...As with a potential for more test data you were not familiar with...
If by
potential for more test data you were not familiar with
you are referring to what
you personally may or may not do, yes, that's correct (that I am certainly not familiar with what
you may or may not do).
However as to what institutions may or may not do, it would be presumptive on your part to assume that I may not be familiar with
And I certainly try to avoid any speculation of the future
Hi all,
Finally closing off the EM Drive experiment we did at Cal Poly. In case you hadn't heard, observed deflections appeared to be caused purely by thermal effects. Removing the hose clamp securing the wires to the cylinder caused deflections to change in unpredictable patterns leading us to believe that thermal expansion of the leads was the only cause of pendulum deflection.
Some possible reasons our cylindrical resonator didn't work:
Asymmetry was not large enough (1 inch thick dielectric disc in ~7 inch by 4.25 in diameter cavity)
Quality of the resonator may not have been high enough
Force measurement resolution wasn't high enough
But at least we learned a lot and had fun doing it. I'll probably try again someday soon when I have the resources.
Attached is the final paper, all corresponding appendices can be found on my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Thank you to everyone for your support and efforts toward the EM Drive! 
Nice work and good luck on your new gig on the east coast Kurt! Noticed your Fig. 23. Does my recent data look familiar?
I was able to all but eliminate it on the 4th null test. Details here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4s5kcr/success_1701a_4th_null_torsion_beam_test/
Hi all,
Finally closing off the EM Drive experiment we did at Cal Poly. In case you hadn't heard, observed deflections appeared to be caused purely by thermal effects. Removing the hose clamp securing the wires to the cylinder caused deflections to change in unpredictable patterns leading us to believe that thermal expansion of the leads was the only cause of pendulum deflection.
Some possible reasons our cylindrical resonator didn't work:
Asymmetry was not large enough (1 inch thick dielectric disc in ~7 inch by 4.25 in diameter cavity)
Quality of the resonator may not have been high enough
Force measurement resolution wasn't high enough
But at least we learned a lot and had fun doing it. I'll probably try again someday soon when I have the resources.
Attached is the final paper, all corresponding appendices can be found on my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Thank you to everyone for your support and efforts toward the EM Drive!
Nice work and good luck on your new gig on the east coast Kurt! Noticed your Fig. 23. Does my recent data look familiar?
...
I see two different responses in this latest plot. The pen tap at the beginning show a fast rise time with overshoot and ringing. This is possibly from movement of the pendulum or it might just be from flexing of the pendulum arm after it is tapped. It would be very interesting to see what the response looked like from a calibrated force. That could be a small weight attached to monofilament line that pulled on the pendulum. A pulley, attached to the floor, would have to be set up at the same level as the pendulum arm. I remember seeing another test that used this method. Of course there are many other ways of applying a calibrated force. The problem with the pen tap is we don't know what it does and what the magnitude of the force is.
If we assume the beam is rigid and the pen tap actually imparts momentum to the beam we are looking at the dynamic response of the torque pendulum; although uncalibrated. Any force that acts on the torque pendulum will have a waveform with the same shape; just scaled in size by the relative amplitude of the force. However, as I have stated before, the RF induced waveform does not look at all like the pen tap waveform. Therefore it does not show evidence that the torque pendulum has rotated. Something else is moving.
Hi all,
Finally closing off the EM Drive experiment we did at Cal Poly. In case you hadn't heard, observed deflections appeared to be caused purely by thermal effects. Removing the hose clamp securing the wires to the cylinder caused deflections to change in unpredictable patterns leading us to believe that thermal expansion of the leads was the only cause of pendulum deflection.
Some possible reasons our cylindrical resonator didn't work:
Asymmetry was not large enough (1 inch thick dielectric disc in ~7 inch by 4.25 in diameter cavity)
Quality of the resonator may not have been high enough
Force measurement resolution wasn't high enough
But at least we learned a lot and had fun doing it. I'll probably try again someday soon when I have the resources.
Attached is the final paper, all corresponding appendices can be found on my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Thank you to everyone for your support and efforts toward the EM Drive!
