-
#3760 by Bob Woods on 12 Jul, 2016 00:41
-
Keep at it Monomorphic!
Whether the NASA Eagleworks data is still in review or not is not a real issue. The data was secured by a government agency and is public information unless someone slaps a national security restriction. If they do that, well, that says a lot even if the data isn't available. If they don't restrict, then the data will have to be made available. -
#3761 by Rodal on 12 Jul, 2016 01:26
-
...
Another noteworthy feature from that experimental artifact that permits distinguishing a thermal response from the one of a hollow microwave cavity is the fact that the longer that the experimenter applied power for, the greater the displacement, and hence the greater the force response (please see the red bars in the above curve). As in a torsional pendulum the force is proportional to the angular displacement.
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.
A problem with EM Drive theories is that they posit a constant thrust force per constant input power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a photon rocket (which apparently would violate conservation of energy)
The experimenter applied constant power of 900 watts. Therefore the experimenter should have obtained a constant thrust force according to expectations. As the experimenter is using a torsional pendulum, a constant thrust force should result in constant displacement (a constant angle of rotation of the torsional pendulum). That would have been notorious enough if coming from a microwave cavity (possibly violating conservation of energy).
But instead, the experimenter was obtaining greater displacement (and hence a greater torsional force) the longer he applied the power apparently without bounds during the period of time that the power was applied .
If constant power resulting in constant thrust force greater than a photon rocket is bad enough as a violation of conservation of energy, imagine getting increasing thrust force with time with constant power input
If that would be so, the device would be a bountiful source of energy !
Thus the response by the experimenter can be seen as resulting from a thermal effect: the response increasing with time. -
#3762 by rfmwguy on 12 Jul, 2016 01:36
-
Sigh...there was not 900 watts, it was a null test on a magnetron without rf output. The temp rise on both the mag and the harness was minimal. That experimenter probably knows what they are observing....
Another noteworthy feature from that experimental artifact that permits distinguishing a thermal response from the one of a hollow microwave cavity is the fact that the longer that the experimenter applied power for, the greater the displacement, and hence the greater the force response (please see the red bars in the above curve). As in a torsional pendulum the force is proportional to the angular displacement.
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.
A problem with EM Drive theories is that they posit a constant thrust force per constant input power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a photon rocket (which apparently would violate conservation of energy)
The experimenter applied constant power of 900 watts. Therefore the experimenter should have obtained a constant thrust force. As the experimenter is using a torsional pendulum, a constant thrust force should result in constant displacement (a constant angle of rotation of the torsional pendulum). That would have been notorious enough if coming from a microwave cavity (possibly violating conservation of energy).
But worse than that, the experimenter was obtaining greater displacement (and hence a greater torsional force) the longer he applied the power .
If constant power resulting in constant thrust force greater than a photon rocket is bad enough as a violation of conservation of energy, imagine getting increasing thrust force with time with constant power input
Thus the response by the experimenter can be seen as resulting from a thermal effect: the response increasing with time. -
#3763 by Rodal on 12 Jul, 2016 01:39
-
...
The power was going into the wire harness instead of going into RF thus producing a thermal effect on the wire. Similar to what Prof Yang experienced prior to nullifying her tests by running with a battery.
Sigh...there was not 900 watts, it was a null test on a magnetron without rf output. The temp rise on both the mag and the harness was minimal. That experimenter probably knows what they are observing.
The long time delay to coming back to the original position being due to the wire taking a long time coming back to its original length (due to the long time constant involved in thermal diffusion).
Thus from this mistake (the experimenter at the time thought that he was running the magnetron: he only realized that the magnetron was broken after the fact) one can learn a valuable lesson as how to identify such an effect.
Suffice it to say that at the time that this experimental artifact was being presented here it was being argued by some as being the real thing. It wasn't. We can learn from experimental mistakes such as this how to distinguish such an experimental artifact from the real thing.
