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."
Yes, I agree.
It is just that to get funds to put something in Space it will be easier for those that meet all the requirements above. The other ones will have to work harder at convincing the sources of funding necessary to put something in orbit (millions of dollars ?)
Personally, I very much appreciate your experiment
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."
If I'm understanding the latest developments well, a DIY tester that:
- Performs measurements using a torsion balance.
- Follows the recommendations of the forum about geometry, power supply, frequencies and build.
- Uses a self contained power supply (e.g. using batteries).
- Performs a minimum set of replications under the same conditions (for raising the statistical confidence on the results).
- Gives ample photographic and video evidence of the experiments.
Could still become a significant result towards determining the truth.
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."
Here's the deal Jamie, I've dealt with this a while now; both here and over there...we are talking apples and oranges. IF one is wanting to attract investors, start a commercial enterprise, prove something that has been formally funded and staffed or pen a paper for posterity...a self-contained, near spaceflight-ready unit with high-end test gear is the way to go to collect serious attention, vindication and of course, money.
But that's not where everyone's at. Don't know about you, but I could care less about all of the above...and I seriously mean that...I'm doing this because of my own blasted interest. Nothing more and nothing less. I'll work within my means and nobody else's to accomplish this...getting a simple answer if its real or not. Right now, I happen to think it is. Is it 100% certain? Nope.
I will ultimately make that determination as I'm sure you will...totally on my own. Not a single poster here nor there, nor a remote celebrity scientist from the west coast will make that determination for me, for I will not allow it.
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."
Here's the deal Jamie, I've dealt with this a while now; both here and over there...we are talking apples and oranges. IF one is wanting to attract investors, start a commercial enterprise, prove something that has been formally funded and staffed or pen a paper for posterity...a self-contained, near spaceflight-ready unit with high-end test gear is the way to go to collect serious attention, vindication and of course, money.
But that's not where everyone's at. Don't know about you, but I could care less about all of the above...and I seriously mean that...I'm doing this because of my own blasted interest. Nothing more and nothing less. I'll work within my means and nobody else's to accomplish this...getting a simple answer if its real or not. Right now, I happen to think it is. Is it 100% certain? Nope.
I will ultimately make that determination as I'm sure you will...totally on my own. Not a single poster here nor there, nor a remote celebrity scientist from the west coast will make that determination for me, for I will not allow it.
I am interested in EM Drive Developments -
related to space flight applications I am not interested in "penning a paper for posterity", instead I am interested in what would motivate funding so that we can use this for
space flight applications , why the need to motivate funding? because it takes millions of dollars to put something in orbit.
I am interested in any and all propulsion schemes that may make such spaceflights to Mars and beyond a practical reality, the sooner the better. If there are other things better than the EM Drive, I'll be just as happy.
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."
Here's the deal Jamie, I've dealt with this a while now; both here and over there...we are talking apples and oranges. IF one is wanting to attract investors, start a commercial enterprise, prove something that has been formally funded and staffed or pen a paper for posterity...a self-contained, near spaceflight-ready unit with high-end test gear is the way to go to collect serious attention, vindication and of course, money.
But that's not where everyone's at. Don't know about you, but I could care less about all of the above...and I seriously mean that...I'm doing this because of my own blasted interest. Nothing more and nothing less. I'll work within my means and nobody else's to accomplish this...getting a simple answer if its real or not. Right now, I happen to think it is. Is it 100% certain? Nope.
I will ultimately make that determination as I'm sure you will...totally on my own. Not a single poster here nor there, nor a remote celebrity scientist from the west coast will make that determination for me, for I will not allow it.
I am interested in EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications
I am not interested in "penning a paper for posterity", instead I am interested in what would motivate funding so that we can use this for space flight applications , why the need to motivate funding? because it takes millions of dollars to put something in orbit.
And I am interested not particularly in the EM Drive, I am interested in any and all propulsion schemes that may make such spaceflights to Mars and beyond a practical reality, the sooner the better. If there are other things better than the EM Drive, I'll be just as happy.
Since we are still waiting for new results here. Why not chime in on the Mach Effect Thread. Between the two new theory papers published towards the end of the year along with descriptions of their experimental setup should prove for some interesting reading
...
