-
#2380 by Rodal on 05 Nov, 2016 16:57
-
...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the contrary is false. -
#2381 by Flyby on 05 Nov, 2016 17:01
-
IIRC, it was Paul March that was going to enjoy his retirement, no?...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the opposite is completely false. -
#2382 by supersubie on 05 Nov, 2016 17:07
-
IIRC, it was Paul March that was going to enjoy his retirement, no?...Do you think we will ever see the return of Sonny White to the forums now that he has retired? ...
Sonny White has not retired. Dr. White is nowhere near retirement age. Dr. White is still at NASA, any information to the opposite is completely false.
You are correct! I got them mixed up my bad haha -
#2383 by flux_capacitor on 05 Nov, 2016 17:13
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior. -
#2384 by supersubie on 05 Nov, 2016 17:51
-
Are we allowed to discuss what was found in the paper or is going to be removed until the release in December?
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Same thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air. A setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
And what about that frustum without a dielectric inside showing a measurable force, along a direction that reverses when a dielectric is present at the small end and the frequency tuned accordingly to achieve resonance in both cases! Too bad that we can't discuss this behavior.
Would 1.2mn.KW be above the threshold to just write it off as experimental noise? Seems to me now that its above light sails and photon rockets it has to be taken much more seriously as they clearly went to great lengths to reduce the potential for experimental error and account for explainable sources of thrust.
Would we need to see a magnitude of increase in thrust once again to start really having the mainstream scientists look into this? -
#2385 by tleach on 05 Nov, 2016 17:52
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?QuoteSame thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air.
AND they built a self contained rotary experiment with onboard power supply? AND there's a video?QuoteA setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
Or do you mean that EW is planning a Cavendish rotary experiment for next year? You have confused me sir... -
#2386 by RotoSequence on 05 Nov, 2016 17:53
-
No alas, we can't discuss in details the fact Eagleworks managed to dramatically reduce and quantize any spurious mundane cause of thrust, yet still measured a consistent force in a hard vacuum two orders of magnitude higher than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
Admittedly, I haven't been following events very closely as of late, but... Wait!? What!?
EW was able to measure a force 2 orders of magnitude larger than a perfectly collimated photon rocket? When did this leak?QuoteSame thing for their ultra-low friction Cavendish rotary experiment that has been video recorded, showing rotation with all cables and power supply onboard in ambient air.
AND they built a self contained rotary experiment with onboard power supply? AND there's a video?QuoteA setup that, if cleverly designed, would be immune to any thermal expansion of the frustum or of the wires that could be (are) present in former experiments. For that part, we have to wait until next year (at least) since it is planned for their next test campaign.
Or do you mean that EW is planning a Cavendish rotary experiment for next year? You have confused me sir...
The data will be released in December. You likely won't be disappointed by anything but the wait. -
#2387 by tleach on 05 Nov, 2016 18:18
-
We live in interesting times! -
#2388 by InterestedObserver on 05 Nov, 2016 18:58
-
I cannot wait until thread #10!
-
#2389 by M.LeBel on 05 Nov, 2016 20:16
-
"Thrust without exhaust is of course impossible." OK, when you fall under gravity, you do not expel any exhaust!
Right? This is because the falling object is in a time rate differential i.e. the rate of time slows down toward Earth.
This is a logical causal structure. This is what drives gravity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics etc. Things tend to exist more (and be found) where the rate of time (1/T) is slower. The York Time is in fact a description not of spacetime contraction/expansion but an indication of the structure of the rate of time; slower in front (pull) and faster at the back (push) giving you motion and direction.
I don't know if this help but this is what everybody is trying to achieve .. in simple terms.
Marcel,
Falling through a gravitational field does indeed involve an 'exhaust'. Think of the system as a whole, the object which is falling and the field with its source, a planet. There is a mutual interaction through the field and momentum is conserved. It's easier to imagine if gravity were repulsive where the ship and the planet could each be considered the others exhaust. But the principle is the same for attraction.
I understand your explanation and CoM is safe. The Earth - Moon couple rotate around a common center of mass. Each is falling for the other`s time differential. It is the "mutual" part that bugs me. It is like saying there is a spring connecting them ... They each react to the time rate differential produced by the other, "where" they are (inverse square law) from the source. They do not interact source to source but rather source to influence (time rate differential).
Physics studies nature. But what we are trying to achieve here is by all definition "un-natural". Creating a local causal structure out of EM! We may have to accept along the way a few caveats for our laws of physics... i.e. New Physics...
Question: I know the all copper EMDrive acts pretty much like a Faraday cage. But, given all the power injected... is it possible that the frustum can't effectively shield it all. I mean, it requires a lots of free charges and with mobility into the megahertz.. Is there any capacitance like induced charges produced on the outside of the frustum? Has anything (Charges) been detected outside the frustum, apart from heat? Similar to the "evanescent" waves in optics?
If/If there were such stable charges formations on the outer surface of the frustum .. (?) maybe they could be visualized by applying a layer of liquid crystal on the surface and using a polarizer (analyzer) to view these formations ... Maybe view the actual mode your device is running? Just an idea...
Thanks,
Marcel,
-
#2390 by Monomorphic on 05 Nov, 2016 21:21
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent. -
#2391 by meems on 05 Nov, 2016 21:34
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
-
#2392 by RotoSequence on 05 Nov, 2016 21:41
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
This is very thoroughly trodden ground in these threads. Shawyer says yes, while most everyone else says no. -
#2393 by Rodal on 05 Nov, 2016 22:16
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
...
