-
#2920 by RERT on 01 Jun, 2016 11:16
-
Monomorphic -
Apologies if this is blindingly obvious, but there seems to be a strong signal in your data with a period of circa 120-150 frames in Croppa's plot, so say about 30-40 seconds.
If this is a natural frequency of the pendulum, then maybe damping might make the output much clearer. I'm sure others have commented on this with more specific suggestions. Otherwise analysis of the output is going to have to 'filter out' signals of that period. Mag power on/off cycles very different from that period might make it easier to avoid filtering out any real signal. Apropos your earlier question, I'd think you'd want data from several of those 30-40 second periods both before and after the tests.
As we discovered earlier with Dave's tests, one issue is getting a clear association between mag power on/off and the timing of the analysed video stream. In one of Dave's tests we had to watch a video of a clock ticking, listen for the mag to cut in and record the times by hand! I hesitate to propose work for other people, but if you had a light which came on in the frame of the ruler when the mag was on, maybe Croppa could add that signal to his xls analysis? -
#2921 by SeeShells on 01 Jun, 2016 11:18
-
Powered test 02 completed. I think I have something.
Congratulations on getting off to a great start!
If the laser moves to the left, it is moving "forward", if right, that is "reverse." I think I have reverse thrust (BUT need to do a lot more analysis). Need to point out this reverse thrust is predicted by White's theory for TE311.
Shell
-
#2922 by Croppa on 01 Jun, 2016 12:43
-
Monomorphic -
Apologies if this is blindingly obvious, but there seems to be a strong signal in your data with a period of circa 120-150 frames in Croppa's plot, so say about 30-40 seconds.
If this is a natural frequency of the pendulum, then maybe damping might make the output much clearer. I'm sure others have commented on this with more specific suggestions. Otherwise analysis of the output is going to have to 'filter out' signals of that period. Mag power on/off cycles very different from that period might make it easier to avoid filtering out any real signal. Apropos your earlier question, I'd think you'd want data from several of those 30-40 second periods both before and after the tests.
As we discovered earlier with Dave's tests, one issue is getting a clear association between mag power on/off and the timing of the analysed video stream. In one of Dave's tests we had to watch a video of a clock ticking, listen for the mag to cut in and record the times by hand! I hesitate to propose work for other people, but if you had a light which came on in the frame of the ruler when the mag was on, maybe Croppa could add that signal to his xls analysis?
A light indicating mag on would certainly help, assuming it doesn't cause any additional artifacts of course. Also, a plot of the Y position of the laser spot shows a very slight vertical deflection of the spot over time which seems to be roughly correlated with the ON time. I'm plotting this straight out of FIJI which has the origin of the image as the top left so the upwards trend actually means the laser spots drops vertically somewhat during the test. This may not be significant/reproducible but I thought I would point it out just in case there's some thermal issue here which becomes important later on.
-
#2923 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 12:55
-
A light indicating mag on would certainly help, assuming it doesn't cause any additional artifacts of course.
Thank you for taking the time to do these plots. I sincerely appreciate it!
There is a light in the video that comes on when the microwave does, as well as the sound of the microwave. The light you can see in image below, but it is easy to miss if you don't know what to look for. It is the interior microwave light and comes on at :35. There is also a sound that a magnetron makes when it powers up that sounds like a rattle or buzz and that happens at :41. So there is about a 5 second delay between power on and RF on.
-
#2924 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 13:27
-
There has been some confusion both from me and other users on exactly what EW saw on their older tests (nothing recent - this is some time ago and does not relate to current testing) as to forward and reverse thrust. I asked around and got the following response:
The information states"" the thrust reversed and pointed toward the small end of the cavity where all other TE012 and TM212 thrust vector tests also pointed."
"...observed just one case of thrust toward the large end of the EW copper frustum back on June 27, 2014 when driving the EW copper frustum cavity’s fundamental TM010 mode at 954.453 MHz with one of the EW PE disc mounted at the small OD end of the frustum cavity using normal side mounted loop antenna 15% up the side wall from the large end of the cavity. However when switched the PE disc to the large end of the cavity and the Teflon disc to follow, the thrust reversed and pointed toward the small end of the cavity where all other TE012 and TM212 thrust vector tests also pointed..."
