-
#1960 by Gilbertdrive on 05 May, 2016 16:33
-
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 is a calculation based on 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 gives
73.87 mN/kW which is 88% of 84 mN/kW
Yes, it is the right image. My check was too quick.
I apologize. -
#1961 by SeeShells on 05 May, 2016 18:01
-
Rather than disregarding math models, Feynman's approach to physics was that math and experiments go together hand in hand. "Men et manus"
...
I don't have a lot of time to debate much as I'm deep in "elbow grease" building the next test stand. I'm building another simply because physics has fallen short explaining the why of thrust seen. You bet I'm using everything at my disposal from Maxwell, to Feynman to Einstein and all the greats to build and test, but like Paul March said "The anomaly remains".
So when theories and laws fail to explain a why, you still must use them to build a solid foundation for data that can be plugged into new theories and that's where I'm at. There is no bad data and when I'm done I hope to be able to provide great data. I know some are getting antsy at wanting something to happen but not until I can be assured the data I glean can be used for some of the existing dozen or so theories.
Back to the grind.
Shell -
#1962 by meberbs on 05 May, 2016 18:03
-
...
In closing, those here who preach Roger's advice & theory are not worth following, will never achieve 1mN of reaction force as they refuse to accept their understand of the physics behind the Shawyer Effect is not correct. They are wrong. Follow their advice and you will never see any mNs and their advice will be shown to be 100% correct.
You are asking people to use Shawyer's theory, but he claims that his theory is classical physics. When his theory is self-contradictory it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to use it. Since you have difficulty acknowledging the contradictions, and consistently change the topic when they are brought up, lets focus on experimental results:
You dismissed Yang's most recent experiment without providing any actual reasons for doing so. Others in these threads who criticize experiments actually point out potential flaws or suggest ways they could be improved. Please read the last few pages of this thread, and then post a response if you still doubt that Yang nullified the previous results.
I have a question about your experiment, I was going to wait until you did the experiment to attempt to measure the force on each surface to ask this, but it seems you have abandoned that experiment (which is reasonable, since that is an extraordinarily difficult experiment to perform, and would not be of much value at this point):
As I understand your experiment, the thruster was sitting on a scale, and you ran tests with both the small end pointed up, and pointed down. When the small end was pointed up, with the big end resting on the scale did the number on the scale increase or decrease when the power was turned on (if you tared the scale first, then was the number positive or negative)? Same for when the big end was on top? Also, what was the average magnitude of the change for each of these 2 conditions? This is very helpful and simple information for understanding the overall accuracy of the measurements. -
#1963 by rfmwguy on 05 May, 2016 18:06
-
(Mod note - Removing all posts about commerce and philosophy per guidelines - lets keep this topic focused on specific theory, tests and hardware. As a reminder, we have millions of views on this topic from around the planet. People come here for information and not debate. Keep it civil, friendly and informative) - Dave
-
#1964 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 18:30
-
...
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.
Rather than disregarding math models, Feynman's approach to physics was that math and experiments go together hand in hand. "Men et manus". This is what we learned at school. Both mind and hand: both math and experiment. This motto reflects the educational ideals of MIT's founders who were promoting, above all, education for practical application. "Mens et Manus" appears on the Institute's official seal, along with a scholar and a laborer who signify a union of knowledge and the mechanical arts
1) TheTraveller and Shawyer use classical solutions to Maxwell's equations to calculate resonant natural frequency and the mode shapes (TE013). They conduct experiments according to the classical theory that explains such resonant mode shapes. Therefore they don't deny such classical models for resonance of the frustum
2) Shawyer states that his EM Drive can be explained entirely on the basis of the physics of Newton and Maxwell. Rather than reject their theory, Shawyer states that is all you need: the classical mathematical theories of Newton and Maxwell.
3) Here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1526577#msg1526577 I show, that without assuming anything else :
a) there is a pressure on the side walls, due to the magnetic component parallel to the wall. Therefore Shawyer is wrong in claiming that there is no such pressure on the conical side walls of a truncated cone with spherical ends.
b) the internal pressure for TE013 mode shapes has nothing to do with the electric field. It is entirely due to the magnetic field parallel to the wall.
c) TheTraveller's statement that Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive has no side walls cannot be true. The only way to eliminate pressure on the side conical walls is to eliminate the magnetic field in TE013 mode shape. But if you totally eliminate the magnetic field, there will not be any pressure anywhere on the frustum, because the electric field in mode shape TE013 is zero at the walls. There cannot be a TE013 mode shape with zero magnetic field. One would have to eliminate the magnetic field only in the longitudinal direction to eliminate the pressure on the side walls, while maintaining the magnetic field parallel to the end plate, to maintain pressure on the end plates. This would not be a TE013 mode any longer, therefore it could not resonate at the same frequency. Therefore the statement that this is a TE013 mode shape is contradictory.
