-
#1940 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 05:59
-
Good luck with the tests. Please provide the gross MOI of the test apparatus and please show more than one revolution in the video.
Plan is to continually accelerate, over many minutes, the battery powered and cord free rotary table test rig from 0 rpm to around 120 rpm. -
#1941 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 06:05
-
Please provide some high resolution photos of your test settings along with the YouTube link so we can evaluate your experiment.
My future customers will do the evaluations. If the S band thrusters exceeds their expectations, hopefully they will place orders. -
#1942 by Gilbertdrive on 05 May, 2016 09:46
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Yes Zen-In, Dr. Yang is to be congratulated for being so honest. So is RFPlumber, a DIY builder who had the honesty and courage to report his null results. Also California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, Zeller, Kraft, Echols with their cylindrical cavity test. It takes courage because most people, naturally will be looking for positive results, (who isn't ?) and not for negative results. We all like to receive good news in the morning and not start with bad news, thus those that report negative results are more likely to meet indifference or worse, while those that report positive results will naturally meet with optimism. I also would like to start the morning and see that the EM Drive is a reality and that we can now all go to the Moon and Europa as easy as it looked in 2001 A Space Oddysey.
But imagine what technology would be like if only positive results would be reported and negative would be silenced? We would all be lost, as generations of well-motivated people would be condemned to waste their lives investigating bad roads instead of new unexplored roads.
We would waste time still trying to Squaring the circle...
Fortunatly, Mathematicians are used to consider that the nullification of an hypothesis, or even to proove that is is undecidable is a good result to publish. So a submitted article nullifying an hypothesis, or prooving that it is undecidable has no particular difficulties to be accepted for publication.
At the opposite, in other domains, there is a big publication bias, for example in biological research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
There is, anyway, a difference between the nullification of a mathematic hypothesis, and the nullification of an experiment. When somebody demonstrate that squaring the circle is impossible, it is.
If I describe, for example, how to do a plane, and that you build one, and see it does not fly, even if I gave you much details, it is not a totally definitive proof that my plane does not work. I may have forgotten an important parameter. Maybe the fuel that you can buy in your country has the same name but has a different composition, there are so many uncontrolled parameters, that the nullification is not absolute. But it is still necessary to publish the null result, and very useful, because it can later help to find the right parameters, and help to do not waste time of other people, doing again and again the same setup.
That is also why I strongly approve Dr Rodal and Shell suggestion to make many tests with the same configuration. Since a setup is build, making many more tests it not very much pain compared to the time and money used to build the setup.
Also, since we are not sure that the effect is real, and if it is real, we are not sure of what parameters are important for this effect, multiplying the test could help to find these parameters.
For example, earlier in this thread, some mentioned that the attenuation of vibration would reduce the force, and the need to pass in “motor mode” was also evoqued.
I would suggest to make each experiment directed east, west, north and south, and to make theses four experiences several time at different hours in the day. Of course, the orientation, the hour, and the position should be noted.
If the anomalous force was due to a mode of interaction with other masses, this interaction may change in function of the relative speeds of the drive with other masses. So, the force may be different if it is in the direction of the rotation of the earth, or at the opposite. The force may be different if it is directed in the sense of the earth turning around the sund, or at the opposite. The force also may be different if the drive is located in the north pole, or on the equator.
I do not affirm that there parameters are necessarily important, but since we do not have a unique theory to explain anomalous force, we need to get the most precise, accurate, and numerous data that we can. It is even possible that a setup that gives a force somewhere, gives a null result elsewhere on the earth.
Tycho Brahe used an incorrect theory of the solar system, but he makes so many, and so accurate measures, that Copernicus could make a better model using his data.
If we had precise data for each Shawyer build, with all the specifications of each build, and many different measures for the same setup, it would help our understanding.
So… waiting with impatience for Seeshell data
-
#1943 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 13:02
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
-
#1944 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 13:25
-
In yesterday's post you claimed:The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?...
Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process.
My next post here will be with the YouTube link and company contact details.
Contrary to what you stated, I do not see the YouTube link showing your test you had said you were going to post on your next post, not even any photographs, but instead a picture of MIT alumni Nobel Prize winner Prof. Feynman (who had absolutely nothing to do with your EM Drive claims or Shawyer's EM Drive claims), and more stuff about "choosing to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models" instead of "physical evidence".
The most recent physical evidence is by Prof. Yang in a peer-reviewed journal, where, when using batteries and a torsional pendulum she nullifies her previous results and concludes 0 +/-0.7 mN force measurement.