Note: EW is still on info "lockdown" but this 3rd party information should be considered highly accurate as the individual documented EW info that was publicly released a couple of years ago. I don't recall seeing this on NSF Thread 2, but didn't scour everything...no time.
This information fully confirms what I wrote:
Most of the tests performed by NASA had the polymer insert at the small end, all the tests conducted in mode shapes TE012 and TM212 had the measured force and displacement pointing towards the small end.
These points have to be made clear, to eliminate confusion.
In the above communication you are told this, as well as the fact that the test performed in mode shape "TM010" was so unusual, it was just one case of thrust toward the large end of the EW copper frustum. (*)
Your recollection (that NASA had the polymer insert at the big end), was incorrect. Most of NASA tests had the polymer insert in the small end , as corrected here:...
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.
Therefore, Monomorphic placed the polymer insert at the same end as in most tests performed by NASA: at the small end of the frustum. Monomorphic results are, as he stated, consistent with Dr. White's theory, taking into account the location of the peak of the energy density for the mode shape that corresponds to his measured frequency
--------------
(*) to be strict, there is no such thing as mode shape TM010 in a frustum of a cone, as one can show that such a mode shape with p=0 cannot strictly exist in a tapered cavity, because it implies a constant wavelength and no waveform change in the longitudinal direction. What NASA means by TM010, is "the mode shape that looks sort of like TM010 and sort of corresponds to TM010 in a cylindrical cavity" -
#2925 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 13:53
-
...
Concerning your statement "There has been a tremendous amount of false information posted, some by accident, some deliberately", I hope that nobody has posted any false information deliberately, and I prefer to think the best of people's intentions.
Its called Due Diligence. I check several sources when I am uncertain or as you say confused. I recommend all users do this on their own when they follow the emdrive developments. There has been a tremendous amount of false information posted, some by accident, some deliberately. Measure twice, cut once.
The important thing here is to remark:
* Monomorphic placed the polymer insert at the same place as NASA did for most of its tests: at the small end of the frustum of a cone
* Monomorphic results (anomalous force pointing towards the big end instead of the small end) is consistent, when taking into account the peak of the energy density for the mode shape that appears to have been excited by Monomorphic, according to FEKO, with Dr. White's QV theory (and also Alexander Trunev Yang-Mills, and Minotti's scalar-tensor theory, and also Prof. Woodward's theories). All these theories also appear to correctly predict the direction of the force encountered by NASA on the test they described as TM010.
Any experts, on Shawyer's or McCulloch's theory: can Shawyer's theory or McCulloch's theory explain the direction of the thrust measured by Monomorphic?
It would be useful to argue this, as Monomorphic test may be a way to discriminate between theories.
This is not a "gotcha" question, as it is not clear to me how Shawyer's and McCulloch's theories can discriminate as to direction of the anomalous force. It would be useful if somebody would explain how these theories explain the direction of the force, and what these theories would predict.
The intention being, to argue this point, to see whether we can use this information to discriminate between theories. -
#2926 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 13:55
-
Here's a tip, I bought this 5 kV oscilloscope probe and attached it directly to ground and the 4 kV line to the power supply.
I'm heading to Frys today to pick up a 25' HDMI cable. Instead of including a mirror into the room, I'm just going to include the spectrum analyser monitor in the shot. Since there is a ~5 second delay between power on and RF on, I suspect a view of the spectrum analyser would be best. -
#2927 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 13:59
-
Just a suggestion on the mirror, based on many hours optically aligning telescope mirrors and high power lasers.
The mirrors are almost always mounted on 3 screws, mounted 120 degrees apart. That's the minimum to define an adjustable plane (unless you go for one fixed pivot point and only two adjustment screws). Four screws interact in weird ways.
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm retooling a bunch of things before more tests and this is one of the first things I did. It's smooth like butter!
-
#2928 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 14:39
-
...
Can you eventually run your tests without a polymer insert, to verify the measured anomalous force without a polymer insert? (*)
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm retooling a bunch of things before more tests and this is one of the first things I did. It's smooth like butter!
This would be useful to verify the fact that NASA' tests showed that the measured anomalous force/InputPower is much more significant (from a statistical point of view) with the polymer insert than without the polymer insert.
This would be useful to shed light into this issue, as Prof. Woodward's theory predicts a force with the polymer insert, while posters have previously stated that a polymer insert just takes "real estate", while decreasing the Q and hence are deleterious to the measured anomalous force measurement.
