-
#4180
by
JonathanD
on 12 Aug, 2016 17:01
-
Will there be any way to verify the cube sat performance other than what Cannae tells us? I mean if it works it's monumentally important so it would be really nice to have third party verification.
-
#4181
by
Gilbertdrive
on 12 Aug, 2016 17:17
-
Will there be any way to verify the cube sat performance other than what Cannae tells us? I mean if it works it's monumentally important so it would be really nice to have third party verification.
A very important information was given by sghill in the preceding page.
You are overthinking this IMHO. The cubesat will stay in orbit, or it won't. The rest of the details aren't anyone's business but theirs. If it does stay in orbit, mainstream press exposure and scrutiny from all quarters will increase exponentially regarding the details of that cubesat.
Also, regarding hidden gas thrusters. The FAA will conduct a Part 414 safety review of the launch. The review doesn't cover the satellite per se, but the launch vehicle operator will disclose any propellants on board because it'd affect the safety of the launch vehicle, so the launch operator would be taking a major risk with their business by not disclosing this. If we know the launcher and specific flight, we can look up the safety review specific details in the Federal Register.
So, it is already a third party verification that it does not have hidden thrusters.
When in orbit, many people will be able to track the satellite itself, and track it's emission. If it falls quickly, Cannae can not deny it.
-
#4182
by
JonathanD
on 12 Aug, 2016 19:46
-
Can you easily track something as small as a cubesat? Sorry for layman question I don't know much about it.
-
#4183
by
Tellmeagain
on 12 Aug, 2016 19:51
-
Some ordinary thrusters are needed anyway, just to keep the satellite's orientation. After all, pointing at a wrong direction, the new concept thruster (given it works) might brake the satellite or push its orbit down into thick atmosphere.
-
#4184
by
Bob Woods
on 12 Aug, 2016 22:53
-
Can you easily track something as small as a cubesat? Sorry for layman question I don't know much about it.
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
-
#4185
by
JonathanD
on 13 Aug, 2016 02:38
-
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Well yes by the people who sent it up, I meant a 3rd party. My point is just that verification of results is key here. The more third parties that can do it the better.
-
#4186
by
Gilbertdrive
on 13 Aug, 2016 07:31
-
Some ordinary thrusters are needed anyway, just to keep the satellite's orientation. After all, pointing at a wrong direction, the new concept thruster (given it works) might brake the satellite or push its orbit down into thick atmosphere.
There are other solutions than ordinary thrusters.
If the frustrum orientation can be modified, even in the satellite is spinning, it's spin can be suppressed using the right frustrum angle.
Also, for LEO, the Magnetic Attitude Control is probably a good choice. Passive Magnetic Attitude Control is even possible if only 10 degrees of precision are needed.
I do not know their precise design, but there is no need for ordinary thrusters
-
#4187
by
Hopdaddy
on 13 Aug, 2016 11:18
-
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Well yes by the people who sent it up, I meant a 3rd party. My point is just that verification of results is key here. The more third parties that can do it the better.
US Space Command tracks all launched objects/debris. Things as small as 5 centimeters.
I might be able to convince some friends that work there to share the results when the time comes.
-
#4188
by
WarpTech
on 13 Aug, 2016 16:28
-
....
I don't miss the embarrassing mistakes though! 
I'm being very careful to be concise and check my work thoroughly. Anyone willing to referee my paper and give me some feedback before I finalize, send me a PM and I'll forward the draft to you. It's not ready yet, but almost...
Thanks!
Todd
Thanks to those who commented on the typos. I posted the paper to Research Gate for anyone interested. I have more material to add to this before I try to publish it, but it will have to wait until I have time to do the research and compile the rest of the data. This will have to do for now. I think it provides an interesting perspective and a new set of tools for engineers to think about regarding gravity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
I welcome any comments you may have.
Enjoy!
Todd
I'm happy to say I have only received positive comments and some interesting suggestions to elaborate more. The article has been visited over 400 times and so far, the GR enthusiasts have not said a word.
I'm open to discussion on how this could be interpreted in terms of the EM drive. Perhaps bombarding copper with microwaves of varying energy density and pressure, could induce sub-atomic radiative damping in the lattice structure of the copper.
