-
#2900 by zen-in on 31 May, 2016 15:53
-
Induction heating is routinely used to heat metals with high thermal conductivity: if the thermal losses are high enough there is no problem achieving high temperatures due to induction heating in metals with high thermal conductivity.
Here is a video of induction heating melting and boiling copper (using 2.8 KW power and a much lower frequency of 62.5kHz so that the skin depth is much larger), copper, with high thermal conductivity can be melted by induction heating under the suitable parameters (observe how one can see the copper turning red and then white hot, with a regular optical camera, without need of infrared):
The strange behavior of the glowing mass in the u-tube poster's crucible is because the Copper mostly converts to CuO and doesn't ever get molten. It just turns into a matrix of scaly flakes of CuO with some Copper left inside. Interesting video. -
#2901 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 16:02
-
Induction heating is routinely used to heat metals with high thermal conductivity: if the thermal losses are high enough there is no problem achieving high temperatures due to induction heating in metals with high thermal conductivity.
Here is a video of induction heating melting and boiling copper (using 2.8 KW power and a much lower frequency of 62.5kHz so that the skin depth is much larger), copper, with high thermal conductivity can be melted by induction heating under the suitable parameters (observe how one can see the copper turning red and then white hot, with a regular optical camera, without need of infrared):
The strange behavior of the glowing mass in the u-tube poster's crucible is because the Copper mostly converts to CuO and doesn't ever get molten. It just turns into a matrix of scaly flakes of CuO with some Copper left inside. Interesting video.
Here is another one, using 3 KW where the white hot copper levitates in the inductor heater:
Depending on the power setting you can even levitate copper in mid-air. Aluminum will also levitate easily at 1-1.5kw of input power. Once the material has melted, the RF power is shut off, and the molten mass can be dropped into a mold for forming. Potential for this lies in the jewelry, dental applications.
At a particular frequency, the inductive impedance dominates and the current and the applied field are virtually in line, and this current generates a magnetic field that is opposed to the applied one, and this permits levitation.
-
#2902 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 16:03
-
...
Incorrect, NASA had the polymer insert in the small end for most of its experiments
Hi Jamie, thanks and congrats! Looks like its time to analyze your observations. Did you put the insert on the small end? I believe EW had it on the big end but cant recall. -
#2903 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 16:42
-
Here's a post where some of this was discussed. I am researching your statement further:
Nothing in that post disagrees with what I stated and nothing in that post supports your arguing as to what was the prevailing configuration used by NASA for most of their tests. That post refers to a different mode shape TM010 (which is not the usual mode shape that NASA used in most of their experiments: TM212).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1349289#msg1349289
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
The reading audience is going to get completely confused if you refer to unusual mode shapes like TM010, a mode shape that the Brady et.al report never mentioned, a mode shape whose results are not in the EM Drive wiki experimental table for NASA, because it is not a representative test for most of their experiments.
Notice that I was careful to write "Most" instead of "All" in my statement, as I was perfectly aware that NASA run a number of mode shapes, with different material inserts and locations, but I keep separate what is the prevailing configuration and what are the exceptions. It is confusing to the readership of the thread (that just asked for posts clarifying what is going on) to refer to exceptions as if they were the rule:.Do you guys think it would be a good idea for the first post in this thread/any future threads to contain a progress summary which can be edited with any/all updates which occur? I try and understand what is going on from a layman's perspective but am finding it increasingly hard following all of your work... I feel this would help.
Cheers
The facts are that NASA had the HDPE polymer insert in the small end , and that the motion NASA measured, as well as the force NASA measured were directed in the direction of the small end, the same end that had the polymer insert, for mode shape TM212.
That's where it makes sense to put the polymer insert for mode shapes TM212 run by NASA
-
#2904 by zen-in on 31 May, 2016 18:18
-
Induction heating is routinely used to heat metals with high thermal conductivity: if the thermal losses are high enough there is no problem achieving high temperatures due to induction heating in metals with high thermal conductivity.