It is noteworthy that the Aachen team (Hackaday) obtained best results also using a polymer insert, like NASA.
And that Cannae states that for copper cavities they use a polymer insert as well.
------------
(*) this would involve a change in natural frequency for the same mode shape, since the polymer insert results in the same mode shape having a lower natural frequency. Hence running without the polymer insert would mean that the resonance would occur at a higher natural frequency. Either that or you would have to modify the geometry to get the same mode shape at the same natural frequency -
#2929 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 14:46
-
...
Can you eventually run your tests without a polymer insert, to verify the measured anomalous force without a polymer insert?
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm retooling a bunch of things before more tests and this is one of the first things I did. It's smooth like butter!
This would be useful to verify the fact that NASA' tests showed that the measured anomalous force/InputPower is much more significant (from a statistical point of view) with the polymer insert than without the polymer insert.
This would be useful to shed light into this issue, as Prof. Woodward's theory predicts a force with the polymer insert, while posters have previously stated that a polymer insert just takes "real estate", while decreasing the Q and hence are deleterious to the measured anomalous force measurement.
Yes, I will most definitely be running tests without the insert. I'm also going to run some tests with the insert fully tuned. Doing so gives me access to another mode that is "to the left" of the mode I am exciting now. I may do a video explaining this and showing the tuning in real time next time I have the VNA attached. I haven't had the time to identify the mode yet in FEKO, but if my frustum is anything like NASA's I think that mode may be TE212. -
#2930 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 14:49
-
...
NASA's most tests were run with transverse magnetic TM212 instead
Yes, I will most definitely be running tests without the insert. I'm also going to run some tests with the insert fully tuned. Doing so gives me access to another mode that is "to the left" of the mode I am exciting now. I may do a video explaining this and showing the tuning in real time next time I have the VNA attached. I haven't had the time to identify the mode yet in FEKO, but if my frustum is anything like NASA's I think that mode is TE212. -
#2931 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 15:24
-
...
NASA's most tests were run with transverse magnetic TM212 instead
Yes, I will most definitely be running tests without the insert. I'm also going to run some tests with the insert fully tuned. Doing so gives me access to another mode that is "to the left" of the mode I am exciting now. I may do a video explaining this and showing the tuning in real time next time I have the VNA attached. I haven't had the time to identify the mode yet in FEKO, but if my frustum is anything like NASA's I think that mode is TE212.
TM212 is too far away to tune to physically. And in TM212 the fields aren't really off center. But look at the difference between TE311 and TE212. If i'm lucky, I may be able to get forward and reverse thrust using the same frustum by exciting these different modes.
-
#2932 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 15:41
-
...
NASA's most tests were run with transverse magnetic TM212 instead
Yes, I will most definitely be running tests without the insert. I'm also going to run some tests with the insert fully tuned. Doing so gives me access to another mode that is "to the left" of the mode I am exciting now. I may do a video explaining this and showing the tuning in real time next time I have the VNA attached. I haven't had the time to identify the mode yet in FEKO, but if my frustum is anything like NASA's I think that mode is TE212.
TM212 is too far away to tune to physically. And in TM212 the fields aren't really off center. But look at the difference between TE311 and TE212. If i'm lucky, I may be able to get forward and reverse thrust using the same frustum by exciting these different modes.
Nice plots showing that the intensity of the electromagnetic fields is near the big end for TE311 and near the small end for TM212 (consistent with the direction of the thrust and consistent with Dr. White and Prof. Woodward's theories).
Indeed it would be nice to show that you can make the EM Drivethrustexhibit an anomalous force towards the small end or towards the big end at will !
Now, if the polymer insert would be serving the purpose of a dielectric (for example as in the Abraham-Minkowski controversy), it would be better in a sense to use a TM mode that has an electric field in the axial direction than a TE mode that has a magnetic field in the axial direction. I have argued elsewhere, that the purpose of the polymer insert, however is not to act as a dielectric but instead is to serve Prof. Woodward's Mach effect hypothesis, regarding the energy density and electrostiction and magnetostriction effects. I have also explained why Shawyer saw negative effects because he used inorganic dielectrics with high electric permittivity instead of using polymers with much lower values of electric permittivity like NASA. -
#2933 by Gilbertdrive on 01 Jun, 2016 15:55
-
This hypothesis is far worse about Shawyer. IMHO, ublishing incorrect data with sincerity, but because of experimental bias (such as no battery powered or vacuum test) is totally forgivable, since there was no lie. Giving totally ill defined formulas is forgivable, not reading correctly precise ask about his formulas and making non relevant answers is also forgivable.
