-
#2940
by
Peter Lauwer
on 02 Mar, 2017 10:36
-
I agree, the balance is very good for testing the EM Drive ! (noise and drift are minimal)
What duration of test would be best with a period of ~40 seconds? 40 seconds, 60 seconds?
I would try several durations: 10 s, 1 min, 5 min, of that order.
Btw, Jamie, is it easy for you to rotate the frustum 90 degrees ? (so the axis is parallel to the torsion beam and you expect zero moment).
-
#2941
by
Peter Lauwer
on 02 Mar, 2017 10:51
-
I decided to brush up on my illustrator skills while the 14 nickle-metal hydride batteries are charging. I've named my workshop "Star Lab," and here is the official mission patch for this testing campaign.
I - as a former Starlabber [1] - cannot have any objections to that.
There still is another lab with that name: Starlab Barcelona is still operational [www.starlab.es]
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlab
-
#2942
by
Joogze
on 02 Mar, 2017 10:53
-
Emdrive(EM)的原理无人可知，关于其的科学实验也成为了科学上的前沿研究。
The principle of Emdrive(EM) is unknown, and the scientific experiment on it has become a frontier research in science.
EM的发明人Roger Shawyer说：EM建立在麦克斯韦、牛顿和爱因斯坦等人的理论之上，并没有其他独特的理论。我也持有此的看法。
EM’s inventor Roger Shawyer says: EM's theory is higher than Maxwell's theory, Isaac Newton's theoryand Albert Einstein's theory, no other unique theory. I also hold this view.
一句话概况EM的原理：热水和冷水具有中和成温水的能力。
A word of explanation: Hot and cold water are capable of neutralizing into warm water.
同种溶液的不同溶解度之间也具有中和的能力。所以我把EM原理归结为：同种介质的不同密度之间的力的研究。这个论点是万有引力定律的本质。（我们站在地壳上，如果没有地壳我们会掉下去。如果卫星不围绕母星旋转，要么远离要么坠入……）
The solubility of the same solution also has the ability to neutralize. So I put the EM principle attributed to: Reseach the force between different density by the same medium. This argument is the essence of the law of gravity.（We stand on the earth's crust, and if there is no crust, we will drop. If the satellite does not revolve around the parent star, either away or fall……）
牛顿第三定律作为一种结果被看待。可以假设作用力和反作用力同时产生，但是这只是假设。在热水中和冷水的这个例子中，作用力和反作用力分别是什么？同时产生吗？
Newton's third law is a result. It can be assumed that both the force and the reaction occur simultaneously, but this is only a hypothesis. In the case of hot water and cold water, what are the force and reaction? At the same time?
当波长和频率是固定的，波峰和波谷的大小是能量的大小。把高能量的波比作是热水，把低能量的波比作是冷水，自然地有能量密度的中和的特性。（波的叠加原理是物理学的基本原理之一）
When the wavelength and frequency is fixed, the size of the peaks and troughs are the size of the energy. High energy waves as hot water, low energy waves as cold water. It is natural neutralization in energy’s density.（Superposition principle of wave is one of the basic principles of Physics.）
实验验证：
Experimental verification:
1、失重情况下检验热水和冷水的中和是否会产生力：
Check whether the neutralization of hot water and cold water will produce force under Weightlessness:
将EM的谐振腔改装，改掉其空间上的变动，使其成为截面固定的金属圆管。
The cavity of the EM is modified to change the space of the cavity, so as to be a metal pipe with a fixed cross section.
在金属圆管的中间放入一金属网（阻隔微波却可以通过水流）。
Place a metal net in the middle of the round pipe. The purpose of a metal mesh is to allow the water through but stop the microwave.
将微波输入源固定金属网的任一侧，所以只有一半的水被加热。
The microwave input source is fixed on either side of the metal mesh, so that only half of the water is heated.
2、在EM中增加同波长不同能量的微波输入：
将EM的谐振腔改装，改掉其空间上的变动，使其成为截面固定的金属圆管。最好使微波不会产生叠加。
The cavity of the EM is modified to change the space of the cavity, so as to be a metal pipe with a fixed cross section. Best not to produce microwave superposition.
