-
#2300
by
whitelancer64
on 12 May, 2016 22:13
-
General question... What is the size and weight of these EM drives? I've seen images of several test rigs but never with anything for scale.
-
#2301
by
rfmwguy
on 12 May, 2016 22:14
-
General question... What is the size and weight of these EM drives? I've seen images of several test rigs but never with anything for scale.
~2.7 kg was mine inclusive of magnetron.
-
#2302
by
Rodal
on 12 May, 2016 22:14
-
Re complications (heating, cooling et al.)with the use of various RF components, is it not true that "cavity load" time intervals are less than 1 second in duration. If memory serves did not EWL report "immediate" responses with the "turning on" of the RF? (recognizing that there was pre-tuning of frequency prior to a data test run). FL
I recall a linear ramp to the (fairly) constant force, about
~2 sec ramp, which we related to the dynamics of the torsional pendulum, since we modeled the dynamics of the pendulum pretty accurately. Also Frobnicat did a detailed analysis, and I calculated the autocorrelation function and the spectral density confirming the pendulum dynamics.
This reminds me that there is no other experimental report that comes close to the detailed information that we obtained from NASA, thanks to Star-Drive. I wrote a computer program using Wolfram Mathematica taking into account coupling nonlinearity between different degrees of freedom (swinging as well as torsional).
Bottom line: the pendulum acts as a filter of the EM Drive's anomalous force: the 2 sec ramp was due to the pendulum's response to a step force.
-
#2303
by
Monomorphic
on 12 May, 2016 22:17
-
Non-commercially speaking, anything that get 1,000 video hits or views per day seems to me to be a rather hot interest topic...
My first infrared test received over 2,600 views in one day. One of my first emdrive videos has over 15,000 views now. Second only to a 3d animation I did in 2008 of the interior of the spaceship from Rendezvous with Rama, at 21,400 views.
-
#2304
by
FattyLumpkin
on 12 May, 2016 22:30
-
rfmwguy, I don't think it was a slip of the tongue when Sonny in one of his last talks stated that they were "moving from TRL2 to TRL3" pertaining to the M-L force thruster. While obviously not in the closed cavity region of our circle as Em and Cannae, it still belongs to us, and I'd assert that this deserves far more than just a little consideration. (This is not to say that it has not been
)The underlying assumption in such a statement asserts the fundamental validity of the tech itself.
A while back I asked (perhaps in artfully) if anyone knew whether the M-L force thruster was included in the EWL paper now under peer review, and instead of a "yes" or a "no" or "I don't know", it turned into a categorization debate. Let me try again to all here at NSF ...Does anyone know if the M-L, Serrano, and or PNN F242 thruster(s) are part of the EWL paper now under review?
As above mentioned Sonny was reporting extensively on the M-L force thruster just before EWL "went dark" for lack of a better expression. Thnx, FL
-
#2305
by
rfmwguy
on 12 May, 2016 23:10
-
rfmwguy, I don't think it was a slip of the tongue when Sonny in one of his last talks stated that they were "moving from TRL2 to TRL3" pertaining to the M-L force thruster. While obviously not in the closed cavity region of our circle as Em and Cannae, it still belongs to us, and I'd assert that this deserves far more than just a little consideration. (This is not to say that it has not been )The underlying assumption in such a statement asserts the fundamental validity of the tech itself.
A while back I asked (perhaps in artfully) if anyone knew the M-L force thruster was included in the EWL paper now under peer review, and instead of a "yes" or a "no" or "I don't know", it turned into a categorization debate. Let me try again to all here at NSF ...Does anyone know if the M-L, Serrano, and or PNN F242 thruster(s) are part of the EWL paper now under review?
As above mentioned Sonny was reporting extensively on the M-L force thruster just before EWL "went dark" for lack of a better expression. Thnx, FL
I haven't a clue. Darkness is upon ew regarding anything with the paper.
-
#2306
by
rfmwguy
on 12 May, 2016 23:18
-
Non-commercially speaking, anything that get 1,000 video hits or views per day seems to me to be a rather hot interest topic...
My first infrared test received over 2,600 views in one day. One of my first emdrive videos has over 15,000 views now. Second only to a 3d animation I did in 2008 of the interior of the spaceship from Rendezvous with Rama, at 21,400 views.
