test if it doesn't help isolate variables in the rf injection test? I thought the point of that was to show that any recorded measurements could be explained by electrostatic forces. Are you indicating that the hv run does not correspond to a run where no rf is introduced by the electrostatic forces are the same as a run where rf is injected? If so what is the utility of this form of testing?
-
#1962 by TheTraveller on 19 Jan, 2016 15:40
-
@ RFPlumber
What Q did you use to calculate that number: the 6.56mN expected by the Notsosureofit Hypothesis?
FWIW: The hypothesis gives 6.56mN for your numbers.
2300
With a Q of 2,300 and estimated forward power of 20W, I get 213uN. -
#1963 by TheTraveller on 19 Jan, 2016 16:04
-
@ RFPlumber
What Q did you use to calculate that number: the 6.56mN expected by the Notsosureofit Hypothesis?
FWIW: The hypothesis gives 6.56mN for your numbers.
2300
With a Q of 2,300 and estimated forward power of 20W, I get 213uN.
Did you estimate the forward power, or did you run a calculation to see what the threshold for detection would be?
If so, how did you estimate the forward power to be 20 W?
(Or did you run that just to see what will the forward power threshold need to be in order to be at the level of detection ~200 microNewton, which is useful to know, I agree)
Just an estimate from the insertion losses in the coupler used, the reflected losses and the thin cables. I did say he needed to directly measure forward power and not guess at it. Look the setup he developed was clever and avoided him buying a VNA but there is no way I would go forward with that setup as the data is just too unknown.
The 213uN at 20W scales with power so set it to whatever you wish. It is just a guess as we don't know what the forward power was.
If a DIY builder goes to all the effort to make the measurement system he did, surely he would know he needs a proper VNA and a way to properly measure both reflected and forward power as otherwise the data is highly questionable. -
#1964 by Notsosureofit on 19 Jan, 2016 16:09
-
@ RFPlumber
What Q did you use to calculate that number: the 6.56mN expected by the Notsosureofit Hypothesis?
FWIW: The hypothesis gives 6.56mN for your numbers.
2300
With a Q of 2,300 and estimated forward power of 20W, I get 213uN.
Did you estimate the forward power, or did you run a calculation to see what the threshold for detection would be?
If so, how did you estimate the forward power to be 20 W?
(Or did you run that just to see what will the forward power threshold need to be in order to be at the level of detection ~200 microNewton, which is useful to know, I agree)
Just an estimate from the insertion losses in the coupler used, the reflected losses and the thin cables. I did say he needed to directly measure forward power and not guess at it. Look the setup he developed was clever and avoided him buying a VNA but there is no way I would go forward with that setup as the data is just too unknown.
The 213uN at 20W scales with power so set it to whatever you wish. It is just a guess as we don't know what the forward power was.
If a DIY builder goes to all the effort to make the measurement system he did, surely he would know he needs a proper VNA and a way to properly measure both reflected and forward power as otherwise the data is highly questionable.
Ooops! My bad, that should be micro Newtons !! (That's what I get for scribbling on post-it-notes !) -
#1965 by SteveD on 19 Jan, 2016 16:27
-
Doc,
Definitely worthy of emdrive.wiki update as null. It might be wise to add a column characterizing rf source as cw or pulsed, narrowband or wideband. Rfplumbers setup reminds me of our aachen friends, scaled down to 2.4 ghz. Both tests appear to be narrowband CW although I've seen no spec an pics or videos.
p.s. I updated the wiki page with my stuff when you were on break...don't think anyone objects to your caretaking there.
Can we hold off on updates for a couple days until we can work through the data. Basic physics question, would a unidirectional force pushing against one side of a pendulum's motion dampen its oscillation?
RFPlumber suspended a portion of his test rig by a wire to let is swing horizontally for measurement.
This turned the test rig into a pendulum, which needs to sweep equal area in equal time.
Environmental factors caused the pendulum to have about "200 uN" of movement in each direction (very similar to the swaying candelabras that initially inspired Galileo to explore the pendulum).