Here is a video of induction heating melting and boiling copper (using 2.8 KW power and a much lower frequency of 62.5kHz so that the skin depth is much larger), copper, with high thermal conductivity can be melted by induction heating under the suitable parameters (observe how one can see the copper turning red and then white hot, with a regular optical camera, without need of infrared):
The strange behavior of the glowing mass in the u-tube poster's crucible is because the Copper mostly converts to CuO and doesn't ever get molten. It just turns into a matrix of scaly flakes of CuO with some Copper left inside. Interesting video.
Here is another one, using 3 KW where the white hot copper levitates in the inductor heater:
Depending on the power setting you can even levitate copper in mid-air. Aluminum will also levitate easily at 1-1.5kw of input power. Once the material has melted, the RF power is shut off, and the molten mass can be dropped into a mold for forming. Potential for this lies in the jewelry, dental applications.
At a particular frequency, the inductive impedance dominates and the current and the applied field are virtually in line, and this current generates a magnetic field that is opposed to the applied one, and this permits levitation.
I first saw an example of that at the Canadian Mint in Ottawa. A friend's dad worked there and gave us a tour of their operations. He was a chemist and was in charge of Gold assays of mine production. In the basement of the building he showed a pile of Gold bricks equivalent to 1-2 cords of wood. In the next room they were all ready to melt a crucible full of 999 Gold. An induction heater (or possibly a resistive heater) has placed around the crucible and within 30 Sec. was glowing bright orange. The crucible was soon glowing the same color and after about 3 Min of heating the molten Gold was poured into an ingot mold. After it cooled a little they sprinkled Carbon grains on it. I was handed an ingot later and told I could keep it if I could get it out of the building. It was over 100 pounds so I didn't think I could run very fast with it. It was quite a tour. -
#2905 by zellerium on 31 May, 2016 18:30
-
...
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
-
#2906 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 18:34
-
According to Dr. White's mutable and degradable QV theory and according to Alexander Trunev's General Relativity/Yang Mills theory and according to Minotti's scalar tensor theory, probably also for Prof. Woodward's theory applied to the EM Drive. (For mode shapes such that the energy density is greater than the Lagrangian density and for which the electric and magnetic vector fields are perpendicular to each other)....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
According to Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity there cannot be such thing as thrust for the EM Drive that exceeds the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket. -
#2907 by tchernik on 31 May, 2016 18:58
-
According to Dr. White's mutable and degradable QV theory and according to the General Relativity/Yang Mills theory and according to Minotti's scalar tensor theory, probably also for Prof. Woodward's theory applied to the EM Drive. (For mode shapes such that the energy density is equal to or greater than the Lagrangian density and for which the electric and magnetic vector fields are perpendicular to each other)....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
According to Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity there cannot be such thing as thrust for the EM Drive that exceeds the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is precisely why I'm eager to see the current trend of DIY torsion balance tests continue. And see the DIYers improve upon them by using embedded batteries. I'm just sad I don't have the skills to do it myself, but I'm certainly living all these emotions through your updates.
Seeing a reliable/repeatable test move a torsion balance with batteries embedded in the test article would put this in a whole other league in scientific terms, and make it become the next best thing after a space test.
Congrats to the DIY builders for their latest results, the chance is yours. -
#2908 by FattyLumpkin on 31 May, 2016 19:04
-
Hey folks (ladies and gentlemen), on page 150 an individual who's moniker is "topsphere" had I very good suggestion IMHO:
"Do you guys think it would be a good idea for the first post in this thread/any future threads to contain a progress summary which can be edited with any/all updates which occur? I try and understand what is going on from a layman's perspective but am finding it increasingly hard following all of your work... I feel this would help."
I don't believe topsphere was just looking for test results. While Jamie and Dave are both testing it is indeed an exciting and hectic time, and the Moderator especially is short on time.