ADDENDUM: The experimenter (rfmwguy) proposes elsewhereQuote from: rfmwguy-EMDrive Builder an hour agowas actually a slow dissipation of a magnetic charge, not of the frustum cavity, but of the wires themselves
Slow dissipation of magnetic charge in copper? This doesn't make any sense to me.
First of all there is no such thing as "magnetic charge", because there are no magnetic monopoles found in nature, certainly not in rfmwguy's garage. There is electric charge but no magnetic charge. Let's proceed to interpret this as meaning a magnetic field.
If the wires are made of copper, copper is not a magnetizable material. How can there be "slow -minutes long slow- dissipation of magnetism in copper" ?
Try to pick up or magnetize copper with a magnet...
The interaction of copper with a magnet in the Lenz effect is not due to magnetization of copper but it is due to the currents in the copper. Copper is not magnetizable (it is diamagnetic) at normal magnetic field strengths. Copper has one unpaired electron in 4s and lots of complete shells 3d10 (see bottom chart)
-
#3764 by zen-in on 12 Jul, 2016 03:09
-
Sigh...there was not 900 watts, it was a null test on a magnetron without rf output. The temp rise on both the mag and the harness was minimal. That experimenter probably knows what they are observing....
Another noteworthy feature from that experimental artifact that permits distinguishing a thermal response from the one of a hollow microwave cavity is the fact that the longer that the experimenter applied power for, the greater the displacement, and hence the greater the force response (please see the red bars in the above curve). As in a torsional pendulum the force is proportional to the angular displacement.
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.
A problem with EM Drive theories is that they posit a constant thrust force per constant input power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a photon rocket (which apparently would violate conservation of energy)
The experimenter applied constant power of 900 watts. Therefore the experimenter should have obtained a constant thrust force. As the experimenter is using a torsional pendulum, a constant thrust force should result in constant displacement (a constant angle of rotation of the torsional pendulum). That would have been notorious enough if coming from a microwave cavity (possibly violating conservation of energy).
But worse than that, the experimenter was obtaining greater displacement (and hence a greater torsional force) the longer he applied the power .
If constant power resulting in constant thrust force greater than a photon rocket is bad enough as a violation of conservation of energy, imagine getting increasing thrust force with time with constant power input
Thus the response by the experimenter can be seen as resulting from a thermal effect: the response increasing with time.
I'm confused. Dr. Rodal was commenting on the plot that has the red vertical lines labeled N10A-73F Torsion Beam test. (included in this post as part of Dr, Rodal's post) I thought that was a powered test because the red lines indicate when RF power is applied. Your recent reddit blog shows a flat line plot in blue with the title SUCCESS! - 1701A 4th NULL Torsion... That I believe was an unpowered test. Were resistors used to simulate heating? In any case I think the graph Dr. Rodal commented on did have RF power applied. And it showed a continuously increasing thrust while the power was on. That would be a free energy machine if the pendulum movement was caused by the RF energy. -
#3765 by rfmwguy on 12 Jul, 2016 03:28
-
No, the red bars have always been HV, 4kV on-condition. There is HV and heater voltage and little to no current to the mag. The was little to no heat rise on the mag or harness...yet there was significant replacement.
Sigh...there was not 900 watts, it was a null test on a magnetron without rf output. The temp rise on both the mag and the harness was minimal. That experimenter probably knows what they are observing....
Another noteworthy feature from that experimental artifact that permits distinguishing a thermal response from the one of a hollow microwave cavity is the fact that the longer that the experimenter applied power for, the greater the displacement, and hence the greater the force response (please see the red bars in the above curve). As in a torsional pendulum the force is proportional to the angular displacement.
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.
A problem with EM Drive theories is that they posit a constant thrust force per constant input power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a photon rocket (which apparently would violate conservation of energy)
The experimenter applied constant power of 900 watts. Therefore the experimenter should have obtained a constant thrust force. As the experimenter is using a torsional pendulum, a constant thrust force should result in constant displacement (a constant angle of rotation of the torsional pendulum). That would have been notorious enough if coming from a microwave cavity (possibly violating conservation of energy).
But worse than that, the experimenter was obtaining greater displacement (and hence a greater torsional force) the longer he applied the power .
If constant power resulting in constant thrust force greater than a photon rocket is bad enough as a violation of conservation of energy, imagine getting increasing thrust force with time with constant power input
Thus the response by the experimenter can be seen as resulting from a thermal effect: the response increasing with time.
I'm confused. Dr. Rodal was commenting on the plot that has the red vertical lines labeled N10A-73F Torsion Beam test. (included in this post as part of Dr, Rodal's post) I thought that was a powered test because the red lines indicate when RF power is applied. Your recent reddit blog shows a flat line plot in blue with the title SUCCESS! - 1701A 4th NULL Torsion... That I believe was an unpowered test. Were resistors used to simulate heating? In any case I think the graph Dr. Rodal commented on did have RF power applied. And it showed a continuously increasing thrust while the power was on. That would be a free energy machine if the pendulum movement was caused by the RF energy.
This was not what yang reported but was an artifact nevertheless. A null test with voltage present minimal thermalization and a substantial displacement rectified by removing the harness from the beam. It may not fit a template but it is being accurately reported. -
#3766 by Bob Woods on 12 Jul, 2016 04:19
-
...
This was not what yang reported but was an artifact nevertheless. A null test with voltage present minimal thermalization and a substantial displacement rectified by removing the harness from the beam. It may not fit a template but it is being accurately reported.
Well said. -
#3767 by zen-in on 12 Jul, 2016 04:46
-
No, the red bars have always been HV, 4kV on-condition. There is HV and heater voltage and little to no current to the mag. The was little to no heat rise on the mag or harness...yet there was significant replacement.
Sigh...there was not 900 watts, it was a null test on a magnetron without rf output. The temp rise on both the mag and the harness was minimal. That experimenter probably knows what they are observing....
Another noteworthy feature from that experimental artifact that permits distinguishing a thermal response from the one of a hollow microwave cavity is the fact that the longer that the experimenter applied power for, the greater the displacement, and hence the greater the force response (please see the red bars in the above curve). As in a torsional pendulum the force is proportional to the angular displacement.
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.
A problem with EM Drive theories is that they posit a constant thrust force per constant input power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a photon rocket (which apparently would violate conservation of energy)
The experimenter applied constant power of 900 watts. Therefore the experimenter should have obtained a constant thrust force. As the experimenter is using a torsional pendulum, a constant thrust force should result in constant displacement (a constant angle of rotation of the torsional pendulum). That would have been notorious enough if coming from a microwave cavity (possibly violating conservation of energy).
But worse than that, the experimenter was obtaining greater displacement (and hence a greater torsional force) the longer he applied the power .
If constant power resulting in constant thrust force greater than a photon rocket is bad enough as a violation of conservation of energy, imagine getting increasing thrust force with time with constant power input
Thus the response by the experimenter can be seen as resulting from a thermal effect: the response increasing with time.
I'm confused. Dr. Rodal was commenting on the plot that has the red vertical lines labeled N10A-73F Torsion Beam test. (included in this post as part of Dr, Rodal's post) I thought that was a powered test because the red lines indicate when RF power is applied. Your recent reddit blog shows a flat line plot in blue with the title SUCCESS! - 1701A 4th NULL Torsion... That I believe was an unpowered test. Were resistors used to simulate heating? In any case I think the graph Dr. Rodal commented on did have RF power applied. And it showed a continuously increasing thrust while the power was on. That would be a free energy machine if the pendulum movement was caused by the RF energy.
This was not what yang reported but was an artifact nevertheless. A null test with voltage present minimal thermalization and a substantial displacement rectified by removing the harness from the beam. It may not fit a template but it is being accurately reported.
