-
#3500 by OnlyMe on 05 Jun, 2018 18:07
-
The hoop rings have arrived.
Very important they are epoxy bounded to the outer sufrace of the frustum before it is removed from the internal flower pot form. They ensure the frustum stays round after the internal form is pulled out and gives the 0.55mm thick frustum side walls additional ridigity and strength.
Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.
Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
What material are these “hoop” rings made of? Non conductive I hope!
Though I have no real world experience with microwaves, it would seem that from other real world experience conductive hoop rings around and in contact, with the exterior surface of your very thin copper cone, would alter the electromagnetic potential of the copper in the vicinity of the rings... and add possible resonance complications?... No?
This kind of issue may be one source of the variation in results of the publicly shared experiments, where it seems every build is just a bit different that the orthers. Seemingly small design variations may contribute as much to results as the more obvious...
...... I am personally really interested in seeing Jamie’s results and comparison of the data from his printed frustum and (oyzw’s?) solid copper build. Testing and comparing the data from these two builds, on the test bed Jamie has spent so much time refining, should be interesting. Maybe if the initial data warrants it, testing a printed build that matches the dimensions of the solid copper frustum...
The skin depth of copper at 2.5GHz is around 6um. The copper is 550um thick. The hoop rings should have no effect on whar is happening inside the cavity.
While the hoop rings are steel, the copper they are sitting on is much lower resistance.
I plan on sending Jamie and Tajmar a complete cavity & Rf system to test. So no need for either to replicate.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
My point is made in your response, “The hoop rings should have no effect on whar is happening inside the cavity.“... which reduces the issue to another unknown...
The skin depth is almos always far less than than the actual diameter/thickness of an antenna and yet even bringing a conductive source near an antenna can alter it’s electromagnetic potential. So far from what I have seen in these threads virtually all if not all builds discussed have been different in one or more ways, from materials, dimensions, EM source etc. ... that makes it very difficult to know which if any falls along a “right” track, to confirm or refute any potential to reliably and repeatedly produce useable thrust. -
#3501 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2018 19:03
-
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.
Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.
-
#3502 by VAXHeadroom on 05 Jun, 2018 19:44
-
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.
Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.
Super impressive test rig - I've been following along but first time I've seen it in action.
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)
-
#3503 by LowerAtmosphere on 05 Jun, 2018 20:12
-
Congratulations to TT for providing proof of the build and his future cooperations! Stay strong and healthy, it takes nerves of steel to weather all the pedants and move forward with engineering. I am sure forum veterans are just as pleasantly surprised at the past week as I am.
Mr. "Lauwer", would you like someone to visit your lab? Me and my engineer friend who is affiliated with your institution would be glad to visit and vouch for the integrity of your equipment and methodology. The archiving project was cancelled as the imacro chrom extension became commercialized forcing me to either dip my toes in Ruby or VBA, both of which are a pain for those who do not use them.
Cheers and good wishes to the DIY warriors and their theory "enforcers" on the periphery
-
#3504 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2018 20:18
-
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)
~0.06mA is ~6.8uN. It is worth noting that the direction of the movement is with small end of the frustum leading, which is expected for this mode. -
#3505 by WhatAFeynDay on 05 Jun, 2018 21:18
-
So please - on behalf of all the hundreds (thousands?) of people reading this forum, try to work a little harder on being excellent to each other, and raise above - be the bigger person. It'll be a better thread because of it.
Let's neutrally observe some comments from the past and see if you might start to understand why so many people doubt TheTraveller's statements.
December, 2015. In the course of several months, TheTraveller claimed to have built and successfully tested an Emdrive which produced 8mN of thrust. However, he conveniently had no camera to take any pictures and destroyed all evidence of the build before showing it to anyone.
Here he is on December 12, 2015 announcing his emdrive build.
"Cutting copper next week. Using a 1.2kW Panasonic maggie, driven by a modified Panasonic maggie inverter power supply. Will be using a 5kv vac switch to remove filament power once the maggie is generating microwaves. Expect 1st Force measurements early Jan 2016."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1456505#msg1456505
He commented 10 days later, on December 22, 2015, that he was also building a second emdrive, a special one:
"I'm building a special frustum to directly measure the radiation pressure generated on each end plate."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1462922#msg1462922
No evidence of the first or second emdrive ever materialized. No pictures of any materials, no pictures of any work in progress, no pictures of completed devices, nothing.
When he returns in May of 2016 and is asked what the results of his experiment were, he replies:
~8mN, unloaded Q ~16,000, forward Rf power ~95W.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528818#msg1528818
He then asserts that he has already started building yet another emdrive, one which will produce at least 20mN of force.
"When a reaction force generation level of at least 20mN has been achieved and expected rotation of the rotary test table in a high vac has been achieved the data and video will be presented via YouTube.
Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528335#msg1528335
Again, he returns about 10 days later, this time claiming that he will soon begin commercially offering complete thruster kits for $50,000 each by the end of 2016.
"What do we get for $50,000? Just the frustum? Or will you include the RF source, test rig, and other RF test equipment?"
"Complete ready to go self contained 0.1N S band thruster including all support systems such as 250Wrf, smart freq tracker & install / operational manual. Input power can be stepped up in 250W increments to 2.5kW but at additional cost. Can be run in dumb mode by just switching On & Off external power or controlled by multi access method control port.
Clients can visit & do their own tests.
When this goes commercial, later this year, may talk to Chris about advertising on NSF."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1534541#msg1534541
He then returns in July of 2016 and claims that he has begun manufacturing spherical endplates for his various emdrive endeavours.
"The 1st 2 spherical end plate, Al machined, multi layer plated thrusters are in manufacture. So far this is all my money on the line."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1557450#msg1557450
TheTraveller then shows up on a different web site in December of 2016, where he makes no mention of any of his previous claims, yet makes a new announcement that he will now be building "replicator drives" based on several other experiments:
"Have bought enough sheet copper to have 4 - 6 frustum designs laser cut at the same time. Plan to build:
1) My EBay $500 KISS copper frustum
2) Paul's copper frustum
3) Prof Yang's copper frustum
4) Dave's copper frustum
5) Michelle's copper frustum
and excite them all with a 100W Rf amp and S11 freq tracker in TE01x mode via a 1/4 wave side wall mounted stub antenna as it is the simplest to build and align.
Will then post videos and photos of the 5 builds and the test results.
Idea is to replicate the 4 above thrusters, plus build the KISS unit and show the static thrust that they generate on my digital scale.
If there is anybody out there that has built a working EmDrive and would like me to replicate it, please PM me to ensure I have your correct dimensions and excited mode.
(link to external web site omitted as I have been previously admonished not to link to particular sites)
By this time, he has apparently abandoned the build he made such grand claims about in May. No mention of the spherical endplates he previously claimed to have manufactured. No mention of his $50,000 commercial emdrive production which was to commence by the end of 2016.
Nobody needs to be admonished to be the bigger person here, we have been giving TheTraveller the benefit of the doubt for literally YEARS. For him to now show up with some pictures of lumber clumsily cobbled together whilst making the same tired claims should test many people's patience, and I cannot fault anyone who doubts the veracity of his assertions. -
#3506 by rq3 on 05 Jun, 2018 23:17
-
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)
~0.06mA is ~6.8uN. It is worth noting that the direction of the movement is with small end of the frustum leading, which is expected for this mode.
Jaime, this is the most fantastic piece of equipment I've seen since C.L. Stong wrote "The Amateur Scientist" for Scientific American. It certainly qualifies for an honorary doctorate from MIT, whether the results are positive or negative. Your perserverance and attention to detail across disparate levels of physics and engineering are to be commended.
A thought. Years ago I recommended that, since there is no theory as to why the EmDrive might work, experimentors may be chasing the wrong, or perhaps second or even third order, effects. My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop, or even a frequency locked loop. Phase locked loops are common in the radio frequency world (indeed, your signal generator contains one).
From your videos, it appears that you have enough real time date, and the processing power, to have the displacement sensor drive and regulate the synthesizer for maximum torsion pendulum displacement in close to real time. The return loss may go to hell in a handbasket, but absolutely no one knows if Q really has anything to do with thrust.
It just seems to me that you have two parameters in this experiment. An input frequency, and perhaps phase, that you can control, and an expected result, displacement, that should be a direct result of the input. Directly linking the two in a "force locked loop" should give you maximum possible thrust. All of the other measurements would then be "experimental artifacts" that might yield further valuable data, but are not necessarily important as control elements in and of themselves.
In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".
One other thought. I believe you mentioned in your first video that the torsion wire is 14 gauge? Is that the minimum size that will support the weight? The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the pendulum. A 32 gauge steel guitar string (0.009 inches diameter) will support around 30 pounds.
I'm in awe of your dedication, effort, and results. -
#3507 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2018 23:49
-
In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".
One other thought. I believe you mentioned in your first video that the torsion wire is 14 gauge? Is that the minimum size that will support the weight? The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the pendulum. A 32 gauge steel guitar string (0.009 inches diameter) will support around 30 pounds.
Thank you for the kind words. My understanding is this can all be done using LabView. It requires integrating the relays, signal generator software, and the ADC - though that is no easy task for someone just beginning with the software.
Fortunately sample LabView virtual instruments are available for my equipment, so it is just a matter of time before I can try things like force locked loops.
I used #14 piano wire, which is 0.033 inches in diameter. Depending on the weight of the pendulum, which in my case tops out around 25 lbs, #14 seemed to be the best fit. I believe my #14 wire can hold 250 lbs, but per Dr. Rodal, the weight at which it becomes elastic is 50 lbs. You are correct that using either a thinner wire, or increasing the wire length will increase the sensitivity of the rig. However, i'm nearly at the limit of my LDS resolution. Easiest way to upgrade now is to purchase a better LDS. There is one available that will work with my ADC that has double the resolution (1.5nm) of my current LDS (3nm). But it is nearly $400. Any better than that and I will need to get a better ADC. -
#3508 by flux_capacitor on 05 Jun, 2018 23:54
-
My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop
The force-loop feedback is a very interesting idea.
Let's suppose the anomalous thrust is real.
Suppose there are also other spurious forces at play (it's not really a supposition as we know this is the case).
Suppose that one of these spurious forces, a thermal effect for example, pushes the frustum small end leading, due to dynamical forces acting upon the frustum and the balance system, not so easy to understand at first.
Suppose this spurious force is quite tiny (Monomorphic has done a great job isolating his test apparatus), but suppose that the genuine thrust is also quite tiny, so these two forces are of the same magnitude, and add up.
Suppose there is about, say, 40-50 % of the main force due to a genuine propellantless thrust, and 50-60% due to a thermal artifact (or even a larger proportion of that).
How would a "force locked loop" react in this kind of situation? Wouldn't it be decoyed and seek something in a wrong direction that would lead to nowhere, the force initially produced eventually vanishing quickly?
Different story if 1) the "real" force does exists, ie. it has no mundane origine, and 2) spurious forces that also exist are kept well below the strength of the genuine one… but how to know? It seems some data is mandatory to evaluate the different forces before that force-loop feedback. Then maybe it could compare with the lowest VSWR solution. -
#3509 by VAXHeadroom on 06 Jun, 2018 00:11
-
My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop
The force-loop feedback is a very interesting idea.
Let's suppose the anomalous thrust is real.
Suppose there are also other spurious forces at play (it's not really a supposition as we know this is the case).
Suppose that one of these spurious forces, a thermal effect for example, pushes the frustum small end leading, due to dynamical forces acting upon the frustum and the balance system, not so easy to understand at first.
Suppose this spurious force is quite tiny (Monomorphic has done a great job isolating his test apparatus), but suppose that the genuine thrust is also quite tiny, so these two forces are of the same magnitude, and add up.
Suppose there is about, say, 40-50 % of the main force due to a genuine propellantless thrust, and 50-60% due to a thermal artifact (or even a larger proportion of that).
How would a "force locked loop" react in this kind of situation? Wouldn't it be decoyed and seek something in a wrong direction that would lead to nowhere, the force initially produced eventually vanishing quickly?
Different story if 1) the "real" force does exists, ie. it has no mundane origine, and 2) spurious forces that also exist are kept well below the strength of the genuine one… but how to know? It seems some data is mandatory to evaluate the different forces before that force-loop feedback. Then maybe it could compare with the lowest VSWR solution.
Sounds like an ideal job for a genetic algorithm.
-
#3510 by flux_capacitor on 06 Jun, 2018 00:28
-
There is one available that will work with my ADC that has double the resolution (1.5nm) of my current LDS (3nm). But it is nearly $400. Any better than that and I will need to get a better ADC.
I don't remember, is there a reason why you would not want to crowdfund your project at this point?
With the kind of stunning experimental setup you managed to achieve over the months (and yes, this is really really impressive, thank you so much for doing this) and the clean video you recorded to explain this and that on YouTube (you express yourself well, you clearly know what you are talking about – and this is no simple stuff, you explain complicated things with simple words, no show off…) I wouldn't be surprised if you collected many $$$ with crowdfunding (rfmwguy got several thousand dollars with "just" a magnetron soldered on a cavity, a laser pointer, an IR camera and a very long underdamped suspended arm). I am sure that with Kickstarter or Indiegogo, and a proper communication on social medias and science news websites, as well as our active support, you would push the limits to infinity and beyond
Fear to raise too much $$$ with such a campaign? Then let's order a very high Q precisely spun-machined electropolished spherical end plate frustum with no seam built by a professional. But don't be surprised if Drs White and Tajmar knock at your door after that
Whatever, you'll see what you want to do after your first results with your calibrated setup, whether they are positive, null or negative. For now, let's begin with that. -
#3511 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2018 00:44
-
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.
During that time the frustum will be built, internal surfaces highly polished and the stub antenna coupler built.
When it arrives can then do a rtn loss freq sweep, find the TE013 freq, verify the mode is TE013 using an E field probe & then tune the coupler to lowest VSWR.
How the excited mode can be verified has never been discussed here, as far as I know. It will be an interesting discussion. What I will share is a very simple to build and use tool that ensures you have found the freq of the desired mode. Many just assume a freq is an expected mode. However using the technique I'll share, any DIY builder can easily determine the excited mode.
Self resonance of Rf systems is a real effect. Being able to verify the mode that is being excited eliminates concern the rtn loss dip the VNA found is really an internal cavity resonance and not a Rf system resonance.
Many little items / effects need to line up to achieve good force generation. Get one or more wrong and the generated force may be zero or very small.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows -
#3512 by meberbs on 06 Jun, 2018 02:56
-
How excited mode can be verified has never been discussed hete, as far as I know.
It has been discussed more than once. Simplest way which has been put into practice is simply IR images to compare to expected surface currents. Some modes are more difficult to distinguish, and the ability to do so depends on heat conductance and emissivity of the cavity external surfaces, as well as overall power level.
I don't know if it has been suggested here, since I didn't follow the relevant discussion closely, but a general method would involve measuring the fields inside the cavity, through antennas placed in various locations, or otherwise moveable. (Some modes could use sensors in the center of the cavity to verify well.) This obviously is complicated to set up, so I am not sure anyone has done it.It just seems to me that you have two parameters in this experiment. An input frequency, and perhaps phase, that you can control, and an expected result, displacement, that should be a direct result of the input. Directly linking the two in a "force locked loop" should give you maximum possible thrust. All of the other measurements would then be "experimental artifacts" that might yield further valuable data, but are not necessarily important as control elements in and of themselves.
A good idea, which can be implemented, but needs some serious consideration to do well.
In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".
The biggest difficulty is that for an active control loop, displacement is not equal to force. The spring constant and damping need to be characterized (will be done anyway). The displacement needs to be used to estimate the current velocity, and then both the velocity and the displacement need to be used together to determine the current expected dynamic motion to estimate the actual applied force by the system (really net acceleration, which also has to be estimated from displacement). This is all doable, and probably can be done well with the right algorithms. The difficulty will be that the resulting "current force" estimate may end up with a lot of noise in it, since you will be taking multiple derivatives to get velocity and then acceleration.
To answer flux_capacitor's question above, I don't think error sources that are not correlated with frequency should be a problem. (note that if an amplifier draws variable current with input frequency, and the power wires are generating a magnetic force, this will make that frequency dependent.) Phase locked loop is a technique used to keep 2 things the same. In this case, you actually just have one thing and you want to maximize it. There is some similarity in the algorithm, and the name "force locked loop" seems appropriate, but it should only be sensitive to things that change with frequency. Some time varying signals (or noise in the estimator) could cause a problem sometimes if you get unlucky. -
#3513 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2018 03:05
-
Nobody needs to be admonished to be the bigger person here, we have been giving TheTraveller the benefit of the doubt for literally YEARS. For him to now show up with some pictures of lumber clumsily cobbled together whilst making the same tired claims should test many people's patience, and I cannot fault anyone who doubts the veracity of his assertions.
Have explained I entered into a contract with a mid size EU based aerospace company to develop a TRL 9 thruster for satellite use. That contract required my silence. Our EmDrive based satellite thruster will soon be tested in space and is expected to be commercially released toward the end of 2019. BTW I did sell them 4 of the spherical S Band thrusters.
I always wanted to return to the KISS thruster project and after some discussion, a way to do that was agreed.
