-
#420 by rfmwguy on 20 Dec, 2015 15:44
-
Seems to me that he has assumed it violates CoM. EW has not contended this and his blogpost suggests they have...perhaps by error of ommision. What I find "unscientific" about his emdrive post is he appears to have only superficially researched the topic, not considering the Quantum Vacuum senario that Dr White is investigating. Ironically, he uses the 2011 Nobel Prize for Quantum Vacuum work in his first post. So why would he not consider EWs position on this? This is where I humbly suggested bipolarity...Quantum Vacuum theory by EW was ignored in his Emdrive blog:
"If you want to go forward, you have to push on something or propel something backwards. The plucky NASA engineers in question aren’t hampered by such musty old ideas. As others have pointed out, what they’re proposing is very much like saying that you can sit in your car and start it moving by pushing on the steering wheel." - sean carroll
I think carroll has been discussed here before and I only bring it up to point out what I consider to be his defense of string theory using decent philosophy and his dismissal of emdrive using inconsistent philosophy. I find his argument...falsifiable
-
#421 by SeeShells on 20 Dec, 2015 16:48
-
SeeShells,
First off, thanks for all the work you've done and info you've shared so far. I'm continually impressed by all the little things you've thought to design into your setup.
Thanks that's very nice of you to say.
From what I can tell from your posts, your main force measurement device is a Weighmax W-HD200 (200g max, 0.01g resolution) digital scale, correct? Will you be using any other instruments/devices for force measurement? If not, how do you plan on synchronizing the recording of the scale display with other datasets such as magnetron on/off or frustum temperature logs, etc.? I am reminded of the extra manual sync step needed to visually/acoustically match rfmwguy's video timestamp/real-timestamp and mag on/off hum noise. If you're planning on using another force-measurement/acquisition system then you can disregard the remainder of this post.
Good questions. Since I didn't have the funds to get a scale like rfmwguy's I will be videoing the scales and or the laser deflection. I also have a camera monitoring the thermal camera that is on the frustum. I've been working on using a xenon camera flash to time the videos when powering the system. The flash is picked up by the cameras and then can be synced later in post production. I thought this was a neat idea, would love any thoughts.
The other data will be from the computer monitoring the magnetron output spectrum and another spectrum analyzer for the frustum.
To remedy the issue of manually linking scale display video with other data in your tests, I'd suggest using a different measurement device which has the ability to save data to a file for later review/processing. This can take the form of a computer (or Raspberry Pi, as you're planning to use) with a DAQ-type device and force sensor. Alternatively, if there is concern that using a non-RTOS might introduce unpredictable sampling delay errors from the various inputs into the final dataset (in the case that any generated force might be a fast transient when the RF is first switched on, and thus a low-sampling rate will miss, or unpredictable sample delays will mis-represent this critical information), a microcontroller with microSD card interface could be used which could be programmed with calculable sampling delays.
I have a Raspberry Pi with acceleration XYZ chip but honestly haven't had the time to squeez it into this firt run. I plan on doing it the second one.
I have purchased & taken apart one of the same model W-HD200 scales (See attached picture. Note I've removed the LCD and bent up the backlight to see underneath) to see if there is any data output interface. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there is. The main IC is unfortunately a glob top and is thus unidentifiable. Due to this, the characteristics of the scale (such as internal sample rate, temperature drift error, etc.) are unknown and will make error analysis attempts difficult.
Since accurate measurement of force is of the utmost importance, I'd suggest using a load cell and amp/DAQ with well-documented characteristics. I also note that the scale in question uses a 300g max load cell (as can be seen on the green label on the side). I'd suggest using a 100g load cell, as the reduced full-scale range would be reduced by a factor of three, and as such the accuracy should proportionally increase by a factor of three (as more of the full-scale output voltage will be utilized). As glennfish estimated in his post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1459170#msg1459170), total force probably won't exceed 1N (~100g). In my non-extensive search, it seems as though any load cells with a max capacity <100g are prohibitively expensive (like $600+). Therefore it seems like 100g cells have the best performance-to-price ratio. For example, this 100g load cell (http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?product_id=3139) or others on eBay look like they'd work, they're generally <$10, and have included performance characteristics which will allow for system error analysis.
