-
#680 by madsci on 28 Mar, 2016 13:28
-
I assumed the air track would have problems with the full weight of the transformer and magnetron. I was anticipating having to mount the heavy transformer above and run high voltage down from above. Nope. If anything, the added wight made the glider's movement smoother.
For initial tests I will probably run the 120V to the emdrive from above using flexible wire. I hope to eventually have a battery powered self-contained emdrive on the air-track.
Very nice!
Do you have an estimation for the friction force acting on that platform (at small speeds) either from a model or from measurements ? -
#681 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 14:04
-
I assumed the air track would have problems with the full weight of the transformer and magnetron. I was anticipating having to mount the heavy transformer above and run high voltage down from above. Nope. If anything, the added wight made the glider's movement smoother.
For initial tests I will probably run the 120V to the emdrive from above using flexible wire. I hope to eventually have a battery powered self-contained emdrive on the air-track.
Very nice!
Do you have an estimation for the friction force acting on that platform (at small speeds) either from a model or from measurements ?
He could measure the static coefficient of friction of the air track with the EM Drive and other attachments on it by measuring the angle θ from the horizontal, at which the EM Drive/air-track assembly starts to slide. The tangent of that angle θ is the coefficient of static friction
The EM Drive and other attachments on the air track, if placed gently at rest at a horizontal, starts slipping only if the angle θ is greater than the Arc Tangent of the coefficient of friction for the EM Drive air track assembly.
Although a perfect air bearing should have a negligibly small coefficient of friction, the fact is that nothing is perfect. For example in this case: there are two air tracks: please notice that the air tracks would have to be perfectly parallel for there to be no constraint due to lack of parallelism. I imagine that the air tracks are short enough and parallel enough that it may not be a problem, but measuring the angle at which it starts to slide seems simple enough. -
#682 by francesco nicoli on 28 Mar, 2016 14:08
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company.
f they were an Holding company, the shares of the related companies would show up in their public accounts.
I bet they don't. -
#683 by SeeShells on 28 Mar, 2016 14:12
-
This is a nice little primmer on air bearings.I assumed the air track would have problems with the full weight of the transformer and magnetron. I was anticipating having to mount the heavy transformer above and run high voltage down from above. Nope. If anything, the added wight made the glider's movement smoother.
For initial tests I will probably run the 120V to the emdrive from above using flexible wire. I hope to eventually have a battery powered self-contained emdrive on the air-track.
Very nice!
Do you have an estimation for the friction force acting on that platform (at small speeds) either from a model or from measurements ?
http://www.nelsonair.com/NA_primer.htm
Sorry to step in but felt this needed to be posted.
"What this means for air bearings is that although they have a lower load capacity, gas bearings have essentially zero friction at all speeds"
Back to the regular scheduled programming.
Shell -
#684 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 14:12
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company.
f they were an Holding company, the shares of the related companies would show up in their public accounts.
I bet they don't.
You are correct, not only such shares of related companies don't show up on the public documents of SPR Ltd., but people that care to read the public documents shown by WallofWolfStreet for SPR Ltd. clearly show thatQuoteGroup structure
No parent company or subsidiaries reported -
#685 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2016 14:17
-
Do you have an estimation for the friction force acting on that platform (at small speeds) either from a model or from measurements ?
There is essentially zero stiction. The track is very sensitive to being out of level. So much so that I had to switch to the finer threads in the leveling system. I am beside myself with how silky smooth the dual airtrack is compared to the single air track. The lifting power is also at least 4 times more since I run each track using it's own air source.
I will work on characterizing the test track soon, but I'm heading out of town for a couple of days. -
#686 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 14:22
-
zen-in,Some time ago I located this building as to where the SPR office was located.
Address reference:
http://rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
The photos inside show a peaked roof yet in the satellite view the roof looks flat or slightly rounded. The low angle of the Sun (note the long shadows) would make a shadow on one side of a peaked roof. I don't think they are the same building just based on that observation. room.
(......)
as architect, i can confirm the above pictures are NOT of the same building.
As you correctly stated, the actual test location has a pitched roof, where as the research site has a completely different building morphology.