Nice work and good luck on your new gig on the east coast Kurt! Noticed your Fig. 23. Does my recent data look familiar?
...
I see two different responses in this latest plot. The pen tap at the beginning show a fast rise time with overshoot and ringing. This is possibly from movement of the pendulum or it might just be from flexing of the pendulum arm after it is tapped. It would be very interesting to see what the response looked like from a calibrated force. That could be a small weight attached to monofilament line that pulled on the pendulum. A pulley, attached to the floor, would have to be set up at the same level as the pendulum arm. I remember seeing another test that used this method. Of course there are many other ways of applying a calibrated force. The problem with the pen tap is we don't know what it does and what the magnitude of the force is.
If we assume the beam is rigid and the pen tap actually imparts momentum to the beam we are looking at the dynamic response of the torque pendulum; although uncalibrated. Any force that acts on the torque pendulum will have a waveform with the same shape; just scaled in size by the relative amplitude of the force. However, as I have stated before, the RF induced waveform does not look at all like the pen tap waveform. Therefore it does not show evidence that the torque pendulum has rotated. Something else is moving.
Quite familiar with the many response charts over the last few months. The tap was strong enough to displace the beam. The initial higher frequency impact is quickly attenuated when I ran the ADC at a fast sample rate. It was also lost in the voltage inaccuracies of the ADC caused by the faster sample rate. For all intents and purposes, the beam is not subject to high frequency oscillations, nor would it have to be to pick up on any thrust signatures which should be semi-sustained even with rapid RF pulses. That is the trade-off, a long period beam oscillation that is reasonably dampened and an accurate displacement reading as possible.
The displacements you see on these charts are the physical beam displacement as measured by the LDS. It was calibrated at the time to 1.34 mV/mg*** then to mN. The consistency of the displacement when the harness was affixed to the beam clearly demonstrated a displacement force above 20+ mN. This was resolved as I described elsewhere.
***Calibrated weight drops were used to get the 1.34 mV/mg.
Hi all,
Finally closing off the EM Drive experiment we did at Cal Poly. In case you hadn't heard, observed deflections appeared to be caused purely by thermal effects. Removing the hose clamp securing the wires to the cylinder caused deflections to change in unpredictable patterns leading us to believe that thermal expansion of the leads was the only cause of pendulum deflection.
Some possible reasons our cylindrical resonator didn't work:
Asymmetry was not large enough (1 inch thick dielectric disc in ~7 inch by 4.25 in diameter cavity)
Quality of the resonator may not have been high enough
Force measurement resolution wasn't high enough
But at least we learned a lot and had fun doing it. I'll probably try again someday soon when I have the resources.
Attached is the final paper, all corresponding appendices can be found on my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller
Thank you to everyone for your support and efforts toward the EM Drive!
Nice work and good luck on your new gig on the east coast Kurt! Noticed your Fig. 23. Does my recent data look familiar?
...
I see two different responses in this latest plot. The pen tap at the beginning show a fast rise time with overshoot and ringing. This is possibly from movement of the pendulum or it might just be from flexing of the pendulum arm after it is tapped. It would be very interesting to see what the response looked like from a calibrated force. That could be a small weight attached to monofilament line that pulled on the pendulum. A pulley, attached to the floor, would have to be set up at the same level as the pendulum arm. I remember seeing another test that used this method. Of course there are many other ways of applying a calibrated force. The problem with the pen tap is we don't know what it does and what the magnitude of the force is.
If we assume the beam is rigid and the pen tap actually imparts momentum to the beam we are looking at the dynamic response of the torque pendulum; although uncalibrated. Any force that acts on the torque pendulum will have a waveform with the same shape; just scaled in size by the relative amplitude of the force. However, as I have stated before, the RF induced waveform does not look at all like the pen tap waveform. Therefore it does not show evidence that the torque pendulum has rotated. Something else is moving.
I thought that by now it had been established that the pictured responses in rfmwguy's experiment were
experimental artifacts due to an experimental mistake in running the wire harness on the beam.
...
I thought that by now it had been established that the pictured responses in rfmwguy's experiment were experimental artifacts due to an experimental mistake in running the wire harness on the beam.
