-
#760 by birchoff on 31 Mar, 2016 14:58
-
Keep in mind that the emDrive having any effect at all isn't an experimental fact yet, since there is no conclusive data available.
Keep in mind that is your opinion. To others there are conclusive data available.
If you read Roger's papers, he makes it very clear a stationary EmDrive needs to experience some slight acceleration, big end to small end, to tigger Motor mode & further self acceleration.
There are no conclusive data until a major peer-reviewed paper with full disclosure of the experimental setting is out. And, AFAIK, it is not. Keep in mind that if you believe that pink unicorns live in the oceans under Europa, it's up to you to prove it, not the opposite. So far, no proof of the EmDrive has been provided, meaning by proof the only thing that the scientific community, and by extension the world at large, considers such: a major, fully-disclosed, peer-reviewed paper.
You might have mistrust in the scientific community approach to science, that's fine but that's you. for what concerns the great majority of the world, there are some little hints that eventually pink unicorns of some form might swin in Europa's Oceans, but really, nothing like a proof (or even small evidence without error margins) is out there.
We all want to believe. but as a scientist, believing is not nearly enough.
I guess you missed I have measured 8mN of reaction force at ~94Wrf? Build is as close to Shawyer Flight Thruster as possible.
Now spending $5k to build a very high quality, very high Q spherical end plate, silver then gold plated & polished frustum & drive it with 4 x 250Wrf close coupled modules using automatic best freq tracking. Expected reaction force is >= 0.4N (400mN / ~40g). When LN2 cooled expect ~1.2N (1,200mN / ~120g) of reaction force to be generated.
2016 will be a very bad year for deniers & the year skeptics need to get off the fence.
As a card carrying member of the peanut gallery following the Emdrive, Mach Effect Thruster, and LENR. One of the things I think I have learned that I feel is lost on proponents. Even if you have proof that something is real, even if you shout from the roof and mountain tops the results of experiments carried out in your own lab. It is not proof to a unbiased scientific external observer. Card carrying members of that group want to see well documented steps for the experimental protocol used to arrive at those results. They want to see replications following those well documented steps. Hell even if you showed them a demonstration of something looking like an EmDrive floating off of a desk. Their will still be doubt. Not because of malice or willful ignorance. But simply because they have zero reason to trust that what your saying or showing them is what your describing it to be. Doesn't mean they think your a snake oil salesman, or a huckster, or a con man.
That said, I have seen your previous claims of your experimental results. But I have not seen documentation of your experimental setup. While I am sure you may be able to say that we should go back in the threads and find your description of your setup. I think for everyones best interest it would be better if you took the time to create such a document and added it to the information at the emdrive wikki. If you have already done that then pardon my ignorance. -
#761 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 15:04
-
... I do not have a central mast it is just a composite carbon fiber beam on a knife edge. ...
Great design!
It is much better not to have a mast (or anything sticking above the horizontal beam) (as the center of mass of the mast is above the center of rotation of the teeter-totter, it is obvious that such a mast will have a de-stabilizing effect on the equations of motion. The mast acts like an inverted pendulum. An inverted pendulum in a dynamic system that has no rotational stiffness is a problem) -
#762 by meberbs on 31 Mar, 2016 15:07
-
Note the statement in bold above, you have yet to prove anything. For now, given your one released data point it is impossible to determine any kind of confidence level or error bars for your measurement. Full experimental setup (not just schematics) is needed to even start looking for sources of error and estimating their magnitude.There are no conclusive data until a major peer-reviewed paper with full disclosure of the experimental setting is out. And, AFAIK, it is not. Keep in mind that if you believe that pink unicorns live in the oceans under Europa, it's up to you to prove it, not the opposite. So far, no proof of the EmDrive has been provided, meaning by proof the only thing that the scientific community, and by extension the world at large, considers such: a major, fully-disclosed, peer-reviewed paper.
...
I guess you missed I have measured 8mN of reaction force at ~94Wrf? Build is as close to Shawyer Flight Thruster as possible.2016 will be a very bad year for deniers & the year skeptics need to get off the fence.
