-
#2740
by
FattyLumpkin
on 26 May, 2016 04:13
-
Forget Tatooine, I'll go for a three sun set!
-
#2741
by
Star One
on 26 May, 2016 06:18
-
These are government oversight committees and just doing their job. This rep is pro space and perhaps is listening to constituants who want bigger things than what's been delivered in the past few decades.
I have nothing against doing bigger things. My problem is specifically with lawmakers thinking that they are smarter than the people at NASA (which they never are).
I'd remind you they are the ones holding the purse strings & whether you like it or not are unlike government officials elected by the people who pay for the science, namely Joe tax payer. It may not be a perfect system but I prefer it to the alternatives.
-
#2742
by
TheTraveller
on 26 May, 2016 06:22
-
TUNING WORKS! 
The HDPE insert was the key. Tuning the frustum is now as simple as tuning a church organ. I'm now in that magnetron sweet spot of 2.445Ghz - 2.45Ghz, when before I was at 2.457Ghz. It looks like I have the ability to tune over nearly 20Mhz.
Good job, Jamie!. This wider RL BW will allow the mag to focus right where it needs to be. The other side of the coin is the Q is much lower, since the 3dB points on the RL curve are ~20+ MHz. To narrow this up, all you need to do is reduce the length of the insert and retune center. There's probably a magic balance between Q and proper mag operation. That's the fun kind of stuff I enjoy working to resolve.
I'm showing Δf at -3dB as 3.2Mhz. With center frequency at 2.448Ghz that gives me a Q factor of 765. That's better than Tajmar and Cal Polytech and about 1/2 Yang.
Are you measuring 3dB from notch depth or insertion?
This is how I did it.
This is the simple way Roger recommends measuring bandwidth. 3dB from peak rtn loss as you showed as the rtn loss freq is the frustum's resonant operating freq. The frustum does not operate from the base line down the rtn loss curve. It operates from the lowest peak and as heat or unstable freq generation changes either resonance or freq, up the rtn loss curve.
Sorry but measuring bandwidth from non resonance base line down does not represent frustum operational reality. If your measured upward, from rtn loss peak freq, bandwidth looks nuts, > 100k, suspect your VNA nay not be as accurate around rtn loss peak as you may believe.
I measure loaded Q via using freq points where forward power is down 50% (3dB) or unloaded Q via time for forward power to rise 63% (1 TC) during application of a short Rf pulse.
Only use my VNA to find Freq to start testing bandwidth using my Rf amps forward power output. Never use my VNA to measure bandwidth.
-
#2743
by
TheTraveller
on 26 May, 2016 06:30
-
TUNING WORKS!
The HDPE insert was the key. Tuning the frustum is now as simple as tuning a church organ. I'm now in that magnetron sweet spot of 2.445Ghz - 2.45Ghz, when before I was at 2.457Ghz. It looks like I have the ability to tune over nearly 20Mhz.
EDIT: tuning is closer to 12Mhz, not 20Mhz.
Good to see you confirmed Roger's statement that using dielectrics increase loss, dropping Q and widening bandwidth.
Why not try doing the small end plate tuning without the dielectric, understanding that at the small end guide wavelength can get very long and the length of your extension may not be long enough to do effective tuning.
-
#2744
by
graybeardsyseng
on 26 May, 2016 09:06
-
NSF-1701A Update
Tired. This week has been loaded with last minute things to get ready for Flight Test 3 this Saturday. Yes, looks like first cal test looking for lorentz force will happen. Tonight, I completed NSF-1701A after many months of designing and building. Its satisfying to reach this stage, but important testing remains ahead...lots of testing. Also, in a few hours, I'll be back on live internet radio talking emdrive. Think this is #4 radio appearance in addition to 1 video webcast about the emdrive. I am slated to go back on webcast in a few weeks. So, whether or not NSF-1701A achieves the 100x force goal remains to be seen, but the journey to find out has been a pleasure. Its also been a time of personal reflection and recognition that the mundane never really interested me. There's a fine line between leading edge and science fiction and I'm ok with that.
CONGRATULATIONS !! - Dave - you, Shell and all the DIY builders are an inspiration. Here's to a successful test program for NSF-1701A - meaning lots of data to examine and analyze and push the line further.
Looking forward to the new interviews as well.
Eschew the mundane - Excelsior!!!