Concerning physical data, in decades of promoting his EM Drive device, Shawyer has never reported a single experiment:
1) conducted in partial vacuum. Spacecraft fly in partial vacuum instead of the ambient pressure, prone to thermal convection artifacts as in Shawyer's experiments. This has been known since the 19th century regarding experimental measurement of thermal radiation, as they need to be conducted in a partial vacuum to eliminate thermal convection artifacts.
2) conducted with batteries. Spacecraft cannot have a power cord connecting to a power supply on Earth, which are prone to Lorentz force and thermal expansion artifacts.
3) conducted in torsional pendulum, which is the instrument of choice in over 50 years of micro-thrust experiments for Aerospace micro-thrusters
Prof. Yang's experiments constitute not only a nullification of her previous tests (as she recognizes in her report) but most importantly a nullification of her theoretical analysis and of Shawyer's theoretical analysis.
-
#1945 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 13:33
-
In yesterday's post you claimed:The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?...
Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process.
My next post here will be with the YouTube link and company contact details.
Contrary to what you stated, I see no YouTube link showing your test, not even any photographs, but instead a picture of MIT alumni Nobel Prize winner Prof. Feynman (who had absolutely nothing to do with your EM Drive claims or Shawyer's EM Drive claims)
Suggest you read what Feynman said about experimental data trumping theory.
From your 1st post on this forum, you were wrong in your theoretical based assumptions. A dozen experimenters have shown the "Shawyer Effect" is real. Why you persist in trying to prove experimental data is not correct and yet have never conducted your own experimental experiment program (as far as we know) is beyond my understanding.
Math is only an approximation, based on what we have seen of the real world. To believe it actually defines the real world and trumps experimental data is folly.
While I was not privy to be at the last Prof Yang experiment, I can easily ask multiple questions of what was reported, based on what I know of the "Shawyer Effect" from hands on experimental experience and how that real world experience does not align with what is reported in the report.
Anyway I have no wish to engage you in debate as my real world experimental data does not align with your theoretical classical math assumption based models. So our discussion is at an end as we have no points of reference to discuss.
While I will try to answer reasonable questions, I have no time nor desire to engage "it Can't Work" because my theory says so debates as they are simple not correct. The "Shawyer Effect" does work and that is physical experimentally verified fact. -
#1946 by Gilbertdrive on 05 May, 2016 13:46
-
Dear Traveller.
I think that is is because we are actually open to new physics and new models that we would like getting as much data as possible from your experiments.
I approve the Feynman citation. The experiments are the key. Even if we have no theory filling with it, we need to take them into account. But nobody told the opposite here. We only see people that try to analyse the experiments, to understand what is happening. So the Feynman citation was not needed here.
That is also why the detailed results on your own build would help us more.
I have read during many monthes your interventions, with great interest, and you shared much Shawyer work. But I am hungry (and it seems that I am not the only one) about detailed data results from your own experiments. A simple photo of the build would already help us.
Supposing that the Shawyer experiments are showing a real anomalous force, since Pr. Yang could not correctly reproduce it, it means, at least, that Shawyer explanations and directives are not enough to reproduce the force.
Maybe there are some parameters that are evident for Shawyer and for you, but not for Pr Yang, or for others working here, and a photo may already help to find these parameters.
So I am sure that all data that you can give us would be very usefull.
Also, as Dr. Rodal has noticed several times, the Pr Yang nullification shows that, at least, emdrive tests need to be conducted with power included (batteries) and a torsional pendulum. If the result is still positive with these two important parameters, then, a partial vacuum test would be great. -
#1947 by Tellmeagain on 05 May, 2016 13:51
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results. -
#1948 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 13:58
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results.
Ok giving away a few specs here. Expected reaction force generation at 100Wrf is 100mN or 1N/kW.
As I said the S band thruster will be tested on a mag thrust bearing based rotary test rig operating, in high vac, and will accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm, over many minutes. If you can show my clients how this can occur from Lorentz forces please do so. -
#1949 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 14:03
-
Dear Traveller.
I think that is is because we are actually open to new physics and new models that we would like getting as much data as possible from your experiments.
I approve the Feynman citation. The experiments are the key. Even if we have no theory filling with it, we need to take them into account. But nobody told the opposite here. We only see people that try to analyse the experiments, to understand what is happening. So the Feynman citation was not needed here.
That is also why the detailed results on your own build would help us more.
I have read during many monthes your interventions, with great interest, and you shared much Shawyer work. But I am hungry (and it seems that I am not the only one) about detailed data results from your own experiments. A simple photo of the build would already help us.
Supposing that the Shawyer experiments are showing a real anomalous force, since Pr. Yang could not correctly reproduce it, it means, at least, that Shawyer explanations and directives are not enough to reproduce the force.
Maybe there are some parameters that are evident for Shawyer and for you, but not for Pr Yang, or for others working here, and a photo may already help to find these parameters.
