-
#2860
by
Peter Lauwer
on 18 Nov, 2016 09:37
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
-
#2861
by
Gilbertdrive
on 18 Nov, 2016 10:36
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
They submitted the article around 1 year ago. So I don't see how it would be otherwise. It is logical that the article is revised later, but no new big work added.
They have probably done new things since they submitted the article. I hope that they have well progressed since this time.
-
#2862
by
RERT
on 18 Nov, 2016 11:08
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
-
#2863
by
Peter Lauwer
on 18 Nov, 2016 12:34
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
-
#2864
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Nov, 2016 12:55
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
-
#2865
by
Peter Lauwer
on 18 Nov, 2016 13:06
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
In doing so, having a balance with "large free swing", you are prone to drift. And having several variables (several force components), that will give you the freedom to explain these drifts according to your theory. Who can do that, who has the mental discipline to not discard the measurements which do not fit into his/her theory in such a situation?
-
#2866
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Nov, 2016 13:11
-
That is actually how I do it. I only use a magnetic force: a small bar magnet attached to the torsion balance arm, this magnet sticks into a coil which is powered by an electronic circuit. Two optical sensors are used to monitor the position of the balance and they are read out by the electronic circuit. The current through the coil is then proportional to the torque on the balance arm.
A magnetic system is more sensitive to disturbances than an electric one, but my magnet-coil system is enclosed by a mu-metal shielding to reduce a possible disturbance.
I have found a (liquid) damping system was still necessary.
The vertical movement will also be monitored in my setup.
Doing so will make your torsion pendulum VERY stiff and only capable to measuring the small to big Thrust force as it will not allow any acceleration to occur.
Very loose torsion pendulums, allowing large movements, like the one Dave built does allow the Reaction acceleration force to be generated and measured.
So force direction can alter depending on the design of the test rig. Remember even with the stiff EW torsion pendulum and their magnetic impulse damper, they occasionally did record weak force generation opposite to the normal direction.
As EW discovered, putting a non resonant dielectric in the small end reverses the static force direction from big to small with the dielectric to small to big without the dielectric. I can explain why this happens if you are interested.
In doing so, having a balance with "large free swing", you are prone to drift. And having several variables (several force components), that will give you the freedom to explain these drifts according to your theory. Who can do that, who has the mental discipline to not discard the measurements which do not fit into his/her theory in such a situation?
Best of luck. Really. Looking forward to analyse your data.
Just remember these force are not conventional generated forces. Their characteristics just might surprise you.
-
#2867
by
rq3
on 18 Nov, 2016 13:24
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
-
#2868
by
Rodal
on 18 Nov, 2016 13:30
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre
conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was
not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
-
#2869
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Nov, 2016 13:42
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with
no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
-
#2870
by
Carl G
on 18 Nov, 2016 14:27
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
So is this now free to talk about after TheTraveller betrayed Eaglework's trust? Might be a good point to start the new thread?
-
#2871
by
RotoSequence
on 18 Nov, 2016 14:57
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
-
#2872
by
meberbs
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:14
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
The frustum and internal EmWave are an open system.
As for the force of a proton rocket, clearly the EW atmo and vac results of 1.2mN/kWrf say otherwise. Please note the earlier EW paper showed that TE012 mode generated a specific force of 21.3mN/kWrf.
Also note that the earlier paper stating there was no force generated by the Cu frustum was incorrect as attached. I do hope that earlier paper's authors correct the error.
To understand how the EmDrive works, we need to have access to as much of the experimental data as we can get.
Plus we need to understand how the dynamics of the test system may influence with of the TWO forces, Thrust and Acceleration, the test rig will allow to be generated.
So yes there is a new dynamic that needs to be considered in testing EmDrives as the test system itself may influence both the value of the force measured and it's direction.
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
Even if the emDrive works (new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time), no amount of data can ever make Shawyer's theory correct.
Your "2 forces" description is simply nonsensical, contradictory, and contrary to experimental evidence. You now are saying that making it harder to accelerate switches the direction of the applied force. This would mean an emDrive attached to a 10 pound weight would move in one direction, but attached to a 100 pound weight it would move in the other (making up numbers since you haven't provided a way to determine the threshold this would occur at). This is so nonsensical, I don't even know how to explain how wrong it is to you if you don't already understand this.
-
#2873
by
meberbs
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:16
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
-
#2874
by
Rodal
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:21
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
While I have no problem with statements that a dielectric may not be necessary for the claimed experimental forces, let's be careful with the attribution to real persons, as apparently Paul March did
not consent to TheTraveller posting that stuff (for example about 3.85mN/kWrf of force). Please see:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610794#msg1610794.
Suggestion: may have to use a legal disclaimer like the ones used in movies:
"The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred"
-
#2875
by
meberbs
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:26
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those ridiculous concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA because "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
At least now we know that EW measured:
1) 3.85mN/kWrf of force, small to big, in TE012, with no dielectric (3x the TM212 dielectric value as below)
as against
2) 1.2mN/wKrf of force, big to small, in TM212, with a dielectric at the small end.
I consider that information to be critical in furthering the understanding of the operational characterists of EmDrives.
Why the reversed force direction? Simple, the end of the cavity with the shortest 1/2 guide wave (highest radiation pressure) changed.
Wait, where did you find the 3.85mN/kW RF result? I haven't found a larger force in DOI: 10.2514/1.B36120, outside of Eagleworks conclusion of a thrust/power ratio of 1.2 mN/kW RF in vacuum.
It is in the attachments to his post, which includes a pdf from Paul March after he left EW. (Therefore not peer reviewed etc. )
Let's be careful with the attribution to real persons, as apparently Paul March did not consent to TheTraveller posting that stuff. Please see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610794#msg1610794.