Herman
-
#2745
by
jstepp590
on 26 May, 2016 14:00
-
***Big News from DC 5/23/16***
U.S. lawmaker orders NASA to plan for trip to Alpha Centauri by 100th anniversary of moon landing
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/us-lawmaker-orders-nasa-plan-trip-alpha-centauri-100th-anniversary-moon-landing
"Interstellar propulsion research. —
Current NASA propulsion investments include advancements in chemical, solar electric, and nuclear thermal propulsion. However, even in their ultimate theoretically achievable implementations, none of these could approach cruise velocities of one-tenth the speed of light (0.1c), nor could any other fission-based approach (including nuclear electric or pulsed fission). The Committee encourages NASA to study and develop propulsion concepts that could enable an interstellar scientific probe with the capability of achieving a cruise velocity of 0.1c. These efforts shall be centered on enabling such a mission to Alpha Centauri, which can be launched by the one-hundredth anniversary, 2069, of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Propulsion concepts may include, but are not limited to fusion-based implementations (including antimatter-catalyzed fusion and the Bussard interstellar ramjet); matter-antimatter annihilation reactions; multiple forms of beamed energy approaches; and immense ‘sails’ that intercept solar photons or the solar wind. At the present time, none of these are beyond technology readiness level (TRL) 1 or 2. The NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program is currently funding concept studies of directed energy propulsion for wafer-sized spacecraft that in principle could achieve velocities exceeding 0.1c and an electric sail that intercepts solar wind protons. Over the past few years NIAC has also funded mission-level concept studies of two fusion based propulsion concepts. Therefore, within one year of enactment of this Act, NASA shall submit an interstellar propulsion technology assessment report with a draft conceptual roadmap, which may include an overview of potential advance propulsion concepts for such an interstellar mission, including technical challenges, technology readiness level assessments, risks, and potential near term milestones and funding requirements."
{snip}
Note: Bold is my notation - Dave
Alpha Centauri may be the nearest star but it may not be the most interesting destination.
I may not be a engineer or a scientist, just a serious enthusiast, but this seems to me to be a little like trying to run before we can walk. To me it seems far more important for us to develop technologies to be able to launch large masses and weights from the Earth's gravity well than to try to go to another solar system. It would make more sense for us to focus on our own solar system first, develop the infrastructure to stage larger and vastly more complicated missions. We need space commercialization, because obviously it will not only enhance the capabilities of NASA missions but will get more done faster for less, kind of like SpaceX, not to mention the jobs and economic boost. The regulations and legal framework is something the Congress could/should do, and it would be right up their alley. Once we have affordable access to space and a infrastructure built to support larger missions then we should be thinking about other solar systems, not before. IMHO anyway, from a non scientist or engineer.
I follow and support the EMDrive and your work here because, while most of us cannot afford to by a Skylon, the EMDrive looks to be a technology that could make space travel affordable for the average person in our own vehicle. If proven it has the chance of democratizing space travel, and that is why I follow your good work. I would settle for any technologies and a big push to get us into space, but this looks like the best option if the concept pans out. Keep up the good work and back to lurking and know that we are here, patiently and respectfully but mostly hopefully, following your work.
-
#2746
by
The_Optimist
on 26 May, 2016 15:43
-
Lawmakers should stay out of science. They have demonstrated over and over again, that they have no clue whatsoever.
Lawmakers eh? What do they know.....
Good to see the US of A leading from the front!
-
#2747
by
Rodal
on 26 May, 2016 15:59
-
...The fact is, Ion Engines are the only "advanced propulsion" being worked on and this will not lend itself to interstellar or long-thrust duration missions in the solar system...outside of the emdrive at EW and the DIYers around the globe there is painfully little speculative propulsion engineering going on (at least publicly)....This of course, is IMO only...
Anyone is certainly entitled to have their own opinions, but your statement that
The fact is, Ion Engines are the only "advanced propulsion" being worked on
is not at all a fact
, it is instead, another one of your opinions
Actually, NSF has an entire section on Advanced Concepts:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=26.0
-
#2748
by
SeeShells
on 26 May, 2016 16:25
-
I'm just doing a "drive by posting". Very busy time right now.
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/You might find some good information in Dr. Woodward's links.
Always my Best,
Shell
-
#2749
by
SeeShells
on 26 May, 2016 17:04
-
I'm just doing a "drive by posting". Very busy time right now.
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/
You might find some good information in Dr. Woodward's links.
Always my Best,
Shell
Not followed Woodward's Mach Effect much, but know of no independent builds, tests or verifications outside of the good Professor. If there are some, let me know. Also, I don't recall seeing anything close to the design disclosure there is with the emdrive. EW tested it I believe, but moved on to something else. Any individuals replicating Mach Effect work or know of any, please point to the specifics. Not much time to dig into it myself. Running on 3 hours of sleep after the radio show...
Don't be like me.... get some sleep!
Dr. Sonny White and Dr. Woodward live and think in different realms. It's quite obvious reading both of their theories. Dr. White believes in The Quantum effect of Virtual Particles being generated by the actions with int cavity and Dr. Woodward is a Standard Model believer and poo poo on Quantum actions in the cavity. They both have seen something.
