-
#40 by TheTraveller on 17 Oct, 2019 17:34
-
I thought each replicator would have a different set of equipment, the same kind perhaps but not the literal same setup.
Hi Bob,
Each verifier does have their own test rig but without the ability to cogenerate a short external accelerative force small end forward.
Without modification, their test rigs would not measure any thrust. Giving them a Flight Thruster & RF system to test would be a waste of everybody's time.
The plan is to train them on how to setup the Flight Thruster, the RF system & test rig plus how to properly set up the resonant frequency tracking system, the system to vary the RF power & pulse width modulation. All of which will be new to them.
Only when they are comfortable at measuring thrust, using the supplied kit, we will move on to modifying their test rig to accommodate their Flight Thruster and start doing thrust measurements on their test rig.
The EmDrive is not like a rocket. It's "exhaust" is wavelength increased photons with less momentum than when created. If the EmDrive is restricted from acceleration, there is no thrust generation, no momentum transfer photon to EmDrive & no increased photon wavelength. It's operational characteristics are highly unusual & thinking it has the same operational characteristics as a normal space craft thruster is the wrong approach. -
#41 by kenny008 on 17 Oct, 2019 20:58
-
Sorry, I should have followed this closer.
...
I have asked for comments on how this test setup can deliver false positives of around 50mN or 5g? This expected force is 500x larger than EagleWorks achieved.
...
Can you please explain where you are getting your 50mN value? Have you already tested this yourself, and you were able to see a 50mN force?
Hi Kenny,
Make that 40mN or 4g at 150Wrf input.
It is an expected value based on past Flight Thruster testing done by Roger as attached.
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf page 35.
Looking at that graph, you're saying that Roger has demonstrated a thruster with over 17g of force? With this much thrust, is there some reason that Roger has not been able to convince pretty much any current physicist that his device works? It seems like it would be trivial to set up his device and video record an easy-to-see demonstration. I mean, 17g of force should be well above the noise floor. Why has he not done this and put this to rest?
And is there some reason you yourself have not done this? You seem to have a firm grasp of Roger's theories and mechanical set-up.
The costs for this demo ($20,000 I think you said?) would be a trivial cost compared to the rewards.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why you've spent so much time and energy trying to convince people that this works, when you have a 4g thruster available at your fingertips. Fire it up, record it, and put it out there. Let people give suggestions (like they did for Monomorphic and Shells) and prove everyone how it works. -
#42 by cvbn on 18 Oct, 2019 00:01
-
#43 by meberbs on 18 Oct, 2019 02:01
-
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1184942152243175424
McCulloch posted expected force here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
The predictions were 1 uN and 1 mN. Presumably this was the 1uN, but off by order of magnitude is not "consistent." -
#44 by RotoSequence on 18 Oct, 2019 02:06
-
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1184942152243175424
McCulloch posted expected force here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
The predictions were 1 uN and 1 mN. Presumably this was the 1uN, but off by order of magnitude is not "consistent."
That all depends on the size of the error bars, really. -
#45 by meberbs on 18 Oct, 2019 04:08
-
True, but even with very large error bars, the best this could indicate would be "not completely disproven."McCulloch posted expected force here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
The predictions were 1 uN and 1 mN. Presumably this was the 1uN, but off by order of magnitude is not "consistent."
That all depends on the size of the error bars, really. -
#46 by JohnFornaro on 18 Oct, 2019 11:56
-
4) Once I certain the verifier can independently do all the above, then over to them to do the actual tests.
Them pushing the "run" button or flipping the switch on a signal generator rather than you should have no result on the results of the test.
Can you explain how the simple act of a different person "flipping the switch" would change the results of the test so as to demonstrate thrust? When I twist the ignition switch in one of my tractors, it starts. When my son twists the ignition switch in the exact same tractor, it starts.
Even if I leave the room. Shed in this case.ALL of the verifiers are experienced EmDrive builders & testers.
