-
#1200
by
chongma
on 04 Oct, 2016 12:24
-
Hi TheTraveller, I am not a naysayer but to claim that Dave got a valid result is deceptive. I don't even think Dave would claim that he got any thrust. His rig needs a lot more work and he plans to convert to solid state. Also I have looked through your Google group which has a lot of interesting material which I had not seen before. It is a good resource I hope you keep working on it. However i cannot find your 8mN results. If they are not available to the general public or of sufficiently high standard to be conclusive then they would have to be discounted as well. I do not see any builders yet producing conclusive data and experiments that don't have a long way to go in terms of validity and reproducibility. I am interested to see the builders get more organised and produce something good enough to be judged scientific. Maybe we will see something by the end of 2016?
-
#1201
by
Flyby
on 04 Oct, 2016 14:01
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can
only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
-
#1202
by
Bob012345
on 04 Oct, 2016 15:10
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps. 
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
-
#1203
by
gargoyle99
on 04 Oct, 2016 16:03
-
do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies
Bob, your enthusiasm about EmDrive and physics is commendable!
It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel.
A rocket that does a burn from a frame at rest wrt earth, one moving at the exhaust velocity and one moving at very high speed will use the same energy in the burn as calculated by all observers yet the ships kinetic energy gain is extrodinarily higher for the fast frames.
Those statements are not correct. The change in kinetic energy of both closed systems is exactly the same, even though the final kinetic energy may be much larger in the high speed reference frame. You are neglecting the loss of kinetic energy of the exhausted propellant (as has been mentioned before).
In classical Newtonian physics as well as in special relativity and general relativity, energy and momentum are conserved in all non-accelerating (inertial) reference frames. If your math doesn't show this, then it is not correct. In the case of rocket stages, it is because you are not properly accounting for the kinetic energy in the exhaust. If EmDrive obeys Newtonian physics, then it (in all closed systems) will also conserve energy and momentum in all inertial reference frames. If it doesn't, then that is obviously a different scenario.
Here is a link that simplifies the question and might help explain the apparent paradox to you:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602And yes, I do happen to have a degree in physics, in case you were wondering.
(Hopefully this post is polite enough to avoid mod filtering.)
-
#1204
by
rfmwguy
on 04 Oct, 2016 16:08
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
-
#1205
by
Tellmeagain
on 04 Oct, 2016 16:45
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps.
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
I am going to update my pdf file to include an analysis of the rocket equation. Your misconception comes from the fact that the rocket has constant acceleration with constant burning rate of chemical fuel, but you fail to acknowledge that the fuel at later times has more kinetic energy than earlier times, and that kinetic energy was provided by earlier burnt and ejected fuel. For MET or EMDriveThere is no dM with high kinetic energy to eject, so the analogy with an constant acceleration with constant consumed power rocket does not help them. My update will clarify just that.
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
It is a solid no.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
Another solid no.
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
They each does not produce any thrust.
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
It is in the first answer above (the "rocket analogy" part).
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
Thanks.
-
#1206
by
Tellmeagain
on 04 Oct, 2016 16:48
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
From my experience, Your 18.4mN is above possible Lorentz force in your setup. You might want to look into the thermal expansion of your power leads to the magnetron. Thanks.
-
#1207
by
X_RaY
on 04 Oct, 2016 17:06
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use.
-
#1208
by
Rodal
on 04 Oct, 2016 17:18
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by
experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
-
#1209
by
X_RaY
on 04 Oct, 2016 18:06
-
[...
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
...
Could you also run TM212?
The overwhelming majority of tests by the NASA Eagleworks group has been in TM212.
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
Thanks!
I will try it after I am sure that the results are conclusive. That needs a little bit time.
On the other hand I am not sure this is not only wasted time this way, if there is a "open" waveguide port (maybe 50Ohm) instead of a metallic plate. Any thoughts about?
-
#1210
by
WarpTech
on 04 Oct, 2016 18:17
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use.
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
-
#1211
by
X_RaY
on 04 Oct, 2016 19:40
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
...
snip
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use.
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
OK the over unity problem also remains (and gets even worse) without dielectric in the frequency range around 2.15GHz!
Some thoughts:
For the TE01p mode the cutoff frequency wihout HDPE at the small diameter is roughly 2.3GHz while the resonant frequency of the truncated frustum for this mode is ~2.168 GHz.
This problem will be the same for TM212 without dielectric.
Regarding to the reflection coefficient above 1, this may be possible when the small diameter is still below the cutoff diameter. In this case β in this plane becomes pure imaginary(...)!
Add
Based on the last results
I will test TM212 with dielectric.
-
#1212
by
Monomorphic
on 04 Oct, 2016 21:14
-
Paul March is the only investigator in the world (to my recollection) that has actually verified the mode of operation, by experimentally verifying the mode shape (TM212) with measurements.
Thank you for reminding me to run an IR test. Have confirmed
NO RESONANCE in the wedge emdrive. Looks like the IR is escaping around the bolted seams in the middle. Soldering the seams is going to be mandatory. Will work on that next and repeat the IR test. IR image of phase change collar after powered run also included.
-
#1213
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 22:50
-
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
Having a positive result is one thing, being able to attribute it - without ambiguity or doubt - to an EM-effect is another thing...
I don't think that anyone inhere doubts the measured forces, as most of the DIY tests show an amazing precision and sensitivity. The whole issue is about acknowledging that, after elimination of all possible external causes, you're left with a residual force that can only be explained by an EMdrive effect.
