-
#2340 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 16:15
-
Not mine, ConeCalc. Try it for yourself and if its wrong, we need to advise I-Logic their software is faulty. I'm certain any company would need to know this. Commonality in mechanicals is important, this I agree....
OK, this will be the last post I will have on geometry.
Your calculation is incorrect
Since 10.5-6.25 = 4.25
that gives a base for the right angle triangle of 4.25.
Hence a cone half angle of 33 degrees would give a height of 4.25/Tan[33 degrees] = 6.54 instead of 1.38
Edit - About a year ago, lots of back & forth about angles and Eagan's definitions: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1323927#msg1323927 -
#2341 by TheTraveller on 28 Jan, 2016 16:19
-
RE WolfofWallStreet comments on buoyancy in TT's tests: TT has stated (almost as an aside) that his measurement was an average up/down figure. That can only really mean that he has seen opposite forces in opposite orientations, at least one of which can't be buoyancy. Also, he has said he is seeing an immediate response and the RF pulse lasts one second, so for sure the frustrum isn't getting particularly hot on 63 Watts.
[That said, I think he very much needs to back up his statements with more data and details. He is talking about results much better than almost everyone, on a barely complete frustrum measured on a quickly assembled test rig. Like anyone with any sense I really want this effect to be true, but my credulity antennae are tingling a little over this report...]
R.
True, I just saw that. TT states:QuoteMeasured thrust from my 1st EmDrive experiment was 2.2mN (0.22g) @ 63Wf or 35mN/kW, averaged from small end up & down test setups.
If he actually means that in the orientation where the small end was facing up he read 2.3 mN per say, and then when he reversed orientation so that the small end was facing down he read -2.1 mN, and so the "average" thrust was calculated at 2.2 mN, I would be quite impressed. That would go along way to diminishing the possibility of any thermal effects as being the source of the reading.
When you say they are 1 second pulses, does that mean that during the 1 second interval in which the RF pulse is applied, the thrust rises from zero to the measured value and back again to zero as the interval ends, so that thrust and applied RF pulse are coincident in time? That would be something.
EDIT: Just for fun and to help get a conceptual handle on just how much 2.2 mN is, I weighed some household objects on a scale I have that is accurate down to 0.01 mg (0.1 uN).
A standard, yellow 3M post-it-note (see attached figure) weighs almost exactly 4.4 mN. So measured force at the moment is almost exactly half a post-it-note.
On time was several seconds. Not timed. Waited until scale settled and only slight change in last digit. Resolution is 0.01g or 100uN. Yes 0.22g is not much force.
Should get 20mN (~2g) or more as Roger predicted 389mN/kW for this design or 38.9mN at 100W.
Will publish full data & replication plans when I get to >=20mN as replication is the only way to verify anything.
Didn't seem to be any delay in force generation other than scale settling time. Force stopped as soon as Rf power was switched off.
Could not see any significant change between Up weight & Down weight to say +-2-3 digit repeatability of scale.
Building clear plastic air current shield to try to reduce last digit bouncing around.
PSU had a very significant 50 Hz full wave ripple. Doubt 63W forward was correct and that Rf Watts were constant. Working to fix that. Seems the old electro just got tired. Will keep them as just maybe the large 50 Hz amplitude modulation of the Rf output they caused has some effect to produce the measured force.
Lots of work to do to try to make the Rf W output stable and to reduce outside air current effects on scale weight change.
Bought a new scale, 3kg max, same 0.01g resolution. Old scale topped out at 1.5kg.
Buying a new 100W Rf amp with all monitoring & control done via RS485 interface from PC software. No more slide switch block on ribbon cable to control Rf amp nor digital scope to monitor forward & reflected power. New Rf amp only does 2.4 - 2.5 GHz but is more efficient. Max amps drops from 15 to 9. Will need to shorten frustum to alter resonance back to 2.45 GHz.
Coax cable is, I believe RG316, ~2.6 mm dia & very flexible. 0.3dB loss at 2.4 GHz at 0.5m length.
Back to work. Actually well past my bed time.