I buy that. The pendulum beam could be moving from heat expansion of the supply wire. The time constant is much longer and has a thermal signature. One way to test this is to wire the supply to resistors; one to replace the filament and another for the high voltage. Dave could also change the way the wire is suspended. If there is a corresponding change in the waveform perhaps by iteration the effect could be analyzed.
Attached is the chart and data for my first powered test since retooling the test stand. I used a higher resolution setting on the laser displacement sensor. At this setting, vibrations in the torsional pendulum can be seen. The first band of squiggles a few seconds after power on is the magnetron firing and RF being generated. I confirmed using spectrum analyser that RF was present. I think strongest resonance occurred at about the halfway point when the beam began moving significantly. I was showing ~2.45Ghz at that timeframe. Direction of anomalous force is for 'reverse thrust.'
This is the first test using the new laser displacement sensor and dataq capture software. It should only get better from here.
Attached is the chart and data for my first powered test since retooling the test stand. I used a higher resolution setting on the laser displacement sensor. At this setting, vibrations in the torsional pendulum can be seen. The first band of squiggles a few seconds after power on is the magnetron firing and RF being generated. I confirmed using spectrum analyser that RF was present. I think strongest resonance occurred at about the halfway point when the beam began moving significantly. I was showing ~2.45Ghz at that timeframe. Direction of anomalous force is for 'reverse thrust.'
This is the first test using the new laser displacement sensor and dataq capture software. It should only get better from here.
Great job!
Can you please confirm again
1) what is the
mode shape you are expecting,
according to your FEKO model, for your geometry at this frequency
2) is
"reverse thrust" a
displacement motion directed in the direction from the small end to the large end of your frustum ?
Can you please confirm again
1) what is the mode shape you are expecting, according to your FEKO model, for your geometry at this frequency
2) is "reverse thrust" a displacement motion directed in the direction from the small end to the large end of your frustum ?
Thanks! FEKO predicts mode shape TE311. With full tuning, I think TE212 can also be excited, but that was not attempted on this run.
Yes, that is what I mean by reverse thrust - big end leads in the direction of movement.
Can you please confirm again
1) what is the mode shape you are expecting, according to your FEKO model, for your geometry at this frequency
2) is "reverse thrust" a displacement motion directed in the direction from the small end to the large end of your frustum ?
Thanks! FEKO predicts mode shape TE311. With full tuning, I think TE212 can also be excited, but that was not attempted on this run.
Yes, that is what I mean by reverse thrust - big end leads in the direction of movement.
Excellent!
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
This will occur, regardless of whether the anomalous force is real or not, under a number of explanations
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
That question can be answered by aligning the frustum along the 90
o pivot point axis and along with using a thermal load profile on the frustum expose the thrust vectors of the frustum.
Shell
Another powered test. This time, the orange lines indicate RF on and RF off. I was able to use the 900Mhz wireless switch to send 'events' to the dataq. I monitored the spectrum analyser and clicked when RF was present and when off. I could click in increments of xMhz, which may prove useful.
Thanks. So that's the end of that then. Pretty downbeat ending to the whole enterprise.
Hard to accept...
but if so the Referees and Nasa must have had a reason for their decisions. I am quite sure by now that the concept is not working as we
expected it to work.
The Thing is: If an Experiment shows negative results (though scientifically constructive and in this sense positive) These results are never published nowadays.
So no News from Eagleworks means, that the EMDrive concept probably does not work, meaning that the thrust could not be measured in their improved Setup.
However, there are many more experimental ideas to test, so I am not losing my confidence, that at least the solar system will be colonized sometime.
I hate rumors and especially ones that can't be substantiated. We truly don't know we can only hope when the information comes out in recognized channels it's good.
I can see it in several ways.
Dr. White's QV theory is accepted and the drive provides data for thrust.
Dr. White's QV theory isn't accepted and the drive still provides data for thrust.
No thrust and Dr. Whites theory is accepted.
No thrust and no Theory.
NASA buries the entire thing, releasing nothing.
The entire thing goes black. . . somehow.
Whatever happens it will not impact my testing and the testing by independent sources.
