EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9

[rq3]

Jamie,

The truth will soon be revealed.
Say good buy to many theories.
The SPR theory will survive.

Cheers

Good buy? Because they're better value?

Its is just typo. You all ask not insult any critics of the EmDrive, yet those videos and comments are very insulting and pointed directly and Mr. Phil. Too much "Like" button to support insults targeted at Mr. Phil do not help here either.

Lets go back at science and lets see what will Monomorphic find.

"TheTraveller":
1) Leaked information he apparently had no right to leak
2) Has never posted verifiable information of any kind (links to e-mails, photographs of his "hardware", his own independent theories or research)
3) Waits for others to make advances, and then claims "I told you so, because Roger told me so", when Roger apparently did no such thing
4) Travels long distances to "verify" manufacturing of simple objects that a kid with a lathe could build in a day
5) Has spent over two years going no-where, and providing no useful input. His only input has been an Excel spreadsheet that conveniently "backs-into" data provided by others. Based on that "science", I can provide a spreadsheet that pickles are deadly. Everyone who ate a pickle prior to 1898 is dead. Just look at my spreadsheet!
6) Has a laughable knowledge of electrical engineering in general, and RF engineering in particular, though he's very good at parroting what others have said

Just my opinion having watched this for far too long. There are really, really excellent BBS trolls, for those of you who go back far enough to remember BBS.

Monomorphic, SeaShells, keep up the great work. YOU are doing science!

[rq3]

I've been writing a blog as I travel across the US for Saturday's March for Science and I've done a general audience write-up of my visit with Jamie today.


Day 14 - Atlanta.


http://redstatesdriving.hardinwoods.com/

Bob, I think you should send your blog post to someone like "Wired" or "The New York Times". It seriously brought tears to my eyes. It's beautifully written. It encompasses what it is to be human. Seriously.

[Stormbringer]

They are cruelly teasing me:

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html

but really this is yet another way to emulate some aspects of negative mass/energy.

[rfmwguy]

I've been writing a blog as I travel across the US for Saturday's March for Science and I've done a general audience write-up of my visit with Jamie today.


Day 14 - Atlanta.


http://redstatesdriving.hardinwoods.com/

Nice work Bob. Cool setup Jamie. - Dave...over and out.

[Monomorphic]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.   

[rq3]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, you have all of the pieces in place to establish a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop. The phenomena of interest is the thrust versus input power. If you could train your system to have the microwave source frequency (and, ideally, phase) track the "horizontal" signal to achieve and maintain a maximum horizontal displacement, you'd be home free.

I'm in awe of your effort and dedication!

[demofsky]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, you have all of the pieces in place to establish a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop. The phenomena of interest is the thrust versus input power. If you could train your system to have the microwave source frequency (and, ideally, phase) track the "horizontal" signal to achieve and maintain a maximum horizontal displacement, you'd be home free.

I'm in awe of your effort and dedication!

I completely agree with the idea of a "force locked loop" configuration.  There have been many ideas raised here such as exploring the relationship of AM vs FM modulation and thrust which could lead to genuine breakthroughs.   For instance, it has been mentioned by Shell that she along with TheTraveller and rmfwguy have experienced anomalous high thrust transients.  Shell also mentioned in this forum that the accelerator folks also have experienced them.  While, very appropriately, folks have been incrementally improving the current approach there are very broad horizons to explore here.

[Bob Woods]

I've been writing a blog as I travel across the US for Saturday's March for Science and I've done a general audience write-up of my visit with Jamie today.

Day 14 - Atlanta.

http://redstatesdriving.hardinwoods.com/

Bob, I think you should send your blog post to someone like "Wired" or "The New York Times". It seriously brought tears to my eyes. It's beautifully written. It encompasses what it is to be human. Seriously.

Thanks a lot for the kind words. A big day for the Woods family. While I was with Jamie, my wife was in a picture in the Washington Post:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/georgia-house-race-stokes-gop-identity-crisis--and-opportunity-for-democrats/2017/04/17/c65ba43a-23b6-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_georgia-745pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6243bcc4ab52

[TheTraveller]

Now that Jamie has forward & reflected power monitors he can:

1) use the reflected power value to tune freq for lowest value

2) use the forward power value to dynamically measure thruster Q and Q changes as the thruster accelerates. Suggested way to do this is to pulse the Rf 10 times a second and measure the forward power rise time from 0 to 63.2% during each pulse & record.

What Jamie will observe is forward power rise time, when the thruster is moving / accelerating, will reduce, showing that during acceleration the thruster Q drops.

Maybe the theory guys can explain what is increasing the per cycle energy loss during acceleration?

[ThatOtherGuy]

They are cruelly teasing me:

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-negative-mass.html

but really this is yet another way to emulate some aspects of negative mass/energy.

Adding some more pointers (just in case)

https://news.wsu.edu/2017/04/10/negative-mass-created-at-wsu/

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155301

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-created-a-fluid-with-negative-mass

[ThatOtherGuy]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, you have all of the pieces in place to establish a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop. The phenomena of interest is the thrust versus input power. If you could train your system to have the microwave source frequency (and, ideally, phase) track the "horizontal" signal to achieve and maintain a maximum horizontal displacement, you'd be home free.

I'm in awe of your effort and dedication!

The idea is interesting, indeed, but then, how do you discriminate the force you're "interested in" from noise ? See, missing that, the loop may work on something different from what expected or even introduce unwanted oscillations (just thinking loud). I'm not sure that, at this stage, trying such a thing may be appropriate

[ThatOtherGuy]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, did you try repeating the "vanilla test" as you did some time ago ? I think it may be interesting to see if and how the changes you made impacted on the test results. Not saying that the idea of tuning the RF is wrong, but I think that starting from something you know (previous tests results) before trying a new approach may be a good idea; another possible approach may be working on RF power instead of frequency, that is, starting with very low power and slowly increasing it

[Chrochne]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, you have all of the pieces in place to establish a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop. The phenomena of interest is the thrust versus input power. If you could train your system to have the microwave source frequency (and, ideally, phase) track the "horizontal" signal to achieve and maintain a maximum horizontal displacement, you'd be home free.