As far as amplifiers/ADCs, the ADS1232REF evaluation module (http://www.ti.com/tool/ads1232ref) from TI looks like one of the best options. The HX711 is another chip commonly used for this purpose, however the datasheet is not as extensive and it has worse RMS input noise by at least a factor of two. The ADS1232REF uses a 24-bit ADC with a full datasheet, the eval board has been designed specifically for load cell measurements, it provides a small LCD display, programmable MSP430 microcontroller, USB interface, and costs about $50. It looks like the LCD might only display raw ADC values when using the USB interface rather than scaled weight values in common units (as it would in Scale mode, see the user manual: http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/sbau120b/sbau120b.pdf), but the acquired raw data could easily be scaled on the computer to output weight/force units. It looks like it has the ability to act as a COM port on the computer, and therefore it would be pretty easy to write software to interface and save data. Alternatively, it is possible to re-program the on-board MSP430 and probably trivial to add functionality to output scaled data (vs. raw data) via USB/UART. It should be possible to tap into the MSP430's UART signals directly (between it and the USB<->UART conversion chip on the board) and send data directly to another microcontroller logging data to a microSD or flash chip, which would reduce the sample-timing errors discussed above (due to the non-RTOS running on the host computer, if such errors turn out to be non-negligible).
According to various data which can be found in the ADS1232 datasheet (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/sbas350f/sbas350f.pdf), I estimate the evaluation board should be capable of 42.3uN (micro-Newton) resolution (about 2x better than that of the Weighmax scale), using the aforementioned 100g load cell, with a sample-rate of 80 per second (resolution approximately doubles @ 10SPS - a trade-off to consider). The estimated force resolutions are based on "noise-free bits" and could be improved via averaging, although of course this would lessen the overall sample-rate proportionally.
TL;DR: Shell, I suggest you implement a force-measurement method using devices which are well-characterized for error-analysis purposes, and which provide data in a format that can be automatically saved to a file for fine-detailed analysis (rather than manually reading values from a scale display off a video).
Back to lurking...
Great post, I so want to thank you for detailing the issues with the digital scales.
Really need to look at the build time piecing together one using different parts and also the device I ended up with could be questioned. I looked into other scales and even have tried to "snipe" a couple used ones on ebay. Did not snipe well enough.
On the commercial arena what I found killed the little build budget, Could have done it if I reached my goals in gofundme (I costed the project before I set the goal). Here is one I was looking at with data logging via a PC and USB port using winwedge software $300 (single user) and a scales providing a Serial or a USB output. $1,355.91 http://www.ebay.com/itm/OHAUS-AX423-E-Precision-Balance-Scale-Digital-0-001g-/381370253204?hash=item58cb703f94:g:aSQAAOSwo6lWMT3N
I have funding setback for incidentals. Any one here have any other input?
Shell
-
#422 by Rodal on 20 Dec, 2015 16:58
-
Seems to me that he has assumed it violates CoM. EW has not contended this and his blogpost suggests they have...perhaps by error of ommision. What I find "unscientific" about his emdrive post is he appears to have only superficially researched the topic, not considering the Quantum Vacuum senario that Dr White is investigating. Ironically, he uses the 2011 Nobel Prize for Quantum Vacuum work in his first post. So why would he not consider EWs position on this? This is where I humbly suggested bipolarity...Quantum Vacuum theory by EW was ignored in his Emdrive blog:
"If you want to go forward, you have to push on something or propel something backwards. The plucky NASA engineers in question aren’t hampered by such musty old ideas. As others have pointed out, what they’re proposing is very much like saying that you can sit in your car and start it moving by pushing on the steering wheel." - sean carroll
I think carroll has been discussed here before and I only bring it up to point out what I consider to be his defense of string theory using decent philosophy and his dismissal of emdrive using inconsistent philosophy. I find his argument...falsifiableQuoteQuantum Vacuum theory by EW was ignored in his Emdrive blog
As has been discussed in previous threads, Carroll has not ignored the EW QV theory, Carroll expressed his views on EW's theory of the Quantum Vacuum in other web discussions.
The concern expressed by Carroll regarding conservation of momentum (and therefore conservation of energy, since both energy and momentum are tied together in General Relativity) is shared by the majority of physicists and it is the main reason why there is such lack of interest in the EM Drive at all major universities and research institutions. -
#423 by RotoSequence on 20 Dec, 2015 17:39
-
The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct? -
#424 by Blaine on 20 Dec, 2015 17:45
-
The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct?
Its also kinda funny that they may have detected a new particle that has nothing to do with super symmetry or anything they even expected. Just thought I'd put that out there. -
#425 by Rodal on 20 Dec, 2015 17:59
-
As to not being a good sign, it all depends on how one defines "not being a good sign". From the viewpoint of Occam's razor it would not be a good sign because the simplest theory supporting all the experimental evidence should be preferred (according to Occam's razor), and String theory does not make it on being the "simplest theory" at that point.The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct? -
#426 by RotoSequence on 20 Dec, 2015 18:11
-
it all depends on how one defines "not being a good sign". From the viewpoint of Occam's razor it would not be a good sign because the simplest theory supporting all the experimental evidence should be preferred (according to Occam's razor), and String theory does not make it on being the "simplest theory" at that point.
That clarifies things a bit. Thank you! -
#427 by SeeShells on 20 Dec, 2015 18:12
-
Ahh but ... ready for it? No Bad Data.
As to not being a good sign, it all depends on how one defines "not being a good sign". From the viewpoint of Occam's razor it would not be a good sign because the simplest theory supporting all the experimental evidence should be preferred (according to Occam's razor), and String theory does not make it on being the "simplest theory" at that point.The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct?
-
#428 by OnlyMe on 20 Dec, 2015 18:20
-
Ahh but ... ready for it? No Bad Data.
As to not being a good sign, it all depends on how one defines "not being a good sign". From the viewpoint of Occam's razor it would not be a good sign because the simplest theory supporting all the experimental evidence should be preferred (according to Occam's razor), and String theory does not make it on being the "simplest theory" at that point.The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct?
You stepped into it again Shell!
No data.., is bad data. -
#429 by SeeShells on 20 Dec, 2015 18:51
-
I could think of a hundred ways where no data is a good thing. POV.
Ahh but ... ready for it? No Bad Data.
As to not being a good sign, it all depends on how one defines "not being a good sign". From the viewpoint of Occam's razor it would not be a good sign because the simplest theory supporting all the experimental evidence should be preferred (according to Occam's razor), and String theory does not make it on being the "simplest theory" at that point.The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct?
You stepped into it again Shell!
No data.., is bad data.
I no longer say about the EMDrive being a closed frame of reference that if you give me a hole, I'll give you thrust.
I have some friends over today to help get in my toolboxes and other heavy things into the house. Slowly progressing.
Shell -
#430 by Stormbringer on 20 Dec, 2015 19:14
-
#431 by Blaine on 20 Dec, 2015 19:26
-
We have a place to go now so you guys need to get busy.
heck yeah, I'm glad we found a planet so close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061 -
#432 by frobnicat on 20 Dec, 2015 20:43
-
The criticism against String theory is made on a completely different basis than the criticism against the EM Drive: it has to do with the fact that at the present time it is not possible to falsify String Theory experimentally.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm under the impression that a failure to observe super-symmetric partner particles at the Large Hadron Collider's design power would not be a good sign (but not a falsification) for String Theory. Is this impression correct?
Its also kinda funny that they may have detected a new particle that has nothing to do with super symmetry or anything they even expected. Just thought I'd put that out there.
It's too early in the data to tell that this new maybe particle @750 GeV
1. Exists
2. Should it exist, has nothing to do with some supersymmetry theory, since there are a lot of them.
I can't believe I'm citing Lubos Motl two consecutive times here, it just happens I enjoy his (physics) blog posts (even while most is way above my head) so, anyway, for instance :
http://motls.blogspot.fr/2015/12/sgoldstino-at-750-gev-prevails-in.htmlQuote from: Lubos MotlYesterday, there were 10 pheno papers trying to explain the bump near 750GeV if the bump is not just a deceitful fluke. Three preprints mentioned supersymmetry, mostly suggesting that the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) doesn't look quite compatible with the data.