I've joined some 3D views of the site that make the site more "readable".
Clearly, none of the buildings has a pitched roof and from what I can see, they are more organized as office spaces (windows, doors, etc) rather then a big enclosed hall.
So maybe his office could be located there, but, nah, Shawyer's den is clearly elsewhere...
NSF user DaCunha wrote to that address at the Broadmarsh Centre:
Unit 40, Broadmarsh Centre, Havant, Hampshire, United Kingdom, PO9 1HS
and was notified that there is no such business as SPR Ltd. at that address. This is consistent with the fact that the roof of the building and other things do not match. Moreover, the address in Broadmarsh Centre does not appear either in the emdrive website or any SPR Ltd. document I am aware of.
For whatever it is worth, the SPR Ltd. investment memorandum (2006 ?) [a very interesting document to read for anybody interested in facts concerning SPR Ltd. ability to develop the EM Drive for space flight applications] http://ind-tech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Investment-Memorandum-final.pdf states that SPR Ltd.Quoteoperates out of a Business Park workshop near Portsmouth, UK
while the registered address of SPR Ltd., according to public UK documents posted by WallofWolfStreet is:
Oakways, Tubbs Lane Highclere, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 9PQ
The distance between Portsmouth UK (which is facing the Isle of Wight) and Berkshire UK is about 66 miles, a little over an hour by car.
SPR Ltd investment memorandum also states that Mr. Shawyer was a senior aerospace engineer at Matra Marconi Space which is a company that was also located in Portsmouth, UK (http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6339795)
Matra-Marconi Space UK Ltd.
Anchorage Road
Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO3 5PU England
______
Finally, the public LinkedIN profile for the owner of SPR Ltd. also lists
Portsmouth, United Kingdom
as the address for business
-
#687 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2016 14:23
-
I imagine that the air tracks are short enough and parallel enough that it may not be a problem, but measuring the angle at which it starts to slide seems simple enough.
The tracks are parallel to within less than 1mm, and have a separation of 35.5cm -
#688 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 14:25
-
And the length of air track platform is ?I imagine that the air tracks are short enough and parallel enough that it may not be a problem, but measuring the angle at which it starts to slide seems simple enough.
The tracks are parallel to within less than 1mm, and have a separation of 35.5cm
(I understand that the width of the platform is 35.5 cm: the separation between the tracks)
Thanks -
#689 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2016 14:34
-
And the length of air track platform is ?
1.27 meters. Each of the gliders is 61 cm in length. The square tubing used is 3 inches on each side, as well as the angle used for the gliders.
-
#690 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2016 14:41
-
So that is is clear what I mean by 35.5cm separation.
-
#691 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 15:32
-
...
Excellent
I will work on characterizing the test track soon, but I'm heading out of town for a couple of days.
. I am impressed by your approach (using FEKO for modeling and always open to measure and improve your experiment). No good experiment should be conducted assuming that anything is perfect, and therefore that it doesn't need to be measured: the best quality experiment actually measures experimental variables: in this case measuring the coefficient of static friction of the air track (with the EM Drive and other attachments on it) by measuring the angle at which it starts to slide. As this angle will be very small, such measurement (using a fine threaded screw to very gradually lift the air track at one end of the air-track (*), and a laser or other means to measure the angle) will serve to characterize the experimental uncertainty.
For example, if your measurements with the RF feed on were to show a null result: that the EM Drive doesn't move, doesn't self-accelerate on your air track, your angle measurement (to be performed) will serve to characterize what could have been the minimum force that it would have required it to self-accelerate.
Thus, even if your experiment shows a null result, one could compare the result of your experiment (knowing the angle of friction that you measured, and knowing the weight of the EM Drive and attachments supported by the air track) with the experiments by Shaywer, Yang, Tajmar and others, to ascertain whether there could have been a force in your null experiment, but that the friction in your air track was large enough to prevent self-acceleration. Since the expected force from the EM Drive is so small according to several EM Drive experimenters, this is the nature of performing these experiments, that one has to measure variables that normally would be neglected, like the coefficient of friction of an air track.
