-
#180
by
SeeShells
on 01 Sep, 2016 13:30
-
Shell, looks like you are getting some love over on the "other" forum. Not sure if you even visit there anymore, but thought I'd give you a heads up.
Thanks.
Honestly, I don't visit much. I'm not posting on here much either. The goal during these last few months has been on my builds and testing. We all want data but it takes time to get it.
Thank you all for your support, this is one heck of a group here.
My Best,
Shell
-
#181
by
bmcgaffey20
on 01 Sep, 2016 14:36
-
Does anyone know why the report of the paper being published was redacted/removed from this site? (and by whom?) : (
FL I suppose what you are talking about is all of the various available news media articles that you are looking at that suggest Dr. Rodals' comment was deleted or removed. I think, it was only edited to remove the journal name and paper name which it is being published.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/31/0612233/emdrive-nasa-eagleworks-peer-reviwed-paper-is-on-its-wayWhere here it says.....
An independent scientist has confirmed that the paper by scientists at the NASA Eagleworks Laboratories on achieving thrust using highly controversial space propulsion technology EmDrive has passed peer review, and will soon be published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Dr Jose Rodal posted on the NASA Spaceflight forum -- in a now-deleted comment -- that the new paper will be entitled "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" and is authored by "Harold White, Paul March, Lawrence, Vera, Sylvester, Brady and Bailey." Rodal also revealed that the paper will be published in the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, a prominent journal published by the AIAA, which is one of the world's largest technical societies dedicated to aerospace innovations. Although Eagleworks engineer Paul March has posted several updates on the ongoing research to the NASA Spaceflight forum showing that repeated tests conducted on the EmDrive in a vacuum successfully yielded thrust results that could not be explained by external interference, those in the international scientific community who doubt the feasibility of the technology have long believed real results of thrust by Eagleworks would never see the light of day.
-
#182
by
FattyLumpkin
on 01 Sep, 2016 15:18
-
That was one of the big sources....thank you for putting it up: dementia not onboard yet, TG!
-
#183
by
TheTraveller
on 01 Sep, 2016 15:42
-
Here is the issue:
The EmDrive works.
You can't explain why.
Roger can.
But doesn't.
Fixed that for ya.
Not nice to quote my post and then add the last line I never wrote.
BTW maybe you should go here to listen to the man explain his theory:
.
-
#184
by
andygood
on 01 Sep, 2016 15:51
-
Just bumped into this one...
*snip*
published yesterday...
So Mr Shawyer talks about the old side wall chestnut at the 08:42 mark... From memory, I'm not sure that he adds anything new to what was said previously?!
Anyone care to address his comments?
-
#185
by
Monomorphic
on 01 Sep, 2016 18:11
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
-
#186
by
Bob012345
on 01 Sep, 2016 18:35
-
As a newbie, I'd like to ask, what is the central problem in getting these devices to work? Is it getting and keeping resonance? Has anyone here attained a large (10's to 100's milliNewtons) effect even briefly? Thanks.
-
#187
by
DIYFAN
on 01 Sep, 2016 19:07
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Nice to see the progress! Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration. So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)? Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period? (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)
-
#188
by
Monomorphic
on 01 Sep, 2016 19:19
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Nice to see the progress! Sorry as I have not been closely following the specifics of your configuration. So hopefully you won't mind summarizing how the EmDrive is orientated (ie which way is the thrust "supposed" to be observed)? Also, would it be possible to track temperature over the test period? (Maybe you already do and it just isn't shown on this graph)
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.
-
#189
by
jmossman
on 01 Sep, 2016 20:30
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
Any chance you could rerun multiple times in this configuration?
Maybe script up something to perform a 1 minute power on cycle every ~1.5 hours, and have it run overnight?
Ambient temperature monitoring within your plexiglass enclosure would also be nice to have.... maybe both above and below the expected thermal plume region?
BTW, you're doing a great job! (and staying objective) It's so easy to make suggestions when the suggester isn't doing any of the work, so please filter accordingly.
-
#190
by
DIYFAN
on 01 Sep, 2016 20:40
-
Horizontal displacement: up is "forward thrust, down is "reverse thrust"
Vertical displacement: up is up, down is down
It is possible to track temperature so long as no probes enter the cavity. I'm more interested in building a solid state battery powered RF source. These magnetrons are too hard to control frequency without massive cooling and hardware.
