-
#780
by
TheTraveller
on 31 Mar, 2016 22:59
-
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)
Proposed end plate radiation pressure test setup is attached.
Thanks for the suggestion on measuring the side wall radiation pressure. Should be able to lift the upper plate a slight bit, while allowing the frustum to sit on the lower end plate and measure the combined radiation pressure on the side walls and the lower end plate. Can then subtract the lower end plate radiation pressure to determine the side wall radiation pressure.
I also plan to hack my digital scale and obtain data directly from the force sensors it uses. Doing this to get a faster time resolution of force changes than is generated by the LCD display. Should be able to calibrate the direct measurement by using the calibration masses and other objects of known mass.
My goal here is to determine if the equations Roger has supplied correctly predict the measured forces, cause as an old engineer, I don't like to design/build equipment with equations that do not correctly predict engineering reality.
As to the theory of why the Shawyer Effect works, I do hope my experimental data adds to the evidence that points the way to general acceptance of the why it works.
BTW a meeting of the board (SWMBO & myself) has agreed, if the 1st stage verification is achieved inside my current $20k budget, that the R&D budget can be increased to $100k. Should be enough to build a few 0.4N S band thrusters for commercial sale.
-
#781
by
TheTraveller
on 31 Mar, 2016 23:05
-
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.
Your theoretical opinion and lack of confirming experimental data is noted.
As others have stated "Damn the theory, Follow the data", which is what I intend to do.
-
#782
by
rfmwguy
on 01 Apr, 2016 00:19
-
ISS list of experiments - FYI (tangent alert)
Spaceflight and EMDrive enthusiasts might want to bookmark the following link:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_hardware.html#TechnologyHere is a comprehensive list and links to Technology experiments for the ISS. Biology and human studies tend to dominate and spaceflight followers might be disappointed that the category of
Propulsion contains
no experiments. Apparently smallsat and cubesat experiments would be mentioned there if the cornerstone of the experiment was propulsion.
This does not confirm NASA is not involved in propulsion experiments, it just appears to confirm the ISS has nothing to do with them at the present time.
-
#783
by
TheTraveller
on 01 Apr, 2016 00:35
-
ISS list of experiments - FYI (tangent alert)
Spaceflight and EMDrive enthusiasts might want to bookmark the following link:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_hardware.html#Technology
Here is a comprehensive list and links to Technology experiments for the ISS. Biology and human studies tend to dominate and spaceflight followers might be disappointed that the category of Propulsion contains no experiments. Apparently smallsat and cubesat experiments would be mentioned there if the cornerstone of the experiment was propulsion.
This does not confirm NASA is not involved in propulsion experiments, it just appears to confirm the ISS has nothing to do with them at the present time.
I expect, once my 0.4N S band thruster hits the market, that will change.
Interesting that a 0.4N Force, applied to a 400mt Mass, generates a 0.000001m/sec^2 Acceleration and will achieve a 1m/sec Velocity increase every 11.6 days (1,000,000 sec). Think anyone might be interested in the elimination of ISS reboosts?
-
#784
by
mwvp
on 01 Apr, 2016 00:36
-
Thanks for bringing up reports of anomalous thrust from Peltier coolers. I missed where you had talked about it back in thread 5. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1441654#msg1441654
No problem! Thanks for linking to my post; I followed my link, and the site with the details (Avalon) is back up! I pdf'd a local copy now. Thanks so much for prompting me. Since my ~ 11/15 post about my epiphany at the Goodwill store, in subsequent raids I have pillaged two peltier-device containing gadgets; a liquor-cooler (not amenable to hacking since the peltier is epoxied on) and a 12V device I dismantled but haven't tested yet. Perhaps it will trigger the zener-diode aether-flow detector
IIRC, it took a couple hours to begin to freeze a few hundred ml. of water, with 60W. 300ml. x 20 deg. C x 4 J/ml. = 24 kcal; / 120 min x 60 sec x 60 W ~ 1/15 efficiency. Peltier's aren't very efficient.
Glennfish had asked me for a cite, and all I could do was say, 'but it was there, really'. (FWIW
http://www.theavalonfoundation.org/docs/peltier.html )
I've been thinking about using a Peltier (or two of them) to create a cold small end and hot large end of my frustum. My last post links to a paper which got me thinking about trying this approach
...
I wonder if this anomalous thrust from Peltiers has anything to do with the info about breaking Newton's Third Law mentioned here? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1495024#msg1495024
Glancing at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.5011.pdf makes my brain glaze over. I can undertand an energy potential between tuned cavities, or the density of states of tuned atoms and the radiation back-reaction doing work on a resonator or frustrum as acceleration doppler spreads and re-vectors the energy path.
I should have added, er,... I will now, that this mechanism doesn't preclude Dr. White being right about QV polarization and reactions and stuff. But the thermo-radiation reaction pathway needs to be accounted for.
-
#785
by
otlski
on 01 Apr, 2016 01:39
-
I have not analyzed the equations of motion of the air bearings you are discussing, but the issue I see with air bearings is a lack of stiffness in the equations of motion. This should lead to dynamics governed by damping and mass. It may not have as many issues as the teeter-totter ?, but I cannot go further than that without an analysis. I didn't realize all the problems with the teeter-totter arrangement until I analyzed carefully the teeter totter that that has been posted in these EM Drive threads. Also, one can say that no air-track instrument is used to measure micro-thrust rocket electromagnetic propulsion at MIT's Aero & Astro or at most of NASA and JPL (as far as I know). And they have been measuring electromagnetic propulsion devices for half a century.
[/quote]
It is certainly true that for the DIY nature of this group the torsion pendulum is a good solution. Really I am trying to poke at the edges a bit and muse over how I might do it if I were commissioned to do so. Perhaps I'd end up exactly where you stand now. The largest air bearing we make is a 23" diameter hemisphere. It has a 0.0005" air gap unloaded and closes to zero at around 27,000 lbs. load The characteristic is fairly linear. Pressure in the plenum is 140 psi. Smaller bearings follow in a similar way starting at 0.0005" fly height and close from there. The well implemented bearing is not unstable; meaning well damped. I have measured coulomb friction in the 10 millionths of a lb-in torque for a 10" hemispherical version. Although NASA and JPL are regular customers they have not purchased our air bearings although the national labs have.
I think that until recently working with a tuning fork transducer I would not have even approach this problem with a linear air bearing. A rotary air bearing would have been the goto response. I can imagine the advantages over the torsion pendulum being the deterministic results without having to tune every time a change is made in the experiment. BTW we also make inverted torsion pendulums for direct measure of MOI.
-
#786
by
otlski
on 01 Apr, 2016 02:10
-
otlski's method can solve problem 1,2,3 by using a measure to measure the horizontal pressure of the air lifted cartridge, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1509863#msg1509863
Just problem 4 is still outstanding.
What I am picturing is a commercial linear air bearing with a fly height of 0.0005". Either the loading of the bearing would close the gap slightly or the pressure regulation can be changed to reach a region of self compensating air gap.= (they perform better loaded than unloaded). Either way, the gap in the bearing would be a second order effect on the measurement because it is perpendicular to the axis of measurement. The payload would be placed on the moving portion, the pressurized section (stator) would be anchored to ground. A horizontal pull rod would stretch between the moving portion and the tuning fork scale. The scale would be tipped on edge 90-deg to its normal usage. The whole apparatus would be purposely inclined a few degrees to stretch the pull wire and preload the scale. It would sit there in static equilibrium with a force reading on the scale. The scale would be tared and the experiment turned on. Any thrust would cause the scale to respond. I would use the Vibra scale with 0.0001 gram resolution.
There is no motion from the bearing because the transducer's deflection under load will be in the few millionths of an inch. No jeweled orifices become uncovered. All level errors are rendered moot. There is no out of parallel. Sag is insignificant. If any of these did sneak through the taring would cancel it. CTE issues are mostly gone. There is no response to thermal chimney effect. Little response to hot-air ballooning and battery mass change.
-
#787
by
zen-in
on 01 Apr, 2016 04:16
-
ISS list of experiments - FYI (tangent alert)
Spaceflight and EMDrive enthusiasts might want to bookmark the following link:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_hardware.html#Technology
Here is a comprehensive list and links to Technology experiments for the ISS. Biology and human studies tend to dominate and spaceflight followers might be disappointed that the category of Propulsion contains no experiments. Apparently smallsat and cubesat experiments would be mentioned there if the cornerstone of the experiment was propulsion.
This does not confirm NASA is not involved in propulsion experiments, it just appears to confirm the ISS has nothing to do with them at the present time.
I expect, once my 0.4N S band thruster hits the market, that will change.
Interesting that a 0.4N Force, applied to a 400mt Mass, generates a 0.000001m/sec^2 Acceleration and will achieve a 1m/sec Velocity increase every 11.6 days (1,000,000 sec). Think anyone might be interested in the elimination of ISS reboosts?
You should get in touch with the Australian government. Although Australia doesn't have a space agency like NASA in the US there has been a lot of cooperation over the years and there are university research labs you can work with You should also consider creating a website to promote your results. All that's need would be a few pics of your fustrum and experimental setup along with the raw data you have acquired.
Matthew 5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
-
#788
by
oyzw
on 01 Apr, 2016 04:41
-
ISS list of experiments - FYI (tangent alert)
Spaceflight and EMDrive enthusiasts might want to bookmark the following link:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_hardware.html#Technology
Here is a comprehensive list and links to Technology experiments for the ISS. Biology and human studies tend to dominate and spaceflight followers might be disappointed that the category of Propulsion contains no experiments. Apparently smallsat and cubesat experiments would be mentioned there if the cornerstone of the experiment was propulsion.
This does not confirm NASA is not involved in propulsion experiments, it just appears to confirm the ISS has nothing to do with them at the present time.
I expect, once my 0.4N S band thruster hits the market, that will change.
Interesting that a 0.4N Force, applied to a 400mt Mass, generates a 0.000001m/sec^2 Acceleration and will achieve a 1m/sec Velocity increase every 11.6 days (1,000,000 sec). Think anyone might be interested in the elimination of ISS reboosts?
您好！我开始建造测试平台了！
-
#789
by
Chrochne
on 01 Apr, 2016 05:52
-
您好！我开始建造测试平台了！- Hello! I began to build a test platform
- Is that correct translation?
-
#790
by
oyzw
on 01 Apr, 2016 06:22
-
您好！我开始建造测试平台了！- Hello! I began to build a test platform - Is that correct translation?
Yes
-
#791
by
Eusa
on 01 Apr, 2016 07:37
-
I have my theory of vacuum energy quanta.
The thrust would be based on standing waves which guide quanta. The cavity form is a cone closed with spherical reflectors at top and bottom. The distance from bottom to top must be exactly the multiple of the wavelength of radiation.
-
#792
by
Flyby
on 01 Apr, 2016 12:52
-
Disciples, breadcrumbs, grand masters, quotes from Holy books.....Euhhhh... am I on the right forum here ??
-
#793
by
Rodal
on 01 Apr, 2016 12:55
-
Disciples, breadcrumbs, grand masters, quotes from Holy books.....Euhhhh... am I on the right forum here ??
where this (unverifiable) financial and market claims have been recently posted:
...BTW a meeting of the board (SWMBO & myself) has agreed, if the 1st stage verification is achieved inside my current $20k budget, that the R&D budget can be increased to $100k. Should be enough to build a few 0.4N S band thrusters for commercial sale.
I expect, once my 0.4N S band thruster hits the market, that will change.... Think anyone might be interested in the elimination of ISS reboosts?
-
#794
by
rfmwguy
on 01 Apr, 2016 13:32
-
-
#795
by
JasonAW3
on 01 Apr, 2016 14:23
-
My apologies, but I think that I have a fair grasp of what some of the other members of this forum are trying to say, and please correct me if I am wrong.
Many are finding it quite difficult to understand the concepts that are being bandied about vis a vis the EM drive experiments. One cannot complain about the lack of data being given about this subject, as an exhaustive amount of data, both pro and con, has been provided on the various experiments.
However; in some cases, the explanations and discussions of this phenomena have vastly exceeded the understanding of most people who are shy of PhD's on the subjects discussed. This can be both frustrating and somewhat mind boggling for the average layman. To be honest, I myself find I am lost many times in these discussions and would desire a better clarification of the results that isn't quite as esoteric as is often posted here.
I mean no disrespect, nor am I disputing the right of any of the scientists and DIY experimenters posting either theories, hypothesis, or results of said experiments, but it would be helpful if most of the results and discussions could be broken down to at least allow those who have at best, Associates or Bachelor degrees to be able to understand, and perhaps, offer some helpful suggestions on the subject and results of the experiments.
If we could all keep this in mind, and remain civil and courteous to one another, I think, perhaps, more and faster progress can be made in resolving what is happening with this phenomena.
Thank you for all of your discussions, and the openness that you've shown, and have been allowed to share, NDAs not withstanding.
-
#796
by
Vesc
on 01 Apr, 2016 14:31
-
Long time lurker. Not much of a contributor, but I've read a lot on this thread. *Highly* experienced with the old Usenet Newsgroups.
Unfortunately, I see a pattern being repeated. So I want to send out a caution. Let's not let our feelings creep into the discussion. I see no reason for taking stands or setting out any a-priori judgments that will require endless and needless defense. Let's just stick to the experiments, results and analysis and let the chips fall.
The statement *has* been made already in the physics community by many prominent people, that EM Drive, as originally conjectured is impossible because it violates the law of conservation of momentum. Others have been looking for explanations that don't violate that law. There is nothing to be gained by additional posturing on this topic in my not so humble opinion.
It is the responsibility of those who report positive results to be fully forthcoming with all their data. You know the old saw about extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. For the inventors amongst us, I totally understand any reluctance to reveal a 'trade secret'. But once a patent is secured there is no longer any motivation not to reveal the method. To be less than transparent about the patentability of an idea, I have to say, always raises red flags for me.
But I also welcome with just as much excitement and enthusiasm the null results. This is knowledge. It is valuable. Either way it advances the state of the art. The fun is in the process, I guess I am an experimentalist at heart, the results are almost secondary. For me, this is science.
I also have seen no evidence of Dr. Rodal soliciting anyone for any kind of remuneration for"services" rendered. And I thank him for his participation here.
-
#797
by
Rodal
on 01 Apr, 2016 14:35
-
-
#798
by
SeeShells
on 01 Apr, 2016 15:36
-
Would someone care to comment on this stretched out TE mode? I find it very interesting.
Shell
-
#799
by
Rodal
on 01 Apr, 2016 15:42
-
Would someone care to comment on this stretched out TE mode? I find it very interesting.
Shell
ALL TE
mnp (*) (or TM
mnp) with p>1 well-formed resonant-mode standing-wave mode-shapes in a truncated cone cavity are "stretched out", because the exact solution in the longitudinal direction are spherical Bessel functions that instead of having equal wavelength wavepatterns have such stretched out wavepatterns such that the wavelength gets longer towards the small diameter, the apex of the cone.
That's the only way that standing-wave resonant mode-shapes can form that satisfy Maxwell's equations and the boundary conditions of a truncated cone.
In contrast, TE
mnp (or TM
mnp) resonant mode shapes in a cylindrical cavity have wavepatterns with equal wavelengths in the longitudinal direction: they are governed by Sine functions (instead of Spherical Bessel functions).
The smaller the cone angle and the more distant to the apex of the cone, the closer the geometry is to cylindrical, and the more equal are the wavelengths in the longitudinal direction.
Making a cylinder into a cone "stretches out" the wavelength towards the apex of the cone
"Tapering the cylinder towards the apex" = "Stretching the wavelength towards the apex"
_______________
(*)
TE = transverse electric mode shape: the electric field is only present in the circumferential direction
TM = transverse magnetic mode shape: the electric field is only present in the circumferential direction
TE
mnp where
m = number of half wavepatterns in the circumferential direction
n = number of half wavepatterns in the radial direction (counting from the axis of axi-symmetry to a lateral wall)
p = number of half wavepatterns in the longitudinal direction (from one end plate to the other end plate)
- Is that correct translation?