BTW nice to see Dr. Rodals & my frustum calcs are very close.
Ahh forgot, once the new RS485 100W Rf amp arrives, here is the new test setup as attached. Getting more KISS all the time. Means easier to replicate and verify the data.
Should add that is NOT the operational orientation nor location of the current loop as shown in the drawing. Drew it that way to clearly show it is a 1/2 current loop that is being excited as the frustum coupler.
-
#2342 by frobnicat on 28 Jan, 2016 16:42
-
.../...
Prof. Frobnicat, Paul March says that the EM Drive tests at NASA can be explained by Woodward's Mach Effect theory (as he calls it "the other side of the coin having Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum theory on the other side).
Prof. Woodward explains NASA's results as being due entirely to the asymmetric placement of the dielectric insert, constituting a Woodward Mach Effect, and that NASA's test without a dielectric giving no force confirms Prof. Woodward's expectations.
Now, this is how Prof. Woodward explains the Conservation of Energy (Overunity argument) for his theory (he wrote this last November 2015, barely a couple of months ago):
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Your comments on Prof. Woodward's paper on Conservation of Energy, would be appreciated, and most relevant, because, again, Paul March at NASA has stated that Prof, Woodward's theory might explain the test results for the EM Drive at NASA.
.../...
First to clarify title and authority issues : I'm professor of computer sciences in engineering school, I also did teaching maths (complex analysis...) at university a while ago, and did a fair share of remedial teaching in maths and physics after my initial training in mechanical engineering (including high precision metrology, since it was in one of the finest french watchmaking school). All at undergrad level, for lack of a PhD. Just to say : while my tone is inevitably stylistically colored by all those years of lesson giving, I'm not claiming writing on this forum as a physics professor.
This paper by Woodward was discussed (and to my eyes demolished) on the next-of-kin NSF thread "New Physics for Space Technology/Woodward's effect", in particular by user ppnl and by user Paul451 and by user gargoyle99 and by rare user Povel. Sorry if I forgot some. Won't do a summary, interested reader will have to unwind from those posts...
One interesting theoretical line of reasoning is raised by user 93143 (upped by Povel). That links to Mach effect thread on talk-polywell forums. I had not the time to dig that but from the NSF post it sounds consistent.
What's strange is that, on talk-polywell forum we see many more "followers/believers" of Mach effect that do acknowledge the existence of an apparent excess of energy (even if Woodward clumsily tries to dodge the subject), while a lot of "followers/believers" in EM drive effect still stick to plain denial of such surplus..../...
That interaction with the rest of the causally-connected universe is where the "extra" energy comes from. In fact it is the entire reason anything happens at all. The work done by an M-E thruster is largely unrelated to the local energy input, in the same sense in which the work done by the wind on a sailboat is largely unrelated to the energy expended by the crew moving the sails around. As far as I know there is no theoretical upper limit on the thrust efficiency of a Mach-effect device.
Seeing the (visible explicit) input power to the system not as the main motive power but just as a condition to the harnessing of a much larger (invisible) energetic reservoir is the natural outcome for any frame invariant efficiency propellantless device. This is much more consistent than fooling around with broken kinetic energy argument to show how classical systems supposedly would appear to produce surplus energy also, and then resorting to a kinetic energy integration "resetting" trick that makes no sense just to show that then propellantless devices don't produce surplus energy (while the same empirical calculation technique could show that an accelerating sailboat is not producing surplus energy relative to its crew's work !)
After the flawed inversion of sign in the CoE dealing annex of one of White cosigned papers, this paper by Woodward indicates that the leading theoreticians of propellantless propulsion are ready to ruin their reputation in the eyes of mindful readers with some decent bases in mechanics in return of keeping their distance with the "apparent free energy" taboo for the less vigilant followers (or backers ?).
Anyway, this latest Woodward idea doesn't change a bit the argument of apparent energy excess when studied in the context of constant thrust constant velocity, where kinetic energy and integrated time of operation are simply irrelevant. I'll stick to that as this avoids a lot of headaches, think this is still pretty much unchallenged (seriously).
-
#2343 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 16:44
-
..
