-
#300 by Star One on 03 Sep, 2016 23:32
-
You could always wait for the paper to be published before jumping to conclusions.It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:QuoteFor the EMdrive, the device that was tested here, thrust was consistently observed on the device to be between 30-and-50 microNewtons, giving us that 1.2 N/MW figure. But the limits of the measuring device’s threshold was just 10-to-15 microNewtons! In other words, these results may be consistent and interesting, but this isn’t as robust as anyone wants it to be.
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
Anything that doesn't come from Dr Rodal I am dubious about in relation to this paper. Why do you think even he deleted the little he did post because it could give the wrong impression if taken out of context.
Anyone who has seen the paper should respect the process and keep quiet.
-
#301 by FattyLumpkin on 04 Sep, 2016 00:47
-
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference! Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon! Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)
-
#302 by Prunesquallor on 04 Sep, 2016 04:55
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have. -
#303 by TheTraveller on 04 Sep, 2016 06:49
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.
So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?
-
#304 by TheTraveller on 04 Sep, 2016 06:57
-
Thought provoking: the results reported (if true) in the up coming peer reviewed paper from EWL indicates 1.2 mN/kilowatt in TM212, when their first campaign indicated a far great force/kilowatt 21.3 mN/kW in TE012....No small difference! Sonny stated that they couldn't get any more than 2.6 Watts into their frustum at that time in that particular configuration.
One would expect that EWL would design a "better" antenna (hoop vs. loop) and place it in a "better" location in order to put more energy into this higher force producing mode.
Not to forget that EWL also intended to employ PPL expressly to test several different modes and frequencies that might lie "close" to one another. While EWL was able to get more power and a higher overall force measurement in TM212, the fact remains that TE012 produced a much great force/Watt measurement. Indeed we'll have to wait for the paper, but if it has been leaked, I hope it comes our way, and soon! Image attached: TE012 satellite station keeping sized (10 cm base Diam.) thruster. (2.1mN/100W w/out spherical caps.)
History shows Roger originally excited in TMxyz modes but abandoned them for TE01x, with TE013 being the preferred mode.
Why EW excited in TM212 is unknown but clearly they found resonance there. Maybe it was the most isolated from nearby modes and would stop their freq control system from locking to a nearby mode? -
#305 by FattyLumpkin on 04 Sep, 2016 07:59
-
Traveller, re TM212, in EWL's frustum with HDPE mounted in the top, their test data was/is as follows 91.2 micro N/16.9 Watts, TM212, frequency 1.9326 GHz, 5.4 mN/kW. Perhaps X_Ray will perform a sim for us...I'll ask him. Despite arguments about Roger's theory, it appears many DIYers are building for TE013 or TE012... I don't recall for sure but I think Monomophics's wedge is TE013. If not, I'll be straitened out shorty.
. Going to PM to "spreche mit X_Ray jetzt" Ciao PS: attached is sim of NASA's frustum TE012 at 1.8804 GHz..2.6 Watts.
Two Dipole antennae placed equal distant in bottom, not just one on the side.
-
#306 by Tcarey on 04 Sep, 2016 08:05
-
Quote
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
From what has been posted here it seems that the EW paper was submitted possibly a year or more ago. If so, it represents where they were quite a while back. Perhaps they have made progress since then as have the DIY folks here.
-
#307 by X_RaY on 04 Sep, 2016 09:26
-
@FL
This is what I get using FEKO.
All this pics show the E component of the field. The antenna was a magnetic dipole 34.3mm from the bottom at the sidewall. Its orientation is equal to a vertical aligned loop antenna.
The result is similar to the EW comsol calculations (lower pic)
-
#308 by frobnicat on 04 Sep, 2016 09:59
-
.../...
I am disappointed to see that "30-50 microNewtons" number. It is just in the range of Lorentz force you would see with a few amperes DC, several hundred cm^2 closed current loop, and the earth's magnet field. It looks like they did not avoid the same old flaw they made in their 2014 paper (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07752v1 for that flaw). After all, they got to know that flaw after their new test was done.
As I recall, their final apparatus was using a solid state RF source so the Lorenz force may have been less that what you refer to. Both EW and Tajmar had to use fairly small vacuum chambers so they were restricted as to the type and size of RF sources, cavities, etc. One of the great hopes for the EW paper was that one of the other NASA labs would take pity on them and loan them a larger chamber for a bigger rig that could provide more definitive thrust levels.
The bane of EM Drive Science - minuscule vacuum chambers.
Their 2014 paper used solid state RF source too. They got to know that flaw from my paper after their new test was done, but now it seems likely they did not redo the tests.
I hope they could afford to spend the humongous amount of money (sarcasm) of the 6 copper coils and 3 current generators it gets to build a basic 3 axis Helmholtz coil "cube", and finally characterize quantitatively the "effect" as a function of ambient DC magnetic field, therefore proving beyond doubt that the system is not just an electromagnetic compas. And this would be much much better than rotating the experiment 180° (given the sensitivity to tilt, the chance to rotate some magnetic material with it etc... One really want's to see a purely solid state way to change ambient DC magnetic field with all other aspects untouched)
Why go to the trouble of a vacuum chamber to eliminate the "thermal engine" component if the interactions with ambient magnetic field as a stator are not characterized ? Only declarations of good will such as "it was mitigated", "it was greatly reduced", "the permanent magnet nearby was removed", "when reversed it should do this or that", "all wires are twisted", "it is battery powered", "and so on..." would be a great disappointment given the relative ease with which it can be done to characterize the coupling. Reduction by design of sources of error is good but however good it is never good enough to trust blindly. Quantitative characterization of the systematics (especially known ones) is a basic prerequisite of the validity of results, otherwise interpretations, however smart, are shot in the fog. Failure to do so would seriously cast doubt on the ability or urge of the team to get to the bottom of it, IMHO.