To be clear, I would find it to be an awesome year if and when conclusive demonstrations of propellantless are made.
For now, there is no reason for anyone to be getting off any fences until there is evidence of what side to get off on. (and no one should be getting off until then.)
Note: You seem to be unaware that "denier" has strong negative connotations associated with people who refuse to accept evidence right in front of their face. Neither me nor the others here are doing that, and using that term is extremely rude. (Remember that this is a site for high-quality discussion so rude posts are mercilessly removed.) -
#763 by TheTraveller on 31 Mar, 2016 15:12
-
While I'm waiting for the new frustum to be built, plan to rebuild the existing frustum to directly measure radiation pressure on each end plate.
As I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
2) radiation pressure on small end plate is less than on big end plate but the ratio is not what Roger's equations predict.
3) results 2 but ratio is what Roger's equations predict.
Who is willing to post 1 or 2 or 3 as to what their theory / math model predicts?
So come on theory guys, let the world know what you expect the experiment to reveal. Of course either a result of 2 or 3 will blow apart most of the "it can't work" theories. -
#764 by OttO on 31 Mar, 2016 15:13
-
I found this interesting (old useless controversy against maxwell):
http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/force/index-en.php -
#765 by TheTraveller on 31 Mar, 2016 15:25
-
Should add, I've started the process to host / test my new S band 0.4N thruster in a high vac chamber & to have that test certified. After which commercial sales will start.
All the Rf amps & other electronics will be contained inside the housing. Clients only need to apply DC to obtain thrust. -
#766 by SeeShells on 31 Mar, 2016 15:27
-
While I'm waiting for the new frustum to be built, plan to rebuild the existing frustum to directly measure radiation pressure on each end plate.
No bad data Phil, do it, do it now.
As I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
2) radiation pressure on small end plate is less than on big end plate but the ratio is not what Roger's equations predict.
3) results 2 but ratio is what Roger's equations predict.
Who is willing to post 1 or 2 or 3 as to what their theory / math model predicts?
So come on theory guys, let the world know what you expect the experiment to reveal. Of course either a result of 2 or 3 will blow apart most of the "it can't work" theories.
-
#767 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 15:28
-
Should add, I've started the process to host / test my new S band 0.4N thruster in a high vac chamber & to have that test certified. After which commercial sales will start.
All the Rf amps & other electronics will be contained inside the housing. Clients only need to apply DC to obtain thrust.
Any updates on when we should expect to see your EM Drive rotational test self-powered by a battery? I'm looking forward to see such a continuous acceleration (velocity increasing with time, is that what you predicted if my memory is correct ?) rotational test. -
#768 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 15:43
-
While I'm waiting for the new frustum to be built, plan to rebuild the existing frustum to directly measure radiation pressure on each end plate.
As I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
2) radiation pressure on small end plate is less than on big end plate but the ratio is not what Roger's equations predict.
3) results 2 but ratio is what Roger's equations predict.
Who is willing to post 1 or 2 or 3 as to what their theory / math model predicts?
So come on theory guys, let the world know what you expect the experiment to reveal. Of course either a result of 2 or 3 will blow apart most of the "it can't work" theories.
No question like that can be answered without carefully defining:
what are you measuring and how are you measuring it
Need you to precisely define what is it that you are proposing to measure and how you are proposing to measure it.
Pressure is force/area. In the real world most applications have non-uniform pressure (non-uniform stress). Force is an intuitive concept, what is measured is usually some displacement (Force/stiffness = displacement), velocity (Force/damping = velocity) or acceleration (Force/mass= acceleration) resulting from a force. Most important are the details of how you are proposing to measure something, as we have been discussing in the last few pages, each instrument has a different response to a stimulus.
-
#769 by TheTraveller on 31 Mar, 2016 17:13
-
While I'm waiting for the new frustum to be built, plan to rebuild the existing frustum to directly measure radiation pressure on each end plate.
As I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
2) radiation pressure on small end plate is less than on big end plate but the ratio is not what Roger's equations predict.