I don't understand what you are doing. How can you supply filament current and high voltage to the magnetron and not get RF? If the magnetron is broken why isn't that noted on the graph? I have assumed all along that you were sending RF into the cone and that these plots with the red vertical lines were ones where RF was being produced. This is the reason why an experiment report that details the protocol and everything else down to the finest detail is needed. Do you have any experimental data where RF was delivered to the cone? -
#3768 by RERT on 12 Jul, 2016 11:45
-
When a damped oscillator moves, it is (in a simple model) subject to a force proportional to its velocity, thus:
d²x/dt²=-2a(dx/dt)-ω²x+A
where A is the applied Force/Inertia. The name of the phenomenon in fluid dynamics is Stokes Flow, where velocity, not acceleration, is proportional to force.
If the restitution constant ω is very small compared to the damping constant, the result will be that the displacement increases at a slowly decreasing velocity until the value of ω²x becomes significant, and the velocity will tail off to zero when the displacement reaches A/ω².
A small restitution constant will also mean that the displacement only returns slowly along a roughly exponential curve back to zero when the external force is reduced to zero.
The curves shown by RFMWGUY are consistent with that behaviour, as are the tap-test outputs shown by monomorphic. I don't see any need to invoke a free energy machine.
However, by no means does this prove that RFMWGUY is seeing thrust. By now I'm thoroughly confused as to when and where the magnetron was or wasn't working. I also see higher restitution in the initial tap-test on RFMWGUYs rig, which requires looking at another mode of oscillation to explain. -
#3769 by RERT on 12 Jul, 2016 12:09
-
Off the top of my head: a thrust is likely to be longitudinal to the EMdrive. A thermal effect is likely to result from the effect on the torsion beam of a couple about an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the frustrum caused by asymmetric heating/airflow at each end.
If the frustrum were balanced about that axis and free to pivot about it, the effect of the couple would be to tip the frustrum slightly away from the horizontal, raising the end experiencing the higher lifting force. In as far as the frustrum was pivoted freely, there might be reduced effect on the torsion beam. Any thrust would still be largely horizontal.
I can't prove this would help, and I guess it might cause other problems, but just a thought - I don't think I've seen this mentioned before. -
#3770 by grdja on 12 Jul, 2016 12:26
-
I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here? -
#3771 by Eusa on 12 Jul, 2016 13:00
-
I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I'm very skeptic on that speculative phenomenon. It seems that there is no hard evidence indeed even now after years...
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here? -
#3772 by SeeShells on 12 Jul, 2016 13:40
-
I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
No, you're not inflammatory. I'll try to clear this confusion up.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here?
rfmwguy or Dave ran a series of recient tests and they all seemed to show some beam displacement when powered.
He listed his runs here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/
On his last series it was found out that a magnet had cracked on his magnetron. While not good, this did several things.
# The dead magnetron quit making microwaves to inject into his cavity
# allowed running the high voltage and heater voltage current into the magnetron, just like a dummy load
# even with the magnetron not producing microwaves he still showed thrust (the red vertical lines in his graph are when power was applied)
# allowed him to find out where the drive was producing a thrust from the Lorentz actions of the heater wire running down his bean to the drive and correct it to show a null test with the new layout.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4s5kcr/success_1701a_4th_null_torsion_beam_test/
He has corrected for the heater Lorentz forces with his new layout and ran showing an almost flat beam response with his dead magnetron while still supplying high voltage and heater voltages. This is really a great test because it was one that many wanted where a simulated load was run on the beam.
As to it being a bad test refuting and thrust from microwave claims, it can't be determined at this time. He did manage to find out at least one anomaly causing thrust and find a way to negate it and it took his magnetron to die for it to happen.
He has bought a new magnetron to install and re-run his tests with the corrected wire and beam layout. We all eagerly wait to see what his new and improved testing provides.
Shell
added speeling corrrection -
#3773 by Tellmeagain on 12 Jul, 2016 13:45
-
I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here?
Yes there are mentioned. They are just buried in piles of posts. For example, Yang's 2016 paper, starts from here, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1526802#msg1526802
Zellerium's result is just a few pages before, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558702#msg1558702 -
#3774 by Rodal on 12 Jul, 2016 13:48
-
....
