-
#460
by
RotoSequence
on 08 Sep, 2016 06:02
-
Got it, what was leaked was confusing: EWL got much better in there last campaign (especially in TE012) Can't imagine results getting worse, not to mention they were using PLL. Ciao!
BTW thanks for disclosing those frustum dimensions the other day. Can you tell us how you were feeding it, wave guide + maggie or dipole antenna in the frustum? or? FL
Single freq Rf via solid state Rf amp. Coax feed to 1/2 loop antenna on the side wall as is standard excitation method with accelerator cavities.
Bit smaller than this. More info in the document.
That's some good looking RF hardware.
-
#461
by
meberbs
on 08 Sep, 2016 06:11
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in
this postYang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).
You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.
-
#462
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 06:14
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
A summary is in this post
Yang concluded that her original results were experimental artifacts (with a specific attributed cause).
You are rejecting Yang's own conclusion on her own work based on "maybe she got the frequency wrong". Your bias is showing here, especially when you portray the thrust as just "low" when the result was null.
Knowing the EmDrive works is not bias, it is fact.
3mN min force on her torsion pendulum is almost unbelievable as DIYers here achieve 10uN or less plus she did not use a min VSWR freq tracker, which means she will never achieve good thrust.
Those are the EmDrive Engineering 101 facts.
-
#463
by
FattyLumpkin
on 08 Sep, 2016 06:35
-
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the document the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
-
#464
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 07:47
-
One important part of EmDrive Engineering 101 is understanding why thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth.
As the freq moves off best resonance, two effect occur, Q drops and forward power drops because reflected power increases.
As both Q and Forward power are part of the force equation F = (2 Qu FPwr Df) / c it can be seen that force will drop away much quicker than either the Q drop or the forward power drop alone.
SO, this is why precise freq adjustment MUST track on lowest reflected power or the freq just a bit off may result in very much reduced thrust as both Q and forward drop as the freq moves away from ideal resonance.
I doubt any freq tracking system that adjusts based on a 2nd port sensor as Prof Yang did will ever achieve any significant thrust.
This is not a guess. It is EmDrive Engineering 101. And yes both Roger and another major EmDrive experimenter have verified that thrust bandwidth is MUCH narrower than S11 rtn loss bandwidth. So either blast away with a maggie broad band freq shotgun or develop single freq tracking that works on minimum reflected power as the goal to obtain optimal freq and thrust generation.
-
#465
by
krio
on 08 Sep, 2016 07:47
-
NASA tests: "For 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." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
-
#466
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 07:52
-
NASA tests: "For 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." Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/02/nasas-impossible-space-engine-the-emdrive-passes-peer-review/#1be7fbba692c
The thrust obtain by NASA is consistent with the thermal balloon lift I have calculated in my previous post (38.33 micro N).
It is true, some people claim they debunked the hot air balloon theory but the thrust obtained by them is much higher than the one observed by NASA so likely they made some mistakes.
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Worse. Now you have both air jet effect as well as hot air balloon effect.
Aren't thermal effects time delayed so you could separate those out? Shouldn't these forces persist for significant amount of time after switching the rf generator off?
Thermal effects can be separated out as will soon be shown.
Also using phase change wax, as Dave did, to store the thermal energy works very well, which allowed him to record a thrust of 18mN.
-
#467
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 08:22
-
How to design an EmDrive min reflected power freq tracker.Freq tracking based on a 2nd sense port may or may not work very well. Experience shows the attached works very well, all the time and easily tracks frustum thermally driven dimensional changes. It also stops locking to adjacent undesired modes.
One other very experienced EmDrive builder found that using such a freq tracker (he calls it a S11 tracker) resulted in solid freq locks and much improved thruster performance.
-
#468
by
Chrochne
on 08 Sep, 2016 09:02
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
-
#469
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 09:25
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
-
#470
by
Star One
on 08 Sep, 2016 09:34
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
Are you implying its operational?
-
#471
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 09:52
-
Even with the recent news on EmDrive I still can not find which UK Aerospace company is Mr. Shawyer co-operating with.
I would be much interested to find out. Any idea what company it might be? We know he cooperated with BAE Systems and Boeing. But I am just not sure which UK aerospace company it might be now. Can it be some that is well known for cooperation with the UK Defense Ministry for example?
Roger did say he was working on a military drone.
Unless one crashes, it might be a bit difficult to discover the manufacturer.
Are you implying its operational?
Roger said there would be a demo in 2017. Here he meant of a levitating EmDrive.
