-
#1620 by Vlad Kri on 13 Oct, 2019 17:01
-
Hello dear colleague.If I resume experiments in the spring, I will record a video with comments.
There are a few issues with the design of the test rig that I can see.
First, you are not using liquid metal contacts for main power. This is a big no no as flexing and twisting of the wires can cause a false positive. It also looks like you may not have twisted all of your pairs. This can lead to lorenzt forces on the wires.
You are also using a bare magnetron with heat sink interacting with the air. Best to cover the heat sink, but then you will have overheating problems.
Have you confirmed resonance inside the cavity with an infrared camera?
I did not understand the last question. What kind of infrared camera are you talking about .I would be grateful for your clarification.
The other of the problems you have indicated are relevant only for working with EMdrive. Not for GRAVITSUP.
Firstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected. And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer. And besides this, I hang GRAVITSUP so that it rotates in one and then in the other direction. And convection currents of hot air from the magnetron are also weak. -
#1621 by meberbs on 13 Oct, 2019 18:44
-
Please consider that in the public arena no one has built, excited and tested an EmDrive as per Roger's detailed information.
Yet there is no specific information of anything sufficiently different to change the result from absolutely nothing to large forces, even without accounting for the nonsensical backwards claims from Shawyer about forces moving things in the opposite direction which is wrong by definition.
EVERY build was a GUESS at how to build, excite and test an EmDrive.So guys please throw stones at the KISS test rig as to how false positives can be generated.
Many things can't be judged without seeing the data, as there are countless ways that things might be wrong and you can only tell from the data being strange.
Not nice to hold back now and do it after the test data is released.
Some specific comments are:
-A balance beam like you are suggesting has been shown to be susceptible to all sorts of errors in a way that is hard to remove them.
-There are probably at least half a dozen different ways for spurious forces to be transmitted along the RF connection that you show depending on the details (and flipping the drive upside down would change enough that that would not eliminate this possibility.)
-There are multiple ways that thermal effects could mess with the experiment, from thermal expansion to air currents, etc.
-And to reiterate, it is simply not possible to make an exhaustive list just based on your sketches.
Also, there are potential issues with data analysis, some of which are mistakes you have demonstrated in the past:
-picking the overshoot peak as an indication of force value
-making claims about the force generation "stopping" misrepresenting the nature of the oscillations, when if your claims were correct, the data shape would be entirely different
-treating as real a force that looks to be purely a thermal or other drift effect
-ignoring strange shifts in the zero position before and after a test
-Arbitrarily flipping the signs of data due to SHawyer's self-contradictory nonsense about reaction force
-And again, Shawyer's claims about needing a preload are self-contradictory. The only way an experiment can match his claims would be to have significant errors in the experiment.
Edit: delete excess /quote tag before it breaks something. -
#1622 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2019 21:45
-
[/quote]Please consider that in the public arena no one has built, excited and tested an EmDrive as per Roger's detailed information.
Yet there is no specific information of anything sufficiently different to change the result from absolutely nothing to large forces, even without accounting for the nonsensical backwards claims from Shawyer about forces moving things in the opposite direction which is wrong by definition.
EVERY build was a GUESS at how to build, excite and test an EmDrive.So guys please throw stones at the KISS test rig as to how false positives can be generated.
Many things can't be judged without seeing the data, as there are countless ways that things might be wrong and you can only tell from the data being strange.
Not nice to hold back now and do it after the test data is released.
Some specific comments are:
-A balance beam like you are suggesting has been shown to be susceptible to all sorts of errors in a way that is hard to remove them.
-There are probably at least half a dozen different ways for spurious forces to be transmitted along the RF connection that you show depending on the details (and flipping the drive upside down would change enough that that would not eliminate this possibility.)
-There are multiple ways that thermal effects could mess with the experiment, from thermal expansion to air currents, etc.
-And to reiterate, it is simply not possible to make an exhaustive list just based on your sketches.
Also, there are potential issues with data analysis, some of which are mistakes you have demonstrated in the past:
-picking the overshoot peak as an indication of force value
-making claims about the force generation "stopping" misrepresenting the nature of the oscillations, when if your claims were correct, the data shape would be entirely different
-treating as real a force that looks to be purely a thermal or other drift effect
-ignoring strange shifts in the zero position before and after a test
-Arbitrarily flipping the signs of data due to SHawyer's self-contradictory nonsense about reaction force
-And again, Shawyer's claims about needing a preload are self-contradictory. The only way an experiment can match his claims would be to have significant errors in the experiment.