I'll make a note of this and try to put together a synopsis of this thread to be edited by Dave and/or ? ...I'll make sure to state it is an opinion of what has transpired. I'd not want anyone who visits here (this site) be relegated to "As the Frustum Turns" on Reddit. FL -
#2909 by zellerium on 31 May, 2016 19:06
-
According to Dr. White's mutable and degradable QV theory and according to Alexander Trunev's General Relativity/Yang Mills theory and according to Minotti's scalar tensor theory, probably also for Prof. Woodward's theory applied to the EM Drive. (For mode shapes such that the energy density is greater than the Lagrangian density and for which the electric and magnetic vector fields are perpendicular to each other)....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
According to Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity there cannot be such thing as thrust for the EM Drive that exceeds the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Thank you,
I believe this contradicts Todd's (@warptech) theory that raising the ground state energy of the vacuum causes a repulsion due to the reduction of the 'refractive index of spacetime' below 1. Perhaps this is one reason why his theory hasn't garnered much attention? -
#2910 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 19:35
-
Can't comment on that as I don't recall the equations used by Todd (@warptech). It depends on the equation Todd uses to calculate the increase in ground state energy of the vacuum.
According to Dr. White's mutable and degradable QV theory and according to Alexander Trunev's General Relativity/Yang Mills theory and according to Minotti's scalar tensor theory, probably also for Prof. Woodward's theory applied to the EM Drive. (For mode shapes such that the energy density is greater than the Lagrangian density and for which the electric and magnetic vector fields are perpendicular to each other)....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
According to Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity there cannot be such thing as thrust for the EM Drive that exceeds the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Thank you,
I believe this contradicts Todd's (@warptech) theory that raising the ground state energy of the vacuum causes a repulsion due to the reduction of the 'refractive index of spacetime' below 1. Perhaps this is one reason why his theory hasn't garnered much attention?
-
#2911 by X_RaY on 31 May, 2016 19:57
-
I think that's simply another point of view. It's a question of which "constant" can be potentially defined as possible variable (best choice) since thrust generation of such a cavity resonator is almost impossible due to standard equations. Either one of these coefficients is variable or "new" physics is needed. Thats the try to satisfy the first option.
Can't comment on that as I don't recall the equations used by Todd (@warptech). It depends on the equation Todd uses to calculate the increase in ground state energy of the vacuum.
According to Dr. White's mutable and degradable QV theory and according to Alexander Trunev's General Relativity/Yang Mills theory and according to Minotti's scalar tensor theory, probably also for Prof. Woodward's theory applied to the EM Drive. (For mode shapes such that the energy density is greater than the Lagrangian density and for which the electric and magnetic vector fields are perpendicular to each other)....
Just to be clear, are you saying that the drive will 'thrust' in the direction of highest energy density?
As Monomorphic correctly pointed out, the direction of thrust is a function of the mode shape. As I pointed out several times, the location of the energy density changes drastically with the value of "p" in the mode shape.
...
According to Maxwell's theory and Special Relativity there cannot be such thing as thrust for the EM Drive that exceeds the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Thank you,
I believe this contradicts Todd's (@warptech) theory that raising the ground state energy of the vacuum causes a repulsion due to the reduction of the 'refractive index of spacetime' below 1. Perhaps this is one reason why his theory hasn't garnered much attention?
The values of these constants are effective variable (but absolute defined to be constants), look at the metamaterials in this regard. -
#2912 by Rodal on 31 May, 2016 20:02
-
Let's recall the huge discrepancy between Quantum Mechanics calculations of the ground state energy of the vacuum (practically boundless) with the comparatively small estimates from cosmological measurements based on General Relativity and dark energy....
I think that's simply another point of view. It's a question of what "constant" can potentially defined as possible variable.
Can't comment on that as I don't recall the equations used by Todd (@warptech). It depends on the equation Todd uses to calculate the increase in ground state energy of the vacuum.
The conventional view is that the quantum vacuum ground state is immutable zero energy point, just to think of a mutable and degradable vacuum is quite a jump in thought, let alone that, calculating how it would change.