4) Since this statement that Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive has no side walls is not being addressed anymore, I presume (?) that it is being recanted, and accepted that it has side walls. Therefore it is accepted that there is pressure on the side walls, and that Shawyer's statement that there is no radiation pressure on the side wall cannot be true.
5) If 8 mN of force are being measured either they are as a result of experimental artifacts that cannot be used for spacecraft applications or it must be explained by some other theory that does not assume that the radiation pressure on the side walls is zero. -
#1965 by Monomorphic on 05 May, 2016 18:31
-
I suppose the mode should be uneven and energy density having maximums along cavity from large end to small end. Hence, how about TE015, TE017,... Obviously a prime factor can be effective: TE01-23? TE03-13? Possible?
Those thoughts are based on the gravity warping hypothesis.
I found TE017. I did not see TE015, but did see TE016 at one point. It becomes much harder to find higher order modes because the denser mesh requires more processing time.
-
#1966 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 18:53
-
Although calculating these higher mode shapes with FEKO requires larger numbers of nodes, and the matrix size (and hence the inversion of the matrix problem necessary to get the solution) increases with the square of mesh size, making such calculation time consuming, these higher order modes do exist, as you show.I suppose the mode should be uneven and energy density having maximums along cavity from large end to small end. Hence, how about TE015, TE017,... Obviously a prime factor can be effective: TE01-23? TE03-13? Possible?
Those thoughts are based on the gravity warping hypothesis.
I found TE017. I did not see TE015, but did see TE016 at one point. It becomes much harder to find higher order modes because the denser mesh requires more processing time.
They have the benefit that the energy density is located closer and closer to the small end.
They do present a real problem though, besides the numerical calculation problem: the fustrum length increases with respect to the other dimensions, more and more of the frustum mass is not associated with the region of interest (where the energy density reaches a peak, towards the small end) , and the amplitude of the modes decrease with increasing mode number. So there should be an optimum somewhere. Not clear whether the optimum should be TE013, but pretty sure to bet that the optimum should not be for a much higher number "p" in TE01p . -
#1967 by rfmwguy on 05 May, 2016 19:45
-
EMDrive "cousin" update May 3, 2016
"Cannae’s torsion pendulum delivers exceptional performance
This is Cannae’s vacuum chamber. Our torsion pendulum is located within the chamber. In recent testing, Cannae achieved force resolution of less than 1 uN (using calibrated electrostatic combs to generate known thrust pulses) with a 45 lb load on our pendulum. Cannae continues to demonstrate novel propulsion technologies in our state-of-the-art test facility."
http://cannae.com/cannaes-torsion-pendulum-delivers-exceptional-performance/
-
#1968 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 20:34
-
EMDrive "cousin" update May 3, 2016
As some lights appear to dim (Prof. Yang's latest test results with battery-power in a torsional pendulum) some new shining lights are lighting brighter
"Cannae’s torsion pendulum delivers exceptional performance
This is Cannae’s vacuum chamber. Our torsion pendulum is located within the chamber. In recent testing, Cannae achieved force resolution of less than 1 uN (using calibrated electrostatic combs to generate known thrust pulses) with a 45 lb load on our pendulum. Cannae continues to demonstrate novel propulsion technologies in our state-of-the-art test facility."
http://cannae.com/cannaes-torsion-pendulum-delivers-exceptional-performance/
1) Cannae's announced new testing facility with:
a) torsional pendulum
b) integral steel jar to provide testing under partial vacuum conditions
c) battery power
2) Hackaday's battery-powered, rotating test tiny EM Drive, which with a polymer insert "looked good" according to the authors: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/36758-test-with-dielectric-cavity-reversed -
#1969 by rfmwguy on 05 May, 2016 20:35
-
I'm the first to admit I've taken Cannae lightly, not knowing the people involved, etc., but this is a first-class test chamber that will be hard to debunk if they have positive results this month...<1 µN resolution. In reading their website, seems they don't need an insert for super-cooled designs but do for ambient designs. Regardless, an impressive lab kit.
p.s. I think about every DIYer I've chatted with on and off-line aspires to have the highest quality test gear available. With self-funding and limited crowd funding, its just not within most of our grasps. Its unfortunate because we all want results to be backed by the best test equipment/methods.