It's possible Shawyer and team have shown large forces not made public yet. I'm waiting to see what's been going on
in private. -
#1623 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 00:06
-
I did not understand the last question. What kind of infrared camera are you talking about .I would be grateful for your clarification.
Monomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.The other of the problems you have indicated are relevant only for working with EMdrive. Not for GRAVITSUP.
No, they were mostly general suggestions for any force measurement with a setup similar to yours.Firstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.
The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer.
If whether the wires are twisted affects the suspension, your setup needs to be changed so that this is not the case.And besides this, I hang GRAVITSUP so that it rotates in one and then in the other direction. And convection currents of hot air from the magnetron are also weak.
Again, asserting that an error source is weak with no evidence does not matter when you have a high sensitivity force measurement setup, and even Lorentz forces can change direction when you flip things because what matters is the orientation of the current loop that forms, and that can flip when you flip your device. -
#1624 by Vlad Kri on 14 Oct, 2019 06:32
-
Quote
Monomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.
I do not need an infrared camera because the height of the cavity is not more than the wavelengthQuoteFirstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.
I meant the GRAVITSUP has a much larger mass and, accordingly, a greater inertia and also develops a lot more traction. And is therefore much less sensitive to interference.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
-
#1625 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 07:15
-
Complete non-sequiter. One of the design guidelines for your system involves the location of concentration of energy in the cavity. The purpose of an infrared camera is to show where the energy is.QuoteMonomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.
I do not need an infrared camera because the height of the cavity is not more than the wavelength
Again, the word traction literally has no relevance to your setup. The statement that more mass mean more inertia is correct, but your use of the word traction again is wrong, and you insisting on using it again makes it seem like you didn't even read my post.QuoteFirstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.
I meant the GRAVITSUP has a much larger mass and, accordingly, a greater inertia and also develops a lot more traction. And is therefore much less sensitive to interference.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
Also, as I already explained the amount of mass you put on a torsion pendulum has no effect on its sensitivity to interference from things like magnetic forces, air currents, etc. You repeating you incorrect statement again is another point of evidence that you don't know what you are talking about, and have no interest in listening, learning, or communicating in general. Please prove me wrong on this with your next post, by acknowledging your mistakes rather than repeating them louder. (People have been posting results from torsion pendulums on this site for years, and my statements about what effect mass has on them are solidly rooted in their results and basic theory of how they work.) -
#1626 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 10:13
-
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
-
#1627 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 11:36
-
After Roger has presented his new IAC paper & made it public, I'll explain why this happens.
All totally classic physics.
And YES an EmDrive can accelerate in space without what Roger calls "A Load".
Wonder if anyone here can figure it out?
Clue?
EmDrive needs an external force to be applied small end forward before/when it initially accelerates.
Cavity thermal expansion, as used in the original test rig with 2 springs, is not involved.
-
#1628 by JohnFornaro on 14 Oct, 2019 12:27
-
For meberbs
Unfortunately I read your post. Fortunately, I read your post for the last time
Fortunately, you read his post. Unfortunately, your experiment will not work.
**************************
Here's one reason why:And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer.
If whether the wires are twisted affects the suspension, your setup needs to be changed so that this is not the case.
-
#1629 by Vlad Kri on 14 Oct, 2019 13:28
-
To JohnFornaro
Not everything happens only in the way you know about. I took accessories for my experiments from microwave ovens. If I plug in an 850 watt grill then nothing happens. It is from this that I conclude that the Lorentz force is not enough to cause the observed effects. -
#1630 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 15:17
-
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
The only reason to impose requirements such as these are if you are confident that the force is an experimental artifact rather than a real force, and you want to hide that fact.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
Also it has already been explained that the slide from Shawyer you show in your next post is is pure nonsense. It is illogical to claim that the drive doesn't move until the extra bit of mass is added on top. The drive already has its own mass being pulled down by gravity. Also, with the mass already there before the drive is turned on, the drive is being supported from underneath by the balance and is experienced no acceleration (other than the 1 g due to the equivalence principle in GR, but that is also present in all of the other cases too.)
And just because you aren't intentionally using thermal expansion does not mean that the balance would not be impacted.
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
-
#1631 by kenny008 on 14 Oct, 2019 15:27
-
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
Can you please explain where your 10-60mN force numbers come from? Are these measured values? Estimates?
If they are measured values, can you supply the data from that experiment, now that there is no embargo of the data? Is there a video or pictures of the experiment somewhere?
If they are estimates, can you explain what these estimates are based on?
It's tough to understand your post when numbers just seem to appear out of nowhere. Like any real science, there needs to be at least some kind of data to support claimed values. Sorry if I missed the post with your explanations. -
#1632 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 18:02
-
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
Can you please explain where your 10-60mN force numbers come from? Are these measured values? Estimates?
