Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8  (Read 1108747 times)

Offline TheTraveller

They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Wonder what that has cost in regard to ignored new effects, that "can't be real as they oppose theory".
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?

It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.

With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.

With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.

Shell

I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.

Maybe Paul can comment?

Phil:

Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project.  JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point.  (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn?  Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

Thanks for explaining why the testing at NASA Glenn never happened. Would have thought that if EW's JSC management wanted / needed the Glenn test, it would have happened.

Also not nice of NASA Glenn to alter the agreed deal. Did Glenn give any reason why they backed out of the original 50-50 agreement?

Phil

Phil:

What I was told by Dr. White at the time was that after the NASA/Glenn senior management reviewed the deal between the two field centers, they decided that Glenn was not being reimbursed at a rate that was commensurate with their expenses.   In other words they treated the EW test program at Glenn, not as partners in a NASA wide test program, but instead as Glenn performing services to the commercial interest.  I.e., they didn't want to put any skin in the game from their own reserves.

Best, Paul M. 
Star-Drive

Offline TheTraveller

Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?

It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.

With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.

With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.

Shell

I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.

Maybe Paul can comment?

Phil:

Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project.  JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point.  (The demanded 50% budget for of the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn?  Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

Thanks for explaining why the testing at NASA Glenn never happened. Would have thought that if EW's JSC management wanted / needed the Glenn test, it would have happened.

Also not nice of NASA Glenn to alter the agreed deal. Did Glenn give any reason why they backed out of the original 50-50 agreement?

Phil

Phil:

What I was told by Dr. White at the time was that after the NASA/Glenn senior management reviewed the deal between the two field centers, they decided that Glenn was not being reimbursed at a rate that was commensurate with their expenses.   In other words they treated the EW test program at Glenn, not as partners in a NASA wide test program, but instead as Glenn performing services to the commercial interest.  I.e., they didn't want to put any skin in the game from their own reserves.

Best, Paul M.

Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may refkect bsdly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-validate-imposible-space-drive-word/#.WDmvl1705PE

Quote
Marc Millis, who for years directed the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, calls things like the EmDrive “idea zombies,” because they keep returning even when objective evaluations do not back up their claims. Meanwhile there are other, much more promising experimental spaceflight technologies (such as laser lightsails and electromagnetic rockets) that deserve a lot more support than they are getting.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 02:58 PM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?

It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.

With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources.

With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does.

Shell

I do wonder why Glenn never did the promised test of the EW thruster? Surely that would have been gold to see it produce force inside a massive Glenn vac chamber.

Maybe Paul can comment?

Phil:

Dr. White and I wasted almost 6 months of our time and efforts chasing testing at NASA/Glenn while preparing for same, only to be told at the end that the EW via JSC would have to pay ALL of Glenn's testing expenses required to run our requested test series instead of ~50%, which was the original deal between JSC and Glenn for this EW testing at Glenn project.  JSC upper management then refused to pay the other 50% to Glenn, so the deal fell apart at that point.  (The demanded 50% budget for the EW test at Glenn test series already exceeded the yearly material budget for the EW, so why didn't the EW test a Glenn?  Not enough $$$ in the EW budget to do so.)

Addendum: Find attached four slides with my contribution to the Glenn test program that never materialized.

Best, Paul M.

I always wondered why you didn't just do an end run around everyone by not trying to show a minute force at low power with incredible difficulty but trying to tinker around to get a big enough effect no one could refute?

Bob:

Once I had a sort of repeatable ~50uN force signal using the EW copper frustum, Dr. White was very reluctant for me to look for the two birds in the bush when he already had the one bird in our hands using the EW copper frustum.  In other words he froze the design with all its warts, so he could continue the test campaigns we were performing at the time.  Thus we would have had to build a second test copper frustum article with all the proposed upgrades like using spherical endcaps, then testing each upgrade, but we never had the budget or time to pursue that course of action.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Phil:

"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"

Yes on all counts.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
They often trust the theory to such a high extent that they reject good data in front of their eyes as artifact or mistakes if they cannot explain it within currently understood theory. That makes experiment a slave of theory when it should lead theory.

Wonder what that has cost in regard to ignored new effects, that "can't be real as they oppose theory".

Mills' hydrino theory and experimental reality has been struggling for mainstream acceptance for 25 years. It posits energy states below what is considered the "ground state" for hydrogen. The data is real, published in peer reviewed journals, the process is powerful, 100X burning hydrogen, and promises a real solution to climate change and energy as society can get most of its energy from water. Greater acceptance would speed deployment and begin to reverse the effects of fossil fuel use.

It would also be a great energy source for lift vehicles derived by the EmDrive operating locally such as earth to orbit or the Moon or Mars without huge and massive solar panels.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 03:11 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Phil:

"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"

Yes on all counts.

Best, Paul M.

Paul Gilster at Centauri Dreams has asked Millis to look at the new NASA results for his site.

Offline TheTraveller

Phil:

"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"

Yes on all counts.

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

As I read your posts back then the new paper was dependent on the Glenn in vac tests being successful. It would seem the Glenn knockback could stop the new paper being released.

What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process? Something significant must have happended to change EW's JSC managers minds?


It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline TheTraveller

Phil:

"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"

Yes on all counts.

Best, Paul M.

Paul Gilster at Centauri Dreams has asked Millis to look at the new NASA results for his site.

Will be very interested to read Millis' reply.

Please keep us informed.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline otlski

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 71
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.

TT, specific to the test apparatus part of the question. 
First, I would ensure that the air bearing had clean dry air supplied to it.  You would definitely need an oil separator if you were not using an oiless compressor.  You would follow up the output with a 50 foot length of copper tubing coiled inside a tub of water at room temperature.  This is for heat exchanging purposes to ensure the heat of compression was partly eliminated.  Lastly, I would follow with two air regulators.  The first being an inexpensive one to filter out pressure changes as the compressor cycles on and off.  The second being an expensive precision regulator to hold to a fraction of a psi.  If you are using bottled nitrogen I would still use the heat exchanger to compensate for the cooling from expansion.

The air bearing would be placed on a purpose built three legged mounting stand (no cobbled 80/20 or optical breadboard components for this part).  This would all rest on a concrete floor of reasonable thickness and good soil underlayment.  If using a flat bearing combined with a cylindrical bearing, the top of the air bearing would need to be flat enough to support leveling to 0.0005”/ft and that is also the target value for the final level.  Walking around on the concrete floor while leveling should not affect the bubble’s position. If using a hemisphere. You would want to maintain level but not as stringent.  For the hemisphere, maintaining the vertical CG below the spherical center is required.  For either bearing keeping the horizontal CG coincident with the axis of rotation is strongly advised.

The room would be temperature controlled and free of drafts.  A way to shut the HVAC off during tests is important.  A waiting period for the HVAC convection to settle is advised.

A 30 frame per second camera mounted directly above and looking straight down on the experiment is wholly necessary.  30 fps has been proven fast enough for this kind of work although a CCD is preferred over a CMOS sensor that has a rolling shutter.  A rolling shutter would be useless.  Camera and video capture system must not lose its time base by dropping frames as this would corrupt the calculations.  Having angular markings every 10 degree around the bearing and a stationary pointer would allow us to measure position often enough to be useful.  Three full rotations during a testing run is the minimum for good analysis.  Less than one rotation appropriately brings on questions as to the test's validity; in fact, it negates the apparent validity in my mind.  A full rotation would help us evaluate/eliminate level vs. CG errors, interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, and other experimental problems.  Several rotations lets us see if we’ve reached a terminal angular velocity where thrust torque matches profile drag.

A reasonable estimate of the mass moment of inertia of the entire rotating section would allow us to calculate torque and thus force.  I can help with this estimate when the time comes.  As for data, the angular position verses time stamp, and MOI is all that is needed to do the major math.  A side view FLIR, other cameras, room temperature might be useful to analyze if things got weird.

However, before running actual tests we would want to characterize the system with the camera running.  First, with just the bare bearing (nothing mounted) we would want to measure both motoring (Paul called it swirl) torque and coulomb friction.  These let us know that you have a good bearing or need to compensate.  Basically, from stopped, the bearing is allowed to accelerate on its own; it might take hours.  It will accelerate if it is not a perfect bearing and if motoring torque is greater than coulomb friction.  The second test of the still bare bearing would feature you inducing a CW spin by hand and letting it decay on its own, then repeating this CCW.  This might take 10 minutes to an hour for data in each direction.  From this we can confirm the motoring and calculate coulomb.  I have done this for twenty air bearings when required by our customers.  I will scrub a spreadsheet and make it and myself available when the time comes.  Finally, with the full apparatus mounted, we would repeat the hand induced CW and CCW spins and process in the same spreadsheet to get the profile drag components, coulomb, viscous, and turbulence of the all-up experiment.