Please look at conservation of momentum and free-body diagram arguments throughly, exhaustively and clearly covered by NSF member: meberbs, links here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=48207
Cannot self-accelerate as a closed system with a force/powerInput orders of magnitude greater than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. Need an external field so that it is not a closed system. Cannot be explained solely on the basis of Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations as a closed system. -
#2394 by flux_capacitor on 05 Nov, 2016 22:27
-
Here's a simple idea, can anyone refute it?
A standing wave in a tapered waveguide cavity might press on the waveguide asymmetrically, hence net force.
Right?
This is very thoroughly trodden ground in these threads. Shawyer says yes, while most everyone else says no.
Actually it is even worse than that, since Shawyer claims:
1- there is no sidewall force,
2- the force exerted by radiation pressure onto big end is greater than onto small end; and this resulting backward force, vector direction pointing small to big (that he calls the "thrust" force) is measurable with "static" (i.e. non free to move frustum) measurement apparatus like torsion pendulums and digital scales,
3- but the force moving the EmDrive forward (that he calls the "reaction" force") accelerates the frustum small end leading, when it is on a "dynamic" (i.e. free to move) measurement apparatus, like low-friction linear or rotary test rigs (or driving an hypothetical flying or space vehicle).
From a scientific point of view, point (1) is simply wrong, and the relation between points (2) and (3) is incomprehensible word salad as it seems like "pushing on an object to the right moves it to the left" since the pressure is purely internal and the EmDrive doesn't expel anything out of its back as a conventional rocket would do.
EDIT: A recent (yesterday) video of Roger Shawyer explaining those different directions and the different behaviour of those "two forces":
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/videos/embed/21436
By the way it is the first time Shawyer brings up the idea that the EmDrive could also solve the energy crisis and global warming, as a new way to produce clean electrical energy. Coincidentally(?) the possibility that the EmDrive could act as an electric generator is a question that has been raised by Fan Boi and briefly discussed here on NSF a few weeks ago. -
#2395 by chongma on 05 Nov, 2016 22:28
-
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around? -
#2396 by rfmwguy on 05 Nov, 2016 22:35
-
I will jump in here...monomorphic deserves a crowd funding campaign. He has spent lots of his own capital investigating this device. Jamie, you would have my support if you set up GoFundMe, kick-starter or whatever. Even tho ew funds were limited, they are significantly more than Jamie has. Sorry pal, you're on the spot now.
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around?
-
#2397 by flux_capacitor on 05 Nov, 2016 23:06
-
I will jump in here...monomorphic deserves a crowd funding campaign. He has spent lots of his own capital investigating this device. Jamie, you would have my support if you set up GoFundMe, kick-starter or whatever. Even tho ew funds were limited, they are significantly more than Jamie has. Sorry pal, you're on the spot now.
I'm again looking at 3D printing a C or X-band emdrive and electroplating with silver or copper. PLA conductive graphene based filament is now available: http://www.blackmagic3d.com/Conductive-p/grphn-175.htm
I am also looking at this 3D printer: http://shop.prusa3d.com/en/3d-printers/53-original-prusa-i3-mk2-3d-printer.html
I'm thinking we can 3D print the major parts of the emdrive, give them a light sanding, electroplate with silver or copper, and then give a mirror finish. Seems like this rapid assembly technique might be good for space-based applications. This may be a ~$1,000 solution for quickly fabricating emdrive cavity parts for experimentation - including concave/convex geometry and complex geometry like the minor end plate in the recent Shawyer patent.
Could we set up crowd funding for this to get it done quickly and professionally? Are there any guarantees of the quality of the finished part? How to tune resonance? Can the input signal be tuned to match the cavity or does it have to be the other way around?
I don't know. Not about crowd-funding for Jamie, but this PLA thing.
First, that so-called "PLA conductive graphene based filament" has an electrical resistivity of 8 mΩ·m at ambient temperature. In comparison, copper has an electrical resistivity of less than 17 nΩ·m. This makes that graphene-based PLA look over 470,000 times more insulating.
Then, isn't polylactic acid very soft and prone to deformation even under relatively low mechanical and thermal stresses?
Doesn't additive manufacturing process, i.e. 3D-printing, especially melted plastic based, produce stacked thin layers of different levels, giving a very rugged surface in the end?
Doesn't smoothing that rugged surface, by sanding or melting it with solvent vapor bath treatment, change the reflection angle of the surfaces and the distance in-between?
If I recall correctly, a "good" EmDrive requires an electrically conductive and very reflective, mirror polished, hard surface, with extremely low tolerance against mechanical and thermal deformations as well as regarding the angle and the distance between end plates.
I don't see how a 3D-printed frustum could meet those very high constraints. The solution advised by TheTraveller: turning thick copper on a lathe into a seamless frustum and perfectly spherical end plates then silver flashing the inside, is IMHO the only valid way to go for high Q. If you try the 3D printer way I hope you can prove me wrong though. -
#2398 by FattyLumpkin on 06 Nov, 2016 01:46
-
Am ready for "the big build" now. Don't know if it's too big for the printer though. Happy to throw $ into a fund for printer. Monomorphic, what are the limits of it (the printer)?
-
#2399 by jay343 on 06 Nov, 2016 02:59
-
Next Big Future picked up one of the papers posted here...
