-
#3160
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 10:10
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
You already know the critical parameters. I hope others will jump in the suggestion bandwagon. Here is mine:
I know there will be a ton of sensors. But besides those, please record a long sequence-shot video (no cut, with ambient sound) of your complete rotary experiment from above, the camera lens pointing downwards along the Z-axis of the rotary test rig, so anyone can later easily plot angular displacement and acceleration solely on the basis of the video. Better, record multiple flux at once, one video from the top and another video with a second camera on a tripod somewhere on the side of the room. Make sure overall lighting is high but without any reflection in camera lenses (digital cameras produce horrible noise under low light conditions).
That is the plan.
2 external cameras as you described plus three thermal cameras on the thruster side and two end plates, a screen video grab with lot of real time nice info, like thruster Q, current, forward & reflected power, Rf amp voltage & current, angular acceleration & velocity, thruster temp, pressure & freq, etc all on a single video feed. Every data source will have at least 1ms resolution and will be recorded for the entire accelerative run, which should be around 20 to 30 minutes.
There will be heaps of data, which will hopefully answer both CofM and accelerative KE CofE as the biggies.
Then it get fun as verifying or not the SPR theory is put under the spotlight and to that end the 6 sensors at each TE013 lobe should help to determine what is happening inside.
-
#3161
by
mwvp
on 23 Nov, 2016 10:29
-
...I would like to see multiple taps, say 6 taps in a 3 mode frustrum at 90 degree (quadrature) separation to measure amplitude and phase as the frustrum accelerates and decelerates to validate motor and generator modes. The amplitude of a slow-traveling standing wave in static, and accelerating conditions.
Thanks & understand the interesting request.
Not really that keen about drilling holes into $12k frustums, plus those sensors could be a big hit on Q.
Maybe could do two in the centre of the middle lobe in my rebuilt flat end plate frustum or maybe build a special frustum just for that measurement with all 6 sensors.
Is on my list.
No, you wouldn't want to mess up something so fine. A clever trick that could make a cheaper, low-quality device look much better is to add sub-critical positive feedback. Drill three more holes, and use a tad of amplification through a variable attenuator from each mode sensor to coupling loops.
The effective Q of a filter is increased with positive feedback - the good 'ol regenerative receiver. Stability issues could then be a concern. Perhaps the attenuators would be stabilized by injecting a pilot tone and detecting it at a higher harmonic. Of course, easier said than done.
-
#3162
by
Star One
on 23 Nov, 2016 10:54
-
-
#3163
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 11:11
-
But Eagleworks was sutdown and Paul March was fired...
Please stop spreading false information and insinuations on this forum and review carefully your sources first. While it is true Paul March's contract has not been renewed, Eagleworks is not shot down.
Last I knew they were considering to build a copy of my spherical end plate frustum as attached.
Do hope that they do that as by end 1st qtr 2017 I should have heaps and heaps of experimental data on that thruster design.
-
#3164
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 11:14
-
-
#3165
by
Star One
on 23 Nov, 2016 11:19
-
-
#3166
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 12:26
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
-
#3167
by
flux_capacitor
on 23 Nov, 2016 13:25
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
You can make a control test article as a frustum of exact same dimensions and same weight, but without RF power injected. Instead, place a
thermal resistance inside and asymmetrically heat the cooper, the resistance being located where the RF normally most heats the copper when the frustum is resonant under your usual EM mode. You could try small side, big side and on walls to complete the picture. Heat the copper at the same temperature under the same rate as a normal test. Then you could truly measure the spurious effects of circulation air currents.
-
#3168
by
RotoSequence
on 23 Nov, 2016 13:28
-
A cylindrical control cavity would probably only be useful for matching the resonance mode (and the resonance mode alone) to wholly prove that there are not significant thrust results from symmetrical geometries in this (and other) experiment(s).
-
#3169
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Nov, 2016 13:35
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
-
#3170
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 13:43
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
Building a flat end plate, TE013 @ 2.45GHz resonant control cylinder should be doable. Q will not be the same nor will stored energy but it should not generate any thrust and the 2 end plate phase change wax heat storage banks should keep it fairly cool.
Can also do the NASA Rf dummy load test as well.
At least it should stops SOME critics.
What excites me is being able to measure thruster Q on each and every Rf pulse. Then fairly easy to see if Q drops when acceleration starts and then using real time angular velocity measurement to plot KE energy gain vs cavity energy loss calculated from Q drop and increased power supply energy demand.
Of course that in itself doesn't confirm any theory by itself but it should show where the accelerative energy came from and the conversion process steps, IE, Electrical > Rf > Cavity Energy > KE.