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.
But, since many DIYers, like SeeShell, Mulletron, RFMWGUY, Monomorphic, and many others, made setup using his datas, spent much time and money to verify Shawyer claims, if he gave intentionnaly a false magnitude of the anomalous force, it would be unforgivable.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:
I totally agree. For example, a solar wing can work with 0 energy, and can give a thrust an infinite time higher than a 0 watt Photon Rocket. A Solar Wing rocket can increase it's velocity with no internal energy spent. But the thrust is very small comparatively to it's surface. The cancelled Nasa's Sunjammer was given for 0.1 N at 1 AU from the sun. For 1200 M2 and 32kg. It is a possibility for the future of space Travel. It means that it can accelerate by it's own of 0.1/320*86400=27m/s each day. Maybe usefull in the future for asteroid exploitation.
Also, since the solar wind is made of plasma, at a speed of around 300km/s, it is theoretically possible to get far more thrust by canalizing it and accelerating it to a greater speed. The additionnal thrust would needs energy, but far less than a photon rocket.
And there are probably several ways of interacting with the sun fields. I am not very competent about fields.
But, for the interaction with the sun fields, sun plasma, sun photons, a closed and small cavity does not make a big sense. Additionnaly, all the tests were conducted on earth, with earth magnetic field, and not exposed to the interplanetary fields. So, if the emdrive was working with these fields, all the tests that were conducted would be irrelevant. In fact, all the conducted tests are rather supposing a negligeable interaction with external fields. If the aim was of maximizing the interaction with external fields, the device would be completely different.
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.
The idea of the photonic thruster described is that the same photons are used several times, but it works only because there is the mother platform to push against. This is also why the efficiency ratio compared to a photon rocket is decreasing when the speed of the mission spacecraft relatively to the mother platform is increasing.
The energy conservation principle makes that the energy lost by the redshifting photons is gained by the mission spacecraft, in the form of Kinetic Energy relatively to the mother platform. The total momentum of the system composed of the mother platform and the mission spacecraft is not changed. Except when some photons (or waste heat) are lost in space
The emdrive has no mothership to push against, it can not work with the same principle that the Photonic laser thrusterIn 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.
I would personnaly tell to this child :
1 : Please, be carefull that there is nobody to get your rocks on the head
2 : Why not work in my laboratory ? I work on a flying machine made with feathers. I can not pay for now, but the rocks also do not pay.
If he think that feathers is not a good idea, and absolutely want to experiment what he feels, I would suggest
3 : Instead of always sending again and again the same rock, or random rocks, and just see if they fly, or not, make accurate mesurements. Trace lines on the ground. Use an instrument like a catapulte, to send different rocks with the same initial speed. Mesure the distance covered by each rock, and try to find parameters that makes a rock going further. When you have found a parameter, try to modify a rock to maximize these parameters. And why not use something else than a rock ?
Actually, for the Higgs Boson, the CERN was not trying always the same thing, they were using higher and higher energies. They were changing this important parameter. They found the Higgs boson when the collision had enough energy.
Also, even if "repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome is insanity" is a truth, as most of short formulas, it has a validity domain that would take several pages to define.
If my boss fires me because I have worn a batman costume when receiving customers, I would be insane of making the same in my next job. But If I am scientist making an experiment about the probability of loosing his job when wearing a batman costume at work, I need to do it hundreds of times to get good data
-
#2934 by Gilbertdrive on 01 Jun, 2016 16:54
-
...
Can you eventually run your tests without a polymer insert, to verify the measured anomalous force without a polymer insert? (*)
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm retooling a bunch of things before more tests and this is one of the first things I did. It's smooth like butter!
This would be useful to verify the fact that NASA' tests showed that the measured anomalous force/InputPower is much more significant (from a statistical point of view) with the polymer insert than without the polymer insert.
This would be useful to shed light into this issue, as Prof. Woodward's theory predicts a force with the polymer insert, while posters have previously stated that a polymer insert just takes "real estate", while decreasing the Q and hence are deleterious to the measured anomalous force measurement.