I'm slowly working on an updated rewrite to submit for journal publication. This will take a while but I hope to submit by the end of the year.
Todd
-
#4189
by
Bob Woods
on 13 Aug, 2016 17:11
-
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Well yes by the people who sent it up, I meant a 3rd party. My point is just that verification of results is key here. The more third parties that can do it the better.
This issue is not third party checking of this test as the test is being performed. Some may try to do so, but it's not really the point.
Cannae is running their experiment and will collect data. They are also trying to profit from their claims, and in order to do so they will have to provide clear and convincing evidence to both the scientific community and their financial backers. It's their test to run and when they publish results they will be scrutinized.
The key to verifying claims is not for some "3rd party" to oversee what is happening; the key is that independent researchers following Cannae claims are able to independently replicate and verify any claims made as valid.
Mono, Dave, Shell, the Traveller, and others are running their experiments, just like Cannae. We're just lucky that they are so open in allowing us to watch. In the past science was done behind closed lab doors. Now folks are openly sharing. I think that's great. But it's still their experiments to be run they way they choose.
-
#4190
by
A_M_Swallow
on 14 Aug, 2016 04:19
-
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Well yes by the people who sent it up, I meant a 3rd party. My point is just that verification of results is key here. The more third parties that can do it the better.
The satellite could be programmed to transmit a bleep signal on a known frequency every day. The bleep would include the identification of the machine. This would allow its height, location and velocity to be measured by radio telescopes on the ground.
-
#4191
by
JaimeZX
on 15 Aug, 2016 17:09
-
Yes. If a cubesat could not be tracked, why would anyone send one up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Well yes by the people who sent it up, I meant a 3rd party. My point is just that verification of results is key here. The more third parties that can do it the better.
The satellite could be programmed to transmit a bleep signal on a known frequency every day. The bleep would include the identification of the machine. This would allow its height, location and velocity to be measured by radio telescopes on the ground.
As previously posted, that's really superfluous. The satellite should be easily tracked by radar. If its performance is other than would be expected without an emdrive onboard, then you have that data.
-
#4192
by
Monomorphic
on 16 Aug, 2016 00:34
-
A Slew of New Sensors: An identical Laser Displacement Sensor (LDS) to the one I am using was on sale for a much reduced price. So I picked it up and am using it to monitor the axis associated with thermal lifting.
I am also incorporating a high resolution 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, 3-axis compass onto the torsional pendulum beam itself. Hope to have more on that in a day or two.
http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?product_id=1044
-
#4193
by
Fugudaddy
on 16 Aug, 2016 01:56
-
-
#4194
by
A_M_Swallow
on 16 Aug, 2016 20:11
-
The satellite could be programmed to transmit a bleep signal on a known frequency every day. The bleep would include the identification of the machine. This would allow its height, location and velocity to be measured by radio telescopes on the ground.
As previously posted, that's really superfluous. The satellite should be easily tracked by radar. If its performance is other than would be expected without an emdrive onboard, then you have that data.
It is superfluous to NORAD but this satellite will be inspected by other telescopes many months after it has been launched. It needs to prove who it is.
-
#4195
by
Monomorphic
on 17 Aug, 2016 02:32
-
3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis compass added to the torsional pendulum beam. I'm using the Kangaroo mini PC running Windows 10, a 7 inch HDMI display from Adafruit, and a TalentCell rechargeable battery pack to power all the peripherals. Everything is solid-state and battery powered. The 3-axis compass uses geomagnetic field values for my location from NOAA for calibration.
-
#4196
by
Bob Woods
on 17 Aug, 2016 02:53
-
3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis compass added to the torsional pendulum beam. I'm using the Kangaroo mini PC running Windows 10, a 7 inch HDMI display from Adafruit, and a TalentCell rechargeable battery pack to power all the peripherals. Everything is solid-state and battery powered. The 3-axis compass uses geomagnetic field values for my location from NOAA for calibration.
Ok Mono! Quite a setup. Hope we see data soon from repetitive tests!
