-
#2180 by meberbs on 15 Oct, 2017 21:10
-
Sir, I'm not trying to mindlessly/stubbornly quarrel with you or provoke you. I'm happy to continue this chat in Private Message to avoid raising the noise floor as you've pointed out.
I appreciate the offer, but for now I think this is better worked out in public. For one thing, as was stated above by Mulletron, one of the benefits of the emDrive is getting people to think, but thinking based on falsehoods is unhelpful, so I want to correct the repeated false statements you have made.
Sir, I understand and completely agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe. However, my point was that the rate of entropy increase of the burning block of wood (vs non-burning block) does not reflect the overall rate of entropy increase of the universe. (Because the universe is comprised of a lot more than just that block of wood. Therefore your invoking of the block of wood as a counter-argument to me was a Straw Man)
No, it is not a straw man, I am giving it as an example, and you just now have described what you think happens in this situation. What you just described is wrong. You start off fine with "agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe"
But then you contradict this with the claim that the total entropy of the universe does not increase faster when the log is on fire. This claim is simply wrong. If I were to write your claim mathematically, it would be equivalent to 1+2 = 1 (base rate of universal entropy increase + additional rate of increase due to log burning = base rate of universal entropy increase.)
agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universeQuoteCompletely false. Time is physical. You cannot write the laws of physics without time. You cannot use entropy to fully describe an elastic collision between 2 balls, but you do need to use time to do so.
Sure you can, because the person observing the collision (or the universe inside which the collision is occurring) is undergoing entropy progression which you call passage of Time. Time is a representation of Entropy (with Entropy being the more meaningful property)[/quote]
This is all wrong. You cannot do what you claim. Go ahead and try. (Here is a hint to get you started: entropy is constant in the system. There is no external observer required for 2 balls to collide. If you want to bring in an external observer, you are going to then have to describe a mechanism where the balls magically start moving faster when entropy starts increasing faster elsewhere, such as by someone lighting a log on fire)
You seem to be under some kind of mistaken assumption where you think entropy must always be increasing. There is no such rule in physics, the only rule is that it cannot decrease globally. It can stay constant.Sir, the salient actions of thinking and remembering (ie. the basis of Observing) are electrochemical actions which occur with entropy increase. The supporting actions that you describe - digesting, metabolizing, etc, while also being chemical processes which also correlate with entropy increase of the universe, are still nevertheless not the thinking/remembering/Observing actions (mental process) themselves.
No, forgetting something would entail a local entropy increase, but storing a memory would by definition be a local increase. Chemical reactions can occur that locally decrease entropy, as long as the cost is simultaneously paid (metabolic processes).
-
#2181 by OnlyMe on 16 Oct, 2017 02:11
-
…
While I agree with your intent above or at least the bulk of it, in this last.., "yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.", I question the logic.
Clocks are not time. Clocks measure/record change, within an agreed upon rate. I agree that entropy as you describe above, does not change the way clocks measure/record any rate of change... But clocks are not time. Time is a construct of the mind we use to communicate how we observe and experience change. A construct for which we use clocks as descriptive rulers. IOW Change is real and time is a construct of the mind used to communicate, the measurement, observation and experience of change.
This is most times a nit picking distinction (almost certainly in this case), because the concept is critical to our understanding of everything else, "under the sun" and to communication itself. However sometimes in these discussions the tendency to attribute to "Time" some sort of inherent independent reality, as if it were causative rather than a descriptive construct, seems to confuse at least to some extent, many of the other concepts and possible mechanisms being discussed.
Thanks for this - I too am trying to say that Time is just a euphemism or descriptor, and not some required property to describe the universe. Entropy is an alternative descriptor, and a more meaningful one, imho. There is no fundamental compulsion that compels "passage of Time" - it's our mental process that creates the perception of passage of time. And the direction of that Time axis is determined by Entropy, which connects each mental state (ie. each observational state) to the next.
Think of a Connect-The-Dots puzzle. The dots are the observed states of the universe, and are numbered by the entropy level. No dot has a true chonological precedence over others - the order of precedence is defined by the adjacent entropy states that form our thinking/remembering process. It's from that, that our convention of chronology arises.
I believe you missed at least a part of what I intended.
When you contend, ” … Entropy is an alternative descriptor, and a more meaningful one, …”, I believe you are wrong. Entropy is just a specific type of change. Without an awareness of change, entropy has no meaning. Without a previously agreed upon concept of time and clock to use as a standard for the rate of change, we cannot accurately communicate ideas, thoughts and experiences, that involve change. Without the concept of time entropy has no meaning.
There is (or was) a small remote tribe in the Brazilian Amazon who had no concept of time. No today, yesterday, tomorrow or even the idea of morning, noon etc. Their language was all based on now… And another I believe from somewhere in Peru whose language ended with yesterday, today (now) and tomorrow. No day after tomorrow or day before yesterday.
The point is that the concept of time and a well defined previously agreed upon ruler to measure it with, a clock and calendar, are needed to discuss the fine details of things like entropy. Without the clock, our concept of time and the word "time" itself sometimes, we would be unable to clearly communicate much of our experience, observations and thoughts. -
#2182 by spupeng7 on 16 Oct, 2017 08:57
-
All,
The reality of clock time cannot be sensibly disputed because a clock can be formed upon such a wide variety of constantly changing mechanisms, many of which have the same relative rate of progress against solar system dynamics. I agree with Schrodinger that math must be a natural component of thought, wherever it occurs and time is surely a fundamental component of mathematics. What bothers me is that complex numbers do not seem to have the same credibility despite their being ubiquitous at all levels of analysis.
Complex numbers did not, so far as I know, appear in the mathematical tool kit until Euler (please correct me if I am wrong) who was alive at the same time as Newton. They were named imaginary because their incorporation into the list of number sets was conceptually challenging. The real (scalar) component and its imaginary (complex) conjugate were brought into stark contrast by their names, as if the former had substance and the latter none. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It seems obvious that complex numbers arise naturally as irreplaceable predictors of physical reality at the level of quadratic equations and argand diagrams. At the level of GR they are essential to every concept. Either complex numbers are a valid mathematical form or they are not. If they are, their judicial application to a set of observations can clarify our understanding of observed relationships just as the application of any other relevant number set can.
The incorporation of complex time into our understanding of inertia, gravity and quantum transposition, by visualisation of the forward coincidence of distant locations for everything exchanged at the speed of light, may yet become vital to the demystification of emdrive action. Remember folks, there are no such things as genuinely identical units of physical substance, despite the converse being the most fundamental axiom of mathematics. Math still works though, because it truly represents relationships, including complex ones. -
#2183 by Kenjee on 16 Oct, 2017 10:10
-
Time is gravity?
-
#2184 by Monomorphic on 16 Oct, 2017 15:13
-
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum! In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.
There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year. Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating. I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously. There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to. I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.
I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie
-
#2185 by InterestedEngineer on 16 Oct, 2017 17:06
-
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum! In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.
From the looks of this graph you have noise with period of about 30-60 seconds. I don't think improving the damping or ADC resolution is going to help. You have to eliminate the source of the noise. (well, if you set the damping tau to 120 seconds it would help, but wow that's a long time...)
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals? -
#2186 by Monomorphic on 16 Oct, 2017 17:31
-
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.
You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below.
I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.
-
#2187 by jmossman on 16 Oct, 2017 18:16
-
...
I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!
...
From the looks of this graph you have noise with period of about 30-60 seconds. I don't think improving the damping or ADC resolution is going to help. You have to eliminate the source of the noise. (well, if you set the damping tau to 120 seconds it would help, but wow that's a long time...)
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
@Monomorphic,
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses? Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?
For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby? Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse? A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources. Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.
Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker? -
#2188 by Monomorphic on 16 Oct, 2017 18:30
-
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses? Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?
For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby? Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse? A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources. Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.
Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?
With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.
I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.
-
#2189 by DusanC on 16 Oct, 2017 18:43
-
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses? Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?
For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby? Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse? A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources. Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.
Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?
With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.
I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.
Can you try doing the measurement at 3-4AM. Once we tried to measure displacement of large machining center and we measured surrounding noise from the traffic more than 100m away (not audio, but oscillations traveling through the ground) even as machine + foundation weighted more than 20t. At 3-4AM we managed to make good measurements. -
#2190 by DusanC on 16 Oct, 2017 18:47
-
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.
You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below.
I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.
Because of oscillations in fluid reservoir circular reservoir is better as you have only one main oscillating frequency.
What happens if you don't make the calibration pulse a pulse, but you increase the force slowly so to keep acceleration of whole torsional pendulum low? -
#2191 by Bob012345 on 16 Oct, 2017 19:00
-
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum! In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.
There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year. Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating. I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously. There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to. I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.
I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie
How about going but making your paper into a poster, not a main presentation? You also might get more good ideas and feedback from personal interaction with those present if you go. Just a suggestion.
-
#2192 by Bob012345 on 16 Oct, 2017 19:05
-
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses? Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?
For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby? Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse? A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources. Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.
Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?
With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.
I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said but have you tried adding the opposite of the noise signal in a feedback loop to see what happens? -
#2193 by Monomorphic on 16 Oct, 2017 19:15
-
Here is a test run that may be of interest to PotomacNeuron. This is where I only supplied power (6.3A) to the amplifier. No RF is present. I didn't notice any major movement from powering the amp the couple of times I tried this - just what I interpret as a little delayed noise from heat dissipation.
-
#2194 by Monomorphic on 16 Oct, 2017 19:18
-
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said but have you tried adding the opposite of the noise signal in a feedback loop to see what happens?
If someone wants to try, here are the excel files. If there is an easy way to do that in excel, please let me know the formula I should use.
-
#2195 by Mr. Peter on 16 Oct, 2017 19:41
-
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum! In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.
There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year. Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating. I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously. There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to. I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.
I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie
Hi Jamie,
This is how guys from University of Florida mitigate environmental effects
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2017-5138
and speaking of LDS you can save some $$$ and build your own instead
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834557/document
or go for capacitive ones.
Maybe it's seismic noise, FFT would be helpful. Good luck anyway, don't give up man.
-
#2196 by SteveD on 16 Oct, 2017 19:47
-
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.
You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below.
I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.
Does this matter? What level of force are you detecting from the device. If it is 6 uN or more I don't think 3uN of noise much matters. -
#2197 by Mark7777777 on 16 Oct, 2017 20:14
-
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses? Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?
For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby? Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse? A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources. Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.
Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?
With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.
I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.
Maybe turn the mains switch to your entire house power off. And also turn your hot water cylinder power switch off too if that is separate.
-
#2198 by JonathanD on 16 Oct, 2017 20:23
-
What if you just stick the whole table on top of a memory foam mattress?
#overlysimplisticthoughtoftheday -
#2199 by RERT on 16 Oct, 2017 20:44
-
There is either a significant noise source, or a small noise source exciting a very poorly damped (and complex) mode of oscillation. Try a second damper to eliminate oscillations on axes through the damper, or failing that make the damper paddle much longer with the same total damping. Sorry to be broken record, but if you are desperate you might as well try it. No garauntee it will work.