在原有输入微波A的情况下增加输入微波B，微波A与微波B的波长相同，能量不同。
In the case of the original input microwave A, Add another input microwave B, the microwave A and microwave B have the same wavelength, and the energy is different.
我的英语不好，用的是翻译软件。我还写了两篇文章，英语能力有限，就不再翻译了。
My English is poor, the use of translation software. I also wrote two articles, English ability is limited, no longer translated.
-
#2943
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Mar, 2017 12:19
-
Btw, Jamie, is it easy for you to rotate the frustum 90 degrees ? (so the axis is parallel to the torsion beam and you expect zero moment).
Yes, I can rotate the frustum into "null" position, 90 degrees from current orientation. I can also rotate it 180 degrees.
-
#2944
by
Peter Lauwer
on 02 Mar, 2017 12:46
-
Btw, Jamie, is it easy for you to rotate the frustum 90 degrees ? (so the axis is parallel to the torsion beam and you expect zero moment).
Yes, I can rotate the frustum into "null" position, 90 degrees from current orientation. I can also rotate it 180 degrees.
Good. It will be interesting to see the difference between these 3 orientations.
I wish you succes!
Peter
-
#2945
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Mar, 2017 14:05
-
Powered Test 03. Still having some pesky noise problems. I may not have had the battery aligned the same way after charging. I will need to run a few more static tests to confirm, and then put markings on the battery to make sure it is aligned the same way each time. I also want to test the remote desktop connection. If the wi-fi is causing the noise, then I can just fall back to the bluetooth wireless keyboard. Bluetooth is vastly less powerful than wi-fi.
All that aside, I am still getting a pretty strong anomalous thrust signature. One thing to note, when RF is turned on, it is never at max resonance as max resonance drifts about 10kHz while I am waiting for the torsional pendulum to come to rest. I have to manually adjust the frequency for lowest reflected power. That takes about 10 to 15 seconds.
As for wattage, I am confident that 33-34dBm is being injected into the cavity. I am also inclined to say that the 1Watt number for the first tests was probably closer to 2W as I was being very conservative. I was also able to measure Q factor more precisely this time.
-
#2946
by
aero
on 02 Mar, 2017 14:29
-
It is interesting that there is no discontinuity in the slope of the force curve at "power-off."
-
#2947
by
PotomacNeuron
on 02 Mar, 2017 14:46
-
Powered Test 03. Still having some pesky noise problems. I may not have had the battery aligned the same way after charging. I will need to run a few more static tests to confirm, and then put markings on the battery to make sure it is aligned the same way each time. I also want to test the remote desktop connection. If the wi-fi is causing the noise, then I can just fall back to the bluetooth wireless keyboard. Bluetooth is vastly less powerful than wi-fi.
All that aside, I am still getting a pretty strong anomalous thrust signature. One thing to note, when RF is turned on, it is never at max resonance as max resonance drifts about 10kHz while I am waiting for the torsional pendulum to come to rest. I have to manually adjust the frequency for lowest reflected power. That takes about 10 to 15 seconds.
As for wattage, I am confident that 33-34dBm is being injected into the cavity. I am also inclined to say that the 1Watt number for the first tests was probably closer to 2W as I was being very conservative. I was also able to measure Q factor more precisely this time.
Is it possible to record the amount of resonance (or the amount of delivered RF power) on the same plot with the displacement curve? I think if you use another A/D channel for that information, it will be easier to align the curves correctly in time.
-
#2948
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Mar, 2017 15:21
-
Is it possible to record the amount of resonance (or the amount of delivered RF power) on the same plot with the displacement curve? I think if you use another A/D channel for that information, it will be easier to align the curves correctly in time.
The spectrum analyser is on the pendulum while the ADC is off the pendulum so I can't run any cables between the two. The spectrum analyser also doesn't output a signal the ADC can use. I may be able to record the spectrum analyser trace in real time, and then enter that data into the spreadsheet manually afterwards.
-
#2949
by
Rodal
on 02 Mar, 2017 15:30
-
Powered Test 03. Still having some pesky noise problems. I may not have had the battery aligned the same way after charging. I will need to run a few more static tests to confirm, and then put markings on the battery to make sure it is aligned the same way each time. I also want to test the remote desktop connection. If the wi-fi is causing the noise, then I can just fall back to the bluetooth wireless keyboard. Bluetooth is vastly less powerful than wi-fi.
All that aside, I am still getting a pretty strong anomalous thrust signature. One thing to note, when RF is turned on, it is never at max resonance as max resonance drifts about 10kHz while I am waiting for the torsional pendulum to come to rest. I have to manually adjust the frequency for lowest reflected power. That takes about 10 to 15 seconds.
As for wattage, I am confident that 33-34dBm is being injected into the cavity. I am also inclined to say that the 1Watt number for the first tests was probably closer to 2W as I was being very conservative. I was also able to measure Q factor more precisely this time.
This is a much better, more convincing tests than any previous non-NASA EM Drive test I have seen, including those of Shawyer, as the force measured goes down to the noise level upon powering off.
It is outstanding
It is a great affirmation that it is much better to conduct the test with low damping (damping ratio =0.23) than to use high damping higher than the critical damping !!!Previous test conducted with high damping gear oil instead of the present low damping water+anti-freeze solution, for comparison with the above test:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1641978#msg1641978
There is still work to be done, you are right as the high noise, particularly reaching 10.9 after power off, is of concern, and you should work to ameliorate it
By the way:
Shawyer's prediction via TheTraveler's spreadsheet for 1W is 0.361mN
so for 2 watts, Shaywer predicts 722 microNewtons for this, instead of the 13.6 microNewtons measured by Monomorphic ? That is 53 times greater thrust predicted by Shawyer 
? While McCulloch (
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-datas-thing.html) predicts
14 microNewtons for His power input was 1 Watt, his Q value was 8100
so for 2 Watts at that Q he would predict 28 microNewtons, and since the Q was really 2x8100 (see X_Ray) then McCulloch would predict 56 microNewtons, which is an overestimate, but much closer than Monomorphic's quotation about Shawyer's prediction using TT's spreadsheet
If my memory is correct Notsosureofit's prediction is not far off from Monomorphic's measurement either.
-
#2950
by
MazonDel
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:26
-
Greetings everyone! Been a while for me.
Congrats to Monomorphic on this test! It certainly looks great!
One thing I have been somewhat curious about, as I do not know the particulars of how the test rig is set up. Assuming that the right amount of damping is found and noise is further minimized, is the expected output supposed to be something similar to a rounded square wave? Or is the "ringing" in the signal to be expected given this setup?
Thanks! Keep up the great work!
-
#2951
by
PotomacNeuron
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:39
-
Powered Test 03. Still having some pesky noise problems. I may not have had the battery aligned the same way after charging. I will need to run a few more static tests to confirm, and then put markings on the battery to make sure it is aligned the same way each time. I also want to test the remote desktop connection. If the wi-fi is causing the noise, then I can just fall back to the bluetooth wireless keyboard. Bluetooth is vastly less powerful than wi-fi.
All that aside, I am still getting a pretty strong anomalous thrust signature. One thing to note, when RF is turned on, it is never at max resonance as max resonance drifts about 10kHz while I am waiting for the torsional pendulum to come to rest. I have to manually adjust the frequency for lowest reflected power. That takes about 10 to 15 seconds.
As for wattage, I am confident that 33-34dBm is being injected into the cavity. I am also inclined to say that the 1Watt number for the first tests was probably closer to 2W as I was being very conservative. I was also able to measure Q factor more precisely this time.
This is a much better, more convincing tests than any previous non-NASA EM Drive test I have seen, including those of Shawyer, as the force measured goes down to the noise level upon powering off.
It is outstanding
It is a great affirmation that it is much better to conduct the test with low damping (damping ratio =0.23) than to use high damping higher than the critical damping !!!