-
#4197
by
graybeardsyseng
on 17 Aug, 2016 12:53
-
3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis compass added to the torsional pendulum beam. I'm using the Kangaroo mini PC running Windows 10, a 7 inch HDMI display from Adafruit, and a TalentCell rechargeable battery pack to power all the peripherals. Everything is solid-state and battery powered. The 3-axis compass uses geomagnetic field values for my location from NOAA for calibration.
Outstanding setup - really looking forward to your test run data!!!
I may have missed prior discussion on the following topic while speed reading to catch up with the threads but I would recommend a quick survey for RFI/EMI before each run. There are various inexpensive handheld EMI meters which will give a
qualitative view of EMI/RFI, see Ebay/Amazon/etc. The reason for this is the mini-PC plus HDMI cable and monitor can generate some "interesting" RFI effects. Why before each run? Because minor changes in what is displayed or changes in position CAN cause significant variation in generated RFI and may indicate an experimental setup problem or at least a change.
Even though the RFI/EMI will likely not be in the same frequency range as the RF power to the Unit Under Test (harmonics that high
should be pretty well knocked down), they might be strong enough to inject noise into the displacement/rotational signal. If a qualitative survey shows a significant deviation from other runs then a more quantitative approach can be used to determine source, victim and impact.
Just some old engineer musings.
Herman - graybeardsyseng
-
#4198
by
Monomorphic
on 17 Aug, 2016 15:01
-
3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis compass added to the torsional pendulum beam. I'm using the Kangaroo mini PC running Windows 10, a 7 inch HDMI display from Adafruit, and a TalentCell rechargeable battery pack to power all the peripherals. Everything is solid-state and battery powered. The 3-axis compass uses geomagnetic field values for my location from NOAA for calibration.
Outstanding setup - really looking forward to your test run data!!!
I may have missed prior discussion on the following topic while speed reading to catch up with the threads but I would recommend a quick survey for RFI/EMI before each run. There are various inexpensive handheld EMI meters which will give a qualitative view of EMI/RFI, see Ebay/Amazon/etc. The reason for this is the mini-PC plus HDMI cable and monitor can generate some "interesting" RFI effects. Why before each run? Because minor changes in what is displayed or changes in position CAN cause significant variation in generated RFI and may indicate an experimental setup problem or at least a change.
Even though the RFI/EMI will likely not be in the same frequency range as the RF power to the Unit Under Test (harmonics that high should be pretty well knocked down), they might be strong enough to inject noise into the displacement/rotational signal. If a qualitative survey shows a significant deviation from other runs then a more quantitative approach can be used to determine source, victim and impact.
Just some old engineer musings.
Herman - graybeardsyseng
For right now, the primary purpose of the sensors mounted to the torsional pendulum beam is for calibrating the beam before and between powered runs. It is very important that the rectangular aluminum tube be as level as possible, else the data from the Laser Displacement Sensors (LDS) is skewed. The two LDS also need to be as level as possible - which has to be done the old fashioned way - with a very small machinists' level.
During powered tests, the Kangaroo computer will also be used to control the signal generator for the future 250W 2.4-2.5Ghz solid-state RF source. The onboard wi-fi uses 5Ghz for communication so I don't expect any interference there with controlling the onboard computer remotely via VPN.
-
#4199
by
rfmwguy
on 18 Aug, 2016 13:50
-
I've ended my testing for 2016 after several months of work. The magnetron and 18.4 mN of measured displacement (force) was only at a confidence factor of about 70%, so I decided not to write a Test Report, lots of data is on the reddit/qthruster site for those interested. The variability of the magnetron frequency and amplitude, thermal and Lorentz forces convinced me that solid state is the way to proceed for next year's testing. Besides, I deserve a break...$$ and time exceeded my budget.
BTW, whomever is moderating the EmDrive thread here should probably create Thread #8 as this one has exceeded page and view count for most of the prior ones.
Until next year - Dave
I'm being very careful to be concise and check my work thoroughly. Anyone willing to referee my paper and give me some feedback before I finalize, send me a PM and I'll forward the draft to you. It's not ready yet, but almost...
I'm open to discussion on how this could be interpreted in terms of the EM drive. Perhaps bombarding copper with microwaves of varying energy density and pressure, could induce sub-atomic radiative damping in the lattice structure of the copper.