-
#2580 by ThinkerX on 05 Nov, 2017 20:37
-
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough, it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?
Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?
Yes, but in my model the "reflection coefficient" is irrelevant because, when the MW cavity is charged to a steady state maximum energy, the EM field will exert pressure on all sides. Unless, the small end is below cut-off, in which case the momentum in that direction will be imparted to the side walls. Either way, the power losses to the copper are directly proportional to the force exerted by the field. If the whole frustum is made of copper, then the forces should balance and cancel out.
However, my "theory" is that; IF there is a higher power dissipation at one end vs the other end, then there will be a NET flow of energy & momentum in that direction and the frustum should move the other way. On the other hand, without a dielectric or dissimilar metals, there is no reason (other than geometry) why the power dissipation would be different at one end vs the other. I've suggested using a different metal for the big end plate. Something with higher losses, like nickel or steel. Or, something with lower losses like silver or superconductor, depending on which way you want it to thrust.
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.
Trying for clarity here.
Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?
Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?' -
#2581 by Flyby on 05 Nov, 2017 20:38
-
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough, it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?
Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?
Yes, but in my model the "reflection coefficient" is irrelevant because, when the MW cavity is charged to a steady state maximum energy, the EM field will exert pressure on all sides. Unless, the small end is below cut-off, in which case the momentum in that direction will be imparted to the side walls. Either way, the power losses to the copper are directly proportional to the force exerted by the field. If the whole frustum is made of copper, then the forces should balance and cancel out.
However, my "theory" is that; IF there is a higher power dissipation at one end vs the other end, then there will be a NET flow of energy & momentum in that direction and the frustum should move the other way. On the other hand, without a dielectric or dissimilar metals, there is no reason (other than geometry) why the power dissipation would be different at one end vs the other. I've suggested using a different metal for the big end plate. Something with higher losses, like nickel or steel. Or, something with lower losses like silver or superconductor, depending on which way you want it to thrust.
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.
I believe we touched that subject many, many pages ago, when the idea of having one of the endwalls in Metglas 2714A was brought up, no? In relation to magnetic permeability... -
#2582 by aero on 05 Nov, 2017 21:43
-
As I see it, the reflection coefficient being different on the two ends of a cavity (not addressing the sidewalls, consider a cylinder) means that the internal radiation force is different on the two ends. Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.
That means that an internal, unbalanced force does exist which is a totally different situation than most on this forum admit to. Momentum must be conserved so the cavity must accelerate as a result. The nature of this unbalanced force is not similar to the reaction force accelerating a photon rocket although it's magnitude may or may not be.
Note that in this situation, averaging fields in the cavity will not produce the correct answer because the average removes the difference that we need to isolate. Averaging will give zero for the difference as has been calculated time and again. -
#2583 by Rodal on 05 Nov, 2017 22:25
-
As I see it, the reflection coefficient being different on the two ends of a cavity (not addressing the sidewalls, consider a cylinder) means that the internal radiation force is different on the two ends. Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls. Draw a control volume around the spacecraft. If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result. The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.
That means that an internal, unbalanced force does exist which is a totally different situation than most on this forum admit to. Momentum must be conserved so the cavity must accelerate as a result. The nature of this unbalanced force is not similar to the reaction force accelerating a photon rocket although it's magnitude may or may not be.
Note that in this situation, averaging fields in the cavity will not produce the correct answer because the average removes the difference that we need to isolate. Averaging will give zero for the difference as has been calculated time and again.
If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.
I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.
PS: The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438 -
#2584 by aero on 05 Nov, 2017 23:32
-
Quote
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass
We do know (you and I, not the imperial "We") that there is more involved. We know that RF energy is thermalized and radiated away, but that resulting force has been analyzed only as a photon rocket. Maybe the analysis should include the effect of the reflection coefficient?QuotePressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.
I'll have to take your word for that. I read the link you included and came away cross-eyed.
Aside - The EM drive seems to produce a force ... can it only be a result of some "Undiscovered Country" in physics, or is it possibly due to some simpler phenomenon that is hidden within the assumptions, like averaging, made in the mathematical analysis? I am qualified to look into the simpler phenomena at a level but not so much the heavy math of EM physics.
-
#2585 by spupeng7 on 05 Nov, 2017 23:36
-
(...)
Rodal,
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls. Draw a control volume around the spacecraft. If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result. The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.
If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.
I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.
PS: The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438
I agree, but in this case the frustum contains quanta at wavelengths of the same magnitude as the longitudinal separation of its end reflectors, and those reflectors are different sizes. If the reflections of those quanta involve conduction in those reflectors then the wider reflector will inevitably retain the momentum induced by that radiation pressure for longer than the other does.
This is the only clue we have for a force asymmetry within the frustum but it has no relevance to the motion of the whole device unless gravity or inertia have an electromagnetic origin, or electromagnetism acts by the dilation of time.
These may be hard and bitter pills to swallow but do you really prefer to wallow in paradox and to refuse to accept that there is any possibility of a solution?
My fear is that we will all cling onto our 19th century clock time until emdrive experimenters give up the fight and go away. Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. Folks are doing great work to prove the thrust readings beyond doubt but we are letting them down if we stick to a closed view of dynamics which forbids the necessity that inertia is a two way interaction with the universe. -
#2586 by ThinkerX on 06 Nov, 2017 01:17
-
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads.
I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space. Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.
I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:
1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and
2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.' Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one. Which brings me to -
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797QuoteAbstract
The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.
Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.
Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force. -
#2587 by Rodal on 06 Nov, 2017 01:46
-
...Aside - The EM drive seems to produce a force ...
...Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. ...
TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive: a force parallel to the end walls.
In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory.
Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?
The reported measured Q this time was between 40,000 to 500,000 (that is not a typo). The force vs. time looked similar to what Monomorphic has been showing.
Monomorphic:
Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Helmholtz_coil
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62151/cancel-out-earths-magnetic-field
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67822/current-to-cancel-earths-magnetic-field -
#2588 by PotomacNeuron on 06 Nov, 2017 05:49
-
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads.
I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space. Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.
I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:
1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and
2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.' Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one. Which brings me to -
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797QuoteAbstract
The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.
Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.
Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force.
Have they considered the attraction of the two wires because they were charged with different voltages?
Have they considered the Piezo effect of the material used in the capacitor?
-
#2589 by WarpTech on 06 Nov, 2017 06:07
-
...
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.
Trying for clarity here.
Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?
Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?'
Yes, but not a photon rocket with thrust Pin/c, the fully charged frustum is capable of thrusts up to Q*Pin/c. The latter is much larger (momentary) thrust than the former.
With the EM Drive, I do not see a Mach effect (yet). It's plausible, but it has not been demonstrated in a way that really hits home for me.
-
#2590 by ThinkerX on 06 Nov, 2017 07:30
-
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads.
I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space. Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.
I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:
1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and
2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.' Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one. Which brings me to -
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797QuoteAbstract
The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.
Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.
Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force.
Have they considered the attraction of the two wires because they were charged with different voltages?
Have they considered the Piezo effect of the material used in the capacitor?
I have no idea.
To me, the movement seemed minute and suspect.
But, if the wires had two different voltages, would that not constitute an asymmetry? Something required to 'produce movement' according to most of the posters here? Of course, it'd probably be the wrong sort of asymmetry. -
#2591 by ThinkerX on 06 Nov, 2017 07:34
-
...
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.
Trying for clarity here.
Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?
Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?'
Yes, but not a photon rocket with thrust Pin/c, the fully charged frustum is capable of thrusts up to Q*Pin/c. The latter is much larger (momentary) thrust than the former.
With the EM Drive, I do not see a Mach effect (yet). It's plausible, but it has not been demonstrated in a way that really hits home for me.
I find your response less than clear. Lets try again:
According to your theory, which should produce the most 'movement' - a well designed and built EM Drive, or a well designed and built photon rocket?
Again, I am seeking clarity here. -
#2592 by Monomorphic on 06 Nov, 2017 11:27
-
Monomorphic:
Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment
I'm sorry I couldn't make it. It would have been nice to meet in person. I'm looking forward to Estes Park or wherever the next one takes place!
The torsional pendulum was designed so cavities can be turned 90 degrees. However this TE013 cavity is so large, I would need to do a small modification to the bottom middle support. It would not be a problem for a smaller cavity.
As for adding Helmholtz coils, I don't see why not. It seems like it can be done economically, with simple coils of wire and a DC power source. Due to the shape of the draft enclosure I would have a hard time making the coils circular, so I would need to use square shaped coils.
-
#2593 by tleach on 06 Nov, 2017 14:01
-
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls. Draw a control volume around the spacecraft. If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result. The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.
If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.
I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.
PS: The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438
Ok, yeah, you can't put velcro at one end of a spaceship and start throwing tennis balls and expect to get anywhere. Absolutely true! But photons aren't tennis balls...
What are photons? They're really just cute little packets of energy, right? What is energy? Energy is really just a way of writing down information (1 bit is about equal to 0.69 kT, where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature of the storage medium), right? I really think we need to think outside the box (or frustum) a little bit more than we have been. If the mass and energy of the frustum (and indeed of the universe itself) is just information, then by gosh, all we're trying to do is move around a bunch (a WHOLE bunch) of 1s and 0s.
As long as we stay below the speed of light, shouldn't be a problem ;-)
What if, and I know it's a big what if, but what if the holographic principle is true. What if Erik Verlinde (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf) is right, we're all just squiggles on the cosmic horizon, and gravity is an emergent phenomenon.QuoteIf we assume that the medium outside of the region where the volume is removed is incompressible, the change in volume is given by that of a thin shell with thickness u(r) and area A(r). The sign of u(r) determines whether the change in volume was positive or negative. We further assume that the change in volume is proportional to the removed entropy SM(r).
I think (and I freely admit that I could be very wrong) what he's saying is that information and entropy can have a direct, measurable, and considerably larger influence on gravitational fields than GR would imply. I was also struck by his use of the words "elastic" and "incompressible" in the paper... Maybe, just maybe, the asymmetry of the frustum and the standing EM wave are manipulating the information/entropy content of the spherical volume around the drive.
If current models, which claim that 26.8% of the matter in the universe is dark matter (5x higher than baryonic matter), can be accounted for by treating gravity as an emergent phenomena of information and entropy gradients, then I think there's a very real possibility that this could be at least part of the "New Physics" required to fully understand the EM Drive.
Controversial new theory that could rewrite physics passes its first test:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4047500/Was-Einstein-WRONG-gravity-Controversial-new-theory-rewrite-physics-passes-test.html
First test of Verlinde’s theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03034.pdf -
#2594 by ThatOtherGuy on 06 Nov, 2017 14:28
-
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?
I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the moment
-
#2595 by Rodal on 06 Nov, 2017 15:08
-
...Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
...Quotethrowing very interesting ideas on the table
, that just appeared in my mind.
On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest reported experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the latest EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as possibly "a magnetic needle". For Monomorphic to stay current with the latest information, he would need to address this information (at whatever time he deems makes the most sense) and test the EM Drive at 90 degrees to its present orientation, to measure any force parallel to the end plates.
Sorry to be the messenger of bad news
.
It is important to stay informed...
It would have been preferable if Monomorphic would have been at the workshop to hear this information first hand and to ask further questions, but Todd "WarpTech" was also there, so you could ask WarpTech (if you want to have another viewpoint) on what he heard, and what is his understanding.
[conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]
VIEW FROM ABOVE (plane of drawing parallel to ground)
-
#2596 by RonM on 06 Nov, 2017 15:17
-
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomlydoes your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?
I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the momentQuotethrowing very interesting ideas on the table
.
On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
Sorry to be the messenger of bad news .
It is important to stay informed...
Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
-
#2597 by ThatOtherGuy on 06 Nov, 2017 15:45
-
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomlydoes your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum? In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?
Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?
Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?
I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the momentQuotethrowing very interesting ideas on the table
.
On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
Sorry to be the messenger of bad news .
It is important to stay informed...
Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
Exactly my point
-
#2598 by PotomacNeuron on 06 Nov, 2017 16:07
-
...Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
...Quotethrowing very interesting ideas on the table
, that just appeared in my mind.
On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest reported experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the latest EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as possibly "a magnetic needle". For Monomorphic to stay current with the latest information, he would need to address this information (at whatever time he deems makes the most sense) and test the EM Drive at 90 degrees to its present orientation, to measure any force parallel to the end plates.
Sorry to be the messenger of bad news .
It is important to stay informed...
It would have been preferable if Monomorphic would have been at the workshop to hear this information first hand and to ask further questions, but Todd "WarpTech" was also there, so you could ask WarpTech (if you want to have another viewpoint) on what he heard, and what is his understanding.
[conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]
My 2015 arxiv paper hypothesized that the force measured by EW's 2014 experiment was caused by Lorentz force caused by DC ground loop currents interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, ie, "magnetic needle" effect. I'd suggest the authors of the new experiment to examine and remove DC ground loop currents in their system before they look at magnetic needle effect of the frustum itself. -
#2599 by Monomorphic on 06 Nov, 2017 16:19
-
Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
Don't worry, I will be doing some test runs before any new major modifications. Adding a Helmholtz coil would be a pretty major addition and would require a lot of planning. The last remaining task I want to finish before performing more tests is to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier.
I also have the ability to move one of the laser displacement sensors to capture data along that axis, though it wont be as sensitive.
.