Even greater evidence of the following...congrats! Think people are dramatically underestimating the interest level.
-
#2307
by
FattyLumpkin
on 13 May, 2016 00:23
-
whitelancer64, the dimensions of the NASA frustum are 22.86 cm L (height), Bottom diameter is 27.94 cm and top diameter is 15.875 cm. This is but one frustum of many (one that as far as can be told produces thrust). There are perhaps a hand full of DIYers (builders) here at NSF and they might all have different ideas about their builds and how to power them. Maggie vs. dielectric etc. Some of the builders cannot reveal information about what they are constructing because of confidentiality agreements or for other reasons. But, I believe many divulge what they can without compromising themselves. One builder is now constructing what is referred to as a wedge shaped design, I believe the first here on NSF, although Roger Shawyer (not a part of NSF) has similar "wedge" type designs. While not a theorist, I accumulate all the facts I can about "Q" thrusters, but am not an authority on the subject.
FL
-
#2308
by
Rodal
on 13 May, 2016 00:49
-
rfmwguy, I don't think it was a slip of the tongue when Sonny in one of his last talks stated that they were "moving from TRL2 to TRL3" pertaining to the M-L force thruster. While obviously not in the closed cavity region of our circle as Em and Cannae, it still belongs to us, and I'd assert that this deserves far more than just a little consideration. (This is not to say that it has not been )The underlying assumption in such a statement asserts the fundamental validity of the tech itself.
A while back I asked (perhaps in artfully) if anyone knew the M-L force thruster was included in the EWL paper now under peer review, and instead of a "yes" or a "no" or "I don't know", it turned into a categorization debate. Let me try again to all here at NSF ...Does anyone know if the M-L, Serrano, and or PNN F242 thruster(s) are part of the EWL paper now under review?
As above mentioned Sonny was reporting extensively on the M-L force thruster just before EWL "went dark" for lack of a better expression. Thnx, FL
1) The PNN F242 thruster has not been tested by NASA, and thus would not be part of an article on NASA's tests
2) The Boeing/Darpa Serrano Field Effect device was tested from February through June 2013. That is 3 years ago. Given the fact that the device was tested 3 years ago, I very much doubt that it would be discussed in any recent paper for peer-review, taking into account that NASA's 2014 Conference Paper only discussed the Cannae tests and the frustrum of a cone microwave cavity test.
3) Paul March's Mach Lorentz thruster was tested prior to the Boeing/Darpa Serrano Field Effect device, so same applies to that device. When Star-Drive was participating in these threads, in 2015, there was no discussion of testing taking place on the SFE device or the M-L device.
4) When you are referring to <<when Sonny in one of his last talks stated that they were "moving from TRL2 to TRL3" pertaining to the M-L force thruster>> can you please specify what conference is that? (can you provide a link to the conference's paper or video? Dr White's last talk I remember was the one at NASA Ames in 2014, and I don't recall him discussing the M-L thruster at that conference.
-
#2309
by
FattyLumpkin
on 13 May, 2016 01:44
-
Dr. Rodal, I do greatly appreciate your keeping me on my toes! In all things an assumption is usually made. I believe this was posted one year ago...as in his Ames talk he discusses warp drive first, but I believe the MLF thruster is included in the results as there is an image of it when he reports results. Link:
As aforementioned, I assume(d) this talk was given just over one year ago. FL
-
#2310
by
Rodal
on 13 May, 2016 02:02
-
Dr. Rodal, I do greatly appreciate your keeping me on my toes! In all things an assumption is usually made. I believe this was posted one year ago...as in his Ames talk he discusses warp drive first, but I believe the MLF thruster is included in the results as there is an image of it when he reports results. ...
As aforementioned, I assume(d) this talk was given just over one year ago. FL
Dr. White is a great speaker. It is just too bad that he has not given any more talks.
He could be very motivating to young audiences.
-
#2311
by
FattyLumpkin
on 13 May, 2016 02:46
-
OK, I reviewed this again, and checked ears for wax. It's in the Q and A: Re TRL2 to TRL3 it is specifically stated....> I'd start watching at 47:50. Additionally (earlier on), I jotted it down because it was one of those "did he really say that" moments (questions to oneself), and if I'm reading my own writing correctly he states "sustained 20 Newtons/kilowatt." Forgive my optimism, but given these statements in addition to other additional results reported: flat factual statements, I don't see how one cannot believe the paradigm has already shifted! Sustained 20 Newtons/kilowatt!!