# allowed him to find out where the drive was producing a thrust from the Lorentz actions of the heater wire running down his bean to the drive and correct it to show a null test with the new layout.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4s5kcr/success_1701a_4th_null_torsion_beam_test/
He has corrected for the heater Lorentz forces with his new layout and ran showing an almost flat beam response with his dead magnetron while still supplying high voltage and heater voltages. This is really a great test because it was one that many wanted where a simulated load was run on the beam....
The experimenter (rfmwguy) proposes elsewhereQuote from: rfmwguy-EMDrive Builder an hour agowas actually a slow dissipation of a magnetic charge, not of the frustum cavity, but of the wires themselves
This doesn't make any sense to me.
SeeShells, when you write " heater Lorentz forces" are you proposing the same explanation as offered by rfmwguy above?
Copper is not a magnetizable material. How can there be "slow -minutes long slow- dissipation of magnetism in copper" ?
Copper is not magnetizable (it is diamagnetic) at normal magnetic field strengths. Copper has one unpaired electron in 4s and lots of complete shells 3d10 (see above chart)
When the power was off, one cannot explain the slow decay by magnetic forces from the copper wires.
Why is there so much effort put into trying to deny thermal heating of the wire as the cause, and instead something impossible like "slow dissipation of magnetic charge in the wires " is proposed
-
#3775 by SeeShells on 12 Jul, 2016 13:50
-
Also include the current test by monomorphic.I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here?
Yes there are mentioned. They are just buried in piles of posts. For example, Yang's 2016 paper, starts from here, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1526802#msg1526802
Zellerium's result is just a few pages before, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558702#msg1558702
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4se1cz/monomorphic_test_08_powered/ -
#3776 by Monomorphic on 12 Jul, 2016 14:01
-
Also include the current test by monomorphic.I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here?
Yes there are mentioned. They are just buried in piles of posts. For example, Yang's 2016 paper, starts from here, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1526802#msg1526802
Zellerium's result is just a few pages before, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558702#msg1558702
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4se1cz/monomorphic_test_08_powered/
I wouldn't say my results are null. The 'reverse thrust' was predicted by some for mode shape TE311. And I have yet to try for 'forward thrust' by tuning. -
#3777 by Rodal on 12 Jul, 2016 14:17
-
Also include the current test by monomorphic.I'm terribly sorry to barge in here with a inflammatory post. But this is one of most well known public sources about EM-drive.
I have read around the Internet that there are now couple claims that EM-drive with internal power source produces no thrust in experiments, leading to imply that there is no drive at all and that its just pushing against EM field of the power cable itself. I see no mention of this anywhere here?
Yes there are mentioned. They are just buried in piles of posts. For example, Yang's 2016 paper, starts from here, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1526802#msg1526802
Zellerium's result is just a few pages before, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1558702#msg1558702
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4se1cz/monomorphic_test_08_powered/
I wouldn't say my results are null. The 'reverse thrust' was predicted by some for mode shape TE311. And I have yet to try for 'forward thrust' by tuning.
There are many things to like about your experiment. One of them is the fact that you are running at 100% power instead of less than 100% power on/off cycles whose effect is more difficult to analyze, since the figure of merit in all theories so far has been the force/InputPower
As the discussion shows, there are a lot of confusing issues due to the effort to measure such small forces in the presence of so many possible experimental artifacts.
Since the figure of merit is force/InputPower, any experimenter that runs the experiment at 100% constant power is to be applauded, as it reduces the analysis complexity. Running on/off cycles at less than 100% power with arbitrary selection of the time and power during which the RF power is on, further obfuscates the analysis of such complicated experiments. -
#3778 by LowerAtmosphere on 12 Jul, 2016 14:32
-
Has anybody tried filling a cavity with ammonia or hydrogen and using stimulated emissions to increase the number of photons (which increases the power)? If we can increase the number of photons in the cavity without increasing the weight we may increase the measurable thrust out of micronewtons and into 100 milinewtons which will eliminate thermal and other effects as false positives. Plus, the battery required to generate high power levels is smaller if the design uses stimulated emissions. http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0024
This actually is a great reminder of the topic which is applications for space flight. From an engineering perspective, and simplified into layman's terms we quite obviously require maximum power output for minimum power input.