So I am sure that all data that you can give us would be very usefull.
Also, as Dr. Rodal has noticed several times, the Pr Yang nullification shows that, at least, emdrive tests need to be conducted with power included (batteries) and a torsional pendulum. If the result is still positive with these two important parameters, then, a partial vacuum test would be great.
Existing 8mN force measurement used a scale, as Roger did with his 1st Experimental EmDrive. He achieved 3x more force I did but used a maggie with a 8x more power. So I'm happy with my initial data.
Next build is designed to drive a rotary test rig, designed to be fully battery powered and accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm over many minutes on constant angular acceleration.
Fairly hard to call foul. -
#1950 by Gilbertdrive on 05 May, 2016 14:03
-
Ok giving away a few specs here. Expected reaction force generation at 100Wrf is 100mN or 1N/kW.
As I said the S band thruster will be tested on a mag thrust bearing based rotary test rig operating, in high vac, and will accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm, over many minutes. If you can show my clients how this can occur from Lorentz forces please do so.
At least, I think that most of us will love this setup, because of self contained and high vacuum
-
#1951 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 14:06
-
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results.
8mN from Lorentz forces? I think not, especially at the reaction force followed a 180 deg frustum rotation from small end down to small end up to small end down.
This was reported before so not new news. -
#1952 by Tellmeagain on 05 May, 2016 14:14
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results.
Ok giving away a few specs here. Expected reaction force generation at 100Wrf is 100mN or 1N/kW.
As I said the S band thruster will be tested on a mag thrust bearing based rotary test rig operating, in high vac, and will accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm, over many minutes. If you can show my clients how this can occur from Lorentz forces please do so.
The Traveller, if I am not getting it wrong, these (1N/kW and 120 rpm) are your speculations. I was talking about the 8mN you got. From Yang's 2016 paper, heat expansion of wires generated 8~10mN in her latest experiment. -
#1953 by TheTraveller on 05 May, 2016 14:18
-
The Traveller, I have no doubt that your customers will evaluate your build, but I think it would be very helpfull for the DIYers and the theoricians following this thread that you give us photos, and all the data collected.
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results.
Ok giving away a few specs here. Expected reaction force generation at 100Wrf is 100mN or 1N/kW.
As I said the S band thruster will be tested on a mag thrust bearing based rotary test rig operating, in high vac, and will accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm, over many minutes. If you can show my clients how this can occur from Lorentz forces please do so.
The Traveller, if I am not getting it wrong, these (1N/kW and 120 rpm) are your speculations. I am talking about the 8mN you got. From Yang's lesson, heat expansion of wires generated 8~10mN in her 2016 experiment.
Don't see where they rotated the frustum 180 deg, many times, and got the same reaction force generated regardless of orientation. Lorentz force doesn't work like that.
If you read my report, I oriented the power amp to frustum cable at the 4 points of the compass and at 4 different physical locations and at 180 deg frustum rotations. No significant change in measured reaction force of ~8mN.
Anyway the rotary table will stop all the doubt. -
#1954 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 14:19
-
Concerning your quotation of commercial prices at NSF EM Drive thread:
Ok giving away a few specs here. Expected reaction force generation at 100Wrf is 100mN or 1N/kW.
As I said the S band thruster will be tested on a mag thrust bearing based rotary test rig operating, in high vac, and will accelerate from 0 rpm to over 120 rpm, over many minutes. If you can show my clients how this can occur from Lorentz forces please do so.
At least, I think that most of us will love this setup, because of self contained and high vacuum
Yes I agree, as will my clients, several of which have indicated a desire to fly it in space. Of course an S band thruster would be a BIG CubeSat but not undoable.
While not wishing to upset anti commercial posting folks on NSF, the 1N/kW S Band thruster will start at around $50k for a 0.1N space rated thruster and ramp upward for a 1N space rated thruster, as I'm sure enquiring minds would wish to know.
My recollection (others can please help me with my memory?) is that in your previous posts at NSF EM Drive thread you had promised that you were going to send, free of charge, your EM Drive cavities and other stuff to DIY builders, explicitly to SeeShells and to rfmwguy, among others, for them to test independently on their testing instruments. If my memory is correct you had also expressed at NSF EM Drive thread your intention to send them to NASA Eagleworks to test your designed EM Drive at NASA.
Are you still going to be sending them (or have you already sent them ?) your EM Drive free of charge as you had promised, for them to test independently or have you rescinded that offer? -
#1955 by Tellmeagain on 05 May, 2016 14:23
-
TheTraveller, the reason why I ask for high resolution photos of your test setting is because I suspect your thrust was caused by Lorentz force(from my experience), heat expansion of wires(Yang's lesson), or EMI to the digital scale(from several DIYers's experience). Without photos we do not know what happened. This is not about the argument about modeling or experimenting. Your customers may not have the necessary knowledge to evaluate your results.