Have to hand it to Fetta, he understands a commercial enterprise demands the top-flight gear. -
#1970 by Monomorphic on 05 May, 2016 20:48
-
I'm the first to admit I've taken Cannae lightly, not knowing the people involved, etc., but this is a first-class test chamber that will be hard to debunk if they have positive results this month...<1 µN resolution. In reading their website, seems they don't need an insert for super-cooled designs but do for ambient designs. Regardless, an impressive lab kit.
Funds are definitely flowing their way. With all of the custom machined components to their tortional pendulum, and the vac chamber - that's got to be at least a $100,000 test stand. -
#1971 by rfmwguy on 05 May, 2016 20:56
-
Glad they're out in the open about where they're spending the money...a lot of it must be in a test setup. Even the most ardent critic will have trouble dismissing this configuration.I'm the first to admit I've taken Cannae lightly, not knowing the people involved, etc., but this is a first-class test chamber that will be hard to debunk if they have positive results this month...<1 µN resolution. In reading their website, seems they don't need an insert for super-cooled designs but do for ambient designs. Regardless, an impressive lab kit.
Funds are definitely flowing their way. With all of the custom machined components to their tortional pendulum, and the vac chamber - that's got to be at least a $100,000 test stand. -
#1972 by Vesc on 05 May, 2016 21:22
-
I don't have a lot of time to debate much as I'm deep in "elbow grease" building the next test stand. I'm building another simply because physics has fallen short explaining the why of thrust seen. You bet I'm using everything at my disposal from Maxwell, to Feynman to Einstein and all the greats to build and test, but like Paul March said "The anomaly remains".
So when theories and laws fail to explain a why, you still must use them to build a solid foundation for data that can be plugged into new theories and that's where I'm at. There is no bad data and when I'm done I hope to be able to provide great data. I know some are getting antsy at wanting something to happen but not until I can be assured the data I glean can be used for some of the existing dozen or so theories.
Back to the grind.
Shell
Hi Shell.
I understand your motivation but I would like to take a contrarian position. I would urge at least at some point partial sharing of some of your early data. It's the many heads effect. I don't know your lab set up and if you have multiple experiments going, but if you do it might be helpful to say publish some preliminary results from one experiment while running the other. If you have multiple test setups and can idle one while working on another then publish results from the idle, get feedback here and then you can, when you idle the 2nd, go back to the first, make the interesting mods from comments here and re-run. Then when you get comments back from the 2nd, when the 1st (second round) is idled you can publish its results and then go make mods to the 2nd experiment based on feedback, etc. Of course this process may not be convergent. It is up to you. Your patience and budget. You are the one doing the experiments after all. Just a suggestion. May or may not be appropriate. All offered only in the interest of Science!
-
#1973 by Vesc on 05 May, 2016 21:46
-
EMDrive "cousin" update May 3, 2016
As some lights appear to dim (Prof. Yang's latest test results with battery-power in a torsional pendulum) some new shining lights are lighting brighter
"Cannae’s torsion pendulum delivers exceptional performance
This is Cannae’s vacuum chamber. Our torsion pendulum is located within the chamber. In recent testing, Cannae achieved force resolution of less than 1 uN (using calibrated electrostatic combs to generate known thrust pulses) with a 45 lb load on our pendulum. Cannae continues to demonstrate novel propulsion technologies in our state-of-the-art test facility."