So, you only invite choir members to the sermon?
-
#47 by Bob012345 on 18 Oct, 2019 18:15
-
4) Once I certain the verifier can independently do all the above, then over to them to do the actual tests.
Them pushing the "run" button or flipping the switch on a signal generator rather than you should have no result on the results of the test.
Can you explain how the simple act of a different person "flipping the switch" would change the results of the test so as to demonstrate thrust? When I twist the ignition switch in one of my tractors, it starts. When my son twists the ignition switch in the exact same tractor, it starts.
Even if I leave the room. Shed in this case.ALL of the verifiers are experienced EmDrive builders & testers.
So, you only invite choir members to the sermon?
If the same results occur on a different setup in a different location, that should be considered confirming data if it's a good, clean setup and the testers are competent. But often it's not. -
#48 by TheTraveller on 20 Oct, 2019 09:03
-
Here is the requested background force data:
+- 14mg of force.
When the Flight Thruster is on the scale, 174mg weight on the scale, +- external vibration of 14mg is significant.
Plus the scale compression of 174mg, ie stored potential energy in the spring, adding to the upward acceleration adds to the effect.
When the the Flight Thruster is not on the scale and this external vibration force is applied to 10kg of total balance beam mass, it is not significant. Plus there is no potential upward force stored in the scale spring.
Which explains the observed data of case 2 & 3.
No new physics required.
No magic.
-
#49 by TheTraveller on 20 Oct, 2019 09:26
-
4) Once I certain the verifier can independently do all the above, then over to them to do the actual tests.
Them pushing the "run" button or flipping the switch on a signal generator rather than you should have no result on the results of the test.
Can you explain how the simple act of a different person "flipping the switch" would change the results of the test so as to demonstrate thrust? When I twist the ignition switch in one of my tractors, it starts. When my son twists the ignition switch in the exact same tractor, it starts.
Even if I leave the room. Shed in this case.ALL of the verifiers are experienced EmDrive builders & testers.
So, you only invite choir members to the sermon?
Data is data.
Are you suggesting the verifiers will report false results?
Please consider, they do have credibility and know what they are doing.
2 have not yet reported any positive results.
1 reported 100uN of positive results but that result was called rubbish by those who's back pockets may suffer from positive results. -
#50 by JohnFornaro on 20 Oct, 2019 13:00
-
4) Once I certain the verifier can independently do all the above, then over to them to do the actual tests.
Them pushing the "run" button or flipping the switch on a signal generator rather than you should have no result on the results of the test.
Can you explain how the simple act of a different person "flipping the switch" would change the results of the test so as to demonstrate thrust? When I twist the ignition switch in one of my tractors, it starts. When my son twists the ignition switch in the exact same tractor, it starts.
Even if I leave the room. Shed in this case.ALL of the verifiers are experienced EmDrive builders & testers.
So, you only invite choir members to the sermon?
1. Data is data.
2. Are you suggesting the verifiers will report false results?
Please consider, they do have credibility and know what they are doing.
3. Have not yet reported any positive results.
4. Reported 100uN of positive results but that result was called rubbish by those who's back pockets may suffer from positive results.
1. Thanks. It may actually be the case here that few posters understand this general concept.
2. No, I am not suggesting that the "verifiers" will report false reports. In the example I gave, either me or my son twisting the ignition switch in the tractor will give the same result. I'm pretty sure you are saying that each "verifier" will be provided with the exact same tractor... errr... experimental apparatus. Correct me if I'm wrong; may I ask if you expect each "verifier" to report different results?
3. You haven't reported any positive results? What then are you reporting?
4. Oh. Not only are you not yet reporting any "positive results", you are also reporting some "100uN of positive results". And by "back pockets", I assume you refer to funding. If that's the case, you are sadly mistaken about funding. Probably, within about 24 hours of independent replication of an unambiguous measured signal of the MAch Gravity Anomaly [Ahem, MAGA], an alphabet soup agency of the USG will contact the experimenters and replicators, and they will offer to provide something along the lines of 3-Commas worth of funding to develop the concept in a useful, pragmatic fashion. Sadly, there is the real liklihood of sternly worded NDA's in that hypothetical commercial exchange. -
#51 by TheTraveller on 20 Oct, 2019 13:12
-
3. Have not yet reported any positive results.
Hi John,
Goal is to replicate or not Roger's Flight Thruster data as reported in:
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf -
#52 by meberbs on 20 Oct, 2019 19:28
-
Here is the requested background force data:
The request was for what force is the minimum required, not what was the actual force in a specific experiment. Also, since this is greater than the actual claimed force produced in your second attachment, it basically is saying that the signal would have actually not have been measureable. And since more weight was supported by the scale than the force supposed to be produced, according to the chart in your second attachment, the setup you presented data for should not have been able to measure emDrive force. (Of course this doesn't make sense, because it is based on the inherent self-contradiction in that table.)
+- 14mg of force.When the Flight Thruster is on the scale, 174mg weight on the scale, +- external vibration of 14mg is significant.
The force from the spring is no different from the force from the other end of the balance beam which will be present, and exactly offset the weight of the device. It is rather impressive in a way that Shawyer built a setup with that large of noise, but there is no evidence that there would be any less if the drive was purely supported by the balance beam.
Plus the scale compression of 174mg, ie stored potential energy in the spring, adding to the upward acceleration adds to the effect.When the the Flight Thruster is not on the scale and this external vibration force is applied to 10kg of total balance beam mass, it is not significant. Plus there is no potential upward force stored in the scale spring.
Please go look up how to do a force balance. The other end of the beam in this case would be providing just as much upward force, and without the relatively rigid scale in the way I would expect if anything vibrations to have a larger amplitude.Which explains the observed data of case 2 & 3.
What observed data?
The data you provided here indicates that the setup wasn't even compatible with the description in your second attachment, and I also remember seeing a full presentation with the data attached, and it didn't even come close to matching the claims in the table.No new physics required.
Then the emDrive does not work. It has already been explained to you multiple times that the emDrive working is the literal definition of breaking conservation of momentum, unless you can point to something expelled from the drive that carries away momentum (and this can't be EM waves, because those cannot support the required energy to momentum ratio.)
No magic. -
#53 by rfmwguy on 21 Oct, 2019 18:23
-
The Maxwell equation defense shield is alive and well. Funny, can't seem to find any reference to mass his equations...now, photons have been argued to have mass as their momentum is transferred to solar sails. Or was it Radiation Pressure? Pressure? Now wonder how massless particles or waves impart momentum?
Maxwell's equations do not need modifications, they just should be ignored in most advanced space propulsion discussions. -
#54 by meberbs on 21 Oct, 2019 18:39
-
The Maxwell equation defense shield is alive and well. Funny, can't seem to find any reference to mass his equations...now, photons have been argued to have mass as their momentum is transferred to solar sails. Or was it Radiation Pressure? Pressure? Now wonder how massless particles or waves impart momentum?
And under what specific conditions do you propose that Maxwell's equations "should be ignored" (I read that phrase as equal to "do not work")? Extremely high fields? low fields? specific frequencies? If you can't answer this question, then what you are saying here is basically that you don't care how the universe actually works and that we should just make up random things if we don't like the constraints imposed by actual observations, measurements, and experiments.
Maxwell's equations do not need modifications, they just should be ignored in most advanced space propulsion discussions.
Are you denying that radiation pressure is a thing? Because it has been measured in the lab, and solar sails have been demonstrated in orbit, and it is predicted by Maxwell's equations.