Yes, I had some concerns about whether what TT attached to that post was actually acceptable to share, so I'd rather not discuss it too much unless we see explicit approval from Paul March or EW, even though the document is explicit that it was made after he left EW.
-
#2876
by
Donosauro
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:27
-
Reading the EW paper, I was struck by a thought: the calibration force/electrostatic comb might be used as follows.
Create a feedback loop between the optical position sensor and the comb, so that the comb produces a force which causes the test article to remain static. The output reading of the experiment is then the voltage applied to the comb. I suppose in principle not just a comb but any device which produces a small but easily variable amount of force could do the job.
If the article never moves, its position does not need to be heavily damped, tending to make it easier to separate impulsive from thermal forces by widening the difference in time constants. Further, both EW and DIY tests suffer from torsion balance arms which swing back beyond zero after being moved. If they are never allowed to move, errors generated by motion (perhaps bearing slippage/stickage) which may cause this are reduced.
Not being practical in any way I have no idea how hard this might be to implement, but nonetheless it's a thought.
(edit: it occurs to me later that the restoring force is in principle on 3 axes, even though EW and DIY usually only measure one direction)
Actually, it's a good thought. Such nulling approaches are common in high-precision measurement, because it can give faster response times and better linearity.
-
#2877
by
rfmwguy
on 18 Nov, 2016 15:38
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
So much for those bizarre conspiratorial concerns from people that posted here and elsewhere that they thought that this NASA article was not going to be published by the AIAA, citing weak arguments such as that "there is no Dec. issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power". Obviously unfounded concerns. FACT: the NASA article did get publish on Nov 17, 2016, two weeks ahead of schedule (which was expected to be in December 2016)
So is this now free to talk about after TheTraveller betrayed Eaglework's trust? Might be a good point to start the new thread?
Yes and yes. I have been granted permission to discuss the paper and have already done so elsewhere for my own reasons. Out of respect for you and Chris, thought I'd post my thoughts here. However, ancillary data, slides links etc., should not be assumed to be approved to be released, nor correct. My simple advice is to discuss the aaia paper as it is, without consideration to other info presented from 3rd parties whom may not have been given special permission to do so. Ethics are paramount in any consequential topic, especially one of this potential magnitude.
-
#2878
by
Bob012345
on 18 Nov, 2016 16:02
-
"Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" was published on Nov. 17 in "Articles in Advance," AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.B36120
Looks very similar to the leaked draft that was circulated a couple of weeks ago. Is it essentially the same or does it include new results that didn't appear in the leaked draft?
It is the same as the leaked version, I would say, just browsed through it. The leaked version was the revised draft of August 23.
The work described in this article is from at least 1 year ago. I wonder what they have done in the past year.
All that effort and they only report nine runs? Since each run amounts to a few minutes and since it may take a day or so to prepare, why aren't there dozens of runs? Why not a hundred? Based on this I suspect the NASA team probably spent just a few days of data taking and a year to write up and seek to publish the results. I further suspect they haven't done swat since. I hope I'm wrong. I hope they are trying to optimize this but I doubt it.
-
#2879
by
Bob012345
on 18 Nov, 2016 16:12
-
You seem to have again missed one of the key points of my post. Where did the em wave get its net momentum to transfer?
Also, you did not even address the first, basic point about the statement of Newton's law being backwards.
Where did the energy in the EmWave originally come from? From the electrical energy source that powered the Rf amp that fed the cavity? Are you suggesting that an EmWave emitted into the cavity does not have energy/momentum?
As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works when an EmWave transfers momentum to mass via the differential Radiation Pressure created inside the tapered waveguide resonant cavity.
Just because this EmWave momentum transfer to mass mechanism is new to you, does not mean it is against physics or Newton.
The RF source would be attached to the cavity, so the net result of momentum transfer from the cavity to the em wave back to the cavity would cancel out. If it does not, then conservation of momentum broke somewhere. (or the momentum came from elsewhere via some sort of new physics) Also, any small transient effect would be no greater than a photon rocket.
"As for Newton, he would be happy to see his theory still works" What do you not understand about the fact that Shawyer's statements are directly contradictory to Newton's laws?
The frustum and internal EmWave are an open system.
As for the force of a proton rocket, clearly the EW atmo and vac results of 1.2mN/kWrf say otherwise. Please note the earlier EW paper showed that TE012 mode generated a specific force of 21.3mN/kWrf.
Also note that the earlier paper stating there was no force generated by the Cu frustum was incorrect as attached. I do hope that earlier paper's authors correct the error.
To understand how the EmDrive works, we need to have access to as much of the experimental data as we can get.
Plus we need to understand how the dynamics of the test system may influence with of the TWO forces, Thrust and Acceleration, the test rig will allow to be generated.
So yes there is a new dynamic that needs to be considered in testing EmDrives as the test system itself may influence both the value of the force measured and it's direction.
The definition of an open system is one that interacts with something else. The emDrive as described by Shawyer does not do this, so it is a closed system. Saying "it is an open system" does not magically make it one.
Even if the emDrive works (new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time), no amount of data can ever make Shawyer's theory correct.
Your "2 forces" description is simply nonsensical, contradictory, and contrary to experimental evidence. You now are saying that making it harder to accelerate switches the direction of the applied force. This would mean an emDrive attached to a 10 pound weight would move in one direction, but attached to a 100 pound weight it would move in the other (making up numbers since you haven't provided a way to determine the threshold this would occur at). This is so nonsensical, I don't even know how to explain how wrong it is to you if you don't already understand this.
"new EW data is not conclusive, I can get into the reasons when I have more time"
Why am I not surprised you would say that? I suspect that if Shawyer hosted you on a trip to the Moon in a craft with his superconducting EmDrive, you would probably spend the entire four hours lecturing him on how wrong he was.