It is noteworthy that the Aachen team (Hackaday) obtained best results also using a polymer insert, like NASA.
And that Cannae states that for copper cavities they use a polymer insert as well.
------------
(*) this would involve a change in natural frequency for the same mode shape, since the polymer insert results in the same mode shape having a lower natural frequency. Hence running without the polymer insert would mean that the resonance would occur at a higher natural frequency. Either that or you would have to modify the geometry to get the same mode shape at the same natural frequency
Very good point. Also, if there is no thrust without the polymer insert, it is in favour of the effect being real. Most of the external artifacts that we can imagine, as the heating cable, magnetic fields with the magnetron magnets, etc, should not change much with the dielectric. Of course, it is not a definitive proof, because we can probably imagine artifacts that happen only when there is the insert, and it does not change the necessity of battery powered tests, but it is already a good begining. -
#2935 by Rodal on 01 Jun, 2016 17:08
-
Very nice observation: that an experiment (NASA's Brady et.al. report) that distinguishes the significance of the anomalous force between using polymer inserts and not using polymer inserts is showing a difference that cannot be attributed to effects due to Lorentz forces or thermal expansion of the power cables....
Can you eventually run your tests without a polymer insert, to verify the measured anomalous force without a polymer insert? (*)
Thanks for the suggestion! I'm retooling a bunch of things before more tests and this is one of the first things I did. It's smooth like butter!
This would be useful to verify the fact that NASA' tests showed that the measured anomalous force/InputPower is much more significant (from a statistical point of view) with the polymer insert than without the polymer insert.
This would be useful to shed light into this issue, as Prof. Woodward's theory predicts a force with the polymer insert, while posters have previously stated that a polymer insert just takes "real estate", while decreasing the Q and hence are deleterious to the measured anomalous force measurement.
It is noteworthy that the Aachen team (Hackaday) obtained best results also using a polymer insert, like NASA.
And that Cannae states that for copper cavities they use a polymer insert as well.
------------
(*) this would involve a change in natural frequency for the same mode shape, since the polymer insert results in the same mode shape having a lower natural frequency. Hence running without the polymer insert would mean that the resonance would occur at a higher natural frequency. Either that or you would have to modify the geometry to get the same mode shape at the same natural frequency
Very good point. Also, if there is no thrust without the polymer insert, it is in favour of the effect being real. Most of the external artifacts that we can imagine, as the heating cable, magnetic fields with the magnetron magnets, etc, should not change much with the dielectric. Of course, it is not a definitive proof, because we can probably imagine artifacts that happen only when there is the insert, and it does not changes the necessity of battery powered tests, but it is already a good begining. -
#2936 by X_RaY on 01 Jun, 2016 17:49
-
Short question: Is it possible that there is an influence of sound waves generated by the magnetron vibrations (relative loud low frequency hum)? Can this cause the "false direction of the thrust"?
This kind of waves are longitudinal waves, therefore I am not really sure about.
Only to take all possibilities into account.. -
#2937 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 18:10
-
Short question: Is it possible that there is an influence of sound waves generated by the magnetron vibrations (relative loud low frequency hum)? Can this cause the "false direction of the thrust"?
This kind of waves are longitudinal waves, therefore I am not really sure about.
Only to take all possibilities into account..
I have one of these Zoom H4n. Just popped in new batteries. Hope to get some really high quality audio as well.
https://www.zoom-na.com/products/field-video-recording/field-recording/zoom-h4n-handy-recorder
Also had the thought that since the end of my tuning section is not sealed, heated air could be jetting out. This would appear as "reverse thrust." I will probably use some silicone caulk to seal there - or something that can be fairly easily removed - when I do any work on the interior of the frustum. This will make the frustum air-tight. -
#2938 by Kenjee on 01 Jun, 2016 19:02
-
Is it possible to use something to measure force with its breaking point?
Mechanical pencil graphite tips can be used to nullify noise in resting position.
If there is force with power on, it will break the graphite tip.
Just an idea.
-
#2939 by Monomorphic on 01 Jun, 2016 19:18
-
Special thanks to Croppa for his Fiji tutorial! I can now do my own laser plots and they agree with his.
Note to Croppa, VLC media player will export frames as tiff, so no need for ffmpeg.
https://www.isimonbrown.co.uk/vlc-export-frames/