Let us define some simple parameters for the entire EM drive system then assuming photon emission as the thrust mechanism:
Output -> "Coupled" or wave cancelled Photons/sec
Input -> Electrons
We cannot boost the cavity power input beyond the throughput of current battery technologies. Of course it is possible to recapture some of the infrared radiation or kinetic energy but that is a secondary concern. So we must consider the environment surrounding the craft. We have ionic winds from the sun providing thrust for solar sail style designs. We have background radiation and of course plenty of solar radiation which can be captured by solar panels. Or we can imagine - though Lockheed Martin and NASA strive to create exactly this - a miniature tokomak fusion reactor design which may produce approximately 100MW/hour.
So here we see the first practical limit. Given current limitations it is reasonable to assume no more than 100MW/hour ~= 277 KW/sec.
Note: we ignore mass of propulsion system for now as we care about continuous acceleration only
Now we must take the findings about theoretical maximum magnetron efficiency to be an approximation for the true value of a professional build (<1um resolution printed/built). Even if we do not find the theoretical value (I couldn't!) we can still use the current efficiencies and simply hold power source constant.
The truly unknown variables are thus coupled photon/sec and the photon gain which Mr. Harney elegantly identified in his theoretical paper. To determine EM drive thrust we need to find the relationship between the quality factor and the output. Also, we need to find a design with maximum photon cloud density as the amount of photons actually present in the cavity clearly increases the frequency of photon couplings/whatever you believe provides thrust.
I believe the best way to move forward is to create a program using these parameters and the related equations to be run on a supercomputer to iteratively generate EM drive designs. Then it is a 'simple' question of running it long enough varying the following factors with feedback mechanisms (multidimensional statistical analysis such as ANOVA to determine statistical relationships for each unique design and potentially identify spurious relationships) at each stage to prevent overall reductions in thrust:
1. Q
2. RF input bandwidth, allowing for fuzzy solutions(frequency ranges) and splatter
3. B field strength
4. E field strength
As a local extrema for resonance and overall average density is found (a solution) then vary:
5. Mode shapes
6. Dialectric insert placement
7. Cavity wall material
Despite 6 and 7 causally impacting Q we can still continue iterating designs until another local extrema is found for then vary:
8. Gain medium – Mr. Harney please feel free to elaborate on your ideas as to potentially interesting particles
9. External magnetic forces
10. Ambient factors and frustum environments
Note: Average density likely has a poor correlation for output/thrust. Thus there needs to also be an overweighting/preference for designs which produce extremely dense regions as illustrated prior. The mathematical basis for this would be a simple counting function where a simulated sector of say 1cm^3 having 100% density, so meta-material, would be weighted, for example, as 1 and with 0 photons weighted 0. The details of the weighting may be compiled from previous FEKO sims/experimental data and if the relationship between local density and thrust could be approximated in a time sensitive function then this would also conveniently reveal more about whether resonance truly is the best predictor of thrust.
The result of such a program, notably superior to FEKO as FEKO does not incorporate machine learning, if properly implemented is an actual solution to the EM drive. The only genuinely difficult and confounding factor is the curvature of spacetime within the cavity if 2. were to utilize non-microwave radiation such as high-energy compressed pulse lasers (which generate local 'negative energy' fields) for example, or perhaps if you trust Eagleworks' data this is already occurring. To correct for this a simulation would have to include a matrix representing quantised spacetime to allow for warping and non-linear pathways. No McCulloch enthusiasts this does not also require quantised inertia as inertia is an emergent property of the particles and irrelevant to the physical fact that A SYSTEM CANNOT SELF-ACCELERATE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD MODEL.