They both have great arguments but I honestly believe they are chasing the same rabbit. Or as Paul March has said they just might be both sides of the same coin. This has been my goal to see if a commonality exists between the two and then can be tested within a drive and test fixture. I'm getting there.
Back to being busy.
Shell
http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/workshop-proceedings FYI
-
#2750
by
FattyLumpkin
on 26 May, 2016 17:12
-
Might want to check out ad ASTRA summer 2016 edition page 10: a Bill to change the language of HR 4218 (1988). The new Bill: HR 4752 "The Space Exploration and Settlement Act" According to the article this Bill makes development and settlement outside of LEO co-equal goals with NASA's goal of exploration. No increase in funding though. An apparent adjustment in NASA's overall mission.
-
#2751
by
FattyLumpkin
on 26 May, 2016 17:39
-
I don't believe Sonny was being glib when he stated "TRL 2 to TRL 3 pertaining to "Q" thrusters, and he also delivered a very specific statement about building or manufacturing several "of these articles" to be sent out for independent validation. Ergo this would suggest that one or several of the devices (Emdrive or MLT) which were manufactured, were generating enough thrust to be tested at JPL. Additionally, "10 m Newtons of continuous thrust" was stated for at least one of these.
If EWL were able to "phase lock loop" TE012 mode into their original or even an altered version of the origin, it is likely that they were able to generate (?far?) more thrust than in the original tests. After all 2.6 Watts was the only amount of energy they were "able" to get into their best power/thrust frustum.
Of course, much of this depends on the integrity of Dr. White.
-
#2752
by
TheTraveller
on 26 May, 2016 17:55
-
-
#2753
by
Rodal
on 26 May, 2016 18:02
-
After all 2.6 Watts was the only amount of energy they were "able" to get into their best power/thrust frustum.
Of course, much of this depends on the integrity of Dr. White.
You might review the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iS3hvZzV5Rzl6Rlk&usp=sharing&tid=0B7kgKijo-p0ifk9EakZfbW9aZGMwNWZMQ01xVnBON0tkM2w0Q1NLbmtjRFFwMXBuNVlVN0U
Where did you get 2.6W was the best forward power EW has achieved?
He is not referring to what was the maximum power they were able to input into any mode shape.
You might review what FattyLumpkin is referring to: he is referring to
the figure of merit for EM Drives which is thrust/power instead of simply thrust, or simply power by themselves. FattyLumpkin is correctly stating that in NASA's Brady et.al's paper the highest thrust/power (21.3 mN/kW) (*) was achieved in mode shape TE012 with only 2.6 watts of reported input power. That's where he got that from.
And the fact that Dr. White stated at the lecture (aforementioned by FattyLumpkin in a previous message) that NASA could only input 2.6 watts of power into the frustum in that mode shape at that time.(**)
_______
(*) Again: not the highest power, and not the highest thrust, but the highest thrust/inputPower, as that is the figure of merit for EM Drives
(**) which I read by Dr. White as a statement of fact, for the experiments he reviewed, and not as any indication of what they might be doing otherwise
-
#2754
by
TheTraveller
on 26 May, 2016 18:13
-
After all 2.6 Watts was the only amount of energy they were "able" to get into their best power/thrust frustum.
Of course, much of this depends on the integrity of Dr. White.
You might review the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7kgKijo-p0iS3hvZzV5Rzl6Rlk&usp=sharing&tid=0B7kgKijo-p0ifk9EakZfbW9aZGMwNWZMQ01xVnBON0tkM2w0Q1NLbmtjRFFwMXBuNVlVN0U
Where did you get 2.6W was the best forward power EW has achieved?
You might review what FattyLumpkin is referring to: he is referring to the figure of merit for EM Drive's which is thrust/power instead of simply thrust.
FattyLumpkin is correctly stating that in NASA's Brady et.al's paper the highest thrust/power (21.3 mN/kW) was achieved in mode shape TE012 with only 2.6 watts of reported input power. That's where he got that from.
What he stated was and my comment was based on was:
After all 2.6 Watts was the only amount of energy they were "able" to get into their best power/thrust frustum.
The discussion was about their being some mode related relationship that limited forward power to a frustum, which as far as we know is not limited.
Of course the Rf coupler has to be correctly designed, positioned & aligned to achieve a very low VSWR in the mode desired and at the frustum's resonance freq for that mode. Once that is achieved, overheating of the frustum & Rf drive system will be what limits max forward power.
If 2.6W was all the forward power a 30W Rf amp could deliver to the frustum, then reflected power must be very much higher, with a terrible VSWR and associated bad Rf coupler design/position/orientation.
Let me get this correct, you are now saying the measured EmDrive generated thrust was real as since your 1st post on this forum, your position has always been the thrust measured was not real and was some error or other effect.