Since we are still waiting for new results here. Why not chime in on the Mach Effect Thread. Between the two new theory papers published towards the end of the year along with descriptions of their experimental setup should prove for some interesting reading
(link please? are you referring to the Woodward thread?)
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."
Perhaps lost in all the excitement over Yang's release, I posted this as a half step forward for DIY'ers with promising results in air.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527129#msg1527129Helium is an easy place to start because a good seal is not required as the helium fills the tent and leaks out the bottom.
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."
Perhaps lost in all the excitement over Yang's release, I posted this as a half step forward for DIY'ers with promising results in air.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527129#msg1527129
Helium is an easy place to start because a good seal is not required as the helium fills the tent and leaks out the bottom.
I presume that it also would be a good idea to do this using non-dimensional analysis, selecting some non-dimensional thermal convection parameters involving the different gasses to asses the tests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dimensionless_quantities
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."
Perhaps lost in all the excitement over Yang's release, I posted this as a half step forward for DIY'ers with promising results in air.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527129#msg1527129
Helium is an easy place to start because a good seal is not required as the helium fills the tent and leaks out the bottom.
I presume that it also would be a good idea to do this using non-dimensional analysis, selecting some non-dimensional thermal convection parameters involving the different gasses to design the test.
You will have to explain that to me good doctor. Ahh. Your link appeared as I typed. Which ones are most relevant?
May I respectfully suggest it is time for a new thread? With a nice little synopsis of what is going on lately? There has been a lot of cross chatter, and it's been hard to follow progress with all of the opining.
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.
This is a great suggestion. Different orientations and times of day may reveal (or not reveal) unexpected interactions. Interactions with the Earth's magnetic field, Sun/Moon gravity, solar or extra-solar neutrinos, or the Earth's peculiar motion relative to the cosmic microwave background are examples that would have directional/temporal dependency.
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.
This is a great suggestion. Different orientations and times of day may reveal (or not reveal) unexpected interactions. Interactions with the Earth's magnetic field, Sun/Moon gravity, solar or extra-solar neutrinos, or the Earth's peculiar motion relative to the cosmic microwave background are examples that would have directional/temporal dependency.
WELCOME BACK
Last time (it feels like a year ) if my memory is correct you were assessing current design with copper gaskets at each end to address RFI issues and you were running and collecting data. If my memory is correct your results were that a dielectric alone is not enough to produce measurable results in a cavity with constant dimensions along the length. Similar results as Zellerium (California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, Zeller, Kraft, Echols)
Are you ready to post your data in the EM Drive wiki ?
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_ResultsThanks
May I respectfully suggest it is time for a new thread? With a nice little synopsis of what is going on lately? There has been a lot of cross chatter, and it's been hard to follow progress with all of the opining.
The main thing that happened is that the scientist that had claimed the highest thrust/Input power (1 Newton per kiloWatt of power), Professor Yang in China, just published a couple of days ago new research that nullifies her previous tests. It shows that her prior EM Drive results were experimental artifacts (these are
her own conclusions).
The main difference is that the new tests were performed with batteries powering the EM Drive. It turns out that the use of batteries is critical to prove whether this is real or not. The sensitivity of her tests is such that it
may also nullify Shawyer Demonstrator and Boeing Flight Thruster Shawyer tests (who has never reported a single test with batteries or a single test in vacuum or a single test with a torsional pendulum).
NASA results are NOT nullified because NASA uses a different technology than Shawyer and Yang.
Therefore one hope for the EM Drive remains with NASA, who has only reported significant thrust by using polymer inserts inside the EM Drive (which neither Shawyer nor Yang ever did). Hope is that NASA is presently testing with a battery-powered unit in a John Hopkins Cavendish test setup.
There is also hope with Cannae (which has a new test unit meeting all conditions: torsional pendulum, vacuum and batteries, and uses polymer insert for copper and silver cavities) and Hackaday Aachen team in Germany who reports self-assessed-as-good results with battery operated tiny EM Drive in a rotating unit, when using polymer insert like NASA.
As Dave correctly states, the new particle that may have been found (is that what your post was about?) if real and not an experimental artifact appears at 750 Giga Electron Volts.