8mN from Lorentz forces? I think not, especially at the reaction force followed a 180 deg frustum rotation from small end down to small end up to small end down.
This was reported before so not new news.
I do not quite understand why you can not post photos. If you have some kind of trade secret you do not want to share, that's fine. You can just mosaic the frustum on your high resolution photos before you post them. The test setup does not have trade secrets, I suppose. -
#1956 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 14:36
-
Concerning your public statements in the NSF EM Drive forum regarding "Mike McCulloch in personal email predicted" I have requested a response from Dr. McCulloch.My next build is in progress.
What were the results with your previous build?
~8mN, unloaded Q ~16,000, forward Rf power ~95W.
BTW Mike McCulloch in personal email predicted 2.8mN,
Shawyer's equation predicted 6.7mN,
I measured 8mN.
My direct measurement of unloaded Q was probably a bit low. Note I did say direct measurement of unloaded Q, which does not involve measuring -3dB bandwidth. Doing direct unloaded Q measurement eliminates the issue surrounding how to measure loaded Q using various bandwidth methods.
Simple to calculated unloaded Q by determining the 1 TC cavity fill time and from that determine the cavity unloaded Q.
Other than Mike's calculation none of the above is new information.
Dr. McCulloch has been kind enough to address your statement in here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-emdrive-result-unmissing-planck.html
Dr. McCulloch's answer is also of interest because it gives the actual EM Drive internal dimensions and other parameters used for the calculation:Quote from: McCulloch1st build loaded Q 8,000, unloaded Q 16,000, small diameter 159mm, big diameter 259mm, length 288mm, forward power 95W, res freq 2.405GHz, flat end plates, mode TE013 and it showed a thrust of 8 mN
-
#1957 by Gilbertdrive on 05 May, 2016 16:06
-
These dimensions and parameters were already in the image EMDriveMark3-8.jpg uploaded by the Traveller.
I find sad that he does not share his build, but will only demonstrate it as a black box. That will not help much emdrive research. -
#1958 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 16:18
-
These dimensions and parameters were already in the image EMDriveMark3-8.jpg uploaded by the Traveller.
Is it this image?:
I find sad that he does not share his build, but will only demonstrate it as a black box. That will not help much emdrive research.
some parameters do not agree:
IMAGE parameter used in McCulloch's calculation
Qu=86,200 unloaded Q 16,000
398 mN/kW 8 mN/0.095kW = 84 mN/kW
small diameter 159mm small diameter 159mm
big diameter 259mm big diameter 259mm
length 288mm length 288mm
freq 2.405GHz freq 2.405GHz
Perhaps the Qu in the figure is calculated with his spreadsheet and the 16,000 is calculated from some experimental values
Concerning the 398 mN/kW, I presume (?) that it was a calculation based Shawyer's equation using Qu=86,200, which is 5.3875 times greater than Q= 16,000. Scaling the calculated value of 398 mN/kW by the actual Q= 16,000 divided by the assumed Qu=86,200 gives
398 mN/kW*(16,000/86,200) = 73.87 mN/kW which is 88% of 84 mN/kW
TT writes "Shawyer's equation predicted 6.7mN" which when divided by 0.095kW gives:
6.7 mN/0.095kW = 70.53 mN/kW which is 95% of the aforementioned 73.87 mN/kW -
#1959 by zen-in on 05 May, 2016 16:22
-
...
Have shared all of Roger's breadcrumbs, which lead the true path.
If you decide to follow advice of those who never build but math models based on old classical assumptions, well you will never achieve what the math models fail to be able to describe.
Why many here and elsewhere chose to believe classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models trump real physical evidence is beyond me?
I have read several physics books written by Feynman and found his use of math to describe physical phenomena to be very clear and concise. In many cases he starts with some experiment and shows how the results follow accepted physics and can be modeled very closely with mathematics. It is because of this method of reasoning that NASA is able to accurately send probes to distant planets and to safely send astronauts into orbit. If what you call "classical & historical based observation assumption derived math models" were not used and only brute force experimentation used there would be a lot of dead astronauts and ruined cities from poorly designed rockets.
Feynman had an interest in fringe science and sometimes visited private labs where unusual physics was claimed. These researchers were not afraid of showing their experiments to Feynman and facing possible ridicule later. I don't believe there were any who claimed to have accomplished some unusual feat and who contacted Feynman but would not let him see their work. While I never met Richard Feynman and could never speak for him if I were in his shoes in such a situation I would just conclude the experimenter had nothing to show.