Previous test conducted with high damping gear oil instead of the present low damping water+anti-freeze solution, for comparison with the above test:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1641978#msg1641978
There is still work to be done, you are right as the high noise, particularly reaching 10.9 after power off, is of concern, and you should work to ameliorate it
By the way: Shawyer's prediction via TheTraveler's spreadsheet for 1W is 0.361mN
so for 2 watts, Shaywer predicts 722 microNewtons for this, instead of the 13.6 microNewtons measured by Monomorphic ? That is 53 times greater thrust predicted by Shawyer ?
While McCulloch (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-datas-thing.html) predicts 14 microNewtons for His power input was 1 Watt, his Q value was 8100
so for 2 Watts at that Q he would predict 28 microNewtons, and since the Q was really 2x8100 (see X_Ray) then McCulloch would predict 56 microNewtons, which is an overestimate, but much closer than Monomorphic's quotation about Shawyer's prediction using TT's spreadsheet
If my memory is correct Notsosureofit's prediction is not far off from Monomorphic's measurement either.
Do not forget that those were "powered on tests" only, and were not RF tuned tests. So the frequency were likely off from the resonance. Thus neither prediction applies. On the other hand, the 13uN measured is consistent with the Lorentz force prediction. Lorentz force prediction also predicts that he will measure different forces of the balance at different orientations to the earth magnetic field. This prediction can be directly tested.
-
#2952
by
jmossman
on 02 Mar, 2017 16:59
-
Is it possible to record the amount of resonance (or the amount of delivered RF power) on the same plot with the displacement curve? I think if you use another A/D channel for that information, it will be easier to align the curves correctly in time.
The spectrum analyser is on the pendulum while the ADC is off the pendulum so I can't run any cables between the two. The spectrum analyser also doesn't output a signal the ADC can use. I may be able to record the spectrum analyser trace in real time, and then enter that data into the spreadsheet manually afterwards.
There might still be some OpenCV wizards lurking here on the forum.... perhaps one of them might be willing to post-process a spectrum analyzer trace and mark "power on/off" events along with an estimation of resonance magnitude as it varies during the power-on region?
Also, would it be possible for you to make a little movie of the sequence currently being used for the required frequency adjustment? (i.e. which mouse clicks, key presses, and events-on-screen monitored)
A method to automate the frequency adjustment would likely help both repeatability and increase the potential for making multiple runs unattended. Again, I suspect there maybe some lurkers on the forum who could recommend a scripting language for your Windows 10 machine that can both query the screen (and/or some data file) and send specific key presses and/or mouse clicks in specific regions to automate the frequency adjustment. (maybe one of them might even be willing to donate some time to help automate the steps?
)
BTW, excellent anomalous signal capture! Your plot clearly shows something occurring that strongly correlates with the RF signal.
-
#2953
by
Notsosureofit
on 02 Mar, 2017 17:26
-
Q=8100(loaded), 2W, 2.3 microNewtons
-
#2954
by
Rodal
on 02 Mar, 2017 20:53
-
Q=8100(loaded), 2W, 2.3 microNewtons
So, using X_Ray's evidence that the Q was really 2x8100, at P=2 w the Notsosureofit formula predicts 4.6 microNewtons thrust, which is 1/3 of the experimental peak measured by Monomorphic, while McCulloch predicts a thrust 4 times greater than the experimentally measured value, and Shawyer predicts over 50 times greater thrust
-
#2955
by
X_RaY
on 02 Mar, 2017 21:41
-
Powered Test 03. Still having some pesky noise problems. I may not have had the battery aligned the same way after charging. I will need to run a few more static tests to confirm, and then put markings on the battery to make sure it is aligned the same way each time. I also want to test the remote desktop connection. If the wi-fi is causing the noise, then I can just fall back to the bluetooth wireless keyboard. Bluetooth is vastly less powerful than wi-fi.
All that aside, I am still getting a pretty strong anomalous thrust signature. One thing to note, when RF is turned on, it is never at max resonance as max resonance drifts about 10kHz while I am waiting for the torsional pendulum to come to rest. I have to manually adjust the frequency for lowest reflected power. That takes about 10 to 15 seconds.