.../ too complicated to be summed up /...
Today, the number of papers on the bump decreased by 20%, to eight. And they have a rather different focus. I won't discuss all the papers one by one anymore because it would be a full-time job. Instead, let me mention that two papers identify the bump as something very specific and supersymmetric.QuoteIt would surely be fun if the resonance existed and were not only connected to supersymmetry but if it were one of the "most systemic" yet overlooked particles associated with supersymmetry breaking – a superpartner of the superpartner of the graviton which isn't a graviton. ;-)
I'm fascinated (like a rabbit caught in some headlights)
-
#433 by dustinthewind on 20 Dec, 2015 20:52
-
They might want to analyze the spectrum of planets in habitable zones that they find to see if life might have already taken hold and evolved technology. Might be faster than finding out by traveling there, but wouldn't show early life I guess unless they could analyze the atmosphere for trace compounds possibly (sunlight passing through the atmosphere maybe). I think I read about them doing that some where. These are exciting times.We have a place to go now so you guys need to get busy.
heck yeah, I'm glad we found a planet so close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061 -
#434 by Blaine on 20 Dec, 2015 21:06
-
Whatever comes of this em-drive business, whatever that means, I am fascinated as well. In fact, because of the em drive I am now getting interested in physics. I've always loved computer science, but thanks to everybody here I am now deeply interested in physics. Its definitely not a boring subject, nor is it confusing. It just seems that way at first.
Rodal should be a professor and teach his stuff if he hasn't in the past or doesn't currently. And Shell is a great engineer, also very inspirational. rfmwguy sticks his neck out there and gets to business, so we can all benefit. Nice job guys and keep up the good work. -
#435 by TheUberOverLord on 20 Dec, 2015 21:37
-
What constitutes violations of CoE ("Conservation of Energy") and/or CoM ("Conservation of Momentum")?
This is the best analogy I can think of to try and compare the EM Drive to another possible propulsion system which could be used in space.
Suppose a spacecraft was created with a huge solar array ("At the back of the spacecraft") that was capable to be positioned toward the closet star as needed and in the center of that huge solar array was a solar sail with arms that extended beyond the solar sail from the main body of the spacecraft. Which held their own lights that pointed at the solar sail to produce thrust for the spacecraft.
Say that this spacecraft was using solar cells to store power in on-board batteries because the position of the solar arrays at a star could be changed and was found to be able to get more energy that way than by simply positioning the solar sail itself at the star.
Now lets add a completely sealed transparent glass or transparent plastic cage around this entire spacecraft encompassing everything. Including the solar arrays and solar sail and lights powering the solar sail.
If thrust was produced from this sealed and self-contained spacecraft, would this constitute violating CoE and/or CoM?
If not? Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
Edit: One more analogy. Please don't lump this one with the one above unless it justifies it.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
If this bulb was placed free-floating in space and completely sealed would/could it create thrust as photons were spinning it's sails ("Like man swimming in space can and could")? If so, is that also a violation of Coe and/or CoM?
Again, if not? Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
Don -
#436 by SeeShells on 20 Dec, 2015 21:49
-
Whatever comes of this em-drive business, whatever that means, I am fascinated as well. In fact, because of the em drive I am now getting interested in physics. I've always loved computer science, but thanks to everybody here I am now deeply interested in physics. Its definitely not a boring subject, nor is it confusing. It just seems that way at first.
Thanks.
Rodal should be a professor and teach his stuff if he hasn't in the past or doesn't currently. And Shell is a great engineer, also very inspirational. rfmwguy sticks his neck out there and gets to business, so we can all benefit. Nice job guys and keep up the good work.
You all are simply incredible! I'm not throwing that word out here lightly and this even goes for the ones who are just tuning in to see this unfold, I urge you all to please stay tuned.
I'm reminded every day now of the father who said he had a daughter and she said she wanted to grow up to become to be a scientist like me. What a proud dad he must be. Hearing that gives me hope and faith in the fathers and mothers and the children who will walk in our shoes.
