-
#580
by
SteveD
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:45
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. Tuning screw in small end -- nothing. Tuning device in small end -- movement towards big end. Ends secured with loose clips -- nothing.
My working theory has been that very small forces are pernicious and end up working the tuning screw / clips off instead of driving the device forward. Seeing the direction of thrust reverse, similar to what seems to be reported for using a dielectric, makes me wonder about that. (Is your inside small base electrically conductive to the rest of the frustum? I know you have some form of seal on the inside so the thing isn't floating, but can this pass a current?)
Whatever the reason, I think you may have nulled the main force. Instead, you are seeing an opposite or retarding force against the large baseplate. Given the dimensions of the frustum (big base approximately equals length)this might be 1/4 of the force on the small base. Then again that NASA model somebody posted the other day showed much stronger fields on the small base than on the large one.
What I think this is showing is that the rf forces in the frustum are balanced. There's however a second force that is reacting to those rf forces on some kind of EM field strength per cm^2 of area basis. Fields are weaker at the large end, so more of that force is being produced at the small end. Null the smal; end and it moves towards the bigger end, though with less force. (Which makes me wonder how strong a none null main force would be).
At least that's where the observed data seems to be taking me.
-
#581
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:51
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. ...
That is not correct. NASA's EM Drive tests (with a dielectric insert at the small end) have the EM Drive moving towards the small end direction, the opposite of what you state above.
-
#582
by
X_RaY
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:55
-
...
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
On the contrary, dogma is associated with religion, politics, law, legislation, sociology, etc., and not with mathematical physics.
What are called "laws" in Physics are not dogmatic laws, they are mathematical statements that are derived mathematically under well defined assumptions (*). They are not concepts that people learn dogmatically (they are not like laws that a lawyer has to learn as dogmatically passed by a Legislature).
Skepticism is better directed at EM Drive assertions contradicted by experimental evidence (such as those by Shawyer) than at consistent physical concepts like conservation of momentum and conservation of energy that are so far supported by all the experimental evidence and that have been successful at bringing humanity into the Space Age.
Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting (because he says so) inconsistent, obviously wrong statements that are contradicted by experimental evidence, like "a frustum of a cone cavity excited by a spherical wave experiences no radiation pressure on the lateral surfaces of the frustum", or that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide", or that "the EM Drive experiences self-acceleration due to electromagnetism as explained by Classical Physics (Maxwell's laws and SR) and such self-acceleration is consistent with conservation of momentum and Newton's laws."
______
(*) Of course, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (i.e., any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths. Also, Newtonian physics was modified by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to extend to the very large and the very small dimensions, but the consistency of Newtonian Physics for its range of validity remains unadultered and used to this date.
... "Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting ... that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide"." the picture that comes to mind for me, is that many of the pictures of Shaweyer's frustum design of includes a cylindrical tuning cavity at the small end and that the cutoff should be just above resonance associated with the small end... Since his frustum ends in a cylindrical cavity, it would seem that cutoff frequencies derived from a cylindrical cavity should apply?..
No it doesn't apply.
First of all only a few of Shawyer's EM Drive's end with a cylindrical cavity (mainly the Demonstrator). Many of them do not, most importantly Shawyer's later designs, yet he continues to insist on quoting open waveguide cut-off frequency formulas.
Shawyer's prescription is that a conical EM Drive should not be continued too close to the apex of the cone, and it should be terminated into a frustum of a cone that does not depart too much from a cylindrical shape (based on the cut-off condition for an open waveguide with the same diameter as the small end), because according to him, doing otherwise will result in poor resonance.
This is indeed a dogmatic prescription, it is not backed by analysis, and it is not backed by any published experimentation (*). He quotes equations for open waveguides that are known NOT to apply to closed cavities. I wrote a paper (discussed in previous threads) showing that this concept of open waveguide cut-off frequency equations does not apply to closed cavities (something known since some time ago, as I refer to in my paper). Furthermore the EM Drive analysis of Shawyer's Demonstrator by Frank Davis at NASA shows this to be the case.
It is dogmatic prescriptions such as this cut-off frequency prescription that have limited experimentation: as EM Drive experimenters (NASA, RFMWGUY, etc.) have followed this dogmatic prescription for their tested geometry, limiting how close to the apex of the cone does the frustum get. RFMWGUY has departed from this dogmatic prescription as of late, as he is testing a tuba with a geometry that does not follow Shawyer's prescription.