I have used all these techniques before so none are new to me.  What you require (including MOI and CG) knowledge and control are all part of what we have done for customers and for building our own corporate knowledgebase.  www.space-electronics.com  Count me as someone who wants dearly to see this work while maintaining a healthy skepticism; mainly because I see experiments that simply have not measured up.  That said I am more than willing to help where I can.

Will be using a magnetic thrust bearing.

External sensor will pulse count evenly spaced optical marks around the circumference of the rotary table so that pulse to pulse velocity can be resolved to better than 100:1 at 60 rpm.

From earlier experiments, I know the EmDrive works when measuring static force generation, small to big, as also measured and reported by NASA and Roger.

What I don't know is

1) direction of the Reaction accelerative force vs what will be measured with a static scale based test rig

2) value of the accelerative force vs what will be measure in a static scale based test rig

3) now acceleration alters or not the cavity Q

4) how acceleration and KE gain alters or not the load that the Li Ion batteries see

I have developed a method to directly measure Q from the rise time of the forward power pulse. This gives the ability to measure and record cavity Q on each and every pulse of Rf energy that fills the cavity. It is because of this technique that allows non accelerative and accelerative Q to be measured. Using other Q measurement techniques that require the freq to be varied, would not be able to do this dynamic Q measurement, which I see as at the heart of the experiment.

TT, sorry about that. I keep confusing Shawyer's previous rotary experiment with your future experiment.  So even given that you will use a magnetic bearing, please don't minimize the amount of system characterization.  If you take my post and strike-through the first paragraph, the rest of the post still stands as sound practice.  Since I am not familiar with magnetic bearing nuances/anomalies, and no one else has weighed in in the past regarding such, we data hounds would appreciate the rigor said characterization.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Liked: 1683
  • Likes Given: 402
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Offline TheTraveller

TT, sorry about that. I keep confusing Shawyer's previous rotary experiment with your future experiment.  So even given that you will use a magnetic bearing, please don't minimize the amount of system characterization.  If you take my post and strike-through the first paragraph, the rest of the post still stands as sound practice.  Since I am not familiar with magnetic bearing nuances/anomalies, and no one else has weighed in in the past regarding such, we data hounds would appreciate the rigor said characterization.

Please understand I do really appreciate your and others feedback and will do what I can to incorporate the suggestions.  Please also understand I know the EmDrive generates static forces small to big, from earlier experiments, so I don't need to prove to myself it works.

This champaign is about measuring or not if Q drops or not when acceleration starts, if power supply demand alters or not as acceleration starts and if it does alter what happens as angular velocity increases. Sort of biggie questions that need to be answered.

I mean if acceleration occurs, as I expect, and there is no Q drop nor increase in power consumption, then Roger's theory will fall and others may rise to replace it.

For me this is why this experiment will be done.

For sure when the experiment starts, will be very open to doing other measurements as other request.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 634
It's a bit disheartening to learn about all the difficulties Paul and EW people faced and probably will continue to do so. But it is neither unexpected.

Seems the good disposition lasted as long as the institutional power hierarchies expected for them to finally disprove this and say "orthodoxy is safe. Good job!".

But given they dared to find something and actually publish their findings, making people start paying attention, that good disposition ended.

Seems like the hope of seeing this flourish will continue to be in the hands of people that simply refuse to conform to the official, safe version of things.

My wish here is that some of the things discussed will serve someone, somewhere to take the thrust well into the undeniable. Something no one will be able to brush off as experimental error.

Because science and progress sometimes needs to be whacked into our heads.

Offline jstepp590

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Albany NY
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 35
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true. There is a load of frustration out there, that our country is not living up to expectations, that we are stagnating and not moving in the right direction as we saw in this election. You may be insulated from it, but we aren't here at ground level. If NASA and publicly funded science institutions lose the support of the public because we do not see tangible results for the public, watch what happens in what is about to become a budgetary battleground. With public support, we're good. If not, then I will be sorry to say I did egotistically mention it.
"Why spend our taxes on public space institutions when I can buy a ticket from SpaceX" will be the framing, I can hear it already. Suit yourself, as long as you realize that the new budgets being written up will be written by people who think the government should only handle defense and the courts and leave everything else to private industry.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 05:00 PM by jstepp590 »

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 480
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view

See what you think?