All traces of doubt need to be removed because, at this moment, the presumed EM effect forces are of the same order of the thermal / lorentz, etc, forces. If you or anybody else can generate EM forces that are substantially higher then the background noise, then these can be neglected and you'll have proven the EM effect...
But as long they're similar in magnitude, the burden for removing all possible "other" reasons remains...
And for that , you really need a systematic approach where you address each possible cause, one by one...
18.4 mN is a very strong Lorentz force according to Mr Li's cacalculations. This deflection was more repeatable within a test run than I would expect a thermal effect to be. The move to solid state is to remove doubt but I went from 177 microNewtons to 18.4 mN changing to a new cavity and torsion beam.
I have no doubt something is there well above common Lorentz and thermal, but what it is won't be known until I present a more stable and reliable signal source to feed the cavity. My money is on an inertial force for a reason we're all about to discover. Thrust implies ejected mass and don't think we're dealing with that. Directional energy? I see this whole thing as a scramble for theory to catch up to observations.
Remember, other than air I have no material inside the cavity to absorb heat, change state, vibrate or outgas. This was done explicitly to remove potential error sources.
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
-
#1214
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 22:59
-
Furthermore, the TE012 Brady et.al. measurements were not reproducibly robust as the TM212 measurements.
As I shared some time ago, SPR verify the mode using a moveable internal probe to map the E & H field patterns.
With high built quality frustums with thick end plates of 6-10mm of Cu or Al, doing thermal end plate mapping is not really possible and that is why, as it was explained to me, SPR use non thermal means to confirm excited mode.
As for the TE012 tests, as you know, they were the 1st tests EW tried. Back then the expertise of doing the measurements, tuning the frustum, the accuracy of the freq tracking system, system generated errors, etc were very basic and I suggest any issues EW had with TE012 were due more to learning curve that mode stability. Paul did share he wanted to go back and redo the TE012 test series but he is now retired and that will probably not happen.
-
#1215
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 23:02
-
Hi TheTraveller, I am not a naysayer but to claim that Dave got a valid result is deceptive. I don't even think Dave would claim that he got any thrust. His rig needs a lot more work and he plans to convert to solid state. Also I have looked through your Google group which has a lot of interesting material which I had not seen before. It is a good resource I hope you keep working on it. However i cannot find your 8mN results. If they are not available to the general public or of sufficiently high standard to be conclusive then they would have to be discounted as well. I do not see any builders yet producing conclusive data and experiments that don't have a long way to go in terms of validity and reproducibility. I am interested to see the builders get more organised and produce something good enough to be judged scientific. Maybe we will see something by the end of 2016?
Deceptive?
18.4mN is what Dave claims. If you have issues with that take it up with Dave. I'm just quoting what he claims.
-
#1216
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 23:04
-
Thank you for reminding me to run an IR test. Have confirmed NO RESONANCE in the wedge emdrive. Looks like the IR is escaping around the bolted seams in the middle. Soldering the seams is going to be mandatory. Will work on that next and repeat the IR test. IR image of phase change collar after powered run also included.
If you can please do a eddy current FEKO analysis of this frustum build, at the assumed resonance and mode, believe I can explain what is happening and why you have no thrust.
Dave soldered all his seams and still had arching across the seam joints as the solder had not entirely filled the inside edge of the end plate to the side wall and as his mode had eddy currents crossing from end plate to side wall, there was arching where the surface was no continuous.
Even a scratch can cause a break in the eddy currents as those eddy currents only flow down to 5x skin depth or to a depth as in this table. As you can see from this attachment, a scratch 7um deep will stop / break eddy current flow, even though there is Cu further down.
Imagine your flat panel to flat panel joints. Basically the entire inner surface of the frustum needs to be an unbroken Cu surface, including any joint that eddy current needs to flow across.
-
#1217
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 23:36
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
-
#1218
by
Tellmeagain
on 05 Oct, 2016 00:20
-
Whether or not you mentioned a rocket in section II does not mean I can't use it to illustrate my point. A rocket abides by all the same laws as any simple mechanical system. An EmDrive looked at from two different frames would also do. But you seem to be saying that F*v is the required instantaneous input power for any accelerating system. Yes? Assuming that the input power is real and invariant, different observers would say different power is required at the source. Does anyone else see a really big problem with that?
I am going to update my pdf file to include an analysis of the rocket equation. Your misconception comes from the fact that the rocket has constant acceleration with constant burning rate of chemical fuel, but you fail to acknowledge that the fuel at later times has more kinetic energy than earlier times, and that kinetic energy was provided by earlier burnt and ejected fuel. For MET or EMDriveThere is no dM with high kinetic energy to eject, so the analogy with an constant acceleration with constant consumed power rocket does not help them. My update will clarify just that.
We need other people to comment between us on whether your paper is spot on or has errors or if Woodward is right and you are mistaken. In the meantime I propose asking each other very straightforward and simple diagnostic questions. For example;
1) Forgetting Woodward's paper, do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies of the ten intervals? This is a yes or no question.
It is a solid no.
2) Do you agree or not that the MET or EmDrive might work up to the time where 'over-unity' allegedly occurs?
Another solid no.
3) If yes to question 2, suppose we have two MET devices. One at rest, one coasting at the critical speed where 'over-unity' happens according to our frame. We turn both on. What happens to each? Why?
They each does not produce any thrust.
4) You can make simple direct statements about my statements about what you think is wrong in my understanding.
It is in the first answer above (the "rocket analogy" part).
I'm enjoying the discussion so please don't give up! Thanks.
Thanks.
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
-
#1219
by
TheTraveller
on 05 Oct, 2016 00:39
-
I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
