-
#1640 by Alex_O on 14 Oct, 2019 19:15
-
Wonder if anyone here can figure it out?
Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
-
#1641 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 19:27
-
Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
Hi Alex,
The rotating contactless RF coupler is an interesting idea.
Test data will show the coax does not introduce any significant forces.
Pumping Rf through the waveguides will introduce heating and related expansion.
Could be difficult if there is differential expansion in each of the wave guide arms.
Plus these thrusters are not cheap.
I'm getting quotes of around $20k with +-10 micron tolerance.
Please understand I'm trying not to introduce anything new.
Desire is to replicate the test rig as used by Roger as closely as possible. -
#1642 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2019 19:30
-
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."
Your opinion.
Which you are entitled to.
Test data coming soon just might paint a different picture. -
#1643 by meberbs on 14 Oct, 2019 19:38
-
You have been claiming "more data soon" for years. The only data that has shown up is better demonstrations of the emDrive not working.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."
Your opinion.
Which you are entitled to.
Test data coming soon just might paint a different picture.
It is not an opinion that Shawyer's claims are inconsistent. I just clearly explained why the chart you previously posted is self-contradictory. Shawyer has repeatedly made claims demonstrating no understanding of forces, claiming that pushing on something can make it move in the opposite direction as the push. It is literally a definition that a "working" emDrive would not obey conservation of momentum, and it is a mathematical fact that this would also result in breaking conservation of energy. All of these things have been demonstrated to you repeatedly. -
#1644 by Alex_O on 14 Oct, 2019 20:01
-
The waveguides can be replaced with a cable, but the idea is retained when the RF supply point is on the axis of rotation of the balancer and the possible power loads from the RF source are perpendicular to the main plane of the resonator movement.Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
Hi Alex,
The rotating contactless RF coupler is an interesting idea.
Test data will show the coax does not introduce any significant forces.
Pumping Rf through the waveguides will introduce heating and related expansion.
Could be difficult if there is differential expansion in each of the wave guide arms.
Plus these thrusters are not cheap.
I'm getting quotes of around $20k with +-10 micron tolerance.
Please understand I'm trying not to introduce anything new.
Desire is to replicate the test rig as used by Roger as closely as possible. -
#1645 by TheTraveller on 15 Oct, 2019 04:31
-
Roger is a clever lad.
Using the scales compressed spring plus external vibration transmitted to the thruster, directly through the table & scale to provide the initial external small end forward force to cause internal Doppler shift.
This direct connection pathway is not damped by the oil damper at the other end of the balance beam.
In the 0.5g load case, vibration triggers the initial motor mode. Then as acceleration just starts, reducing the weight on the compressed spring, it released some of it's stored potential energy to the thruster, giving it additional & sustained external upward force, which continues as a positive feedback loop until the thruster has lifted off the scale, to fully engaged self sustained acceleration in motor mode, that is until the other end of the balance beam hits the stop.
Very clever test setup.
Of course in the 0g load example, this initial external force pathway is not working, so there is no force generation as the thruster is not accelerating.
So no mystery with the 3 load results, just EmDrive physics.
-
#1646 by TheTraveller on 15 Oct, 2019 04:45
-
You have been claiming "more data soon" for years. The only data that has shown up is better demonstrations of the emDrive not working.
It is not an opinion that Shawyer's claims are inconsistent. I just clearly explained why the chart you previously posted is self-contradictory. Shawyer has repeatedly made claims demonstrating no understanding of forces, claiming that pushing on something can make it move in the opposite direction as the push. It is literally a definition that a "working" emDrive would not obey conservation of momentum, and it is a mathematical fact that this would also result in breaking conservation of energy. All of these things have been demonstrated to you repeatedly.
More data is in Roger's IAC 2019 paper.
As for why the EmDrive doesn't break CofM, CofE nor N3 has been explained to you many times.
I do understand you do not agree with the explanations, so lets let Roger's test data speak to that.
As for my lack of information, I like Roger, are engaged in commercial EmDrive development, which limits our disclosures.
With Roger's Boeing agreement expiring, Roger decided to release a very detailed paper on how to build, excit & test a Flight Thruster.
Now that data is in the public domain, it is now possible to build working EmDrives.
Should point out that ALL the earlier public builds were guesses at how to build, excit & measure thrust.
