-
#3020
by
Stormbringer
on 21 Nov, 2016 03:02
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
... and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
This last does not sound encouraging. Is there a real risk that NASA/JSC is going to pull the plug on EW?
it could be institutional paranoia about protecting their rep as a serious professional scientific organization. In that case you could land a starship powered by an EM drive in the NASA HQ parking lot, crush the director's car under one of it's landing legs, jump out and moon the bystanders and reporters and still face people skeptical that it even possibly happened "since it can't work and has to be an experimental error don'cha know?".
-
#3021
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Nov, 2016 03:13
-
Star Drive -
Occasional reports have surfaced here of an EM Drive rotary test experiment by either Eagleworks or NASA (apologies, my info here is sparse at best).
Can you confirm or deny such EM Drive rotary experiments, and if so, make even general commentary on the results?
The Eagleworks (EW) team including me was in the middle of performing a battery-powered, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) "free-flyer" test on a rotary air-bearing experiment utilizing the EW Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) used for the EW in-vacuum tests when I retired from the lab at the end of September. Their initial test results in the forward and reverse rotational directions looked encouraging, but it was contaminated with swirl torque "noise" being induced by the less than stellar spherical air bearing we had initially procured at the lowest cost. Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away, and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
Best, Paul M.
... and that is only if NASA/JSC continues to support the EW lab's activities.
This last does not sound encouraging. Is there a real risk that NASA/JSC is going to pull the plug on EW?
it could be institutional paranoia about protecting their rep as a a serious scientific orthodox organization. In that case you could land a starship powered by an EM drive in the NASA HQ parking lot, Crushing the director's car under one of it's landing legs, jump out and moon the bystanders and reporters and still face people skeptical that it even possibly happened.
It was more likely an over reaction and misread of the context as a whole on my part...
I should have given more emphasis to the first part of that same sentence,
... Now I, with the rest of us, will have to wait for the current civil-servant EW team to finish this C-B test series and report on it in the peer-reviewed journals, which could be a year or more away,...Just mentioning the peer review process suggests that NASA/JPL is more likely just continuing the ban on leaks prior to peer reviewed publication... And adding a time frame is in itself encouraging that a next paper is, or was at least on the agenda... Never know about funding issues in new administrations.
-
#3022
by
PotomacNeuron
on 21 Nov, 2016 03:23
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
-
#3023
by
WarpTech
on 21 Nov, 2016 03:40
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
-
#3024
by
PotomacNeuron
on 21 Nov, 2016 04:12
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
-
#3025
by
Star-Drive
on 21 Nov, 2016 04:29
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
-
#3026
by
Star-Drive
on 21 Nov, 2016 04:34
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
Just like the small OD end-cap, the large OD end-cap of the EW copper frustum is made from single sided FR4 1-oz copper PCB. What you are seeing in the EW pictures of the ICFTA is the 0.090" thick aluminum spine plate mounted over this FR4 PCB, which was used to mount the PLL control box and RF amplifier and heat-sink to the frustum assembly.
Best, Paul M.
-
#3027
by
zen-in
on 21 Nov, 2016 04:47
-
Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Welcome back Star-Drive, you were missed.
Paul March, you are the man and I hope we hear from you much more often.
As for Roger Shawyer, I understand that you have taken a lot of heat and ridicule over the last couple decades. Yet you persevered in the face of it, and I hope that you will receive the monetary and prestige reward you deserve with a proven new technology like this one.
At the risk of sounding over-sentimental, I have been following this thread for the last couple years, and I want to make sure that all of you, from builders to skeptics, understand how much we appreciate the work you have put in and the time you have spent on following this low probability of success space drive. As you can see from the sheer number of people following this thread, this topic resonates with the public and for the same reasons as it does with you. The regular public, like myself, have usually never been exposed to the scientific process the way we have here and it has been a wonderful journey.
We cannot pay you, but we can at least try to make sure you understand that we are here following every post you make and we have your backs 110%. I hope that NASA really appreciates the level of support we the public have for their and your hard work and learns to tap into and harness it the way you have. I am personally in awe with the intelligence, skills and drive displayed by the people on this forum and will remember this as a life example. If this drive works then it will be the work of NASA, Roger Shawyer and this forum that we will remember. From the general public, a most sincere thank you for stepping up and using the skills we do not have to further our shared dream.
JSStep0590:
Thanks you for your kind thoughts. Ever since Sputnik went up in October 1957 when I was ten years old, I became a child of Apollo and yearned to go to the stars. Sadly, almost 60 years have passed since then and all I can hope for now is paving the way for my children and others to go forward to populate the solar system and then the surrounding star systems. Go forth and be bountiful...
Ad Astra, Paul M.
Thank you for the additional information. I think you and the others at JSC have done very careful work. Ideas like this need to be researched carefully and thoroughly as you have done. You have always been honest and willing to share your experimental results as much as you are permitted. Like you I was inspired by Sputnik and the early space program. I also worked at a NASA research center for several years and really liked being a very small part of something big. I wish you all the best with your retirement.
-
#3028
by
PotomacNeuron
on 21 Nov, 2016 04:47
-
EW's new published paper said that the frustum was made of copper. However, the big end plate looked silver or aluminum in color. Does anybody know what metal it is? It does not look like copper though.