________
(*) One would have hoped that he would have described an experiment backing his assertion, but there is no such experiment available.
Fully agree!
-
#583
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:03
-
Dr. Rodal said it best, this is a deliberate attempt to test for anomalous thrust forces that are beyond the forces produced by thermal effects. It should not be assumed that the thermal effects will scale linearly with input power. The goal will be to get an anomalous force that you can confidentially measure that, when subtracting thermal effects, has a value above our measurement device significant figures. Even the thermal effects on the larger scale will be easier to measure (if we just fill the frustrum with hot air at temp) we can get a better null value. We will be using a magnetron set up that is available and set up right now, granted for other applications.
Shawyer and NASA have talked 10N/kW, data is showing 0.006N/kW to 0.330N/kW. Right now at 1kW you are looking for 0.006N and 0.330N. Even if you model Navier Stokes equations of fluid dynamics governing thermal natural convection I just don't see being able to effectively measure the forces involved to get a definitive experiment.
If we fire 100kW into a unit with a Q of >1 *10^5 and it all goes to heat and we see no thrust apart from buoyant effects than I think we have some real data to show a) either we are in the wrong "mode" or b) some data pointing to experimenters seeing thermal forces. If we see anomalous thrust in the 33N-1000N (!!); maybe even 1N (6mN/kW) in the downward direction than I think we will know that there is something actually happening.
If it all goes to heat than a) there is no EM-Drive/Q-Thruster effect or b) the "magnetohydrodynamic fluidization of the quantum vacuum" is not happening at our mode and at our dimensions. I think that is a real learning too. At the very least talk of Jupiter thrust shots and flying cars at 10N/kW would be shown to be premature. If it works, well, wouldn't that be fun?
NOTE - I am trying to get permission to show the HFSS results E field picture.
An update on our 100kW test project. Model using HFSS using eigenmode solver, TE013 mode 914.85MHz Q=133526. Loop coupled design for ease of build, cost and stress concerns.
As we are planning to use a high power coax line and are designing as a pressure vessel, one recommendation is to use copper cladded stainless steel... does anyone see any objections to the use of this material so long as we clad the internals with copper? This would help us with vessel integrity and cooling; while I do think we will achieve resonance is there any EM-Drive Q thruster theories that say not to do this (i.e. impacting the quantum vacuum??).
It is noteworthy to remark that this is the ONLY test by anyone (as far as I know) where there is a deliberate attempt to test for anomalous thrust forces that are way beyond the forces produced by thermal effects.
Assuming the frustum is resonating with 100KW input, won't we see 100KW of heat generated by the furstum? If we see 100W heat only, we can only assume that 99.9% power are reflected back and this test is no better than a 100W test.
Please be
safe
in your quest to follow Dr. Goddard's experimentation method of
demonstrating forces with actual spaceflight abilities instead of measuring tiny forces that are in the range of thermal convection effects (forces so small that as we discussed before are even in the questionable range to justify a low Earth orbit test, due to atmospheric drag).
Just like the chemical rockets of Dr. Goddard could have led to loss of life, so does the huge power involved in your experiments.
-
#584
by
rfmwguy
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:08
-
Not me Doc, the tuba (baritone) simply showed me that brass has a great resonance and return loss (30+dB) albeit too low in frequency for me to use. Sooo...I am contracting a brassmith to build a frustum cone of identical dimensions to NSF-1701. No compound curves...no bell shape, although it might be cool to play around with it some day. Wackiness is not afoot...yet
-
#585
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:17
-
Not me Doc, the tuba (baritone) simply showed me that brass has a great resonance and return loss (30+dB) albeit too low in frequency for me to use. Sooo...I am contracting a brassmith to build a frustum cone of identical dimensions to NSF-1701. No compound curves...no bell shape, although it might be cool to play around with it some day. Wackiness is not afoot...yet
You showed experimentally that there was resonance with your tuba cavity at a frequency below the open-waveguide-cut-off prescription for the small end of the tuba.
My understanding of <<too low in frequency for me to use>>, that is for the reason that you are not exploring this further experimentally for a measurable force, is because the resonance frequency does not match your 2.45 GHz magnetron, is that correct?
-
#586
by
SteveD
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:18
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. ...
That is not correct. NASA's EM Drive tests (with a dielectric insert at the small end) have the EM Drive moving towards the small end direction, the opposite of what you state above.
Ok trying to think this out. Dave had the magnetron center of the big base and on top. He reported a possible downward movement. Lets call this down with big base on top. That diagram says force to the left (small base) if the big base were on top, it seems to state that the frustum would move up, contra the direction of thrust. So up with big base on top.
-
#587
by
Notsosureofit
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:19
-
Not me Doc, the tuba (baritone) simply showed me that brass has a great resonance and return loss (30+dB) albeit too low in frequency for me to use. Sooo...I am contracting a brassmith to build a frustum cone of identical dimensions to NSF-1701. No compound curves...no bell shape, although it might be cool to play around with it some day. Wackiness is not afoot...yet
The "optimum" shape for the "Hypothesis" should be something like a paraballoid section (linear dispersion curve).
(just off the top of the head)
-
#588
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:23
-
-
#589
by
X_RaY
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:23
-
Not me Doc, the tuba (baritone) simply showed me that brass has a great resonance and return loss (30+dB) albeit too low in frequency for me to use. Sooo...I am contracting a brassmith to build a frustum cone of identical dimensions to NSF-1701. No compound curves...no bell shape, although it might be cool to play around with it some day. Wackiness is not afoot...yet
If you shorten the end with the large diameter of this instrument, the resonances will shift to higher frequencies.
-
#590
by
CraigPichach
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:23
-
Roger that, we are doing this with an industrial magnetron manufacturer and ensure this is done in a Faraday cage with all the electronics far from the wave guide launcher and a water load to absorb any downstream reflected energy before it gets back to the magnetron and causes permanent damage.
When we have an experimental design we will also do a HAZOP prior to experimentation.
On the mechanical side the frustrum with be designed as an ASME pressure vessel in Compress c/w a PSV and immersed in cooling fluid (water). The first test we envision is firing this unit down into a scale. If it scale reads 10kg+ more weight well... wouldn't that be a finding.
Of course the problem is what way would it thrust since test results have shown both directions we will probably have a weight on top at first to ensure it couldn't "take off". If anyone thinks that this will perturb the quantum vacuum with negative consequences that would be nice to know but right now we think we are safe on that front.
[/quote]
Please be
safe in your quest to follow Dr. Goddard's experimentation method of
demonstrating forces with actual spaceflight abilities instead of measuring tiny forces that are in the range of thermal convection effects (forces so small that as we discussed before are even in the questionable range to justify a low Earth orbit test, due to atmospheric drag).
Just like the chemical rockets of Dr. Goddard could have led to loss of life, so does the huge power involved in your experiments.
[/quote]
-
#591
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:25
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. ...
That is not correct. NASA's EM Drive tests (with a dielectric insert at the small end) have the EM Drive moving towards the small end direction, the opposite of what you state above.
Ok trying to think this out. Dave had the magnetron center of the big base and on top. He reported a possible downward movement. Lets call this down with big base on top. That diagram says force to the left (small base) if the big base were on top, it seems to state that the frustum would move up, contra the direction of thrust. So up with big base on top.
No, on the contrary. For NASA Eagleworks tests, their experimental results show that the measured force is in the same direction as the direction of movement, towards the small end. This was discussed multiple times with Paul March.
You push on a horizontal torque pendulum with a force F, you get an acceleration, velocity and displacement
in the same direction as the direction of your applied force F (resultant normal to the force arm) .
-
#592
by
Notsosureofit
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:38
-
-
#593
by
rfmwguy
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:06
-
Not me Doc, the tuba (baritone) simply showed me that brass has a great resonance and return loss (30+dB) albeit too low in frequency for me to use. Sooo...I am contracting a brassmith to build a frustum cone of identical dimensions to NSF-1701. No compound curves...no bell shape, although it might be cool to play around with it some day. Wackiness is not afoot...yet
If you shorten the end with the large diameter of this instrument, the resonances will shift to higher frequencies.
I tried this and you are correct, it shifts higher, but at a terrible sacrifice of return loss...took it to about 10dB. My little experiment was simply to see if brass material behaved itself around RF and whether I could obtain a nice RL...mission accomplished...going w/unfinished brass.
I'll test for resonance, brassmith will make adjustments afterwards based on what I need. Then another RL test. Then polish it up...then perhaps silver plate. I live near Conn-Selmer instruments and lots of folks around here who can make brass sparkle with a variety of plating.
I figure, if NSF-1701A flops, I'll make it into a Tuba and serenade Doc.
-
#594
by
SeeShells
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:12
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. Tuning screw in small end -- nothing. Tuning device in small end -- movement towards big end. Ends secured with loose clips -- nothing.