http://cannae.com/cannaes-torsion-pendulum-delivers-exceptional-performance/
1) Cannae's announced new testing facility with:
a) torsional pendulum
b) integral steel jar to provide testing under partial vacuum conditions
c) battery power
2) Hackaday's battery-powered, rotating test tiny EM Drive, which with a polymer insert "looked good" according to the authors: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/36758-test-with-dielectric-cavity-reversed
Dr. Rodal, here's my concern with relying on battery power for experimental setups. I'm concerned that the power levels will be too low to be of any practical value. The other problem is that the more massive you make the experimental apparatus, (by including mass such as batteries, etc) the less sensitive it becomes because of the higher inertia to be overcome [let's not confuse the issue by bringing in McCulloch right now
]. Is it not possible that if you make the experimental apparatus too massive it will not be possible to sense any force? I suppose it is not true if you presume constant force per constant power in, but obviously there are issues with that and what if it's really not true? The risk is now you have created a null experiment with a built-in confirmation bias. Why preclude having an external power source in a lab setup? Cannot a design exist that overcomes Lorentz forces and thermal expansion of the power lines? How about null runs with a dummy rf load to calibrate these effects and eliminate them? Emory has already stated that 10kW power is available on modern satellites. It's hard seeing a way to achieve that level of power availability in any practical sense using batteries. Why preclude it?
-
#1974 by SeeShells on 05 May, 2016 21:48
-
I don't have a lot of time to debate much as I'm deep in "elbow grease" building the next test stand. I'm building another simply because physics has fallen short explaining the why of thrust seen. You bet I'm using everything at my disposal from Maxwell, to Feynman to Einstein and all the greats to build and test, but like Paul March said "The anomaly remains".
So when theories and laws fail to explain a why, you still must use them to build a solid foundation for data that can be plugged into new theories and that's where I'm at. There is no bad data and when I'm done I hope to be able to provide great data. I know some are getting antsy at wanting something to happen but not until I can be assured the data I glean can be used for some of the existing dozen or so theories.
Back to the grind.
Shell
Hi Shell.
I understand your motivation but I would like to take a contrarian position. I would urge at least at some point partial sharing of some of your early data. It's the many heads effect. I don't know your lab set up and if you have multiple experiments going, but if you do it might be helpful to say publish some preliminary results from one experiment while running the other. If you have multiple test setups and can idle one while working on another then publish results from the idle, get feedback here and then you can, when you idle the 2nd, go back to the first, make the interesting mods from comments here and re-run. Then when you get comments back from the 2nd, when the 1st (second round) is idled you can publish its results and then go make mods to the 2nd experiment based on feedback, etc. Of course this process may not be convergent. It is up to you. Your patience and budget. You are the one doing the experiments after all. Just a suggestion. May or may not be appropriate. All offered only in the interest of Science!
Thank you for that well thought out comment, but I am going to wait. I have been "fine tuning" my results and this last series should eliminate any questions on Lorentz or thermals or foobie dust. I feel the strong need to do this especially if I'm seeing something above 3.33mn/KW that would violate known conservation laws. To me that is a huge no no.
Also I have, along with someone else a theory that may or may not pan out and still stay in standard physics that needs to be run.
Thanks for your input.
Shell
Added: "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions." WERNHER VON BRAUN
I would add, But it better be a damned great test. -
#1975 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 22:16
-
Well, it is not a matter of preclusion, it is a matter of proving an anomalous force that is being dismissed by prominent scientists like Prof. Carroll at CalTech and fellow MIT alumnus Prof. Baez.EMDrive "cousin" update May 3, 2016
As some lights appear to dim (Prof. Yang's latest test results with battery-power in a torsional pendulum) some new shining lights are lighting brighter
"Cannae’s torsion pendulum delivers exceptional performance
This is Cannae’s vacuum chamber. Our torsion pendulum is located within the chamber. In recent testing, Cannae achieved force resolution of less than 1 uN (using calibrated electrostatic combs to generate known thrust pulses) with a 45 lb load on our pendulum. Cannae continues to demonstrate novel propulsion technologies in our state-of-the-art test facility."
http://cannae.com/cannaes-torsion-pendulum-delivers-exceptional-performance/
1) Cannae's announced new testing facility with:
a) torsional pendulum
b) integral steel jar to provide testing under partial vacuum conditions
c) battery power
2) Hackaday's battery-powered, rotating test tiny EM Drive, which with a polymer insert "looked good" according to the authors: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/36758-test-with-dielectric-cavity-reversed
Dr. Rodal, here's my concern with relying on battery power for experimental setups. I'm concerned that the power levels will be too low to be of any practical value. The other problem is that the more massive you make the experimental apparatus, (by including mass such as batteries, etc) the less sensitive it becomes because of the higher inertia to be overcome [let's not confuse the issue by bringing in McCullogh right now]. Is it not possible that if you make the experimental apparatus too massive it will not be possible to sense any force? I suppose it is not true if you presume constant force per constant power in, but obviously there are issues with that and what if it's really not true? This risk is now you have created a null experiment with a built-in confirmation bias. Why preclude having an external power source in a lab setup? Cannot a design exist that overcomes Lorentz forces and thermal expansion of the power lines? How about null runs with a dummy rf load to calibrate these effects and eliminate them? Emory has already stated that 10kW power is available on modern satellites. It's hard seeing a way to achieve that level of power availability in any practical sense using batteries. Why preclude it?