-
#472
by
Flyby
on 08 Sep, 2016 11:23
-
[sarcasm modus]
hmmmm....
I thought you said it wasn't magic, yet what do I see there ? ? ? "magic happens inside"
[/sarcasm modus]
-
#473
by
Tellmeagain
on 08 Sep, 2016 11:30
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
-
#474
by
Star One
on 08 Sep, 2016 12:10
-
Will this thread be going to part 9 when the AIAA paper is published so that can be pinned to the OP?
-
#475
by
dustinthewind
on 08 Sep, 2016 12:56
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
I think a 2nd antenna would be effective in that you could see when the cavity starts storing energy. The fields would build up inside and the antenna would pick that up. This is when heat generation is maximized. I think Traveller doesn't like the idea of another hole in the frustum to measure this with a 2nd antenna. He would rather use the same antenna and instead I believe measure the DC current on one of the wires going in to the antenna per applied voltage at some frequency. I think this does about the same thing. When heat generation is maximized, because of currents in the cavity, the returned AC wave is slightly less in amplitude than the wave sent. This results in a traveling AC wave symbolic of the power being transmitted to the cavity which can be measured as DC current. This seems to be connected to the VSWR and bypasses the need for a 2nd antenna.
As the frequency changes from resonance the current to the cavity will drop and power won't be lost to the cavity so that the DC component of the AC wave should be lost.
An old link with some more info on reflected waves that form standing waves:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1550968#msg1550968the image is of a traveling wave moving one direction and the same superimposed traveling wave moving in the opposite direction with slightly less amplitude.
What is interesting is if any extra power was being lost other than just due to heat it should show up in the power lost so maximizing the power lost should be important. Maybe both a 2nd antenna to measure the radiation in the cavity to see what should be being lost as heat as compared to the power lost through the VSWR method could give us an idea if something strange is going on? Like energy being lost due to doing work rather than being lost to heat.
-
#476
by
meberbs
on 08 Sep, 2016 13:28
-
meberbs, Yang did nullify the results of her pervious paper, but the instrument she used to measure force could not detect force measurements = or < 200 uN, this being the case she ruled out force/thrust measurements > 200 uN but not below. As I read the doc the results of her previous paper were not completely nullified.
She concluded that the original measured force was almost entirely an artifact. This doesn't rule out that the emDrive works, or that there was an undetectable signal, but it does rule out using either of her experiments as evidence that the emDrive works. It also calls into question anyone claiming to "confirm" the high thrust levels of the original experiment since the original experiment was determined by Yang to be an experimental artifact.
-
#477
by
rfmwguy
on 08 Sep, 2016 13:35
-
Was asked to appear on a Podcast to help celebrate Star Trek's 50th anniversary of the premier TV episode in 1966. This science fact/fiction/fantasy (entertainment) radio show has been diligently following me since the beginning and I agreed to make a guest appearance to help them denote the occasion. Of course, I spoke about all things EmDrive, my summer's test results and its implications for the first time in public:
http://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/dave-distler-9-8-16/
-
#478
by
foob
on 08 Sep, 2016 13:50
-
Balloon effect has no effect on the resonant cavity, because cavity can leak air
Absolutely false. See hot-air balloon. Gas is free to move in and out of the envelope yet there is buoyancy and lift because the air inside is hotter and therefore less dense than ambient.
This whole simplex1 discussion is moot because the relevant forces can be measured along multiple axes while buoyancy is confined to one.
-
#479
by
TheTraveller
on 08 Sep, 2016 13:58
-
When did Prof Yang retract any of her peer reviewed papers?
BTW that last paper was using a single freq Rf source. As I and others have discovered, EW included, the freq needs to be adjusted to produce the lowest VSWR or it doesn't work. As far as I know Prof Yang did not use a S11 freq tracker and that may be why the data in her latest paper was low. Doing freq control via using a 2nd sense port is not effective for freq control.
That how to control the freq info is just a bit of EmDrive Engineering 101. Using a 2nd sense port doesn't work. Using tuning to lowest reflected power does work and there is no need of a 2nd hole in the frustum to support the sense port.
May I ask why doing freq control via a 2nd sense port is not effective? Thanks.
Another side of that question is how to sense the level of reflected power from the input port via a secondary sense port on the frustum?
Sort of like trying to control the rpm of an ICE engine via sampling C02 emissions in the exgaust pipe. Yes there is a relationship but it is not how to effectively monitor & control engine rpm.