Please be SAFE, we are concerned about you
Ahh forgot, once the new RS485 100W Rf amp arrives, here is the new test setup as attached. Getting more KISS all the time. Means easier to replicate and verify the data.
. Your health is priority #1. We are concerned hearing that the EM Drive resonant cavity in the experiment is "held by gravity" and that it is not sealed, and apparently the resonant cavity is not inside a shielded box, but that there is just a shield plate between the EM Drive and the digital scale (if we read the sketch drawing correctly).
Please be safe. Wear protection, shield yourself from possible leaking microwave radiation from the cavity
-
#2344 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 17:24
-
...
Edit - About a year ago, lots of back & forth about angles and Eagan's definitions: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1323927#msg1323927
I notice that the definition for the cone half-angle were correct in the above-mentioned post, and consistent with Eagan's definition. There has not been any change, then, now or meanwhile, in the definition of the half-cone angle, like in the wiki:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
The difference between the actual geometry (14.78 degrees as provided by Paul March) and the estimates of Fornaro, aero, Mulleron is small, which is a testament to what a great job they did at guesstimating the geometry of the NASA frustum from photographs, before the actual geometry was provided by Paul March.
Mulletron had the best estimate: 14.43 degrees, extremely close to the actual 14.78 degrees
-
#2345 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 17:30
-
Open for discussion -
Looking at Greg Egans 2006 webpage again, I was struck by the fact he was concluding zero force for any shaped cavity.
"Proof of zero force for any shape of cavity
Despite the asymmetry of our truncated spherical cone along the z-axis, the net force from radiation pressure on its walls is zero. How can we be sure, though, that there isn’t some other shape that will yield a non-zero net force?
To see what the net force will be in a resonant cavity of a completely arbitrary shape, we need to construct the stress tensor for the electromagnetic field."
Digging through it, Maxwell's classical field tensor was invoked, which I believe is linear space time. Considering EW supposedly measured nonlinear (curved) space time around the device, how would this impact Egan's hypothesis?
"Curved spacetime - Traditional formulation
Matter and energy generate curvature of spacetime. This is the subject of general relativity. Curvature of spacetime affects electrodynamics. An electromagnetic field having energy and momentum also generates curvature in spacetime. Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime can be obtained by replacing the derivatives in the equations in flat spacetime with covariant derivatives. (Whether this is the appropriate generalization requires separate investigation.)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_descriptions_of_the_electromagnetic_field -
#2346 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 18:01
-
Not mine, ConeCalc. Try it for yourself and if its wrong, we need to advise I-Logic their software is faulty. I'm certain any company would need to know this. ..
I tried it myself: http://www.i-logic.com/utilities/coneresult2.php3
There is nothing wrong with the ConeCalc calculations. They agree with mine. Again, they use a definition of the cone angle that is: 90 degrees - ConeHalfAngle
So, if you input into their software, the correct values (once one understands, from their drawing, what is their definition of angle)
BigDiameter=10.5
SmallDiameter=6.25
ConeAngle = 57 degrees (= 90 degrees - 33 degrees)
you get the same value for the height I calculated: 6.54/2 = 3.27
(see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1484429#msg1484429)
You have to input the correct values to get the correct output
-
#2347 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 18:25
-
OK, got you height at a little over 3 inches, that does not correspond to any frustum I've seen.Not mine, ConeCalc. Try it for yourself and if its wrong, we need to advise I-Logic their software is faulty. I'm certain any company would need to know this. ..
I tried it myself: http://www.i-logic.com/utilities/coneresult2.php3
There is nothing wrong with the ConeCalc calculations. They agree with mine. Again, they use a definition of the cone angle that is: 90 degrees - ConeHalfAngle
So, if you input into their software, the correct values (once one understands, from their drawing, what is their definition of angle)
BigDiameter=10.5
SmallDiameter=6.25
ConeAngle = 57 degrees (= 90 degrees - 33 degrees)
you get the same value for the height I calculated: 6.54/2 = 3.27
(see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1484429#msg1484429)
You have to input the correct values to get the correct output -
#2348 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 18:28
-
...OK, got you height at a little over 3 inches, that does not correspond to any frustum I've seen.
Gee, what part of the fact that 33 degrees is not my angle, it is the angle of Shawyer's superconducting fustrum of a cone is not clear ?
Don't you notice how the cone's angle distorts the cone, such that for Shawyer's superconducting frustum, the height is significantly smaller than the diameters?
This is clear even from the post of one year ago you posted:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1323927#msg1323927
It is ThinkerX that remembered that year old post.
This was already discussed and posted here, including a picture of Shawyer's superconducting fustrum:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1484413#msg1484413
If instead of Shawyer's superconducting design angle of 33 degrees one uses TheTraveller's angle of 9.849 degrees:
Big Diameter of the flat base of the frustum of a cone = 10.5
Small Diameter of the flat base of the frustum of a cone = 6.25
Height (measured perpendicular to the flat bases) of the frustum of a cone = 12.24
Cone half angle of the frustum of a cone = 9.849 degrees
Keeping the base diameters constant:
So, changing the cone half angle from 9.849 degrees to 33 degrees changes the height of the cone from 12.24 to 3.27 inches.
News !, if you change the cone half angle from 9.849 degrees to 90 degrees, the height of the frustum of a cone will be..... a perfect zero !
More News !, if you change the cone half angle from 9.849 degrees to 0 degrees, the height of the frustum of a cone will be..... infinite !
-
#2349 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 19:04
-
33 degrees was what I picked up from an earlier post with your name on it. I now understand this was a reference to Shawyers new superconductor cavity. So now I know of a 3 inch high frustum. Well, actually not since none of us have seen pics.
-
#2350 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 19:07
-
33 degrees was what I picked up from an earlier post with your name on it. I now understand this was a reference to Shawyers new superconductor cavity. So now I know of a 3 inch high frustum. Well, actually not since none of us have seen pics.
Why would a 3.27 inch = 83 mm height frustum be ruled out? Why the shocking eyes?
Have you taken a look at what is the height of the frustum that Tajmar tested at TU Dresden in Germany, listing Shawyer as a consultant to his paper?
Answer = Tajmar's EM Drive height is listed as 68.6 mm = 2.70 inches
So, Tajmar's frustum, made with Shawyer as a consultant, had a reported height 21% smaller than 3.27 inches. -
#2351 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 19:25
-
Prof Tajmar's mini frustum was a big departure from the "conventional" 2.4 GHz ones floating about. I had shocking eyes then, just didn't post it.33 degrees was what I picked up from an earlier post with your name on it. I now understand this was a reference to Shawyers new superconductor cavity. So now I know of a 3 inch high frustum. Well, actually not since none of us have seen pics.
Why would a 3.27 inch = 83 mm height frustum be ruled out? Why the shocking eyes?
Have you taken a look at what is the height of the frustum that Tajmar tested at TU Dresden in Germany, listing Shawyer as a consultant to his paper?
Answer = Tajmar's EM Drive height is listed as 68.6 mm = 2.70 inches
So, Tajmar's frustum, made with Shawyer as a consultant, had a reported height 21% smaller than 3.27 inches. -
#2352 by Flyby on 28 Jan, 2016 19:27
-
All these different angles makes me wonder if there isn't a more systematical approach, instead of the trial and error method, which seems a rather arbitrary way of poking in the dark...
-
#2353 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 19:38
-
Prof Tajmar's mini frustum was a big departure from the "conventional" 2.4 GHz ones floating about. I had shocking eyes then, just didn't post it.33 degrees was what I picked up from an earlier post with your name on it. I now understand this was a reference to Shawyers new superconductor cavity. So now I know of a 3 inch high frustum. Well, actually not since none of us have seen pics.
Why would a 3.27 inch = 83 mm height frustum be ruled out? Why the shocking eyes?
Have you taken a look at what is the height of the frustum that Tajmar tested at TU Dresden in Germany, listing Shawyer as a consultant to his paper?
Answer = Tajmar's EM Drive height is listed as 68.6 mm = 2.70 inches
So, Tajmar's frustum, made with Shawyer as a consultant, had a reported height 21% smaller than 3.27 inches.
The problem is that DiY, and NASA has been testing the OLD Shawyer geometries, while Shawyer has moved to radically different geometries from what the DIY people, NASA and Yang have tested.
It is obvious that Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive (also discussed in this Acta Astronautica paper) looks radically different from what DIY and NASA have been testing.
And it looks radically different from what rfmwguy and SeeShells and TheTraveller are testing and proposing to test in the near future.
And it is obvious that when Shawyer advised Tajmar (the most recent institutional test) he advised him also to try a much smaller frustum.
Not that I agree with Shawyer's approach, I think that anybody that has followed me in these threads, that would be one of the last things I can be accused of (of following Shawyer's prescriptions)
-
#2354 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 19:43
-
All these different angles makes me wonder if there isn't a more systematical approach, instead of the trial and error method, which seems a rather arbitrary way of poking in the dark...
Agreed...which lead to my pontificating about angles and dimensions. Meep has been used for nasa sized frustums, not sure about new shawyer frustums. Actually, DIY types like myself are simply wanting to observe results without trying mini versions. I could be wrong, but don't think any DIY work is being done with shawyers smaller frustum except for possibly Univ of Dresden. -
#2355 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 19:47
-
All these different angles makes me wonder if there isn't a more systematical approach, instead of the trial and error method, which seems a rather arbitrary way of poking in the dark...
Agreed...which lead to my pontificating about angles and dimensions. Meep has been used for nasa sized frustums, not sure about new shawyer frustums. Actually, DIY types like myself are simply wanting to observe results without trying mini versions. I could be wrong, but don't think any DIY work is being done with shawyers smaller frustum except for possibly Univ of Dresden.
Come on!
The Baby EM Drive is a DIY effort tested before your project and it is even smaller than Tajmar's
https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive
-
#2356 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 19:55
-
All these different angles makes me wonder if there isn't a more systematical approach, instead of the trial and error method, which seems a rather arbitrary way of poking in the dark...
A systematic and formal approach (as opposed to "trial and error", "poking in the dark") to dimensions is followed in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
which has accomplished a formal, analytical study of scaling laws, using analytical and numerical methods, taking into account all three theories (Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit).
-
#2357 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 20:23
-
...After the flawed inversion of sign in the CoE dealing annex of one of White cosigned papers, this paper by Woodward indicates that the leading theoreticians of propellantless propulsion are ready to ruin their reputation in the eyes of mindful readers with some decent bases in mechanics in return of keeping their distance with the "apparent free energy" taboo for the less vigilant followers (or backers ?)...
That's precisely why I answered to rfmwguy that the "Achilles heel of publishing EM Drive papers in peer reviewed journals" has everything to do with the free-energy, perpetual motion aspect of the EM Drive.
Whether EM Drive papers go through successful peer-review should depend on whether peer-review editors are aware of this (usually kept hidden for good-reason ) free-energy aspect of the EM Drive, whether the peer-review editors have expertise in conservation of energy issues and whether the authors of EM Drive papers can adequately answer inquiries from peer-review editors on satisfactorily addressing the free-energy aspect of EM Drive theories.
It looks to me that ("loaded with vacuum work" ) NSF user Dr. Notsosureofit is making (slow but) stronger advance in this area than the most prominently known authors in the field:
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1484353#msg1484353 -
#2358 by Rodal on 28 Jan, 2016 20:41
-
EXACT SOLUTION OF TheTRAVELLER'S TEST GEOMETRY...
Acknowledgement to Reddit user IslandPlaya, who effectively uses FEKO Boundary Element Method (also known as Method of Moments) to calculate the natural frequency for TE013 for TheTraveller's experiment.
COMPARISON OF EXACT FREQUENCY with TheTraveller, for mode shape TE013
measured frequency: TheTraveller has not yet provided a measured natural frequency for his test
calculated natural frequency
(exact solution, Dr. Rodal using Wolfram Mathematica): 2.38793 GHz
calculated natural frequency
(by TheTraveller, using spreadsheet approximating cone as summation of cylinders): 2.4053 GHz
difference: (2.4053 - 2.38793)/2.4053 = 0.69 %
The exact solution is very close to the frequency calculated by TheTraveller approximating the cone as the sum of a large number of cylinders of constant cross-section, because the half cone angle of his frustum, being less than 10 degrees is pretty close to the geometry of a cylinder.
This difference of 0.69% in frequency is negligible, considering the fact that the TheTraveller's cone is presently "held by gravity" and is bound to have larger geometrical defects, which will affect the experimental natural frequency.
For reference, we also give the natural frequencies of the first four TE01p modes for TheTraveller's geometry:
TE011 = 1.77026*10^9 Hz
TE012 = 2.07472*10^9 Hz
TE013 = 2.38793*10^9 Hz
TE014 = 2.75007*10^9 Hz
...
With expert help from NSF user SeeShells, SeeShells properly identifying mode shape TE013 (*)
http://imgur.com/SRdFUy7
FEKO calculates the mode shape TE013 at 2.39650 Ghz:
calculated natural frequency
(exact solution, Dr. Rodal using Wolfram Mathematica): 2.38793 GHz
calculated natural frequency
(FEKO Boundary Element Method, Island Playa @ Reddit): 2.39650 GHz
calculated natural frequency
(by TheTraveller, using spreadsheet approximating cone as summation of cylinders): 2.4053 GHz
The fact that the exact solution gives the lowest natural frequency is expected (to those with expertise in numerical methods like BEM, FEM, FD, modal analysis, etc.) as the other numerical methods converge from above: they are too stiff, they would need an infinite number of nodes (or in the case of TheTraveller, and infinite number of constant cross section cylinders) to match the exactitude of the exact solution
Warm congratulations to TheTraveller for doing an excellent job in calculating the natural frequency and quality of resonance for TE013 for his chosen geometry. TheTraveller's calculations are very closely matched by the exact solution and by FEKO Boundary Element Method
_________
(*) Congratulations Shell, for correctly identifying the electric field contour plot for TE013 (I had only posted the magnetic fields and the Poynting vector fields)
(**) Congratulations to IslandPlaya for being the first to use FEKO to model EM Drives and for successfully modeling excitation of TE013 using a loop
(***) The advantages of FEKO over MEEP-out-of-the-box are displayed once again as IslandPlaya with FEKO was able to promptly obtain a full sweep of natural frequencies and mode shapes, including S-parameter and resonance, and SeeShell was fully able to identify the mode shape in FEKO
-
#2359 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 22:09
-
Look, EM behavior within (or creating) curved space-time is not what I ate for breakfast, but it did lead me to this paper...momentum, Lorentz, chiral kinetic equation, vorticity and anomalous source term proportional to the product of electric and magnetic fields caught my fleeting attention. I will have to read slower and deeper when time permits...not that I can full understand it even then
(This is all the fault of Dr White who measured space time distortion in a cavity at EW)
Berry Curvature and Four-Dimensional Monopoles in the Relativistic Chiral Kinetic Equation
"In summary, we have shown that the Berry curvature and a 4-dimensional monopole in Euclidean momentum
space emerge in a new chiral kinetic equation with manifest Lorentz covariance. The chiral anomaly can be interpreted as the flux of this 4-dimensional monopole. There are vorticity terms in this chiral kinetic equation which are necessary for the presence of the chiral vortical effect. The 3-dimensional chiral kinetic equation can be obtained from the Lorentz covariant one by integration over the zero-th component of the 4-momentum. It contains vorticity terms in addition to what is previously derived in the Hamiltonian approach. The phase space continuity equation has an anomalous source term proportional to the product of electric and magnetic fields. Our approach to the chiral kinetic equation is quite general and valid for relativistic fermionic systems."
http://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262301
. Your health is priority #1. We are concerned hearing that the EM Drive resonant cavity in the experiment is "held by gravity" and that it is not sealed, and apparently the resonant cavity is not inside a shielded box, but that there is just a shield plate between the EM Drive and the digital scale (if we read the sketch drawing correctly).