3) results 2 but ratio is what Roger's equations predict.
Who is willing to post 1 or 2 or 3 as to what their theory / math model predicts?
So come on theory guys, let the world know what you expect the experiment to reveal. Of course either a result of 2 or 3 will blow apart most of the "it can't work" theories.
No question like that can be answered without carefully defining:
what are you measuring and how are you measuring it
Need you to precisely define what is it that you are proposing to measure and how you are proposing to measure it.
Pressure is force/area. In the real world most applications have non-uniform pressure (non-uniform stress). Force is an intuitive concept, what is measured is usually some displacement (Force/stiffness = displacement), velocity (Force/damping = velocity) or acceleration (Force/mass= acceleration) resulting from a force. Most important are the details of how you are proposing to measure something, as we have been discussing in the last few pages, each instrument has a different response to a stimulus.
End plate under test will sit on 3 equally area spaced force sensors that sit on a thick & flat slab of marble.
The frustum end will be suspended above & as close to the end plate under test as possible but without touching it. Frustum vertical alignment will be adjusted to ensure the very small gap is the same all around the frustum end circumference.
Mode will be TE013 so no currents are needed to flow from the end plate to the adjacent frustum side wall.
Frustum will be excited at optimal resonance for 5 sec on, then 5 sec off & repeated for several hundred cycles. Optimal freq tracking will be operational during the entire length of the test sequence.
Variation in on to off force measured by the 3 force sensors will be recorded and analysed to determine how well the radiation pressure measured aligns to the equations developed by Cullen as to the expected guide wavelength from the frustum end diameter.
The process will be repeated using the other end plate by reversing the frustum vertical alignment.
Suggestions welcome. -
#770 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 17:20
-
While I'm waiting for the new frustum to be built, plan to rebuild the existing frustum to directly measure radiation pressure on each end plate.
As I see it, there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
2) radiation pressure on small end plate is less than on big end plate but the ratio is not what Roger's equations predict.
3) results 2 but ratio is what Roger's equations predict.
Who is willing to post 1 or 2 or 3 as to what their theory / math model predicts?
So come on theory guys, let the world know what you expect the experiment to reveal. Of course either a result of 2 or 3 will blow apart most of the "it can't work" theories.
No question like that can be answered without carefully defining:
what are you measuring and how are you measuring it
Need you to precisely define what is it that you are proposing to measure and how you are proposing to measure it.
Pressure is force/area. In the real world most applications have non-uniform pressure (non-uniform stress). Force is an intuitive concept, what is measured is usually some displacement (Force/stiffness = displacement), velocity (Force/damping = velocity) or acceleration (Force/mass= acceleration) resulting from a force. Most important are the details of how you are proposing to measure something, as we have been discussing in the last few pages, each instrument has a different response to a stimulus.
End plate under test will sit on 3 equally area spaced force sensors that sit on a thick & flat slab of marble.
The frustum end will be suspended above & as close to the end plate under test as possible but without touching it. Frustum vertical alignment will be adjusted to ensure the very small gap is the same all around the frustum end circumference.
Mode will be TE013 so no currents are needed to flow from the end plate to the adjacent frustum side wall.
Frustum will be excited at optimal resonance for 5 sec on, then 5 sec off & repeated for several hundred cycles. Optimal freq tracking will be operational during the entire length of the test sequence.
Variation in on to off force measured by the 3 force sensors will be recorded and analysed to determine how well the radiation pressure measured aligns to the equations developed by Cullen as to the expected guide wavelength from the frustum end diameter.
The process will be repeated using the other end plate by reversing the frustum vertical alignment.
Suggestions welcome.
1) There are many issues concerning contact stresses. Can't comment without knowing specific "force sensor" you have in mind to use.
----------
2) As the EM Drive is a closed cavity, what you will be attempting to measure by contacting one face is the net force if there is any net force. You will not be measuring the pressure on the flat end itself, because the flat end is attached, connected to the sides of the cavity, hence any stresses from the ends are supported by the side walls at the circumferential connection between the side walls and the flat ends (these are the "equations of equilibrium" of a structure, see texts by Timoshenko on "Plates and Shells" for example, or more advanced texts in Shell theory).