The test seemed to show the area being swept by the pendulum decreasing while the frequency of oscillations increased. -
#1966 by Rodal on 19 Jan, 2016 16:32
-
Doc,
Definitely worthy of emdrive.wiki update as null. It might be wise to add a column characterizing rf source as cw or pulsed, narrowband or wideband. Rfplumbers setup reminds me of our aachen friends, scaled down to 2.4 ghz. Both tests appear to be narrowband CW although I've seen no spec an pics or videos.
p.s. I updated the wiki page with my stuff when you were on break...don't think anyone objects to your caretaking there.
Can we hold off on updates for a couple days until we can work through the data. Basic physics question, would a unidirectional force pushing against one side of a pendulum's motion dampen its oscillation?
RFPlumber suspended a portion of his test rig by a wire to let is swing horizontally for measurement.
This turned the test rig into a pendulum, which needs to sweep equal area in equal time.
Environmental factors caused the pendulum to have about "200 uN" of movement in each direction (very similar to the swaying candelabras that initially inspired Galileo to explore the pendulum).
The test seemed to show the area being swept by the pendulum decreasing while the frequency of oscillations increased.
I think we have an informal agreement that DoItYourself people update the wiki as they see fit, whenever and however they want, based on their own assessment:
Examples:
*RFMWGUY entered himself his own assessment (based on someone else's statistical analysis)
*ZELLERIUM entered himself his own assessment (a side force, which he thinks may be due to Lorentz forces)
so it is completely up to RFPlumber's under present informal agreement... (as not everyone agrees with what has been entered in the wiki by other DoItYoursef...)
The wiki Experimental Section is not longer curated, since those entries were added. -
#1967 by Notsosureofit on 19 Jan, 2016 16:36
-
So the Notsosureofit hypothesis survives unscathed ?
'Fraid so ... I should have just estimated from the chart (~6.3 microN ) in the wiki insted of calculating ! -
#1968 by SeeShells on 19 Jan, 2016 16:53
-
Doc,
Definitely worthy of emdrive.wiki update as null. It might be wise to add a column characterizing rf source as cw or pulsed, narrowband or wideband. Rfplumbers setup reminds me of our aachen friends, scaled down to 2.4 ghz. Both tests appear to be narrowband CW although I've seen no spec an pics or videos.
p.s. I updated the wiki page with my stuff when you were on break...don't think anyone objects to your caretaking there.
Can we hold off on updates for a couple days until we can work through the data. Basic physics question, would a unidirectional force pushing against one side of a pendulum's motion dampen its oscillation?
RFPlumber suspended a portion of his test rig by a wire to let is swing horizontally for measurement.
This turned the test rig into a pendulum, which needs to sweep equal area in equal time.
Environmental factors caused the pendulum to have about "200 uN" of movement in each direction (very similar to the swaying candelabras that initially inspired Galileo to explore the pendulum).
The test seemed to show the area being swept by the pendulum decreasing while the frequency of oscillations increased.
Also know that we have seen where thrusts seemed to go in multiple directions* not only to the big end or small end, I think it may be wise to look as asking RFPlumber to rotate his frustum 900 Se down, Be down.
In the FEKO sim his internal forces and modes were not symmetrical inside of the cavity.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTbnNZT0NmcjBLVzQ/view
If this was the case, we might see a dampening effect on the natural oscillatory frequency of the DUT and fixture instead of the anticipated directional force.
Shell
* http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/nasa-eagleworks-has-tested-upgraded.html
-
#1969 by Notsosureofit on 19 Jan, 2016 17:10
-
What is the best, most practical thing that RFPlumber's could do to get the force to be over 200 microNewtons according to the Notsosureofit Hypothesis ?
So the Notsosureofit hypothesis survives unscathed ?
'Fraid so ... I should have just estimated from the chart (~6.3 microN ) in the wiki insted of calculating !