See the vacuum catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
Hobson and Efstathiou (2006) said this was "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." The magnitude of this discrepancy is entirely beyond the descriptive power of any kind of commonplace comparison. For instance, the statement "the observable universe consists of exactly one elementary particle" is closer to being accurate, by at least ten orders of magnitude, than this prediction. -
#2913 by SeeShells on 31 May, 2016 20:38
-
Trying to be busy and not post so much but I had to say this made me chuckle.
Let's recall the huge discrepancy between Quantum Mechanics calculations of the ground state energy of the vacuum (practically boundless) with the comparatively small estimates from cosmological measurements based on General Relativity and dark energy....
I think that's simply another point of view. It's a question of what "constant" can potentially defined as possible variable.
Can't comment on that as I don't recall the equations used by Todd (@warptech). It depends on the equation Todd uses to calculate the increase in ground state energy of the vacuum.
The conventional view is that the quantum vacuum ground state is immutable zero energy point, just to think of a mutable and degradable vacuum is quite a jump in thought, let alone that, calculating how it would change.
See the vacuum catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
Hobson and Efstathiou (2006) said this was "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." The magnitude of this discrepancy is entirely beyond the descriptive power of any kind of commonplace comparison. For instance, the statement "the observable universe consists of exactly one elementary particle" is closer to being accurate, by at least ten orders of magnitude, than this prediction.QuoteFor instance, the statement "the observable universe consists of exactly one elementary particle" is closer to being accurate, by at least ten orders of magnitude, than this prediction.
Thanks for the smile today.
Shell -
#2914 by Monomorphic on 31 May, 2016 23:46
-
As promised, I have moved the power source far away from the torsional pendulum. When testing I can move it at least another 2 meters away from what is shown here with the amount of 10kV wire I have.
-
#2915 by mwvp on 01 Jun, 2016 05:30
-
Shawyer can still keep trade secrets recognizing that he discovered a non standard physics phenomenum.
...
I am personnaly open to Shawyer results. Even if I regret the fact that no reported test were run under vacuum, and battery powered, there are several arguments that are in his favour.
It means that, unlike Shawyer inconsistent explanation, Shawyer results, by themselves, are consistent. They can be explained by new physics in a consistent way.
It is just sad that Shawyer gaves us these bad explanations. If he just has given his results as experimental results, without making false demonstration that it works with standard physics, it would have been better for everyone
What if Shawyer doesn't believe he's uncovered new or non-standard physics? What if he believes the equations, such as he's provided, are valid? And what if he knows there is a propulsive effect, that cannot be practically viable without expensive or perhaps not presently realizable materials, such as super-Q superconductive cavities, but he still wants to cash in?
Perhaps he isn't telling the whole truth, because its not so pretty....
Since the fields in interplanetary space do not involve big power density, IMHO, the arguments about conservation of Energy And Momentum that were given earlier by Dr Rodal and Pr Frobnicat in these threads means that there is no possibility that the Emdrive gives much more thrust that a perfectly collimated photon rocket (excluding artifacts) with GR. But yes I was not involved at all in thread 1
Ok, after some reconsideration, I can see how I may be rigorously mistaken in asserting that an EM Drive perhaps is, because of my off-the-cuff fuzzy notions. Rather than thrust (force), lets say transfer efficiency; how much a rocket may increase its velocity for a given amount of energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
My understanding is the EM Drive is recycling photons and exhausting Doppler down-shifted photons that have yielded momentum as heat....After all, When there was the Galileo case, Galileo was almost as bad as Shawyer.
...
My personal pick for greatest (known) mortal is Aristotle, when its not Maxwell. He wrote, "On youth & old age, life & death and respiration".
Quite a hoot today; not bad for circa 200 B.C. I guess.
In another work he discusses a child throwing a rock into the air, to train it to fly like a bird. One might, if sufficiently cruel, admonish the child to persevere to succeed. And one might admonish physicists at CERN, while hunting for the elusive Higgs Boson, that, "repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome is insanity". Aristotle noted the virtue of moderation, but not in all things.