Mass-energy of a W boson (80.4 GeV)
Mass-energy of a Z boson (91.2 GeV)
Mass-energy of the Higgs Boson (125.1 GeV)
Mass-energy of a 2.45Ghz Microwave photon (1.0132-5 eV)
1.0132
-5 eV = ~1eV non? Is there a convention that this should be interpreted in some other way? Actual figure should be 1.0132 x 10
-5 eV should it not, or am I being pedantic. JMN..
May I respectfully suggest it is time for a new thread? With a nice little synopsis of what is going on lately? There has been a lot of cross chatter, and it's been hard to follow progress with all of the opining.
We are about 60% of the way based on customary views of over 400K per thread. As with T6, if Shell is ready to release data, that will kick it off early. Also, my data should hit in a few weeks plus monomorphics. Cannae is the latest per my post today. They are gathering special invite folks to witness testing this month. Plus yang refuted her old tests...no more from nwpu expected. EW remains silent on everything. Phd student offering from dresden specifically on emdrive. TT is going commercial. Shawyer is silent. McCulloughs new paper blends mihsc into a possible theory which includes flyby anomalies. Lot of new info about to break, fasten seat belts. Check into to hd webcast tmro.tv Saturday @ 4 pm cst for more general chat. Its a spaceflight focused weekly, I think with some support from spacex. They had lots of questions on emdrive past 2 weeks. They seem to be fun group but well grounded on technology. Might be their first dip into speculative propulsion. How's that for a brief synopsis?
May I respectfully suggest it is time for a new thread? With a nice little synopsis of what is going on lately? There has been a lot of cross chatter, and it's been hard to follow progress with all of the opining.
The main thing that happened is that the scientist that had claimed the highest thrust/Input power (1 Newton per kiloWatt of power), Professor Yang in China, just published a couple of days ago new research that nullifies her previous tests. It shows that her prior EM Drive results were experimental artifacts (these are her own conclusions).
The main difference is that the new tests were performed with batteries powering the EM Drive. It turns out that the use of batteries is critical to prove whether this is real or not. The sensitivity of her tests is such that it may also nullify Shawyer Demonstrator and Boeing Flight Thruster Shawyer tests (who has never reported a single test with batteries or a single test in vacuum or a single test with a torsional pendulum).
NASA results are NOT nullified because NASA uses a different technology than Shawyer and Yang.
Therefore one hope for the EM Drive remains with NASA, who has only reported significant thrust by using polymer inserts inside the EM Drive (which neither Shawyer nor Yang ever did). Hope is that NASA is presently testing with a battery-powered unit in a John Hopkins Cavendish test setup.
There is also hope with Cannae (which has a new test unit meeting all conditions: torsional pendulum, vacuum and batteries, and uses polymer insert for copper and silver cavities) and Hackaday Aachen team in Germany who reports self-assessed-as-good results with battery operated tiny EM Drive in a rotating unit, when using polymer insert like NASA.
Dr. Rodal, the paper was published in Feb, 2016. It is that we got to know it just a few days ago. It was submitted in Oct, 2014.
Dr. Rodal, the paper was published in Feb, 2016. It is that we got to know it just a few days ago. It was submitted in Oct, 2014.
Any info on why it took 1 year and 4 months to get published, wasn't it published in the
Tuijin Jishu/Journal of Propulsion Technology with a relatively very low impact factor and very low citation index, it should have been easy for her to get published
Research Gate has horrible citation impact factor numbers for this Journal:
https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1001-4055_Tuijin_Jishu_Journal_of_Propulsion_TechnologyTuijin Jishu/Journal of Propulsion Technology
Current impact factor: 0.00
Impact Factor Rankings
Additional details
5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Dr. Rodal, the paper was published in Feb, 2016. It is that we got to know it just a few days ago. It was submitted in Oct, 2014.
Any info on why it took 1 year and 4 months to get published, wasn't it published in the Journal of her own University? if that is the journal, it is a journal with a relatively very low impact factor and very low citation index, it should have been easy for her to get published in the small-circulation journal of her own university
I have been wondering if this report isn't why EM Drive research in China apparently died a couple years ago.
...TT is going commercial...
To be more precise, his twitter account states: availability in 12 months
(a year from now)