I need to amend what I've been saying that
there is no bad data. This rumor is . . .bad data.
My Best,
Shell
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
That question can be answered by aligning the frustum along the 90o pivot point axis and along with using a thermal load profile on the frustum expose the thrust vectors of the frustum.
Shell
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow exactly. The thermal load profile I assume is some force from thermal convection. I'm not sure what the angle is with respect to
other than with respect to the axis of the torrison pendulum maybe but there are 2 possibilities for being 90 degrees with respect to it., or what the method is exactly for separating EM thrust from thermal. I'm curious though.
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
That question can be answered by aligning the frustum along the 90o pivot point axis and along with using a thermal load profile on the frustum expose the thrust vectors of the frustum.
Shell
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow exactly. The thermal load profile I assume is some force from thermal convection. I'm not sure what the angle is with respect to, or what the method is exactly for separating EM thrust from thermal. I'm curious though.
One way to tell apart a thermal from an electromagnetic effect from a hollow microwave cavity is that the time constant of thermal response is much slower. This is so because electromagnetism travels at the speed of light while thermal diffusion is governed by thermal diffusivity. Thermal convection is governed by fluid mechanics, in addition to heat transfer, much slower than electromagnetism.
It doesn't make sense that an experimental response with a time decay of minutes would be due to an electromagnetic effect from the hollow microwave cavity.
The speed of light in air is about 299700 km/s (only 90 km/s slower than c).When such experiments were examined...they turned out to be
experimental artifacts.
The last one was explained as due to the mistake by the experimenter of running the wire harness along the torsional pendulum's beam.
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
That question can be answered by aligning the frustum along the 90o pivot point axis and along with using a thermal load profile on the frustum expose the thrust vectors of the frustum.
Shell
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow exactly. The thermal load profile I assume is some force from thermal convection. I'm not sure what the angle is with respect to, or what the method is exactly for separating EM thrust from thermal. I'm curious though.
One way to tell apart a thermal from an electromagnetic effect from a hollow microwave cavity is that the time constant of thermal response is much slower. This is so because electromagnetism travels at the speed of light while thermal diffusion is governed by thermal diffusivity. Thermal convection is governed by fluid mechanics, in addition to heat transfer, much slower than electromagnetism.
It doesn't make sense that an experimental response with a time decay of minutes would be due to an electromagnetic effect from the hollow microwave cavity.
The speed of light in air is about 299700 km/s (only 90 km/s slower than c).
When such experiments were examined...they turned out to be experimental artifacts.
The last one was explained as due to the mistake by the experimenter of running the wire harness along the torsional pendulum's beam.
Anyone wanting to read my own assessment on my experiment is free to visit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4s5kcr/success_1701a_4th_null_torsion_beam_test/
I had written in the past that I expected the motion to be in the reverse direction from the small end to the big end, because of the location of the peak energy density in mode shape TEmn1 is closer to the big end than to the small end.
It was not an accident I chose these two modes. Not only are they closely adjacent, but the E-fields are concentrated on opposite ends of the frustum. The theory is TE311 produces reverse thrust, and then I tune to TE212, without making any other changes to the build, and get forward thrust.
So how do we know that the energy concentration isn't where the cavity heats up and that the cavity is just swimming toward the region of low pressure (hot air)? Do we have a way to tell?
That question can be answered by aligning the frustum along the 90o pivot point axis and along with using a thermal load profile on the frustum expose the thrust vectors of the frustum.
Shell
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow exactly. The thermal load profile I assume is some force from thermal convection. I'm not sure what the angle is with respect to other than with respect to the axis of the torrison pendulum maybe but there are 2 possibilities for being 90 degrees with respect to it., or what the method is exactly for separating EM thrust from thermal. I'm curious though.
Understand.
A thermal profile coupled with a EM thrust profile will be additive and show a increased profile, or decreased acceleration profile depending if it's non-additive.
Once that profile is gained from rotating the drive in 90
o steps centered on the same pivot point on the drive, profile using a thermal mimicking load.
When you compare the two data sets you'll see the thermal and the thrust profiles.