The process is complex, so understandable that people got it wrong.
In case you have not yet read it, here is the link:
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
Roger will post his IIAC 2019 paper on www.emdrive.com ASAP.
Will keep the forum advised when that happens.
BTW according to N3, when the internal to the cavity radiation pressure generated force pushes on the big end, as the EmDrive accelerates, where is the required "Equal but Opposite" N3 force?
Just maybe it is the new to physics Shawyer Reaction Force?
I do trust you will find Roger's IAC 2019 paper of interest.
I'm sure MANY will. -
#1647 by meberbs on 15 Oct, 2019 05:29
-
As for why the EmDrive doesn't break CofM, CofE nor N3 has been explained to you many times.
No, you have never once done the trivial calculation that is the definition of conservation of momentum despite haveing been asked to repeatedly:Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?
It has everything to do with the conversation. A before and after sum of momentum is the simplest way to see if momentum is conserved. It avoids all of the little tricks you keep hiding behind while ignoring my explanations.I do understand you do not agree with the explanations, so lets let Roger's test data speak to that.
Make up any data you want right now. It is literally impossible to come up with a set of data that conserves momentum and also shows a working emDrive. Asserting that future experiments will magically solve this is simply dodging the question.Should point out that ALL the earlier public builds were guesses at how to build, excit & measure thrust.
Again, point to a single specific thing that is wrong. (Something logically consistent, not the self-contradictory things you keep posting about loads.)
The process is complex, so understandable that people got it wrong.BTW according to N3, when the internal to the cavity radiation pressure generated force pushes on the big end, as the EmDrive accelerates, where is the required "Equal but Opposite" N3 force?
The equal and opposite force is on the photons that are pushing on the big end that reverse direction as they reflect off of it, as I have explained to you repeatedly.
Just maybe it is the new to physics Shawyer Reaction Force?
To repeat myself some more, the small end (plus the side walls) cancels this out in a cavity moving at constant velocity. Also as I already explained, when there is an externally applied force accelerating the cavity, the photons net push the cavity against the external acceleration by a slight amount, with the equal and opposite reaction being the photons gaining a slight bit of momentum in the direction of the external acceleration, because they also need momentum to move with the cavity as the cavity accelerates.I do trust you will find Roger's IAC 2019 paper of interest.
The abstract already indicates he still doesn't understand the definition of the word force, so I see no reason to have any expectations. Especially since I have lost count of how many promises like this from you have fallen flat.
I'm sure MANY will. -
#1648 by Chris Bergin on 15 Oct, 2019 11:44
-
To be fair, even I - as someone who only reads this thread when the report to mod alerts turn up because someone's dissed someone's flying microwave (
) knows the deal here. TT turns up with his "Roger's amazing and has amazing info" that never really comes to light, and "let me attach that slide I'm posting for the 20th time" - it's monotonous, but most people have worked it out and ignore it. It winds some people up, but it's not against site rules, so "OMG, he's not actually saying what Roger's apparent breakthrough on this subject is!" or "He already posted that slide 20 times! I demand compensation for seeing it again" are NOT worth the 20 mods of this site seeing another e-mail saying "EM Drive - report to mod alert". Reporting to mod is reserved to breaches of site rules that require moderation action.
People are grown ups here. If someone is talking nonsense, people can work that out.
If you react with "OMG!" posts, that's only your own fault for giving that person the attention they were probably seeking.
If you ignore people you disagree with and everyone agrees with you on that score, that person will get bored of no reactions pretty fast.
Only report to mod if someone is being uncivil. Post your counters in a civil manner. Ignore them if they disagree with you etc. Trust me, if someone's going to lose posts on here it'll be the person who rants in their "you're wrong" replies.
Time for a new thread.
Locked.
New thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.0
) knows the deal here. TT turns up with his "Roger's amazing and has amazing info" that never really comes to light, and "let me attach that slide I'm posting for the 20th time" - it's monotonous, but most people have worked it out and ignore it. It winds some people up, but it's not against site rules, so "OMG, he's not actually saying what Roger's apparent breakthrough on this subject is!" or "He already posted that slide 20 times! I demand compensation for seeing it again" are NOT worth the 20 mods of this site seeing another e-mail saying "EM Drive - report to mod alert". Reporting to mod is reserved to breaches of site rules that require moderation action.