Besides more power and higher Q ? TE111, TM101, or TE211 -
#1970 by zen-in on 19 Jan, 2016 17:23
-
Not wanting to hijack the thread away from Feko discussions I want to just comment on RFPlumber's test results. First I think he has done an excellent job. I see very careful work that has been well presented. I also agree with his assessment. There is no detectable thrust. One interesting observation is the different response seen with the HV vs the RF excitation. The HV (I am assuming this is a capacitive force-generating device) shows a fast rise time and looks like it might be a second order step response. That is what you would expect when a force acts on a pendulum. The RF response, if it is even there, has a slow rise time that closely resembles the exponential waveform we have seen before.
I also don't see anything wrong with using directional couplers. They can be just as accurate as a good VNA.
-
#1971 by VAXHeadroom on 19 Jan, 2016 18:13
-
...
3) Compare that with the horrible mess and confusion resulting by showing 6 different components (3 for E and 3 for H) in Cartesian coordinate components without any number field by Meep solutions presented here (**), so that people cannot even tell apart what is practically zero from what is significant !!!! And people cannot do vector addition in their heads
...
(**) The advantage of Meep is that it is an open code where one can write your own constitutive equations, and has nonlinear capabilities (FEKO Boundary Element Method is best for linear solutions), but none of these capabilities have been used here. At the minimum, when showing Meep results, they should be shown with a number field, and the fields vector components should be post-processed to show the norm vector resultant instead of Cartesian components. And even then programs like COMSOL and FEKO and ANSYS and ADINA will win hands down, since they have post-processing capabilities to show the fields in 3D while Meep does not.
My videos do show the 3D vectors with (in some cases) the scale values (I have a great way to show the scale values now, would just have to re-run the ray-tracer to gen new stills for the videos). These were generated from the meep data. I did some with both E and H fields, but concentrated on the H fields as it seemed more relevant. It was a serious nuisance
but it did show the ends and slices through the interior with a time sweep animation of (eventually) ~3.5 degrees of phase. I need more time (in short supply at the moment) to code up the tests for the boundary conditions in order to be able to show the entire frustum surface. If FEKO (or a standard set of post-processing tools) can do that, I won't bother!
-
#1972 by lvirany on 19 Jan, 2016 18:34
-
As Thane Heins' patent agent and someone with a loose MIT connection to Markus Zahn, I was of course very gratified to see "Rodal" post a citation to the newly-issued US#9,230,730.
It took me some time to see how Mr. Heins' claims, though seemingly fanciful, were grounded in genuine innovation. The fact that I knew him in high school helped me to suspend disbelief.
I encourage everyone to also inspect the as-yet-unexamined patent application for the "Perepiteia" itself:
www.google.com/patents/US20140111054
Both above patent documents include competent explanations of what might be termed "the Heins effect." The complete explanation took a great deal of time and work and is an ongoing project.
Yes Virginia, there are undiscovered inventions waiting to be found by the unlikeliest of people, in the unlikeliest of places.
Les Virany BSEE MIT, Registered Patent Agent
Licensed to teach physics in the state of MA.
Hey Les, what a pleasant surprise, a warm welcome to the forum fantastic to see you here!
How did you find us
PS: the "Perepiteia" invention is very interesting to this forum because of the conservation of energy issues associated with EMDrive claims
Thanks Jose. I found this forum on Google, following the reaction to Thane's patent. He has had a credibility problem to date so I am very curious to see what happens now, especially among those who have been in such a hurry to judge his work facetiously.
I'm not sure what direct pertinence his material, which is about coil-based rotating current motors, has on this forum. But it appears so wide-ranging as to affect practically all such motors. (and a transformer, of course) It does not provide any direct insight to, for example, the Minkowski-Abraham controversy, as far as I can see, but at a minimum it seems to be a clear reminder that we don't fully understand how classical electrodynamics coexists with quantum physics. And maybe it will provide somebody with the tools to gain an expanded understanding of EMDrives. -
#1973 by X_RaY on 19 Jan, 2016 18:56
-
TT, This is exactly what EW does for mode confirmation.Mode shapes are defined by the Electric and Magnetic field distributions !
For sure.
