-
#140 by OnlyMe on 04 Jun, 2017 15:15
-
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.
Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......
.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....
While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.
Setting aside the theoretical speculation (and I say speculation because there has been insufficient experimental evidence to support any of the existing theories), Shawyer has never published enough design information for anyone to know that any of the attempts to replicate his claims, including Yang's attempt, can be thought of as an independent test of his design or claims. If an EmDrive can produce useable thrust, the only thing that can be said at present based on published data, is that is appears far more difficult to design and test, than your above statement, "Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than..." implies.
In the second case above, it has always bothered me that when Yang retracted here original conclusions, based on the results of an inherently different experiment, it has been taken by many as proof of the flaws in her initial experimental design. Yang certainly had and has the right to re-evaluate her conclusions, but the second experiment was not designed in a manner that provided data that proved the design flaw she attributed to her first attempt. It was not good science. Though I agree with her conclusion that the design flaws were potentially the source of experimental error, she never published information demonstrating that she reassembled the original design and proved her conclusions. Her two experiments involved two different designs. It is not even certain that the frustums were identical, while it is certain that the microwave sources and controls were very different.
You could have the perfect testing design and unless your frustum, microwave source and controls were properly matched, your results would be of no significance. It has been discussed on several occasions how even seemingly insignificant changes in the design of the frustum, dimensions and materials, would have significant impact on resonance... Which would then ensure faulty experimental design and make building a working EmDrive inherently more difficult, than a flawed design. Thus it would seem inherently easier to fail than succeed, in demonstrating that it does not work than otherwise.
Until, the fundamental mechanism that results in an anomalous thrust is known, designing a working EmDrive and experimental test bed is an issue of trial and error. At least until someone either publishes design data of a previously demonstrated functional EmDrive, or one of the DIY or otherwise independent labs stumbles on a functional design and publishes, in enough detail, test results that can be duplicated.
The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.
-
#141 by Star One on 04 Jun, 2017 15:16
-
@Star One
Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (an entire wiki's worth) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust, not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.
I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck
I was worried the thread was falling victim to drive by posting again derailing it, as has happened in the past. -
#142 by meberbs on 04 Jun, 2017 15:29
-
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void.
That sounds pretty unlikely to me.And how do you explain ITS?
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.
Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic.
Please point to a specific example, of an experiment that meets what you described in your first sentence and I will explain why this is not the case.if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven.
Again, it would take an absurdly sensitive and absurdly controlled experiment to do this.I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Each successive experiment has further constrained the potential strength of the emDrive effect, and current signals have been at the same level as the noise or expected errors. -
#143 by meberbs on 04 Jun, 2017 15:47
-
You entirely missed the meaning of my statement. I was talking about rigorously demonstrating that there is no emDrive effect, even something below your experiment's sensitivity. Most of your post amounts to further explanation of why fully disproving the emDrive is nearly impossible. It is obviously easy to make an emDrive that doesn't conclusively work. Experimentally disproving the emDrive has all of the problems you listed in your post and then some, because you have to show that none of what you stated is the reason you got no force.While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.
Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......
.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....
While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.
...
The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.
As for Yang, we could have a long discussion on the merits and flaws in Yang's papers, and I see flaws in all of them including the retraction. I'd rather not go into details if we can at least agree that Yang's original large measured force is most likely due to a flawed setup. -
#144 by SeeShells on 04 Jun, 2017 17:37
-
We can all debate about if testing by various individuals or groups was enough to prove that the EMDrive works or not and still end up where we all started. . . debating. Theories are different.
Building and testing is absolutely critical to be the best that can be (with funding) to gain solid data. That data will or will not go to prove the drive doesn't work, or works. If it works than the data points can be plugged into existing theories or even a new theory. . . hopefully.
This device could have the ability to change the world we live in and change can happen in a relatively short time. I had to search for an sample of something I saw years ago that drove home this point. The two pictures are from Denver, CO. In a span of only 13 years, from 1900 to 1913 we went from horse drawn carriages to Model Ts.
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#145 by wicoe on 04 Jun, 2017 18:10
-
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor. A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
-
#146 by RotoSequence on 04 Jun, 2017 19:07
-
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.
This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it? -
#147 by Stormbringer on 04 Jun, 2017 19:11
-
Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.
In the first draft I was going to point out that in correspondence or text it is good form to spell out acronyms when they first enter the dialog unless they are so well known and in general use that their meaning is considered universally understood. On consideration I choose to actually delete that part of my response because i thought it soundedimpoliterude. The final draft you object to is actually much more polite than the original "mr style guide enforcer" appearance of my original approach. -
#148 by SeeShells on 04 Jun, 2017 19:24
-
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.
This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.
You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.
My Very Best,
Shell -
#149 by SeeShells on 04 Jun, 2017 19:25
-
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor. A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
Geez. Scientific rigor is my primary concern. -
#150 by RotoSequence on 04 Jun, 2017 19:38
-
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.
This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.
You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm willing to wait. Alas, I'm only human; I need to know what I'm waiting for!
Thank you, SeaShells.
-
#151 by oyzw on 05 Jun, 2017 00:35
-
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.
-
#152 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2017 00:42
-
monomorphic is still refining his testing
I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.
I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.
-
#153 by oyzw on 05 Jun, 2017 00:49
-
In China, there have been three official institutions conducted emdrive experiments, measuring thrust on the ground, they are Northwestern Polytechnical University, Harbin Institute of Technology, China Aerospace Science and technology group. Professor Yang Juan completed the last paper test at the Harbin Institute of Technology laboratory, and Harbin Institute of Technology carried out special experiments and research.
-
#154 by RotoSequence on 05 Jun, 2017 00:57
-
monomorphic is still refining his testing
I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.
I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency. -
#155 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2017 01:03
-
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.
I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing. Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
-
#156 by RotoSequence on 05 Jun, 2017 02:02
-
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.
I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing. Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part. -
#157 by Flyby on 05 Jun, 2017 07:01
-
Jamie,What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.
I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing. Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :
-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.
-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.
-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)
-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.
-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach 100° C.
-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...
-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...
I suspect it is going to be very hard to maintain a nicely curved surface, while sanding it manually... -
#158 by demofsky on 05 Jun, 2017 07:18
-
[size=78%]I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier. [/size]
Would machining plexiglass work instead? Not sure how you would copper plate it afterwards but it would be consistent with the rest of the fustrum.
I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform. -
#159 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2017 12:29
-
What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part.
The prusa 3D printer has a resolution of 50 microns. So I was going to start there.
That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Thank you, SeaShells.