The main issue of experimenters and theoreticians has been to attempt to ameliorate either measurement issues or resonance without considering the whole system. This is not due to incompetence or insufficient data, but rather the inability of the human mind to iteratively simulate and improve designs based on the fundamental physics. The keen observer may now question the order of the variables and whether consequent analysis would yield solutions, but they forget the ability of a computer to run and cross-reference multiple simulations simultaneously say starting from a seed based on each currently “successful” design. If any computer scientists are reading this I recommend compiling the program open source but using the source code and in collaboration with the FEKO writers and in private consultation with our esteemed physicists here. The different equations and theoretical groundwork is quite conveniently spread in small chunks throughout these threads and the most important take-away from this little treatise is to ignore for now which theory works as McCulloch, Shawyer and White all reference valid but as yet unintegrateable theoretical frameworks based on the standard model. Ultimately the tools are here: C++, Wolfram, FEKO, the Standard Model, we just need to stop arguing about the design and theoretical details and take the time to integrate all the knowledge we have accrued.
We simply cannot, for the sake of funding, sanity and further development continue to make assumptions or theorize beyond the standard model. New physics always arise from the synthesis of previous ideas and observations. Simply put: whether you agree with it or not, the standard model is what will take the EMdrive out of garages and into space. If you are convinced by the data then take the next step and simulate the drive down to the planck length - remember brohmian motion was recently experimentally confirmed! We now have computers which can simulate star formation, we have the computational power, but do we have the will-power? -
#3779 by SeeShells on 12 Jul, 2016 14:33
-
I'm not saying your thoughts are wrong but you must look at everything Dr. Rodal, there are other things happening here as well. IMHO There is no such thing as a slow magnetic dissipation in a wire unless the current flowing is also slowly decaying, I think it was just a bad way to put it.....
# allowed him to find out where the drive was producing a thrust from the Lorentz actions of the heater wire running down his bean to the drive and correct it to show a null test with the new layout.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4s5kcr/success_1701a_4th_null_torsion_beam_test/
He has corrected for the heater Lorentz forces with his new layout and ran showing an almost flat beam response with his dead magnetron while still supplying high voltage and heater voltages. This is really a great test because it was one that many wanted where a simulated load was run on the beam....
The experimenter (rfmwguy) proposes elsewhereQuote from: rfmwguy-EMDrive Builder an hour agowas actually a slow dissipation of a magnetic charge, not of the frustum cavity, but of the wires themselves
This doesn't make any sense to me.
SeeShells, when you write " heater Lorentz forces" are you proposing the same explanation as offered by rfmwguy above?
Copper is not a magnetizable material. How can there be "slow -minutes long slow- dissipation of magnetism in copper" ?
Copper is not magnetizable (it is diamagnetic) at normal magnetic field strengths. Copper has one unpaired electron in 4s and lots of complete shells 3d10 (see above chart)
When the power was off, one cannot explain the slow decay by magnetic forces from the copper wires.
Why is there so much effort put into trying to deny thermal heating of the wire as the cause, and instead something impossible like "slow dissipation of magnetic charge in the wires " is proposed
If I take a wire and run current through it I'll make its own magnetic field. Even the heater inside of the magnetron itself is wound into a coil. The heater wire is powered by AC and the AC will "ride" on a small DC level caused by the diode actions in his power supply. This DC riding on the AC filament wire. This will cause a deflection in the beam from the DC magnetic field it makes. Abet it will be small level it still is adding to the deflection depending on the orientation of wires and heater coil to NS earth fields or other fields in the area.
You also correct on the wire heating I've not argued against it. It will cause a deflection also if secured to the beam in a way where the expansion of the copper in the wire will deflect the beam. Looking at Dave's thermal images and monomorphic's where the wires were shown in the thermal videos I could only see a few degrees C rise. Of course the thermal cameras were focused on the drive and the wires just happened to be in the image making me guess. Because of not being able to have a true number of thermal C rise on the wire it's tough to calculate out the thermal expansion of the wire.
This minutiae detail MUST be profiled in, it can be done before testing, during testing or after testing but it must be done before your tests have any credibility.
Shell
If the wires are made of copper, copper is not a magnetizable material. How can there be "slow -minutes long slow- dissipation of magnetism in copper" ?