If you were to find out that this is the case (null result) you could use the measurement of the coefficient of friction to improve your air track (and reduce its coefficient of friction by changing things on your air track and see whether you can measure a smaller angle at which it starts to slide) or to switch to another measurement method (if still interested in pursuing measurements of small forces to ascertain the veracity of EM Drive claims) with a device having smaller friction.
_____
(*) Obviously, the rotational friction at the other end: the simply-supported end, for this measurement, is completely irrelevant to the measurement of static friction of the air track assembly. What matters is to accurately measure the angle of the air track assembly (with the EM Drive and other equipment on it) to the horizontal, as only this angle determines the coefficient of friction of the air track. -
#692 by Tellmeagain on 28 Mar, 2016 17:04
-
My opinion is that this air track idea is not good from beginning. A lot of things can be wrong. I list just a few problems that are difficult to deal with, especially when you are measuring tens of micro newton forces.
1. The air track is hard to be leveled properly for measuring 10 micro newton forces;
2. The air track beam can be de-shaped by the weight of the vehicle to make small slopes that may be too large for measuring 10 micro newton forces;
3. air escaped from the holes and seam can hit surrounding things and be re-directed to generate unwanted forces;
4. Any force that tilts the vehicle will generate linear force along the track direction. Just imaging the case when one end of the air seam is narrower than the other end. This may be too much for measuring 10 micro newton forces. How do you differentiate such a force from a true linear force?
You have to address all 4 problems in the "method" section of your paper to convince people about your measurement.
-
#693 by TheTraveller on 28 Mar, 2016 17:17
-
It seems to me that arguing/speculating over whether Shawyer has or has not any money is a waste of effort.
Sir, if you go over the post of WallOfWolfStreet, you can see that he has never argued over whether <<Shawyer has or has not any money>>. Not at all, what he has done is uncover the true financial reports from Satellite Propulsion Research (SPR Ltd.) as evidenced in financial reports for that company that are public. WallOfWolfStreet has done this is response to numerous posts of TheTraveller arguing that SPR Ltd. has a number of employees, licensees and other claims, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe he has secret defense money. Maybe he won the Irish Lottery. Maybe he's dead broke and working as a waiter to make ends meet.
None of that makes physics.
I would seem SPR is an IP holding company and it does not trade. Simple to set up another company to do the R&D. It is fairly common to do this as it isolates the IP from being at the risk of a company default that can occur if the IP holding company actively traded. Which means a search will never turn up the name of the R&D company.
f they were an Holding company, the shares of the related companies would show up in their public accounts.
I bet they don't.
You are correct, not only such shares of related companies don't show up on the public documents of SPR Ltd., but people that care to read the public documents shown by WallofWolfStreet for SPR Ltd. clearly show thatQuoteGroup structure
No parent company or subsidiaries reported
Simple for SPR to issue license for development to another company. No shares involved. SPR shareholders could have matching shares in that 2nd company which could on license other companies.
I'm surprised you guys don't understand how many ways this can be done. -
#694 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 17:24
-
...Here is the bottom line:
Trying to understand what you are saying concerning NDA (assuming you accidentally misspelled NDA for Non Disclosure Agreements and had a typo "DNA") involving the United States Air Force and Boeing. Since according to your prior post:
The filmed area was not SPR.
It was a storage area for OLD tech which included the air track.
Nothing was shown that was younger than 5 or would violate DNA or contractual obligations.
Both the USAF and UK MOD had edit rights.
......
Quote from: Roger Shawyer emailIn response to a recent request by a respected US journalist, I provided the following background information.
Background.
EmDrive development started in 2001 at SPR Ltd, funded by UK government and monitored by MOD experts.
Proof of concept phase completed by 2006 and all technical reports accepted by funding agencies.
Export licence to US granted by UK government 2007. End User Undertaking states end user is US armed forces and purpose is use on a test satellite.
December 2008. Meetings held in Washington (including in the Pentagon) with USAF, DARPA and NSSO.
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010.
2010 First reports of high thrust EmDrive results received from Xi’an University in China. All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA.
In addition, I supplied a copy of the End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 which I have attached. This is an unclassified UK document which is available under the UK Freedom of Information Act. We will not release the large pile of American documents as I doubt that there is the same freedom in the US.