The purpose of this device is spaceflight applications. As I have explained elswhere, but it looks that bears repeating:
1) need to perform experiments in vacuum: it has been known since the 19th century, that radiation pressure experiments need to be performed in partial vacuum because of the thermal convection effect. Anyone performing experiments at ambient conditions is ignoring the whole 100 year history of radiation experiments: they could only be demonstrated by Pyotr Lebedev in 1900 by performing them in vacuum. Add to that the fact that spacecraft operate in vacuum.
2) need to use a torsional pendulum as the measuring instrument. This has been known since Cavendish measured G hundreds of years ago. Anyone performing measurements using teeter-totters, scales and other stuff, is ignoring the fact that Aerospace R&D has used torsional pendulums as the instrument of choice for electromagnetic micro-thrusters for over 50 years. Moreover, Mr. Li proved that this is not a question of budget: he conducted his experiment spending $7 in piano wire.
3) need to use batteries because the experiments that have nullified propellant-less thrusters have used batteries:
* Brito, Marini and Galian that nullified a decade long R&D of Brito on propellant-less thrusters used batteries
* Prof. Yang that nullified her prior tests on EM Drive used batteries
given Marini and Galian's peer-reviewed article and Prof. Yang peer-reviewed work nullifying experiments conducted with power cords, skeptical scientists are unlikely to be interested in assessing work performed with power cords which are susceptible to Lorentz electromagnetic force and thermal expansion artifacts.
Finally, it is not true that high power is necessary. What matters is not the force but the force/PowerInput. NASA obtained the highest force/powerInput with their experiment using only 2 watts. Yang used batteries. Brito, Marini and Galian used batteries. You cannot run a power cord from the Earth to a spacecraft. The spacecraft needs a power source that does not rely on power coming from a stationary source.
It is not acceptable for people to just state that "thermal expansion, thermal convection, electromagnetic effects" are taken care of. I have some expertise on thermal expansion and thermal convection. It is needed (for example with a multi-physics program like ANSYS) to properly model such effects. And I can also tell you that the effort in properly modeling such effects (with ANSYS, etc.) would be greater than the effort that would take to conduct a test with the proper set-up: in a torsional pendulum, with batteries in a vacuum chamber, as Cannae appears to understand.
People performing tests in teeter-totters, under ambient conditions and with power cords are essentially repeating what Shawyer has done now for decades. That kind of testing (by Shawyer) has failed to convince people, and for good reason, given the peer-reviewed articles by Marini and Galian and now by Prof. Yang.
If Shawyer has not convinced people, why do others think that they will convince them, using similar instruments, under ambient conditions, and using power cords from stationary power supply
So I see that:
1) Cannae understands this and is meeting all these requirements
2) NASA understands this and is meeting these requirements
3) TheTraveller understands this and he is stating that he will meet all these requirements
Testers not meeting these requirements have a higher hill to climb to convince a skeptic public, that has plenty of other exciting propulsion technologies competing for funds and attention. -
#1976 by Vesc on 05 May, 2016 22:41
-
3) need to use batteries because the experiments that have nullified propellant-less thrusters have used batteries:
That sounds very very close to a circular argument.Quote from: Rodal* Brito, Marini and Galian that nullified a decade long R&D of Brito on propellant-less thrusters used batteries
* Prof. Yang that nullified her prior tests on EM Drive used batteries
given Marini and Galian's peer-reviewed article and Prof. Yang peer-reviewed work nullifying experiments conducted with power cords, scientists are not going to be interested in assessing work performed with power cords which are susceptible to Lorentz electromagnetic force and thermal expansion artifacts.
I doubt that peer-review publications are going to accept tests that are not performed in vacuum.
Finally, it is not true that high power is necessary. What matters is not the force but the force/PowerInput. NASA obtained the highest force/powerInput with their experiment using only 2 watts.