It's 1oz Cu plated FR4 fiber board. Essentially, it's a bare (un)printed circuit board.
The small end plate looks like FR4 copper clad board. But the big end does not look like that. It looks more like an aluminum board, or a stainless steel board, or a zinc or nickle plated board.
In fig 12 the big end plate does look like an FR4 board. However, in fig 15, the board is different from that in fig 12, and looks like an aluminum board.
Just like the small OD end-cap, the large OD end-cap of the EW copper frustum is made from single sided FR4 1-oz copper PCB. What you are seeing in the EW pictures of the ICFTA is the 0.090" thick aluminum spine plate mounted over this FR4 PCB, which was used to mount the PLL control box and RF amplifier and heat-sink to the frustum assembly.
Best, Paul M.
Thank you, Star Drive! My question is answered.
-
#3029
by
spupeng7
on 21 Nov, 2016 05:34
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
Thanks M.LeBel,
will give the Unruh paper some of my time... it seems to me that the metric of spatial relations you mention is an entirely artificial construct. Very useful of course but misleading when an attempt is made to comprehend the nature of interactions, all of which require locations within complex time to be properly described.
Are complex time and the direction between interacting charges enough to fully describe any one interaction and if so, can we form a more revealing mechanical analysis from such a beginning. Could this be required to explain the thrust produced by the emdrive, other explanations being inevitably inadequate.
Thanks, Spupeng7. Unruh’s article was offered for the quote alone. Not sure about the rest of the article.. You may find the answer (?) to your second question in the discussion below..
Continued.. (Essay on time a prerequisite)
Of course, option (2) is more seductive... (creating the time differential field) But, creating a lower rate of time and where you want it is not so easy. Naturally, any mass or energy replaces by logical substitution the time process (of the same nature) and produces this time deficit we call gravity. This is, in spirit, all GR without the map.
We forget placing a large mass in front of the craft... 
. We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.
IMO, the em waves are made of four conjugate monopoles pointing: lower down, lower up, upper up and upper down. Each pair of monopoles, uppers or lowers, are fluctuations above or below the local rate of time. Because each pair contains an up and down component they each a) dissipate back to nothing and b) they always move as they appear and disappear because the up-down ( whether upper or lower) is a causal structure. Of course, you can’t find an up or down whatever alone as the structure doesn’t lead back to nil; think of the quarks.. Both opposite pairs were free fluctuations before they got couple together to form an em wave. You could equally consider each pair as a single structure with curl... since they can never be found alone. In pair creation the em wave gets splited back into its original fluctuations .. with a twist! They are not translating but rather rotating on themselve; positive and negative electrons. As a rule, I see here conservation of structure...
The idea then is to separate and collect these fluctuations and preserve them under a field in order to build up a lasting lump of both above and below fluctuations and form the causal structure of motion/inertia. The problem is to collect these monopole fluctuations while preserving their monopolar structure i.e. without creating the bipolar closed loop H.
The only place where I thought I could “see” such monopolar structure was in a type of Podkletnov disk.. .... where surface currents would produce half a curl .. but (?) the superconductor mirror image of the field is just the opposite curl.. (remember the floating magnet..) canceling any net effect..
In other words, I "think" I know what we have to start with and what we need to achieve as end result ... but not really how to go about to get one from to the other. You obviously have achieved the causal structure to some extent... I am just trying to figure how we are actually doing it so that we can do it better while cutting down on the empirical exploration time..
Hope this had at least some entertainment value ...
M,
yes I am entertained, I live for this even if I have so little grasp of it.
If the emission and absorption of a photon occur at either end of an otherwise non-existent traverse, then the binary state of quantum mechanics indicates coincidence in complex time. What I am suggesting is that we may be able to further our emdrive design skill set, by assuming that the universe is better described by a combination of complex time and direction.
This is little different to what Special Relativity describes, the difference being that we perceive distance when in reality distance is separation in the real component of complex time, that which we measure with the clock. We could then account for all non-corpuscular interactions, such as gravity and inertia, by the interaction of all charges in complex time and direction alone. The separation between absorption and emission during reflection is then the mechanism of action of the emdrive, and that depends upon the extent of the waveform within the conducting surfaces inside the frustum.
Just throwing this out there in hope that someone can shoot it down and I can get some sleep :-)
-
#3030
by
giulioprisco
on 21 Nov, 2016 05:39
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
-
#3031
by
Peter Lauwer
on 21 Nov, 2016 10:18
-
Dear Mr. March,
First of all, I want to congratulate you with your outstanding work.
But, please forgive us, for curious people like us, it is never enough. '-)
What I miss most in the article, is a systematic treatment of measurements with dielectric inserts (various kinds) compared to measurements without these dielectrics. Was this omitted in the final paper?
Thanks and all the best,
Peter Lauwer
-
#3032
by
qraal
on 21 Nov, 2016 10:19
-
Just on the topic of power supply for an EM-Drive starship - or the JPL fission powered NEP ion-drive - the fuel-cycle choice will need to be either highly enriched uranium, such as the USN use in their submarines, or a fast cycle which burns natural uranium or thorium. Both have very high burn-up fractions compared to LWR Once-Through cycles used in most commercial reactors.