----------
3) Instead of attempting to measure the pressure at the ends, you would be better off attempting to measure the strains in the EM Drive structure, using Strain-Gage Rosettes. Then knowing the strains, one could obtain the stresses from the constitutive equations for copper (essentially all you need is just the modulus of elasticity of copper and the Poisson's ratio=0.3) that relate the multi-axial state of stress to the multiaxial state-of-strain. Or at least measure the strains with strain gages in the circumferential and radial directions of the disk-shaped end plates. You could also place strain gages on the side walls.
---------
4) I am not aware of any theory that predicts:Quote1) radiation pressure on both end plates are the same.
for a truncated cone closed cavity having unequal diameters at each end. If you know of any such mathematical theory, I would be curious to know what theory is predicting such a thing. Due to conservation of momentum, the pressure should be unequal between the end plates. It has been unequal in my exact solution calculations, as well as in the Wolfram Mathematica results of Meep transient analysis. -
#771 by rfmwguy on 31 Mar, 2016 18:45
-
OK, since this information is now on a public website, I might as well point to it:
http://www.baylor.edu/physics/index.php?id=68540
Dr. Gerald B. Cleaver
...
"Cleaver's primary research interests are string/M Theory, quantum gravity, and early universe cosmology. EUCOS conductslong-term systematic studies of the global properties of the string landscape in the free-fermionic heterotic region and more general issues of a string/M multiverse. (On the side, Cleaver frequently writes about philosophical implications of a multiverse.) Cleaver, Physics colleague Anzhong Wang, Baylor Math faculty Klaus Kirsten and Qin Sheng, and joint postdoc Tao Zhu investigate aspects of Horava-Lifshitz theory and trans-Planckian physics of the very early universe. With EUCOS Adjunct Researcher Jeffrey Lee in Toronto, Cleaver investigates thermodynamical aspects of special relativity. With colleagues in Icarus Interstellar (founded by Cleaver's Ph.D. graduate Richard Obousy), Cleaver also studies advanced propulsion systems for spacecraft and was recently appointed to a blue ribbon review panel for NASA-Johnson Space Center."
(note - bold added by me) -
#772 by SeeShells on 31 Mar, 2016 19:06
-
One alternative I played around with doing even last year was getting away from the knife edge, running through my lab notes I came across this printout and scanned it in.... I do not have a central mast it is just a composite carbon fiber beam on a knife edge. ...
Great design!
It is much better not to have a mast (or anything sticking above the horizontal beam) (as the center of mass of the mast is above the center of rotation of the teeter-totter, it is obvious that such a mast will have a de-stabilizing effect on the equations of motion. The mast acts like an inverted pendulum. An inverted pendulum in a dynamic system that has no rotational stiffness is a problem)
It takes a little of both worlds and I may end up doing something like this later.
Shell
Added: The beam is also a carbon fiber composite.
-
#773 by tchernik on 31 Mar, 2016 19:29
-
I don't really know what the purpose of the blue ribbon panel is, but I doubt the weight of the assertions surrounding the Emdrive would pass undetected for long.
Physicists at NASA could certainly see something big could be brewing, even if they strongly disagree with the assertions themselves.
What I certainly hope isn't the case, is that such blue ribbon panel involves any investigation of misconduct. But the presence of a known expert may imply they are looking to weight in and understand the facts, and also any potential validity of the assertions.
NASA certainly doesn't want to go out with such bold claims without some degree of confidence they will be true or at least, that their methods are irreproachable. -
#774 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 19:33
-
I don't really know what the purpose of the blue ribbon panel is, but I doubt the weight of the assertions surrounding the Emdrive would pass undetected for long.
Physicists at NASA could certainly see something big could be brewing, even if they strongly disagree with the assertions themselves.