And the distribution patterns / effects of those E&M fields on the end plates and sidewalls of a frustum will cause identifiable current flows in those surfaces, which will cause thermally identifiable unique signatures for each and every resonant mode.
So to confirm a good mode excitation, maybe all that is needed is a thermal image of the end plates and the sidewalls?
I'm a little bit confused because of YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS DATA, and now you come up with the same idea?
-
#1974 by Rodal on 19 Jan, 2016 19:05
-
...Thanks Jose. I found this forum on Google, following the reaction to Thane's patent. He has had a credibility problem to date so I am very curious to see what happens now, especially among those who have been in such a hurry to judge his work facetiously.
If you ever have the time, please take a look at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39204.0 the patent (USPTO 8575790 Superconducting electrodynamic turbine) and current development from somebody else that was at the same place as us, at near the same time. Also, Marshall shows up here from time to time (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1441302#msg1441302). It's a small world after all
I'm not sure what direct pertinence his material, which is about coil-based rotating current motors, has on this forum. But it appears so wide-ranging as to affect practically all such motors. (and a transformer, of course) It does not provide any direct insight to, for example, the Minkowski-Abraham controversy, as far as I can see, but at a minimum it seems to be a clear reminder that we don't fully understand how classical electrodynamics coexists with quantum physics. And maybe it will provide somebody with the tools to gain an expanded understanding of EMDrives.
-
#1975 by Rodal on 19 Jan, 2016 19:21
-
... the FEKO solver shows the single end plate and 2 x sidewall current loops I believed should be there for a TE012 excitation of Shell's frustum. I seems to be a very capable solver for frustum simulations.
OK, we both agree that the images you show are for a simulation for excitation with internal antenna excitation, instead of being an excitation of SeeShell's resonant cavity with a waveguide.
I notice that SeeShells wrote:To clarify what was done recently. IslandPlaya has 2 of my models he is running and he has modeled them both correctly.
and my understanding is that SeeShells present experiment involves waveguides instead of internal loop antenna excitaton.
All the FEKO simulations I have seen of SeeShell's frustum using waveguides (whether from the side conical wall or from the big base) show transverse magnetic mode shapes TM112
(or TM212 in one case due to phase shift).
Please let us know if there is a FEKO simulation of SeeShell's frustum with a waveguide showing a transverse electric mode (TE012, etc.) mode, which is what I think she was looking for at some point in time (to compare with Yang and Shawyer's results)...
TM212 is the mode presently run by NASA, but NASA obtains this mode shape using HDPE dielectric inserts.
Thanks to X-Ray's post above (hat tip to X-Ray), I can show NASA's measurement here:
Thanks -
#1976 by X_RaY on 19 Jan, 2016 19:32
-
Dr. Rodal
I've just requested the Light version of FEKO and I'm hopeful to get it. I will try to build a cylindrical test model, after that you can tell me what you like to see using this software *
*As far it is possible with this "castrated" version
.
Beside the actual EMDrive thread, I will post the results in detail here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.0 -
#1977 by Rodal on 19 Jan, 2016 19:34
-
Dr. Rodal
I've just requested the Light version of FEKO and I'm hopeful to get it. I will try to build a cylindrical test model, after that you can tell me what you like to see using this software
That's fantastic !
Thanks so much. FEKO's author is also from Germany
-
#1978 by birchoff on 19 Jan, 2016 20:28
-
Are their any DIY experiemnts in progress with dielectric's similar to what EW is using?
-
#1979 by X_RaY on 19 Jan, 2016 20:36
-
Are their any DIY experiemnts in progress with dielectric's similar to what EW is using?
No, not the same setup, as far as I know SeeShells schedules to test thin dielectrics.
(Don't know if this is already in the pipeline.)
but it did show the ends and slices through the interior with a time sweep animation of (eventually) ~3.5 degrees of phase. I need more time (in short supply at the moment) to code up the tests for the boundary conditions in order to be able to show the entire frustum surface. If FEKO (or a standard set of post-processing tools) can do that, I won't bother!
.