I'm in awe of your effort and dedication!

The idea is interesting, indeed, but then, how do you discriminate the force you're "interested in" from noise ? See, missing that, the loop may work on something different from what expected or even introduce unwanted oscillations (just thinking loud). I'm not sure that, at this stage, trying such a thing may be appropriate

I understand your concerns Mr. OtherGuy. However, are we not all here because of the lack of the experiments performed on this device? Of course if your concern is that such test can cause damage to the setup then it is all fine and should be checked, but I do not understand why postpone vast range of possibilities that can be tested. There are many theories on why and how the EmDrive works / can not work, but we still lack the tests! I believe that only tests can now push us forward.

[ThatOtherGuy]

Here is the data from the powered test from Bob's visit. We tried starting RF power off resonance and tuning to resonance like discussed here a few pages back. I am not sure we were sufficiently off resonance as this test was conducted very quickly. RF power when engaged, from my recollection, was ~500kHz lower than max resonance.

Monomorphic, you have all of the pieces in place to establish a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop. The phenomena of interest is the thrust versus input power. If you could train your system to have the microwave source frequency (and, ideally, phase) track the "horizontal" signal to achieve and maintain a maximum horizontal displacement, you'd be home free.

I'm in awe of your effort and dedication!

The idea is interesting, indeed, but then, how do you discriminate the force you're "interested in" from noise ? See, missing that, the loop may work on something different from what expected or even introduce unwanted oscillations (just thinking loud). I'm not sure that, at this stage, trying such a thing may be appropriate

I understand your concerns Mr. OtherGuy. However, are we not all here because of the lack of the experiments performed on this device? Of course if your concern is that such test can cause damage to the setup then it is all fine and should be checked, but I do not understand why postpone vast range of possibilities that can be tested. There are many theories on why and how the EmDrive works / can not work, but we still lack the tests! I believe that only tests can now push us forward.

Adding something like a "Force Locked Loop" (FLL ?) to the rig would (most probably) mean revising the design and making some quite radical modifications, this in turn would mean recalibrating and re-characterizing it; now, I think that since the rig is already calibrated, it would be a better idea carrying on the planned tests and only after those, deciding how to proceed; it's a game of patience, not a car race

[ThatOtherGuy]

@monomorphic please please tell us you've got new data coming for the new improved setup soon???

Soon. I just received yesterday the two RF power detectors I will be using with the bi-directional coupler Herman loaned me. I have to incorporate those into the build with a spare ADC. This replaces the spectrum analyser and is a step towards creating software that can actively tune the signal for maximum return loss. I'm also going to make a big change to the RF system by switching to a ~25W class A linear amplifier. 

Good news and, as I wrote, take your time - getting back on topic, a 25W amp is a good thing, but, don't you think that before pumping a lot of power into the rig, it may be useful to perform further "low power" tests ?

[LowerAtmosphere]

If Q drops during acceleration there are a few reasons which come to mind:

1. The permittivity of the walls must be changing perhaps as a function of temperature and inductive current.

2. There are less closed paths for photons to resonate along, this could be due to microscopic stress fractures or other shearing/buckling during the loading process not the acceleration per se. Though  this is also possible if you change the absorption of the walls. The average electron density and path configuration may be balanced so that more electrons absorb more photons in the upper cavity, particularly where the incidence angles favour absorption.

3. Minor doppler shift as per Shawyer: "THE DYNAMIC OPERATON OF A HIGH Q EMDRIVE MICROWAVE THRUSTER" Roger  Shawyer  C.Eng.  MIET.  FRAeS

4. Internal fields and ionization/electron clouds absorb more photons disrupting the closed paths.

5. Frame dragging disrupts closed geodesic paths increasing noise and evanescence.

6. QV magic in a box

[ThatOtherGuy]

@Monomorphic:

Jamie, since you're making extensive use of USB for your rig, I think that you may be interested in this document from Intel

"USB 3.0* Radio Frequency Interference Impact on 2.4GHz Wireless Devices - White Paper"

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/universal-serial-bus/usb3-frequency-interference-paper.html

not sure it may be relevant in your case, but could still be of interest

edit: attached the Intel PDF document

[Monomorphic]

Good news and, as I wrote, take your time - getting back on topic, a 25W amp is a good thing, but, don't you think that before pumping a lot of power into the rig, it may be useful to perform further "low power" tests ?

I will still be able to perform low powered tests. ~25W is the maximum I can get out of the new amp. There will also be an increase in efficiency. Where I needed ~4 amps at 12V to drive ~4W RF before, I will be able to drive 25W RF with about 10 amps at 14V.

[ThatOtherGuy]

@Monomorphic:

Jamie, since you're making extensive use of USB for your rig, I think that you may be interested in this document from Intel

"USB 3.0* Radio Frequency Interference Impact on 2.4GHz Wireless Devices - White Paper"

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/universal-serial-bus/usb3-frequency-interference-paper.html

not sure it may be relevant in your case, but could still be of interest

edit: attached the Intel PDF document

Also, and since we're at USB and interferences

http://www.ti.com/sc/docs/apps/msp/intrface/usb/emitest.pdf

http://www.tek.com/dl/46W_23020_1_0.pdf

[Stormbringer]

Unruh; does it exist or not?

Advanced propulsion:  To Unruh or not Unruh that is the question (that this experiment may answer:  )

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-space-deep.html