...
according to the above e-mail you posted at NSF, the "5 year NDA with Boeing" should have expired by now:
End User Undertaking signed by Boeing in 2007 ==> 5 years expired sometime in 2012
Technology Transfer Contract, covering the design and test of a Flight Thruster agreed with Boeing under a State Department TAA and completed in July 2010 ==> 5 years expired in July 2015
2010...All contact with Boeing then stopped and no public comment was permitted under the 5 year NDA
==> All contact with Boeing stopped in 2010, which is more than 5 years ago -
#695 by rfmwguy on 28 Mar, 2016 17:53
-
Mod notice - In deference to a couple of recent postings, I would like to see further discussion on SPR limited to details other than financial, physical location or any other (off-topic) remarks not directly related to EMDrive operation, theory or performance. Thank you all in advance.
-
#696 by Rodal on 28 Mar, 2016 18:12
-
The time honored, inexpensive, proven method that a DIY can use to measure very small forces (comparable to gravitational forces) is the 18th century Cavendish pendulum (performed more than 200 years ago by Cavendish): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
My opinion is that this air track idea is not good from beginning. A lot of things can be wrong. I list just a few problems that are difficult to deal with, especially when you are measuring tens of micro newton forces.
1. The air track is hard to be leveled properly for measuring 10 micro newton forces;
2. The air track beam can be de-shaped by the weight of the vehicle to make small slopes that may be too large for measuring 10 micro newton forces;
3. air escaped from the holes and seam can hit surrounding things and be re-directed to generate unwanted forces;
4. Any force that tilts the vehicle will generate linear force along the track direction. Just imaging the case when one end of the air seam is narrower than the other end. This may be too much for measuring 10 micro newton forces. How do you differentiate such a force from a true linear force?
You have to address all 4 problems in the "method" section of your paper to convince people about your measurement.
Such an experimental method was used by Brito, Marini and Galian to nullify a battery-powered "Mach Lorentz" electromagnetic propellant-less thruster:
Null Findings on Electromagnetic Inertia Thruster Experiments using a Torsion Pendulum
45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 2 - 5 August 2009, Denver, Colorado
and by Marini and Galian in their peer-reviewed article in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power:
Ricardo L. Marini and Eugenio S. Galian. "Torsion Pendulum Investigation of Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation Thrusting", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 26, No. 6 (2010), pp. 1283-1290.
At the end of the 2014 NASA report (Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum. David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies**) it was mentioned that there was a possibility of using the John Hopkins Cavendish pendulum setup for further tests:QuoteThe Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.
For comparison, the teeter-totter and (particularly) the digital scale experimental methods favored by other DIY have a number of issues as well. Given the fact that Monomorphic is doing an outstanding job using FEKO to model his experiments and that he has already embarked on using an air-track, the scientific thing to do at this point on is to measure the angle of friction for the EM Drive and other equipment on the air track, at the air-track location(s) where he expects the EM-Drive to be located. It is good to have EM Drive measurements in different experimental devices (as long as one assesses the experimental errors of the devices, for example measuring things like the coefficient of friction, rather than assuming that an experimental air track will be perfect and have zero coefficient of friction).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1508835#msg1508835
-
#697 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Mar, 2016 19:51
-
Monomorphic, I'd supply both tracks with/from the same source with only one regulator and make sure the conduits that supply the air are equal in length and shape. By shape I mean no unusual tortuosities in the hose or pipe you are using. F.L.
-
#698 by JaimeZX on 28 Mar, 2016 20:20
-
Good. That, or put a balance tubes between the square tubing and perhaps another between the supply lines to even the pressure across the system.
-
#699 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2016 20:30
-
Don't forget there's an interferometer going in later this week. That is what I will use to detect very small displacement.
. I am impressed by your approach (using FEKO for modeling and always open to measure and improve your experiment). No good experiment should be conducted assuming that anything is perfect, and therefore that it doesn't need to be measured: the best quality experiment actually measures experimental variables: in this case measuring the coefficient of static friction of the air track (with the EM Drive and other attachments on it) by measuring the angle at which it starts to slide. As this angle will be very small, such measurement (