As for wattage, I am confident that 33-34dBm is being injected into the cavity. I am also inclined to say that the 1Watt number for the first tests was probably closer to 2W as I was being very conservative. I was also able to measure Q factor more precisely this time.
This is a much better, more convincing tests than any previous non-NASA EM Drive test I have seen, including those of Shawyer, as the force measured goes down to the noise level upon powering off.
It is outstanding
It is a great affirmation that it is much better to conduct the test with low damping (damping ratio =0.23) than to use high damping higher than the critical damping !!!
Previous test conducted with high damping gear oil instead of the present low damping water+anti-freeze solution, for comparison with the above test:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1641978#msg1641978
There is still work to be done, you are right as the high noise, particularly reaching 10.9 after power off, is of concern, and you should work to ameliorate it
By the way: Shawyer's prediction via TheTraveler's spreadsheet for 1W is 0.361mN
so for 2 watts, Shaywer predicts 722 microNewtons for this, instead of the 13.6 microNewtons measured by Monomorphic ? That is 53 times greater thrust predicted by Shawyer ?
While McCulloch (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-datas-thing.html) predicts 14 microNewtons for His power input was 1 Watt, his Q value was 8100
so for 2 Watts at that Q he would predict 28 microNewtons, and since the Q was really 2x8100 (see X_Ray) then McCulloch would predict 56 microNewtons, which is an overestimate, but much closer than Monomorphic's quotation about Shawyer's prediction using TT's spreadsheet
If my memory is correct Notsosureofit's prediction is not far off from Monomorphic's measurement either.
I would to suggest to use the average of the graph instead of the peak value since the first maxima seems to be a transient overshoot similar to the one observed for the Woodward PZT stack.
Of course this leads to even lower thrust numbers but I guess to more physical results (influences of the inertia mass of the pendulum are reduced in this case). At least if a pulsed signal don't leads to more thrust, therefore maybe I am wrong
@Monomorphic
WOW this looks like a strong improvement of your apparatus. Really great work!
-
#2956
by
RotoSequence
on 02 Mar, 2017 22:32
-
Question for Monomorphic: what are your imminent plans and procedures for your test campaign?
-
#2957
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Mar, 2017 23:37
-
As expected, the source of the noise during the most recent powered test was a misaligned battery. I ran another test with everything as it was, and connected via remote desktop at a specified time. As you can see there was no major reduction in noise. After properly aligning the battery, noise was vastly diminished. In the second image, one can see the noise influence of the remote desktop connection. While noticeable, it is still fairly small. I think I will perform more tests with the remote desktop connection, but making sure the battery is properly aligned.
-
#2958
by
spupeng7
on 02 Mar, 2017 23:57
-
Only when the balance velocity and acceleration are zero is the displacement approximately proportional to the applied force.
When Jamie's EmDrive thruster stops accelerating, there will be no accelerative Reaction force generated.
Previously shared email from Roger:
Remember there are two forces at work simultaneously, one that I call thrust (small end to big end) and the opposite which I refer to as the reaction force.
When the cavity is free to move, acceleration occurs in the direction of the reaction force. When the cavity stops, both forces cancel out.
This is the only way Newtons laws are satisfied, and has been verified many times.
Careful analysis of the time varying response of your torsional balance will also demonstrate this, which I am sure will help to educate your forum.
TT,
there is no-one I admire more than the redoubtable Shawyer but this cannot be correct. All motion is relative, there is no known absolute zero for motion. JMN..
-
#2959
by
PotomacNeuron
on 03 Mar, 2017 00:12
-
As expected, the source of the noise during the most recent powered test was a misaligned battery. I ran another test with everything as it was, and connected via remote desktop at a specified time. As you can see there was no major reduction in noise. After properly aligning the battery, noise was vastly diminished. In the second image, one can see the noise influence of the remote desktop connection. While noticeable, it is still fairly small. I think I will perform more tests with the remote desktop connection, but making sure the battery is properly aligned.
Would you please upload some pictures of the properly aligned battery and its connections/wires? It is interesting case to study why the alignment can make such radical difference. Maybe it is DC loop area problem again? Just another possibility.
? 
)