Thanks, that makes sense. This first run does seem quite intriguing. What I don't understand is how the vertical displacement (presumably caused by thermal effects) interrelates with the horizontal displacement. In other words, if there is thrust, then it would show up in the horizontal displacement regardless of the thermal effects manifested in the vertical displacement. Or maybe i'm completely clueless.
-
#191
by
WarpTech
on 01 Sep, 2016 22:31
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal.
-
#192
by
DIYFAN
on 01 Sep, 2016 23:13
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
The fact that it backs up quickly when the RF turns off, while the vertical displacement is unchanged, would seem to indicate that some portion of the forward thrust is due to the RF. It's not all thermal.
Indeed, that would seem the case. But can thermal cause horizontal displacement at all? It would seem that thermal would only contribute to the vertical displacement but of course, I could be wrong.
-
#193
by
RotoSequence
on 01 Sep, 2016 23:20
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?
-
#194
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Sep, 2016 01:24
-
First powered test since all the improvements. Notice beam movement immediately on power on, not RF on. I was also able to include vertical beam displacement, "thermal lift," and Max resonance as measured by VNA.
If I had to interpret this data, I would say current from leads causes initial downward "reverse" movement, but then at max resonance, that is stopped/reversed, and then thermal lift drowns out the rest as resonance is lost.
Does the beam eventually return to its original position, or does it have to be manually reset?
It eventually returns very close to its original position. On the order of tens of minutes. I expect I would need to record for 20+ minutes for this to be documented. I will attempt this soon.
-
#195
by
CW
on 02 Sep, 2016 07:24
-
I have a question for the professional physicists on the board:
If photons have a spin of 1, and two photons perfectly overlap in the 'right' way, do the individual spins of '1' superimpose / add up to create a point in space where spin is '2' ? I'm asking because the graviton is supposed to have a spin of '2' and no electric charge (which would technically be the case if two photons overlap 'destructively' at the same point in spacetime, eradicating any 'charge'/electric field component).
BR
CW
-
#196
by
RERT
on 02 Sep, 2016 07:45
-
Monomorphic -
For some time we've been saying that apparent side-to-side motion of the frustrum might not be thrust, but might be caused by asymmetric vertical (possibly thermal) effects.
Can you exclude the reverse, ie that apparent vertical motion of the beam is caused by twisting due to horizontal movements of the frustrum? In particular, the movements vertically are very small - they are a completely different scale to the horizontal movements, which you've described earlier as comparable to the thickness of a sheet of paper. How large are the vertical movements just compared to thermal expansion of the pieces?
R.
-
#197
by
chongma
on 02 Sep, 2016 09:00
-
reversing the emdrive orientation and running the same test should show whether the direction of the thrust changes. if it is due to electro magnetic effects interacting with the environment then the thrust should be in the same direction again?
-
#198
by
StrongGR
on 02 Sep, 2016 10:05
-
After the announcement of Dr. Rodal, I have modified my draft explaining NASA's results. The idea is that the theory to be used is a Brans-Dicke instead that a pure general relativity, inside the cavity. The question of what theory really describes our universe is widely open as the Brans-Dicke theory exactly recovers general relativity in all the known tests. But the former allows for a varying Newton constant as seems to be seen in NASA experiments.
If this would be confirmed, it would appear a breakthrough in our knowledge as it would seem that the Brans-Dicke theory is preferred to general relativity even if both theories coincide for all practical purposes.
The draft is here enclosed. It is my paper appeared on arxiv with added a new section before conclusions about Brans-Dicke theory. The computation shows that, just inside the cavity, the electromagnetic field can change the Newton constant because of its energy density. Outside the cavity, the ordinary Newton constant is recovered.
-
#199
by
Willem Staal
on 02 Sep, 2016 10:20
-
I don't know if im up to something, but i stumbled while reading a book about Fractals from James Gleick where he quoted a dicovery from a Dutch scientist called Christiaan Huygens. He observed synchronization of pendulum clocks, and he discovered that at some times they run in phase or in anti-phase due to vibrations trought walls or on a table.
I think that a similar behavour occurs also in a EM drive frustrum where the amplitude of the waves are truncated by the shape of the frustrum while the waves forced into sychronization phase. So the energy of the amplitude needs to escape somewhere when a wave goes into phase..
The power of the rf transmitter needs to go somewhere! So why not outside the frustrum? but not as wave but as a phase or anti phase synchronization event.
Im not a scientist, who juggles with Unruh theories or similar, but this is the idea what im coming up with.