The specifics of the actual definition of "massless" and why photons can be massless, but still carry momentum I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1997512#msg1997512
The specific way to show the relationship between Maxwell's equations and momentum conservation can be found in textbooks, but has also been previously discussed by Rodal here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438 -
#55 by kenny008 on 21 Oct, 2019 19:18
-
The Maxwell equation defense shield is alive and well. Funny, can't seem to find any reference to mass his equations...now, photons have been argued to have mass as their momentum is transferred to solar sails. Or was it Radiation Pressure? Pressure? Now wonder how massless particles or waves impart momentum?
Maxwell's equations do not need modifications, they just should be ignored in most advanced space propulsion discussions.
I think it's a bit premature to throw out Maxwell's equations at this stage in "advanced space propulsion discussions." What you're describing are well-established concepts, backed up by years of meticulous experiments. Heck, we just had a solar sail in orbit, working just as physics said it should. We can't just throw that away yet.
Once we have a thruster that actually demonstrates thrust above noise levels, with all other sources of error checked and removed, I am more than willing to look beyond Maxwell's equations if that's where the evidence leads. However, we are nowhere close to that point yet. The only people who have actual working devices have NDA's, no longer have their devices, couldn't reproduce the effect, have promised to do so for years but have not, etc.
I honestly wish we'd stop debating the theory. It's not time for that yet. Meberbs especially has lent his time to explain why currently accepted physics theories just do NOT support these devices as built / described. After the device is shown to work, there will be PLENTY of help from physics community to develop and refine the actual theory of operation!
I'd like to go back to when you and Shells were doing such a fantastic job of device assembly and testing. Those were interesting times. It was awesome to see the transparent attempts to quantify what exactly is happening, removing error sources and refining measurements. I kept coming back to this thread every day, seeing how those experiments were coming.
Let's get some hard data before we start throwing shade at over a century of proven physics
-
#56 by TheTraveller on 22 Oct, 2019 01:46
-
Roger Shawyer is presenting his latest EmDrive test results at IAC 2019.
EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, Experimental Results and a Moon Mission.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/48783/summary/
If you are at IAC stop by, have a listen & say Hi to Roger.
Expect his IAC paper to be on www.emdrive.com very soon. -
#57 by SeeShells on 22 Oct, 2019 01:50
-
kenny008,
Sorry.
I'm quiet but that doesn't mean I've quit this quest to do work on a hybrid EMStyle drive. It's taken a while to save/borrow enough to get this project going. Just this last weekend we started to put up the frame after laying down the foundation for my new lab 12ft x 30ft. Getting it ready adding in insulation, wiring, security and then my equipment is going to take a couple more months.
As they say "the fat lady hasn't sung yet".
My Very Best,
Shell
-
#58 by TheTraveller on 22 Oct, 2019 02:03
-
kenny008,
Sorry.
I'm quiet but that doesn't mean I've quit this quest to do work on a hybrid EMStyle drive. It's taken a while to save/borrow enough to get this project going. Just this last weekend we started to put up the frame after laying down the foundation for my new lab 12ft x 30ft. Getting it ready adding in insulation, wiring, security and then my equipment is going to take a couple more months.
As they say "the fat lady hasn't sung yet".
My Very Best,
Shell
Hi SeaShells,
Glad to learn you have not retired.
You have reviewed Roger's detailed Flight Thruster engineering report?
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
It is all there. I'm building several of these thrusters, RF systems & test rigs plus have 4 verifiers willing to give it a go on the supplied test rig & then on their own test rig.
If you are willing to be involved, the door is open. -
#59 by kenny008 on 22 Oct, 2019 02:43
-
kenny008,
I’m so happy to hear that! I knew you had been working on your lab, but hadn’t realized how extensive the project. Please keep us all updated.
Sorry.
I'm quiet but that doesn't mean I've quit this quest to do work on a hybrid EMStyle drive. It's taken a while to save/borrow enough to get this project going. Just this last weekend we started to put up the frame after laying down the foundation for my new lab 12ft x 30ft. Getting it ready adding in insulation, wiring, security and then my equipment is going to take a couple more months.
As they say "the fat lady hasn't sung yet".
My Very Best,
Shell