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
For those of you that are wondering what I have in plans right now (other than getting things set up in the home) is to test two different antennas, one being a cone style and the other being a ball on the end of the antennas (like your car antenna) to see if I can negate some of the coronal discharges from the points of the antennas that it had to see to fry itself into a match. I've vowed it will not happen again at greater power.
Don't ask what levels I got, all I'll say they were out of the noise and error IMHO. We will revisit it all again when I get set up. I'll post all the data I get for everyone to see. Yes, rfmwguy I'll post some pics.
Everyone have a great Sunday. I'm back to rebuilding a waveguide that wasn't as good as it needed to be the first time and may have caused my antennas to matchstick.
Shell
PS: Dad, you tell your daughter that you're proud of her, as am I.
-
#437 by Rodal on 20 Dec, 2015 21:50
-
Whatever comes of this em-drive business, whatever that means, I am fascinated as well. In fact, because of the em drive I am now getting interested in physics. I've always loved computer science, but thanks to everybody here I am now deeply interested in physics. Its definitely not a boring subject, nor is it confusing. It just seems that way at first.
Rodal should be a professor and teach his stuff if he hasn't in the past or doesn't currently. And Shell is a great engineer, also very inspirational. rfmwguy sticks his neck out there and gets to business, so we can all benefit. Nice job guys and keep up the good work.
Thank you !
The number of "likes" ratio given to your number of posts (an outstanding ratio of 2 likes given to you for every single one of your posts) shows how much everybody likes your posts and how glad we are that you spend some of your valuable time in these threads ! -
#438 by rq3 on 20 Dec, 2015 22:04
-
Whatever comes of this em-drive business, whatever that means, I am fascinated as well. In fact, because of the em drive I am now getting interested in physics. I've always loved computer science, but thanks to everybody here I am now deeply interested in physics. Its definitely not a boring subject, nor is it confusing. It just seems that way at first.
Thanks.
Rodal should be a professor and teach his stuff if he hasn't in the past or doesn't currently. And Shell is a great engineer, also very inspirational. rfmwguy sticks his neck out there and gets to business, so we can all benefit. Nice job guys and keep up the good work.
You all are simply incredible! I'm not throwing that word out here lightly and this even goes for the ones who are just tuning in to see this unfold, I urge you all to please stay tuned.
I'm reminded every day now of the father who said he had a daughter and she said she wanted to grow up to become to be a scientist like me. What a proud dad he must be. Hearing that gives me hope and faith in the fathers and mothers and the children who will walk in our shoes.
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
For those of you that are wondering what I have in plans right now (other than getting things set up in the home) is to test two different antennas, one being a cone style and the other being a ball on the end of the antennas (like your car antenna) to see if I can negate some of the coronal discharges from the points of the antennas that it had to see to fry itself into a match. I've vowed it will not happen again at greater power.
Don't ask what levels I got, all I'll say they were out of the noise and error IMHO. We will revisit it all again when I get set up. I'll post all the data I get for everyone to see. Yes, rfmwguy I'll post some pics.
Everyone have a great Sunday. I'm back to rebuilding a waveguide that wasn't as good as it needed to be the first time and may have caused my antennas to matchstick.
Shell
PS: Dad, you tell your daughter that you're proud of her, as am I.
DATA, we need DATA! You go girl!!! -
#439 by ThereIWas3 on 20 Dec, 2015 22:08
-
I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others.
W00t! Be advised, there is a Santa Claus. Careful construction techniques pay off. Now we need enough data points to try to figure out why it works. This might actually be harder than building the things. I think all of the theories so far have been guesses, some better than others.
For those of us doing math simulations, some more dimensions would help. Such as exactly where on the frustrum your feedlines attach (distance from the small end), what the nature of the connection is (a little antenna inside the frustrum? What shape?) Do you think modelling of the feedlines themselves is necessary, or just their terminations? Exactly what sort of coax are you using, and how long? From the pictures I saw before, magnetron some feet away, the feedlines are going to be about 8 wavelengths long.