In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.
agreed. It sounds more like an anachronism : "we, the people against the establishment"
So... 19th century, begin 20th century even.... the birth period of modern democracy...
I'm getting flashes of revolting mobs in the street... :)

What it is really about is the tension field between "accountability" (or lack of) and "risk taking".

It is not easy maneuvering between the 2, especially, i presume, in a scientific environment where budgets are allocated according certain criteria.

If you are too much of a risk taker, it quickly becomes "irresponsibly wasted money".
If you're not a risk taker, you're too much of an accountant unwilling to venture into new (promising?) paths.

So whatever you do, as a manager of a high profile government company, you always get shot at.
You know, with hindsight, it is always easy to be a critic...

One thing is sure: not every path taken ends with a big success. In scientific research a lot of money is "wasted", but that is normal as you do not know the outcome beforehand. If you're not prepared to accept such risks, then you should not start with research in the first place...
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 04:54 PM by Flyby »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
Phil:

"Maybe also as you said about JSC managers who didn't want to get involved as it may reflect badly on their careers.

Doesn't Glenn do a lot of Ion drive research, plus didn't I read Millis thinks EmDrive is rubbish?"

Yes on all counts.

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

As I read your posts back then the new paper was dependent on the Glenn in vac tests being successful. It would seem the Glenn knockback could stop the new paper being released.

What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process? Something significant must have happended to change EW's JSC managers minds?


Phil:

"What did Dr. White need to do to get past JSC management needing independent verification at Glenn before they would start the peer review process?"

First off, you have to understand that there is very little love lost between most NASA field centers including JSC and Glenn.  The very fact that Glenn upper management changed their collective minds and went back on their initial 50%/50% funding agreement with JSC was enough for JSC management to tell Dr. White to push through his already submitted AIAA/JPP paper.  To be fair though, I think JSC management had already told Dr. White to try to publish the EW's fall 2015 in-vacuum ICFTA test campaign in a peer reviewed journal whether Glenn participated or not.  If Glenn had gone along with the initial test plan, that would have been the first independent validation test that would have come through Glenn instead of JSC and thus the fall 2015 in-vacuum test results would have been validated in an independent lab, but alas it was not to be.  Probably for the best come to think of it, for PLL tuning of the ICFTA was problematic at best and it took considerable interactions on my part to keep it working.  Now if we had the S11 digital resonant frequency tracker in place at that time, I think the consistency of the ICFTA test results would have been much better for all parties.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Liked: 1683
  • Likes Given: 402
Yes, I was speaking for the American taxpayer,
No, you do not speak for all American taxpayers. You can only speak for yourself. Your repeated use of the word we is extremely egotistical.

Didn't say all, and it was a generalization. Doesn't mean it is not true.
The all is implicit when you use singular in the phrase "the American taxpayer". Also generalizations aren't generally true. ;) :P

The meat of your posts isn't really worth responding to, but the more general reactions of Americans to spaceflight currently is apathy (at least from my experience talking to non-enthusiasts), not all of your detailed opinions that you are projecting onto them.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 17
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/view

See what you think?

In Figure 7:
When the calibration pulse is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 5 seconds. When the calibration pulse is turned off there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes about 10 seconds. When the RF is turned on there's an impulsive shift in the displacement that takes around 20 seconds. When the RF is turned off no impulsive shift is visible (or it takes minutes and is obscured by the thermal displacement). What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?

DeltaV:

Question: "What happened to the RF-off impulsive shift?"

Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off.  Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide.  It's just a graphic addition problem...

Best, Paul M.

Best, 
Star-Drive

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 181

Look at the attached slide-2 and try to understand what the superposition of an impulsive signal with a thermally induced torque pendulum (TP) center of gravity (cg) signal can look like when the thrust signal is about 1/3 of the magnitude of the value of the TP cg-shift signal at the time of RF turn-off.  Of course the impulsive turn-off signal is swallowed or buried by the TP cg-shift signal as shown in the report's figure-5 and in the below repeat of same slide-2_Answer slide.  It's just a graphic addition problem...

How come the calibration pulse during cooling didn't get swallowed? Yet the much larger emdrive signal disappears without a trace.

Tags: