-
#280
by
TheTraveller
on 17 Jun, 2017 00:11
-
Should add that Roger was invited to present the PPT at the UK Defence Academy:
http://www.da.mod.uk/Informing future UK Defence officers of that they will need to deal with in coming years?
-
#281
by
Monomorphic
on 17 Jun, 2017 01:43
-
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
-
#282
by
Rodal
on 17 Jun, 2017 03:02
-
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls
compared to the NASA and DIY builds. If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:
-
#283
by
Peter Lauwer
on 17 Jun, 2017 10:00
-
I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13! 
Without referring to the maker?
Tjsk, tjsk, tjsk. Not so nice of Roger.
-
#284
by
meberbs
on 17 Jun, 2017 13:41
-
There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field.
There is a particle associated with the magnetic force. It is called the photon.
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
As just demonstrated, you don't understand electromagnetism up to the current level of science. Before you make suggestions about unifying forces, you should learn some more. (I would need to learn more too before I can make such suggestions too. At least beyond stating that either gravity or quantum will probably need to be reformulated. I don't have an educated position on gravitons.)
-
#285
by
Star-Drive
on 17 Jun, 2017 14:36
-
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.
I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.
Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum. There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.
Jamie:
I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines. The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying
WITH the frustum as they would in free space. That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (
EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (
ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did.
Best, Paul M.
-
#286
by
Star-Drive
on 17 Jun, 2017 15:01
-
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls compared to the NASA and DIY builds. If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:
Jose':Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum. Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design. So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (
mN)? And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??
Add:
BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper. This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.
Best, Paul M.
-
#287
by
Rodal
on 17 Jun, 2017 15:10
-
...
Jose':
Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum. Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design. So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)? And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??
Add:
BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper. This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.
Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul. Excellent points. Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction. Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.
We have:
* designer(s) used much
thicker walls and end plates that NASA and DIY builds (this would enhance force according to Minotti's gravitational theory)
* designer(s) made the big end of a different material: apparently copper. Thereby
increasing the mass density by a factor of 3.3 times and the conductivity of the big end by a factor of 1.7 times.metal density (g/cm
3) Conductivity σ (S/m) at20 °C
aluminum 2.70 3.50×10
7copper 8.96 5.96×10
7(density of copper)/(density of aluminum): 3.32(conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of aluminum): 1.70
-
#288
by
Augmentor
on 17 Jun, 2017 15:51
-
Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
My distinguished Quantum Gravity,
LOL...none of the above is fully understood either. We barely can explain 5% of the universe so apparently we have a long ways to go.
Impossible? No. Improbable. Yes. (ref. Holmes Law)
Invoking Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
We are discussing emDrive producing a change in momentum. Where's inertia? Inertia is not understood. The assumption that gravity is "equivalent" to inertia keeps one from understanding the universe. Where are the closely coupled equations for gravity and inertia, especially in view of entanglement.
Is inertia equivalent to gravity? Equivalence has a limit. Keep in mind that equivalence works in gedanken where one is free to think anything. One has to look at Mach theory and perhaps other theories to understand Inertia.
Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.
Some scientists suggest a 5th force, magnetism, separate from the EM type. And there may be more forces that cannot be explained nor fit.
Did you like Gravitation and Inertia (Cuifolini and Wheeler, 1995 pp. 498)
For QG, do you prefer the QG version of Susskind or of Smolin?
David M
-
#289
by
Star-Drive
on 17 Jun, 2017 16:03
-
...
Jose':
Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum. Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design. So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)? And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??
Add:
BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper. This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.
Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul. Excellent points. Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction. Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.
Jose':
Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN.
"Fear. China and the US take an interest.
Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive
In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input
In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"
Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article? Too much mass??
BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.
Best,
-
#290
by
dustinthewind
on 17 Jun, 2017 20:08
-
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.
This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results.
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.
I think your trying to transfer energy from one antenna in the cavity to another. The other antenna is free to move in the cavity and connected to the EM Drive? This allows for contactless transfer of energy to the EM Drive?
One problem may be if the 2nd-ary antenna is free to move, and resides in a part of the cavity where a magnetic field exists, then by nature the antenna will be repelled by the changing magnetic field. Only when the antenna resides between two changing magnetic fields B-min (E-max) will it not experience any push. If the EM drive does experience a thrust it may push it into a changing magnetic field, which will push back reducing the magnitude of displacement. For very small displacements it may be negligible, so practical.
I'm not quite sure I fully understand your configuration but am making a guess at what it appears to be.
-
#291
by
dustinthewind
on 17 Jun, 2017 20:46
-
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again. The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive.
"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"
It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses. Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse. A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much. This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed.
The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container. One box can swing the other is stationary.
Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum.
The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png" The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text.
The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down. After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum. The green line is the applied force (small force). The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach. Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive.
The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude. Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement.
The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values. If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect
The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);.
The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside. Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like.
It's been a while since I looked back at this.
I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle. See attached graphic file.