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
-
#3033
by
LowerAtmosphere
on 21 Nov, 2016 10:35
-
Electrons proven to have significant role in heat transfer when coupled with molecular vibration. Interesting implications for side walls and E field extrema when not in vacuum. Reaffirms higher efficiency (less orbital changes therefore less noise) in supercooled/vacuum state.
Electron+Positron=2 Photon could imply:
electric heat transfer=Thermal radiation
therefore electron=super massive photon?
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-uncover-molecules.html
-
#3034
by
flux_capacitor
on 21 Nov, 2016 11:16
-
I am writing a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. I have all the references listed in the short theoretical section of the EW paper. Can anyone recommend other sources to look at?
To keep neutrality on the subject you could also talk about Pr. Woodward's point of view which, although stating something unusual is going on with these experiments (please note he changed his mind since he dismissed the EmDrive before), restrains White's theory. To begin with:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fact-and-fiction-of-the-nasa-emdrive-paper-leakSonny White posits the quantum vacuum is mutable, and more specifically that virtual fermions from quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) of the Zero-Point Field (ZPF) can be considered as a virtual plasma that can be pushed on with Lorentz forces, like a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) drive. That "Q-thruster" would accelerate forward as a reaction to the virtual wake.
Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn have published a lead article in the
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society where they demonstrate why the EM quantum vacuum cannot be used to explain thrusts in any isolated, closed electromagnetic system:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016)
"Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum",
JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
-
#3035
by
Star One
on 21 Nov, 2016 11:25
-
Have they updated that Motherboard article since the paper was officially published by the AIAA?
-
#3036
by
RERT
on 21 Nov, 2016 12:25
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
-
#3037
by
zellerium
on 21 Nov, 2016 13:22
-
Quick question for my RF engineers out there:
If I have a high power circulator with a varying load impedance and a water cooled termination, could the output power of the magnetron generator change due to a change in load impedance?
According to this website, the isolation of a circulator is dependent on the VSWR of both the load
and the termination. Makes sense, circulators aren’t perfect especially when all forward power is being reflected.
http://www.novamicrowave.com/understanding-circulator-and-isolaters.phpAnd according to this book and many other sources, reflected power into a magnetron will cause a change in the resonant conditions and a change in output power as shown by a Rieke diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/jmseqthHowever the manufacturers of a specific system with a circulator and 6kW output magnetron are claiming that output power is completely independent of load VSWR due to the circulator.
Do perfect circulators exist?
OR are they assuming any reflected power to the magnetron isn’t significant enough to cause a change in output power?
-
#3038
by
Star-Drive
on 21 Nov, 2016 14:33
-
Assuming 50% burn-up and 25% power conversion, a 1 GW supply for 65 years will need 200 tons of fuel. More than the 180 ton mass budget in the JPL study, so I'm guessing they're assuming higher efficiencies in both. I don't have the original paper, so I can't say more.
OK, so pro-rated that's 0.615 tons for 2Mw for 100 years. At 100% burn and 40% thermal-> electrical conversion, that's 0.19 T, my original answer: everything still reconciles. The 50% burn factor is new input and suggests that we need to at least double fuel weight. 25% conversion efficiency is fairly lame for a coal fired power station, but not unreasonable.
0.615 T is more, but the conclusion is the same.
Agreed on all counts but I think we would all be better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives up to at least 4.0 N/kWe before we go star hopping, because at that performance level we can send an IXS Clarke class starship to Proxima-B in under 30 years per NASA/JSC's Copernicus navigator software, see attached navigation studies by Dr. White and one of his Co-Op students by the name of Udri Pica from Italy.
Best, Paul M.
-
#3039
by
JonathanD
on 21 Nov, 2016 14:43
-
...better off to try to perfect these microwave frustum drives...
1) Thanks for all the posts here, they are gold
2) To your point of perfecting (or even improving) the results from these things, I'm wondering if you feel we (and by we I mean you and the other people that know what they are doing) have enough information about their operation to systematically improve them without fully understanding why the effect occurs. This is made even more interesting by the fact that you made it sound like there are probably a broad variety of different form factors that could generate a similar result as long as they met a few key conditions. Cannae and Shawyer certainly seem to have come up with quite different shapes; is there enough data available to suggest would the most optimal shape would be? Or is the overall shape not as important at some point, as (possibly) suggested by your quote below?
ANY microwave resonant cavity shape that generates large E&M fields created by its RF input power P times the resonant cavity's loaded Quality-factor Q that yields effective P*Q power levels in an asymmetrical manner should be able to generate a unidirectional force even using symmetrical RF sine-wave excitation's.
. We could concentrate a lot of energy somewhere in front of the craft, it could move with the craft, but ...mass for mass ... E=MC2 means a LOT of energy... So, the logical substitution scheme is a no-go. Sorting and harvesting quantum fluctuations could be used to produce both a time surplus and a time deficit.. (push-pull). But playing with those always return a looped H and an electric line, everything that exist other than the time process itself.