What I certainly hope isn't the case, is that such blue ribbon panel involves any investigation of misconduct. But the presence of a known expert may imply they are looking to weight in and understand the facts, and also any potential validity of the assertions.
NASA certainly doesn't want to go out with such bold claims without some degree of confidence they will be true or at least, that their methods are irreproachable.
Please be assured that such Blue Ribbon Panels at NASA have to do with positive things like <<they are looking to weight in and [scientifically] understand the facts>> and guide/manage such frontier R&D with scientific/engineering expertise rather than by "seat of the pants" day-to-day operations management.
-
#775 by TheUberOverLord on 31 Mar, 2016 19:53
-
While this "Analogy" is out there. The facts prove that the "Big Bang" theory shows that whatever "detonation/explosion" took place. Was not equally distributed to all areas. Even a star can die many different ways. Based on forces.
Worse, even with our current technology measurement abilities. Some remnants of the big bang theory, would have needed to exceed the speed of light. To be located, where they are in the universe.
I know of no recorded stars death. That was distributed equally. Zip/Zero/Nada/Null. Yet generally, it abided by gravitational laws. During its entire lifetime ("Think SPHERE/CIRCLE").
Interestingly enough. I also know of no known star that is SPEWING particles in more than one or two directions at the same time. Think Quasar and ("Think SPHERE/CIRCLE"):
Why is it not possible to focus enough "force" one direction ("using the same energy") to create the force required for a EM Drive?
IMHO. I think we are just learning about "Focused Forces".
I commend ALL the EM Driver DIY'S. I think the end result will create differential equations for "Focused Forces" AKA "Shaped Forces" vs. "Willy Nilly" forces.
The military with extensive research has been able to create "Shaped Charges" that create multi-fold, many times the damages than explosive in the past. With much less ingredients. Fact, not fiction.
Would we be where we are with our understanding of Atoms and their components. Without creating devices that can "Focus Forces"? Absolutely NOT!
No Joke. I also think this EM Drive research, will advance wave/particle duality theory/research, well beyond where it is today.
Don
-
#776 by rfmwguy on 31 Mar, 2016 20:23
-
Very good points. My impression is that it is a panel for theory and experimental validation...both good IMHO. Everyone recognizes this is an unconventional experiment pushing the bounds of known physics. Getting it right is paramount. Earlier releases were done outside the PR department but promising to science fans around the planet...nothing worthy of misconduct IMO.
I don't really know what the purpose of the blue ribbon panel is, but I doubt the weight of the assertions surrounding the Emdrive would pass undetected for long.
Physicists at NASA could certainly see something big could be brewing, even if they strongly disagree with the assertions themselves.
What I certainly hope isn't the case, is that such blue ribbon panel involves any investigation of misconduct. But the presence of a known expert may imply they are looking to weight in and understand the facts, and also any potential validity of the assertions.
NASA certainly doesn't want to go out with such bold claims without some degree of confidence they will be true or at least, that their methods are irreproachable.
Please be assured that such Blue Ribbon Panels at NASA have to do with positive things like <<they are looking to weight in and [scientifically] understand the facts>> and guide/manage such frontier R&D with scientific/engineering expertise rather than by "seat of the pants" day-to-day operations management.
Lets wish the panel and NASA team the best of luck. We all await...and in the meantime, experiment and theorize on our own. May the correct force be with us all
p.s. I might add that I know the good professor will NOT be releasing info ahead of time. Sorry, science journalists, just trying to save you some time. -
#777 by TheTraveller on 31 Mar, 2016 20:24
-
...
As you are well aware Roger's Df and theory equations predict the end plate radiation forces based on use of Cullen 15 and the classic guide wavelength equations for a mode and diameter.
You and others here have stated on many occassions, Roger's use of Cullen 15 is not correct for the calculation of the end plate radiation pressure. This is of course just your theory as you have no experimental data to back it up.
That lack of experimental data will soon be fixed. -
#778 by Rodal on 31 Mar, 2016 21:09
-
...
As you are well aware Roger's Df and theory equations predict the end plate radiation forces based on use of Cullen 15 and the classic guide wavelength equations for a mode and diameter.