-
#2916 by mwvp on 01 Jun, 2016 05:54
-
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voltage_stabiliser_transistor,_IEC_symbols.svg
Now I have a new question: How can I further change the output voltage and/or current limit this? That's this week's project.
Thanks in advance for the advice.
One idea that came to mind, but I never had a need to try was a series regulator to clean up ripple on a high voltage supply for a photomultiplier. It seemed to me that if the ripple didn't exceed the transistor specs, and there weren't ugly on/off transients, it wouldn't kill a transistor that wasn't spec'd for a couple kilovolts. I could protect it with a couple added zeners.
I don't know about this application, however, since the tube seems to be tuned with current as well.
I have seen, in the various circuit tomes transistor cascades that use opto-isolators to switch them for voltages as high as 10,000 V. Digikey stocks 10KV optos, BTW.
Good Luck, & be safe. -
#2917 by Johnny_Tsunami on 01 Jun, 2016 06:18
-
Did anyone see Space's Deepest Secrets "The Plot Against Gravity" tonight? Kind of a nice history of recent research in this area, EM Drive included, plus hints at some new ideas. This may have been all or in part the tv show from the UK talked about a while back that had Shawyer and BAE spots in it.
-
#2918 by Croppa on 01 Jun, 2016 06:31
-
A few things for the next test: Purchase more 10kV wire so I can get the power source further away from the torsional pendulum. I have disabled the fan, but want to see if moving it further away has any effect.
I will also make sure the HVAC is turned off during tests so there's no chance of that happening again - even though there is no vent in the garage, and it is very well insulated and sealed off - I don't want to take any chances. The two lights in the room are LED, not incandescent, so there shouldn't be too much convection from those.
I can tell I should probably run the raw data video longer before and after each test. Probably at least a minute on each side.
Having it run for longer on each side would definitely be better. A few minutes either side if you have the patience Here is what I get from the laser spot tracking of Test 02. I sampled the movie at 4 frames per second so the plot and xls file should be read accordingly. Power on seems to be from around 36 s (so frame 144 on this plot) to 89 s (frame 358).
I'm busy with a house move over the next couple of days so I won't have chance to play much with other movies. A while back I wrote a text file with the method for another forum member so if you or anyone wants to try it then the text file is here too.
I think there may a guy on the other forum who has automated this process better than I have so it might be worth reaching out there too if you want to continue to use the laser spot as your read out.
NB: The movie here is played back at 24 fps so 6x original speed. It's just to give an idea of how the automated tracking looks.
Congrats to you on a nice build and a big thanks to all the DIYers for keeping me hooked
-
#2919 by Croppa on 01 Jun, 2016 06:33
-
A few things for the next test: Purchase more 10kV wire so I can get the power source further away from the torsional pendulum. I have disabled the fan, but want to see if moving it further away has any effect.
I will also make sure the HVAC is turned off during tests so there's no chance of that happening again - even though there is no vent in the garage, and it is very well insulated and sealed off - I don't want to take any chances. The two lights in the room are LED, not incandescent, so there shouldn't be too much convection from those.
I can tell I should probably run the raw data video longer before and after each test. Probably at least a minute on each side.
Having it run for longer on each side would definitely be better. A few minutes either side if you have the patience Here is what I get from the laser spot tracking of Test 02. I sampled the movie at 4 frames per second so the plot and xls file should be read accordingly. Power on seems to be from around 36 s (so frame 144 on this plot) to 89 s (frame 358).
I'm busy with a house move over the next couple of days so I won't have chance to play much with other movies. A while back I wrote a text file with the method for another forum member so if you or anyone wants to try it then the text file is here too.
I think there may a guy on the other forum who has automated this process better than I have so it might be worth reaching out there too if you want to continue to use the laser spot as your read out.
NB: The movie here is played back at 24 fps so 6x original speed. It's just to give an idea of how the automated tracking looks.
Congrats to you on a nice build and a big thanks to all the DIYers for keeping me hooked