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle. Sorry for multiple changes. Should be correct now.
using 30 reflections and the equation for dh and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+... ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm
It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light. The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.
Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015
I did some more work in combining the amplification of resonant force on a pendulum and the amplification of displacement via a laser reflected off a pendulum multiple times.
The ratio of displacement of the laser beam over a displacement of the pendulum give a multiplication factor showing an increased sensitivity for observation. The equation was simplified a bit to the attached image below as "dh-dl.png. z = height beam travels after many reflections, r = number of cycles the laser makes in returning to its originating mirror, dl = the physical displacement of the bottom of the pendulum, L = distance of pendulum mirror from wall mirror, t1 = initial upward angle of laser = atan(z/(r*2*L))
For 100 cycles of the laser up two parallel mirrors, counted by adjusting the angle of the laser from 1 reflection cycle to 100, we have a dh/dl amplification of displacement of the pendulum about 10200 times amplification.
a displacement of the pendulum bottom of 0.000001m would cause a deflection of the laser of about 1.02cm.
Combining this with the pendulum amplification of force to cause displacement "displacement_max"=A/(2*c*w) where A is force, c is pendulum damping constant, and "w" is resonant frequency*2*pi in radians. Assuming maximum resolvable laser beam displacemnet is 0.002m or 2mm = "displacement_max", c=0.01, w=0.5 this gives us a force sensitivity of about :
(0.002)=10200*A/(2*c*w) solving --> A=0.002*2*c*w/10200 ~ 1.96E-9 newtons using si units +- multiples of this force.
Hopefully no glaring errors here.
The device may possibly be incorporated into a vacuum and in air the resonant behavior should eliminate thermal thrust. Mu-Metal shielding should eliminate EM interference from outside/inside sources.
-
#292
by
PotomacNeuron
on 17 Jun, 2017 21:44
-
Jose':
Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum. Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design. So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)? And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??
It is more like a silver coated article than an aluminum one. If Yang made her article with brass, it makes sense to coat it with silver for lower surface electrical resistance. Look at the black residues on it. It might be silver sulfide that we often see on silverware.
Add:
BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper. This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.
Best, Paul M.
-
#293
by
TheTraveller
on 17 Jun, 2017 21:59
-
...
Jose':
Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum. Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design. So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)? And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??
Add:
BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper. This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.
Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul. Excellent points. Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction. Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.
Jose':
Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN.
"Fear. China and the US take an interest.
Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive
In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input
In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"
Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article? Too much mass??
BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.
Best,
Paul,
I agree with FlyBy that the imaged thruster is probably the unit built by Prof Yang for her last reported test. That unit was powered via a coax feed from a soild state rf amp with freq control. Her earlier units were feed via waveguide. It is clear there is a high power coax connector on the unit and a E field sensor through the big end plate.
Attached is the image FlyBy produced, which shows how close Prof Yang's build was to her drawing of the coax fed unit.
We both understand why that unit would produce little thrust, as did Prof Tajmar's very similar unit. Not a good idea to cut a large hole in the frustum side wall.
-
#294
by
Flyby
on 17 Jun, 2017 22:50
-
There are a few differences :
1) the waveguide regulator screws on the drawing sit at the top, where as the real thing has them on the side.
2) the flanges that hold the "waveguide coupling window" are a lot larger on the real thing, as opposed to the drawing.
However, at first impression, the overall proportions do seem to matchup with the drawing...
It could be they've altered the drawing slightly to make it more "readable" and easier to understand what all the components are. A top drawing the regulator screws doesn't tell much, you know.
If it is not Yang's device, then they are most certainly related, or one served as guideline for the other.
It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...
Maybe our Chinese friend, who claims to be a former student of prof. Yang, could confirm if this is the device he has been working on?
Anyway, interesting to see some new data, after all this time...
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?
-
#295
by
TheTraveller
on 17 Jun, 2017 23:32
-
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?
There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.
Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.
Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
-
#296
by
Rodal
on 17 Jun, 2017 23:49
-
....
It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...
...
Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
If the rest is silver coated, why not make the whole thing silver coated?
if it (silver coating) is good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander ?
(Silver has 6% higher conductivity than copper)
Material σ (S/m) at20 °C
Silver 6.30×10
7Copper 5.96×10
7Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06
only 6% difference in conductivity
-
#297
by
spupeng7
on 18 Jun, 2017 02:32
-
(...)
Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.
(...)
solid? All I see in QM is unresolved paradox. I do, however, like your quotes
Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
-
#298
by
spupeng7
on 18 Jun, 2017 02:41
-
(...)
Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.
(...)
In which case you could power it with your piston engine backup generator and it could fly
I like Shawyer's comment that we may end up building the airframes out of pressed steel.
-
#299
by
TheTraveller
on 18 Jun, 2017 04:55
-
Reply from Oyzw in reference to the possible image of a Prof Yang coax Rf driven EmDrive build.
Seems he has confirmed it is Prof Yang's coax fed EmDrive build.