Jumping Jehoshaphat(s)! FL
-
#2312
by
tleach
on 13 May, 2016 05:21
-
Additionally (earlier on), I jotted it down because it was one of those "did he really say that" moments (questions to oneself), and if I'm reading my own writing correctly he states "sustained 20 Newtons/kilowatt."
Yep. at 35:50 he says 20 N/KW. And then he goes on to talk about having achieved steady state thrust and how they're going to build several test articles to send out for verification.
-
#2313
by
spupeng7
on 13 May, 2016 06:48
-
NSF-1701A update -
Torsion pendulum modified at top clamp to improve stickiness. However, return to center still not up to my satisfaction, certainly worse than teeter totter balance. Seems torsion wire is temperature sensitive and perhaps needing to stabilize under weight some more. Have no return spring or anything to inhibit rotation except for oil bath. This dampens oscillations nicely but doesn't induce a return to center. Ideas on centering are welcome. Had thoughts of hanging a pair of vertical balance weights each with redirected force (small string) to horizontal and attach to beam directly opposite each other...reduces sensitivity but might help centering. Also noticed air currents really impact horizontal displacement. Bottom line is system noise must be no more than 50 micronewtons max, which was approximately what I had last time. This is a large setup:
Torsion wire: 24 inch drop of 0.030 inches to top of 14 inch tall central mast.
Coated Hardwood Beam: 107 inches total length, negligible vertical oscillation.
Support wires: from top of central mast to 14 inches in from each end.
Obviously much longer beam than most torsion setups. Can easily redo with smaller beam and less rotational end displacement. Wondering if that in itself would still have stickiness. Probably would but would be masked by far less rotational displacement.
Rfmw, could you describe or show the clamps or whatever is holding each end of the wire. There may be movement or friction at either end.
Drag weights! Hate having answers pop up in the middle of the night!
Anyway, I wire clamped each termination top and bottom. Think there was friction on the top one so redid it. Return to center is painfully slow with long beam and masses. So my solution is simple...just like me
Hang a pair of balancing weights supported independantly over beam near center point. This will apply slight drag to rotation either way but will force a rtc. Sort of a detent operation. Will experiment with different weights and placement and take a pic or video. Basically, the thing is too sensitive and the rtc was too slow...but you're right the top clamp was slipping a bit.
That is what it sounded like
Maybe a thicker piano wire would be a better solution than extra weight for improved rtc. That would lower the sensitivity as well.
P.S: Please forgive midnight replies but my day starts about 19 hours before yours ...
-
#2314
by
spupeng7
on 13 May, 2016 07:19
-
***Science Writers Alert***
(On second thought, a young South African student designing, building and demonstrating the EMDrive and winning a trip to the USA this week and being eligible for a share in $4 Million Prize Money is a pretty cool press release).
Good Luck to Paul from South Africa this week in Phoenix at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF 2016)!
"Name: Paul Stansell
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
School Represented: Sacred Heart College
Student Showcase: Electric Space Propulsion – An Exploration into Innovative Propellant Solutions Involving the Testing of an Electromagnetic Drive
Study Synopses: Since its birth, spaceflight has always been hindered by propellant constraints. Unfeasible amounts of fuel are required to cover the vast distances between stars and so modern spaceflight is confined to the solar system. A revolutionary electric propulsion system, according to Stansell, composed of a hollow asymmetric resonant cavity excited by microwaves, known as the EMDrive has been shown to produce a unidirectional acceleration although results have been inconclusive. This warrants further research.
According to Stansell a non-resonant EMDrive was constructed to act as a control, this design was then extended to create a new cavity which allowed for resonance at a frequency of 2450 MHz. The designs were tested in both the upright and inverted orientations to allow for EMDrive force separation from buoyant forces. The designs were tested on a millinewton resolution knife-edge fulcrum which was calibrated to accurately determine thrust magnitude.