If they are measured values, can you supply the data from that experiment, now that there is no embargo of the data? Is there a video or pictures of the experiment somewhere?
If they are estimates, can you explain what these estimates are based on?
It's tough to understand your post when numbers just seem to appear out of nowhere. Like any real science, there needs to be at least some kind of data to support claimed values. Sorry if I missed the post with your explanations.
Hi Kenny,
Data is coming.
The number were supplied to show why a very simple balance beam could replace others ultra sensitive torsion balances. -
#1633 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 18:08
-
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
What happens when you put a weight on a scale?
Potential energy gets stored in the compressed spring of the scale.
What happens to that stored potential energy / compressed spring if the weight of the object is momentarily reduced?
Think about it. -
#1634 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 18:17
-
You asked all the wrong questions, the real question is what happens in the case without the mass on top. If the weight of the drive was actually being reduced, the result of the test without an extra small mass on it would have the also cause deflection to max out. Nothing internal to the drive can tell that there is a small extra mass on top, which is being balanced by the force from the scale. Claiming different results in these cases is nonsensical.This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
What happens when you put a weight on a scale?
Potential energy gets stored in the compressed spring of the scale.
What happens to that stored potential energy / compressed spring if the weight of the object is momentarily reduced?
Think about it.
Please try applying critical thinking yourself. -
#1635 by Bob012345 on 14 Oct, 2019 18:20
-
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
The only reason to impose requirements such as these are if you are confident that the force is an experimental artifact rather than a real force, and you want to hide that fact.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
Also it has already been explained that the slide from Shawyer you show in your next post is is pure nonsense. It is illogical to claim that the drive doesn't move until the extra bit of mass is added on top. The drive already has its own mass being pulled down by gravity. Also, with the mass already there before the drive is turned on, the drive is being supported from underneath by the balance and is experienced no acceleration (other than the 1 g due to the equivalence principle in GR, but that is also present in all of the other cases too.)
And just because you aren't intentionally using thermal expansion does not mean that the balance would not be impacted.
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
The only reason...It has been explained to you...Slide from Shawyer pure nonsense.... Your current post is spam....
Just because TT doesn't accept your arguments doesn't make his arguments spam. And while you have a perfect right to say Shawyer's slide is nonsense, that's not an argument everyone has to accept.
-
#1636 by Bob012345 on 14 Oct, 2019 18:25
-
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
A true PP machine would also be an energy generation machine. At least locally. There is no way around it. Energy and momentum could be conserved globally if something like the Mach Effect worked. If it worked, you could have your cake and eat it too. -
#1637 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 18:29
-
Please try applying critical thinking yourself.
EmDrive needs an external force to accelerate it, for a short time, small end forward.
Wonder where there is an external force that can make that happen when the drive is sitting on the scale?
When there is 0 weight on the drive, it is not compressing the scales spring.
Nor it is experiencing vibrations transmitted to it through the scale.
Note the scale is directly under the drive.
As Roger has stated before:QuoteA number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the
forces produced by an EmDrive thruster.
In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an increasing or decreasing background force,
generated by the test equipment itself.
Indeed, in the UK when the background force changes were eliminated, in an effort to improve force measurement resolution, no EmDrive force was measured. -
#1638 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 18:35
-
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
A true PP machine would also be an energy generation machine. At least locally. There is no way around it. Energy and momentum could be conserved globally if something like the Mach Effect worked. If it worked, you could have your cake and eat it too.
Hi Bob,
Not correct, at least for the EmDrive.
The Kinetic Energy gain of the accelerating EmDrive mass comes from the Input RF Energy.
Plus like any machine, there are thermal losses that are also supplied by the Input RF Energy.
So not even close to OU.
-
#1639 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 19:11
-
It happens in none of the pictured scenarios in all of them the emDrive has net 0 external force applied to it. the force from the spring in the scale is exactly equal to the force downwards from the mass. This does not magically change when the drive is turned on.Please try applying critical thinking yourself.
EmDrive needs an external force to accelerate it, for a short time, small end forward.
Wonder where there is an external force that can make that happen when the drive is sitting on the scale?When there is 0 weight on the drive, it is not compressing the scales spring.
The amount of vibrations experienced would not be affected in either case (actually it might feel slightly more with the nearly balanced balance beam.)
Nor it is experiencing vibrations transmitted to it through the scale.As Roger has stated before:
Shawyer has repeatedly demonstrated no understanding of the definition of force, or how to set up a decent experiment. The provided quote basically boils down to "there is no force detected except when there is an error source that prevents meaningful measurements from being taken."