BTW, I'm not aware of any experiment so far, academic nor "amateur", with an output plot "effect vs DC ambient magnetic field". This would be a world first. Any taker ?
-
#309 by Star One on 04 Sep, 2016 11:24
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation. -
#310 by Prunesquallor on 04 Sep, 2016 15:02
-
It would appear from the comments made here, the full EW paper has reached beyond EWs and AIAA. Seems Dr White sent it to Mark Rademaker, who modelled Dr White's IXS Enterprise warp ship. I predict it will see the light of day well before AIAA publishes it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
The information below was not in that released by Dr. Rodal. It must be from the full paper:
...
What is your evidence that it "must" be from the full paper? Have you seen the full paper?
I would suggest you refrain from absolute statements like this until you have.
There are data stated in the Forbes article that are not in the data Dr. Rodal shared. That is clear.
So either the Forbes article writer made them up or he read them from the report. Which seems most likely, the writer made them up and created a time bomb for himself or he quoted from the paper?
If he read and quoted from the paper, why would he not have stated such? The only thing he links to is this forum and previous articles.
And don't give this article any gravitas because it has "Forbes" at the top of the page. Note the disclaimer "Opinions formed by Forbes contributors are their own” and under his bio "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer". (Emphasis mine). -
#311 by StrongGR on 04 Sep, 2016 15:26
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of. -
#312 by Star One on 04 Sep, 2016 17:16
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#6ab6875a692c
Curious article this as it seems to be just going round the same course as previously. I thought one of the things Eagleworks were doing was looking for an 'exhaust' in fact that was the whole point of their theory of explanation.
About this matter, please see my exchange with Ethan on twitter https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/771710336248389633. I pointed out to him a couple of things he was not aware of.
Thanks for the link.
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV? -
#313 by RonM on 04 Sep, 2016 17:52
-
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.
We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.
If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time. -
#314 by StrongGR on 04 Sep, 2016 17:53
-
...
Thanks for the link.
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
Of course no. In any way. Brans-Dicke theory is known since '60 as a serious competitor of general relativity. This is constrained through cosmological measurements and I expect agreement at that range of distances. Inside a cavity, with a strong e.m. fields, things can change significantly. The breakthrough here would already be the proof of validity of the Brans-Dicke theory in this way. -
#315 by Star One on 04 Sep, 2016 18:15
-
Also in spite of what some articles are saying the EM drive if it works doesn't really tip up the whole basis of modern physics into the air, as the only place it does impact current physics is how we think of and define the QV?
If the EM drive works, assuming thrust can be shown to be beyond any experimental error, that doesn't mean all of physics is wrong. It just means we don't know how the EM drive works. Maybe it interacts with the QV, gravitational field, Mach Effect, Roger is right, etc.
We'll have to wait for the paper to see if there are experimental errors that could account for the thrust. Thermal, magnetic, and outgassing are possibilities. Testing in vacuum should help with thermal issues.
If there is beyond any doubt anomalous thrust, that should keep the theorists busy for quite some time.
If it does work I am confident an exhaust of some type will be found. I really don't think it's all that different from anything that it breaks the rule that to put it bluntly you stick energy in one side & thrust comes out the other side. All that's different is this might be the first 'quantum' drive. -
#316 by X_RaY on 04 Sep, 2016 18:25
-
I am done with sims for different antenna orientations of the brady-cone with HDPE disc, optimized for both TE01 and TM21.
The .avi added below shows a frequency sweep with the antenna optimized for TE01. Due to this data I fully understand the problems to excite TE012 @ high Q.
Edit:
I have updated the pic since I realized that there was a mistake for the mode attribution.
-
#317 by FattyLumpkin on 04 Sep, 2016 18:26
-
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 0.3111 0.5475 14.78 extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz 1.9367 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.00 899"
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
Addendum: So my correction came in just after X_Ray's sims with different antenna positions. Indeed, X_Ray, very reveling!!! Thank you for that X_Ray! -
#318 by X_RaY on 04 Sep, 2016 18:33
-
The information that I relayed to X_Ray came from the "Emdrive Experimental Results" page...apparently this is TE211 and not TM212.
No TM212 was right. Please take a look at the wall currents... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1578225#msg1578225
"TM212 [13] Ambient 0.2286 0.2794 0.15875 0.3111 0.5475 14.78 extruded HDPE relative permitt. =2.26@1-3GHz 1.9367 16.7 18100 0.0501 3.00 899"
There is apparent confusion here (most likely on my part), but am continuing to study this. Any input would be appreciated. Thnx , FL
although EW used TM211 to describe this mode in their (first)report. In fact there are additional lobes inside the HDPE and under the line that means p=2, therefore TM212.
The data published on http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results is correct in this regard!
-
#319 by zen-in on 04 Sep, 2016 22:17
-
I have not seen anything in the Forbes article that refers to any new finding. In fact the article is even-handed and points out other peer reviewed papers that were later retracted after being proven false. I assume the following papers that are mentioned in the article were all retracted:
quoted from recent Forbes article
"
Does it mean the science is correct, the effect is real and that physics is broken? Consider that peer-reviewed journals publish all sorts of results that later turn out to be spurious, including:
the faster-than-light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable,
the existence of the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb, which turned out to not exist,
and the existence of a new LHC particle at 750 GeV, whose signal went away with more data.
"
end of quote
. Going to PM to "spreche mit X_Ray jetzt" Ciao PS: attached is sim of NASA's frustum TE012 at 1.8804 GHz..2.6 Watts.