My working theory has been that very small forces are pernicious and end up working the tuning screw / clips off instead of driving the device forward. Seeing the direction of thrust reverse, similar to what seems to be reported for using a dielectric, makes me wonder about that. (Is your inside small base electrically conductive to the rest of the frustum? I know you have some form of seal on the inside so the thing isn't floating, but can this pass a current?)
Whatever the reason, I think you may have nulled the main force. Instead, you are seeing an opposite or retarding force against the large baseplate. Given the dimensions of the frustum (big base approximately equals length)this might be 1/4 of the force on the small base. Then again that NASA model somebody posted the other day showed much stronger fields on the small base than on the large one.
What I think this is showing is that the rf forces in the frustum are balanced. There's however a second force that is reacting to those rf forces on some kind of EM field strength per cm^2 of area basis. Fields are weaker at the large end, so more of that force is being produced at the small end. Null the smal; end and it moves towards the bigger end, though with less force. (Which makes me wonder how strong a none null main force would be).
At least that's where the observed data seems to be taking me.
To answer your question in as few words to eliminate error. This is what was seen.
Shell
Added: the reason it is with the micrometer big up point up is it's easier to get to turn instead of up and down from the floor, getting older you know.
One more thing, yes it's all electrically connected endplates to sidewalls.
-
#595
by
rfcavity
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:15
-
The equations you are using for that kind of design are approximations and won't work when utilized outside of the assumptions that made the approximations possible. These days we use more complete set of equations that are complicated, but computers are up to the task. In a way it's vile how close the current stuff comes to actual on board components inside an enclosure when only a decade ago agonizing over Smith charts was still useful.
Anyway there seems to be a large misconception about how graduate school works and the advisor student relationship. I've never seen it so follow the leader as you often insinuate here.
You've made my point, Anatol I. Zverev's math failed when matched up against the real world senarios. Technicians and production engineers added tweaks to these base formulae and practical software emerged. Thanks for helping me make my point. Math is a beginning, not an end.
I've not insinuated nor commented on a PhD advisor before. It was simply what I would tell a student. Do something different, take a risk, push the envelope, etc.,
Surely you're not making the case that Risk Aversion is not a serious problem in the workplace, are you? If you are, check out hbr: https://hbr.org/2009/01/trapped-in-a-riskaverse-workpl/ plus many other articles. Been there, lived that.
No, we don't use Zverev. We use more math, not less, and nobody tweaks anything. If you have to tweak, you're dead. You can't make money. It has to come out of the math working, or else. Because it is possible, and if you don't do it, someone else will.
Everything is so incredibly integrated now all physics for any design must be considered. Multi-physics now rule, because you can't over engineer bandwidth to take care of temperature variation, there just isn't enough space/cost overhead. On top of that parts of the circuit are captured through different ways, like getting inductance from flex pcb, etching things directly to the inside of packages, etc. There is no room to fit TO-8s into cellphones, come on.
People in the industry still use those shake n bake books, but that's for supporting legacy military systems where there is no pressure to reduce size and cost at all.
As for risk aversion, nobody is risk averse in university labs. There are no resources to risk. You don't get paid well at all, the people that do it are there just to do that kind of thing. They like it. And there is no agreed upon dogma. Students argue with their advisor over things more often than married couples who are heading towards divorce.
-
#596
by
OnlyMe
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:17
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. Tuning screw in small end -- nothing. Tuning device in small end -- movement towards big end. Ends secured with loose clips -- nothing.
My working theory has been that very small forces are pernicious and end up working the tuning screw / clips off instead of driving the device forward. Seeing the direction of thrust reverse, similar to what seems to be reported for using a dielectric, makes me wonder about that. (Is your inside small base electrically conductive to the rest of the frustum? I know you have some form of seal on the inside so the thing isn't floating, but can this pass a current?)
Whatever the reason, I think you may have nulled the main force. Instead, you are seeing an opposite or retarding force against the large baseplate. Given the dimensions of the frustum (big base approximately equals length)this might be 1/4 of the force on the small base. Then again that NASA model somebody posted the other day showed much stronger fields on the small base than on the large one.
What I think this is showing is that the rf forces in the frustum are balanced. There's however a second force that is reacting to those rf forces on some kind of EM field strength per cm^2 of area basis. Fields are weaker at the large end, so more of that force is being produced at the small end. Null the smal; end and it moves towards the bigger end, though with less force. (Which makes me wonder how strong a none null main force would be).