-
#2755
by
flux_capacitor
on 26 May, 2016 18:24
-
Not followed Woodward's Mach Effect much, but know of no independent builds, tests or verifications outside of the good Professor. If there are some, let me know. Also, I don't recall seeing anything close to the design disclosure there is with the emdrive. EW tested it I believe, but moved on to something else. Any individuals replicating Mach Effect work or know of any, please point to the specifics. Not much time to dig into it myself. Running on 3 hours of sleep after the radio show...
Woodward's METs (Mach-Effect Thrusters) are not secret devices and any patient and dedicated DIYer could replicate them. They are quite simple in their construction: some disks about one inch diameter made of piezoelectric or electrostrictive high-k materials, like PZT or PMN, built from sintered powder (although PMN seems rather difficult to buy). Apart from that: Bonded copper electrodes. Screws. Electric wires. Liquid metal (Galinstan) contacts. Accelerometers. A very high-precision torsional pendulum. A vacuum pump. And some not-so-fancy electronics to generate the adequate HV/AC frequencies to drive the little test articles.
Honestly I think the main difficulty for a new DIYer in Mach Effect propulsion would be to acquire Woodward's knowledge and know-how about the very specific signal generation and how to carefully cancel spurious effects. This is touchy because the thrust signatures are so tiny, the signal needs to be very clean and the precision of the balance very high. The level of precision is what has prevented DIYers to replicate Woodward's work IMHO. Because of that, higher power METs from Woodward are long overdue.
For a start, before reading Woodward's book, perhaps you could have a look at Tom Mahood's summary of those devices on
his personal page. Good close-up pictures of some METs there.
(Tom Mahood was Woodward's graduate student in the 90s)
-
#2756
by
Rodal
on 26 May, 2016 18:55
-
...
Let me get this correct, you are now saying the measured EmDrive generated thrust was real as since your 1st post on this forum, your position has always been the thrust measured was not real and was some error or other effect.
Your summary of my prior posts is incorrect. Furthermore it is off-topic, as the purpose of this thread is to discuss "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications" instead of having posters summarize their opinions on other's "beliefs" on the EM Drive, or question them about their beliefs. My involvement in this thread has been technical/scientific and I have no interest to engage on what you may or may not believe.
I have usually referred to the measurements as "anomalous force" instead of thrust, just as done by Brady et.al., For the figure of merit I usually have been writing "thrust/InputPower" for short, to communicate to the general reader. I could write "force/InputPower" but most people in this thread are using "thrust" when referring to the reported or claimed anomalous force.
As it would be awkward having to write something long for the figure of merit like
"Reported anomalous force/Reported input Power"
-
#2757
by
FattyLumpkin
on 26 May, 2016 19:02
-
The question re the NASA frustum and the TE012 mode was if there is such a "good" power/thrust radio in this mode, then why was there not more power >2.6 Watts "put/injected" into it? Sonny stated they were only "able" to get 2.6 Watts in the frustum into this mode. What did he mean by this? Why weren't they "able" to get more power into the frustum? Since predicted Q and actual Q were high and close to one another in TE012 might this not also speak to the "good" power/thrust" ratio?
The neophyte looks at the data, sees the best thrust/power ratio, sees the high predicted and actual Q and asks why not up the power and generate a good deal more force? Dr. Rodal agreed "anomalous force/power" would be cumbersome (in the least!)
-
#2758
by
FattyLumpkin
on 26 May, 2016 19:23
-
Dave, Jamie, that looks great! Dave, you have mentioned a few times that your frustum is high "Q" --- Do you have a +/- value for that? Best of luck! thanks, Kevin
-
#2759
by
Rodal
on 26 May, 2016 19:28
-
NSF-1701A Update - Special Thanks to Monomorphic
A full FEKO analysis has been made of my emdrive cavity. Jamie and I are pretty convinced its TM013. The dimensions entered into the modeling software were ACTUAL measured inner dimensions of the frustum. Here is the model. Again, thanks to Jamie, NSF-1701A is ready to fly with TM013:
Is there a technical reason for choosing dimensions of your frustum to resonate in your experiment with mode shape TM013? I don't recall this mode shape being used by other experimenters, for comparison:
Shawyer: TE012 and TE013 (TE mode shape instead of TM mode shape)
Yang: TE012 (TE mode shape instead of TM mode shape)
NASA: TE012 in one test, and TM212 since then in most tests (also including polymer insert)
Is there a technical reason to make your frustum resonate in a transverse magnetic mode shape TM013 instead of transverse electric mode shape TE013 used by Shawyer for the Flight Thruster? or TE012 used by Yang and by Shawyer for the Demonstrator?
Experimenters that did not use polymer inserts (Shawyer and Yang) used transverse electric mode shapes instead of a transverse magnetic mode shape.
, it is instead, another one of your opinions 