I really don't know what the data will show but do expect it may help to open a door to further understand the EmDrive.
-
#3171
by
giulioprisco
on 23 Nov, 2016 13:51
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
I already referenced it to you in a post regarding your new article. Here it is again:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum", JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
It would be a good thing we discuss the content of this paper here 
Thanks! I had seen the other post but missed the link. I'll get the paper and comment.
-
#3172
by
Rodal
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:05
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control? ...
No. Absolutely no.
The proposed idea (a cylindrical cavity) only makes rational sense to compare with Shawyer's
empty truncated conical cavity.
A cylindrical cavity with a dielectric placed asymmetrically in the cavity does not make any rational sense as a control, because according to all the theories and experiments (Shawyer, McCulloch, Notsosureofit, etc.) what is going on here has to do with the
asymmetry in the cavity. Hence the comparison should be between an empty truncated cone (asymmetric in the longitudinal direction) and an empty cylindrical cavity (which is symmetric in the longitudinal direction).
-
#3173
by
zellerium
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:06
-
Simple question to the Forum
If you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?
What data would you need from the test rig?
Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Response from Reddit attached
Any comments on the "Use a Control" issue are most welcome.
So how to build a control cylinder and to what specs? Come on guys, give me a clue so I have some clue before you dump on my data.
Or is it acceptable to do what NASA did and use a Rf dummy load that thermalises the Rf and stores the heat in phase change wax? Please understand there will only be a thin coax cable between the 2 clear perspex boxes as each box is powered from internal Li ion batteries and has it's own control / monitoring electronics and wireless comms link back to the laptop.
I began working on a control cylinder when the issue was first raised on reddit several days ago. Short answer is it's not simple, especially for mode TM212. Things are further complicated by the HDPE insert. Should that also be included in the control?
If one creates a cylinder of same length and internal volume as the NASA TM212 frustum, while keeping the same HDPE insert on one end and general antenna location/orientation, there is no TM212 at 1.937Ghz. I will need to do a sweep to see if I can find it nearby.
Wouldn't including the HDPE make it an asymmetric resonant cavity? I would think a control cavity should be TM212 with complete internal symmetry. But the cylinder required is going to be pretty big...
A 95 mm ID 100 mm tall cylinder has the TM212 at 5.97 GHz using the exact solution. For TM212 Pnm = 5.14, L = 2, a is radius and d is length in meters
edit: f_mnl should be f_nml
-
#3174
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:08
-
I wrote a popular article on the emerging EmDrive physical theory described in the EW paper. This is a short and hopefully readable outline of the developing theoretical model proposed by the NASA scientists. I think reversing the order of the considerations in the paper can make the outline easier to follow. Criticism welcome.
NASA Scientists Sketch Tentative Theory of EmDrive Propulsion
https://hacked.com/nasa-scientists-sketch-tentative-theory-emdrive-propulsion/
Nice job, but Prof's Woodward and Fern just published an article in JBIS that refutes NASA's Quantum Vacuum conjecture. I would be interested in seeing Dr. White's rebuttal of that article. In the way the model is presented, I think Woodward and Fern are correct. However, there are other ways to use the QV to accomplish this that they do not mention, and that differs from Dr. White's approach. (AKA my approach to QG.)
Thanks. I am unable to find recent JBIS articles by Woodward and Fern. Can someone post a link, or just the title?
I already referenced it to you in a post regarding your new article. Here it is again:
Fearn, H.; Woodward, J. F. (May 2016) "Breakthrough Propulsion I: The Quantum Vacuum", JBIS Vol. 59, N° 5.
It would be a good thing we discuss the content of this paper here
Thanks! I had seen the other post but missed the link. I'll get the paper and comment.
Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
-
#3175
by
Choice777
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:12
-
Is anyone working on integrating a superconductor plate/coating for higher q factor?
Keep reading these theoretical q number in the 5x10^6..^9 even ^10 range that could be achieved with a superconductor material inside the cavity. Any news on this?
-
#3176
by
Rodal
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:13
-
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are
dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
-
#3177
by
zellerium
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:14
-
Hey @rfmwguy,
I'm interested in doing spectrum analysis of my magnetrons and was curious of what equipment you used.
I remember EW measured the spectrum of leakage from their microwave button panel with a water load inside. Did you do something similar? What kind of analyzer did you use?
Thank you
-
#3178
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:16
-
Is anyone working on integrating a superconductor plate/coating ?
Sort of.
Cooling a non HTS thruster in LN2 (77K) to measure increased Q and force generation.
Need to get the Q scaling issue sorted and this is a fairly simple way to do it.
-
#3179
by
Star-Drive
on 23 Nov, 2016 14:16
-
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