Stansell revealed that due to thermal currents caused by the heating of the magnetron and cavity, each test experienced net upwards motion. However the resonant upright cavity moved upwards considerably more than the non-resonant control suggesting another force was at work pushing the cavity upwards. Additionally the resonant inverted test moved upwards considerably less than the control again indicating another force was counteracting the net upwards motion. This force varied in magnitude from 8.8825 millinewtons 11.8436 millinewtons.
In conclusion, according to Stansell, despite thermal current interference a replicable, anomalous thrust was produced. As the observed thrust is not yet attributable to any known physical phenomenon more research in vacuum is required."
(snip)
The final Intel ISEF 2016 winners will be announced, by Intel, during the course of the week.
http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2016/05/africa-has-strong-showing-at-intel-isef-2016/
More from: https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef
About Intel ISEF
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF), a program of Society for Science & the Public (SSP), is the world’s largest international pre-college science competition.
Approximately 1,700 high school students from over 75 countries, regions, and territories are awarded the opportunity to showcase their independent research and compete for approximately $4 million in prizes.
Today, millions of students worldwide compete each year in local and school-sponsored science fairs; the winners of these events go on to participate in SSP-affiliated regional and state fairs from which the best win the opportunity to attend Intel ISEF.
Intel ISEF unites these top young scientific minds, showcasing their talents on an international stage, where doctoral level scientists review and judge their work.
SSP partners with Intel—along with dozens of other corporate, academic, government and science-focused sponsors—who provide the support and awards for Intel ISEF.
Intel ISEF is hosted each year in a different city (Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Phoenix through 2019). The Local Arrangements Committees from each city partner with SSP and Intel to provide support for the event including the recruitment of 100s of volunteers and judges and in organizing an education outreach day in which more than 3,000 middle and high school students visit.
UPCOMING DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR INTEL ISEF
Phoenix, Arizona, May 8-13, 2016
Rfmw, should we invite this Paul person to join this forum?
-
#2315
by
Chrochne
on 13 May, 2016 08:58
-
***Science Writers Alert***
(On second thought, a young South African student designing, building and demonstrating the EMDrive
UPCOMING DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR INTEL ISEF
Phoenix, Arizona, May 8-13, 2016
[/i]
Rfmw, should we invite this Paul person to join this forum?
He already wrote here I think. He might just be very busy lately!
-
#2316
by
Rodal
on 13 May, 2016 11:35
-
***Science Writers Alert***
(On second thought, a young South African student designing, building and demonstrating the EMDrive
UPCOMING DATES AND LOCATIONS FOR INTEL ISEF
Phoenix, Arizona, May 8-13, 2016
[/i]
Rfmw, should we invite this Paul person to join this forum?
He already wrote here I think. He might just be very busy lately!
Paul is (and has been) already a member at NSF.
-
#2317
by
rfmwguy
on 13 May, 2016 13:36
-
-
#2318
by
RERT
on 13 May, 2016 13:42
-
If somebody can explain how the power loss in the copper can be translated into momentum to the cavity (other than by thermal effects like: thermal convection, thermal radiation and thermal expansion), now that would be interesting!
OK, let's have a go...
A copper surface has incident and reflected EM plane waves I and R and a transmitted wave T. The transmitted wave T is exactly that required to create the power loss in the copper. Conservation of energy requires power balance i.e. P(I)=P(T)+P(R). Momentum Balance requires the force on the copper to be M(I)-M(T)+M(R) (in terms of fluxes per unit time). Hence the momentum of the transmitted wave is directly relevant to the force on the copper, and its energy to the heat dissipated. If different Abraham/Minkowski formulae apply in different circumstances then the forces would be different, especially as, as you remark, n^2 appears to be of the order of 10^8.
In order to be relevant to the frustrum, one has to make the leap to different conditions pertaining at each end. However, with different field strengths, sizes and temperatures, there is scope for this to be the case.
Regards,
R.
-
#2319
by
RERT
on 13 May, 2016 13:52
-
Can I ask why Cannae's tests were described as "tests"?
Are you privvy to inside information? You seem to be able to comment on the nature of the tests, whereas Cannaes release on the net gave no further information.
Irrespective of a superior attitude to "tests", I see no reason to regard this release as anything but positive news.
R.
)The underlying assumption in such a statement asserts the fundamental validity of the tech itself. 
FL