Yes but they, NASA EW, did not use batteries either for their 2W experiment. But IIRC RF power brought in by cables and coupled to the torsion bar via liquid mercury coupling?
Sure I'm not expert in Lorentz forces, but would not use of coaxial cabling help? Why is it not possible to design a configuration that would either nullify or perhaps more importantly allow careful calibration of Lorentz force? Thermal expansion of course is a problem. I'll defer here to your expertise. But is it not true that if you can't eliminate you can calibrate? Then account for that in your measurements? I don't mean to exasperate. If this has been addressed previously just say so and I'll search back through the threads and read.
References always appreciated... Thanks...
-
#1977 by tchernik on 05 May, 2016 22:51
-
A comment: I'm amazed at how the discourse has evolved in a few months. From grasping at straws and trying to understand what was actually said, into fully understanding the assertions and enumerating several practical criteria necessary for accepting evidence and evaluating the truthfulness of the phenomenon.
And of course, professional scientists (people paid to do this) have been ahead of us on this area for months, recognizing what needed to be done in order to extract the truth from the noise.
The good part of this, even if these efforts don't succeed on proving the Emdrive works, is that a strong core of professional and amateur experts has been formed, much more capable of criticizing any such similar claims in the future.
At least I have raised my general culture about the topic a lot just by being here and reading you. -
#1978 by Rodal on 05 May, 2016 23:22
-
There is a perception with a significant section of the public that:3) need to use batteries because the experiments that have nullified propellant-less thrusters have used batteries:
That sounds very very close to a circular argument.Quote from: Rodal* Brito, Marini and Galian that nullified a decade long R&D of Brito on propellant-less thrusters used batteries
* Prof. Yang that nullified her prior tests on EM Drive used batteries
given Marini and Galian's peer-reviewed article and Prof. Yang peer-reviewed work nullifying experiments conducted with power cords, scientists are not going to be interested in assessing work performed with power cords which are susceptible to Lorentz electromagnetic force and thermal expansion artifacts.
I doubt that peer-review publications are going to accept tests that are not performed in vacuum.
Finally, it is not true that high power is necessary. What matters is not the force but the force/PowerInput. NASA obtained the highest force/powerInput with their experiment using only 2 watts.
Yes but they, NASA EW, did not use batteries either for their 2W experiment. But IIRC RF power brought in by cables and coupled to the torsion bar via liquid mercury coupling?
Sure I'm not expert in Lorentz forces, but would not use of coaxial cabling help? Why is it not possible to design a configuration that would either nullify or perhaps more importantly allow careful calibration of Lorentz force? Thermal expansion of course is a problem. I'll defer here to your expertise. But is it not true that if you can't eliminate you can calibrate? Then account for that in your measurements? I don't mean to exasperate. If this has been addressed previously just say so and I'll search back through the threads and read.
References always appreciated... Thanks...
* Shawyer's EM Drive was shown to be an artifact.
* people have moved on
It may be unfair but things are what they are. It happens.
Time goes on. There are many competing technologies competing for funds.
Prof. Yang's latest report adds to that perception.
To change this perception, the standards that have to be met have been raised: vacuum, batteries and torsional pendulum.
He/She who meets these requirements has a greater chance at changing the public perception, than somebody using the same methods as Shawyer: teeter-totter, at ambient pressure with a power cable.
NASA, Cannae and TheTraveller understand this.
It is either that, or somebody will have to show a spacecraft accelerating in space solely under the force of an EM Drive. -
#1979 by Monomorphic on 05 May, 2016 23:34
-
To change this perception, the standards that have to be met have been raised: vacuum, batteries and torsional pendulum.[/b]
I still think DIYers have much to contribute, without a vacuum chamber (which is beyond a DIY budget). Yang did not perform her latest experiment in a vacuum, but it has been said those results are "the most significant since thread 1."
]. Is it not possible that if you make the experimental apparatus too massive it will not be possible to sense any force? I suppose it is not true if you presume constant force per constant power in, but obviously there are issues with that and what if it's really not true? The risk is now you have created a null experiment with a built-in confirmation bias. Why preclude having an external power source in a lab setup? Cannot a design exist that overcomes Lorentz forces and thermal expansion of the power lines? How about null runs with a dummy rf load to calibrate these effects and eliminate them? Emory has already stated that 10kW power is available on modern satellites. It's hard seeing a way to achieve that level of power availability in any practical sense using batteries. Why preclude it?