The rotary test rig I'm building will work very well as you can see from the Emmett video. You call it clumsily cobbled together. I call it KISS engineering designed for the DIY replicator.
Stay tuned as I roll out each step of the KISS thruster project, explaining how to do it and why doing it the way indicated is important to the final result.
Building and testing an EmDrive is a detailed and somewhat complex process with each step of the process needing to be correct and understood why it neeeds to be done that way.
Many have failed, many have achieved some force generation but none have gone public with good force results. That waste of time and money is now going to stop. Just about everybody with moderate mechanical and electrical skill sets should be able to replicate the KISS thruster, rotary test rig and Rf excitation system and see their effort and funds going round and round on their rotary test rig.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
-
#3514 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2018 03:24
-
I don't know if it has been suggested here, since I didn't follow the relevant discussion closely, but a general method would involve measuring the fields inside the cavity, through antennas placed in various locations, or otherwise moveable. (Some modes could use sensors in the center of the cavity to verify well.) This obviously is complicated to set up, so I am not sure anyone has done it.
Close.
Drill a small hole into the centre of the big end plate.
Obtain a short section of thin, very stiff and straight GHz rated coax.
Put an SMA male connector on one end.
At the other end expose a small length, say 1mm of the inner wire beyond the shield.
Connect the SMA end of the coax to a 40dB attenuator. May need more or less but start with 40dB.
Connect the other end of the attenuator to a freq scanner.
Excite the cavity at the freq you wish to test for the excited mode. Best to use as low power as possible to avoid overloading the freq scanner input. Which is why you need to use an attenuator on the input to the freq scanner.
Insert the exposed end of the coax E probe in through the small hole in the big end plate.
While moving the probe tip around inside the cavity, use the scanner to record the E field intensity and variations.
Repeating the above, mapping the E field lobes of the excited mode.
For TE013 there should be 3 very defined circular E field lobes as per the TE013 simulations.
Anything else and the excited mode is not TE013.
You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.
Will soon demonstrate this process.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows -
#3515 by mrmittens on 06 Jun, 2018 04:44
-
The archiving project was cancelled as the imacro chrom extension became commercialized forcing me to either dip my toes in Ruby or VBA, both of which are a pain for those who do not use them.
I am well versed in ruby. It is quite an elegant language once you get to know it, with a very friendly community.
What is the archiving project? -
#3516 by Monomorphic on 06 Jun, 2018 11:15
-
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.
I would have gone with the Windfreak SynthNV2. For an extra $120 you get so much more. 18dB of drive vs -6dB. So if you expect to use it or the cheap chinese signal generator (-10dB drive), you will need a pre-amp to get the full 100W from your amplifier - which adds complexity.
Remember that I also own the miniVNA tiny and don't you recall that it would return ridiculous numbers for return loss, like -50 to -60dB? The only thing is it useful for is the Smith Chart function, IMHO. The cheaper + version you ordered doesn't seem to have many changes except access to lower bandwidth.
I also hope you purchased the calibration kit because you will need it to get the miniVNA to work. -
#3517 by Monomorphic on 06 Jun, 2018 12:02
-
Volume fixed in the second video in case anyone had trouble hearing:
-
#3518 by glennfish on 06 Jun, 2018 13:32
-
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.
Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.
Data content looks good. Couple of minor suggestions/questions. What's the A/D resolution on each channel? Can you increase the sample rate? i.e. your ambient RF channel rise & fall times are awfully slow sample speeds. Don't know if it will ever matter, but transient events or simple power on/off events may have ringing which could matter which can't be seen at your current sample rates.
-
#3519 by Monomorphic on 06 Jun, 2018 13:45
-
Data content looks good. Couple of minor suggestions/questions. What's the A/D resolution on each channel? Can you increase the sample rate? i.e. your ambient RF channel rise & fall times are awfully slow sample speeds. Don't know if it will ever matter, but transient events or simple power on/off events may have ringing which could matter which can't be seen at your current sample rates.
With a little processing, it seems I can get some pretty good data. I am having a voltage issue with the amplifier temp skipping, but that can be subtracted easily. Overall, I'm very pleased with the quality of the data collected on the first run.
Two things I noted is that the pendulum appears a little over-damped. That is easy to fix by lowering the damping fluid reservoir. And second that the 6.8uN of thrust appears to be mostly related to the temperature of the 30W RF output GaAs FET...
Fortunately sample LabView virtual instruments are available for my equipment, so it is just a matter of time before I can try things like force locked loops. 