You and others here have stated on many occassions, Roger's use of Cullen 15 is not correct for the calculation of the end plate radiation pressure. This is of course just your theory as you have no experimental data to back it up.
That lack of experimental data will soon be fixed.
You answer the question regarding what mathematical theory ever said that the radiation pressure at the ends of a truncated cone cavity are identical, with a non-sequitur concerning Dr. Cullen's paper.
Cullen was a distinguished Professor and that article was an excerpt from his PhD thesis. It is not fair to the memory of Prof. Cullen to mix him with anything regarding the EM Drive.
Professor Alexander Lamb Cullen, died on 27 December 2013. During WW2 he worked on early radar at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. In 1946 he took up a lectureship at UCL, where he worked with Harold Barlow in building up microwave research. In 1955 he was appointed to the Chair of Electrical Engineering at the University of Sheffield, but returned to UCL to succeed Barlow as Pender Professor and Head of Department in 1967. He was appointed OBE in 1960, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1977. Among other distinctions he received the Faraday Medal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers (now IET).
Prof. Cullen never had anything to do with the EM Drive. Prof. Cullen's paper deals with measuring the radiation pressure of open, cylindrical waveguides.
Please do not confuse:
* open waveguides with closed cavities
* cylindrical geometry with truncated cone geometry
This is not my "theory" it is a factual, undeniable reading of Prof. Cullen's paper. It is undeniable that Prof. Cullen never never made any such assertions about truncated conical cavities having an unbalanced force that would cause them to self-accelerate.
As you have answered with a non-sequitur regarding Prof. Cullen's paper, I take it that you don't know of any mathematical theory that maintains that the radiation pressure at the ends of a truncated cone are the same. The pressures at the ends of a resonant truncated conical cavity cannot be the same, in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
Concerning:QuoteRoger's use of Cullen 15 is not correct for the calculation of the end plate radiation pressure. This is of course just your theory as you have no experimental data to back it up.
That lack of experimental data will soon be fixed.
As I previously explained the equation you are referring to was not invented by Prof. Cullen, but it follows from Maxwell's equations for radiation pressure. It doesn't make sense to call such equation as Cullen's equation. It is a valid equation for the radiation pressure for open waveguides. The fact that it does not apply to closed cavities like a truncated cone is not my theory, it is a fact that you can discern from many textbooks: Collin, or Jackson's for example.
Of course, the contradiction is due to the fact that Professor Cullen never conducted experiments with truncated conical cavities. One should not confuse open cylindrical waveguides (Prof. Cullen's experiments) with closed truncated conical cavities (SPR Ltd.)
Thank you. -
#779 by Tellmeagain on 31 Mar, 2016 21:23
-
End plate under test will sit on 3 equally area spaced force sensors that sit on a thick & flat slab of marble.
The frustum end will be suspended above & as close to the end plate under test as possible but without touching it. Frustum vertical alignment will be adjusted to ensure the very small gap is the same all around the frustum end circumference.
Mode will be TE013 so no currents are needed to flow from the end plate to the adjacent frustum side wall.
Frustum will be excited at optimal resonance for 5 sec on, then 5 sec off & repeated for several hundred cycles. Optimal freq tracking will be operational during the entire length of the test sequence.
Variation in on to off force measured by the 3 force sensors will be recorded and analysed to determine how well the radiation pressure measured aligns to the equations developed by Cullen as to the expected guide wavelength from the frustum end diameter.
The process will be repeated using the other end plate by reversing the frustum vertical alignment.
Suggestions welcome.
I have a hard time to understand what you are measuring. Are those small gaps closed during power on or are they remain open? If there is thermal expansion of the frustum so that the end plates get contact with your force sensors, are you sure you are not measuring the weight of the whole frustum? Let's assume you can correctly measure radiation pressure (or force) on each ends. Do you plan to also measure pressure (or force) on the side panel too? I ask this because the force on side panel also contributes to the total force on the the axle direction (you multiply it with sin(theta)