At least that's where the observed data seems to be taking me.
To answer your question in as few words to eliminate error. This is what was seen.
Shell
Added: the reason it is with the micrometer big up point up is it's easier to get to turn instead of up and down from the floor, getting older you know.
I'm not sure that's the kind of picture rfmwguy was asking for but........
I was just thinking.., by pointing the small end down there is less risk of damaging your roof in the middle of winter.
-
#597
by
SeeShells
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:25
-
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist 
...
"Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
That may be the problem, right there: is that meant as a dogmatic assertion?. A non-dogmatic person would re-check the data for consistency and validity over and over again, and would learn mathematical physics to formulate consistent theories that are consistent with all experimental evidence.
A dogmatic person would stop all measurements after getting data that reinforces pre-held dogmatic opinions, instead of re-checking all data and theories for consistency.
My understanding is that Paul March, rather than stopping his experiments and declaring victory, has been consistently re-checking his experimental data, That's why the experiments in vacuum haven not been formally reported yet.
Test test test and retest it needs to become a mantra.
I saw something with "my first light" and I don't truly know what it was. It looked like a pressure and thrust but I will not know more until I test this device in multiple configurations. I will know, but right now all I have is a great starting point.
Shell
What you did shell, is what I did. You Observed something. Its what science begins with...an observation. You're fine. Now comes the tedious stuff which I could not do...I lost my space to my old car 
Next spring, it get all fired back up, by then, you'll have reams of data.
p.s. Now post some pics 
I have company over and just a quicky, catching up. I'm taking time off from moving cleaning building so when I get it cleaned up some I'll post a few images. But for now I'm taking a few well deserved days off.
-
#598
by
rfmwguy
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:31
-
(...)
At least that's where the observed data seems to be taking me.
To answer your question in as few words to eliminate error. This is what was seen.
Shell
Added: the reason it is with the micrometer big up point up is it's easier to get to turn instead of up and down from the floor, getting older you know.
We've had several hand-waving "no thrust" at both our observation phases. You were there. Trust your personal observations, then data record/rinse & repeat.
I find it interesting that despite injection point differences, the observations were the same...movement against lift towards the small end facing downwards. In your case, much higher thermal isolation of the signal source, and much less assumed thermal lift. Think you measured a cool frustum.
Translation: both your and my Observations were non-null and its time to roll up our sleeves and find out why.
Think you have a jump on me since you're already above me at 177 micros...I've still got some work to do.
-
#599
by
Rodal
on 22 Dec, 2015 19:35
-
Shell. Just saw your post on reddit. It strikes me that, while I'm not sure anyone is clear on the direction of movement in all these experiments, we seem to have a pattern emerging. Both plates solid, movement toward small end. Dielectric in small end, movement toward big end. Tuning screw in small end -- nothing. Tuning device in small end -- movement towards big end. Ends secured with loose clips -- nothing.
My working theory has been that very small forces are pernicious and end up working the tuning screw / clips off instead of driving the device forward. Seeing the direction of thrust reverse, similar to what seems to be reported for using a dielectric, makes me wonder about that. (Is your inside small base electrically conductive to the rest of the frustum? I know you have some form of seal on the inside so the thing isn't floating, but can this pass a current?)
Whatever the reason, I think you may have nulled the main force. Instead, you are seeing an opposite or retarding force against the large baseplate. Given the dimensions of the frustum (big base approximately equals length)this might be 1/4 of the force on the small base. Then again that NASA model somebody posted the other day showed much stronger fields on the small base than on the large one.
What I think this is showing is that the rf forces in the frustum are balanced. There's however a second force that is reacting to those rf forces on some kind of EM field strength per cm^2 of area basis. Fields are weaker at the large end, so more of that force is being produced at the small end. Null the smal; end and it moves towards the bigger end, though with less force. (Which makes me wonder how strong a none null main force would be).
At least that's where the observed data seems to be taking me.
To answer your question in as few words to eliminate error. This is what was seen.
Shell
Added: the reason it is with the micrometer big up point up is it's easier to get to turn instead of up and down from the floor, getting older you know.
One more thing, yes it's all electrically connected endplates to sidewalls.
Direction of force, displacement, velocity and acceleration for Shell's experiment (with NO dielectric insert), all directed towards the small end,
same as reported by NASA Eagleworks (with a dielectric at the small end).
___________
Note:
Shawyer's force direction for NASA's tests in this image is incorrect:
