-
#80 by Star One on 01 Nov, 2019 08:12
-
MET is page 15 on here & EM drive is page 16. The person who originally posted this appeared to be claiming that parts had been posted before but not the whole thing publicly.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/23/2002135778/-1/-1/0/WF_0067_HANS_JEFFERSON_WEHRLE_MOVEMENT_AND_%20MANEUVER_IN_DEEP%20SPACE_A_FRAMEWORK_TO_LEVERAG -
#81 by demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 06:33
-
Questionable Q and low power of Tajmar's apparently were enough for him to test an extreme sensitivity test bed.
Baseless accusations of intellectual dishonesty: not helpful.
Its in the noise, apparently by design...
I did not notice any mention of Q values when skimming through the paper. So what are you basing that "questionable Q" comment on? TT's post has some mentions of Q values, but that is stuff like assertions that end plates need to be curved, which is nonsense, since it has been demonstrated many times over the years that good Q values can exist with flat end plates. Any vestige of logic behind these claims has been killed by the recent cavity design TT hyped up which showed that the end plates were mostly flat, the one just had a bit of a curve near the edges, certainly not what TT has been asserting is necessary for years.
The power is apparently plenty to cause a significant thermal signal, so "more power" would also just be "more errors" until the thermal issue is addressed.
The issues with Tajmar’s original apparatus were well discussed on this forum earlier and were widely seen as ridiculous. The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!) and I seem to recall that some had done enough simulation to show that it was likely that all the energy was in the coupler and not the cavity.
I pale at the thought of what your review of the experiment would have been if you were posting back then. It was basically a graduate students best efforts at building an apparatus that would fit into a very small vacuum chamber. Kind of a summer project from what I gathered.
I am not aware of any improvements to that first attempt. But anyone citing that particular experiment as proving anything is being risible. -
#82 by RotoSequence on 04 Nov, 2019 06:42
-
The fact of the matter is, several years since these efforts kicked off, there is still no recipe to create or replicate indisputable thrust signatures from scratch. In that context, Tajmir's apparatus is irrelevant.
-
#83 by demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 07:04
-
The fact of the matter is, several years since these efforts kicked off, there is still no recipe to create or replicate indisputable thrust signatures from scratch. In that context, Tajmir's apparatus is irrelevant.
Fine. Just don’t cite Tajmar as proving anything (pro or con) -
#84 by demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 07:22
-
Roger Shawyer's 2019 IAC paper:
"EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, Experimental Results and a Moon Mission"
is available on
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC2019Paper.pdf
Plus attached.
Enjoy.
“The problem is that, unlike a rocket, but more like an electrical machine, EmDrive requires to work against a load before thrust can be measured.”
This is a key point that seems to fall on deaf ears intentionally or otherwise.
Very simply the issue at hand is the proof or falsification of Sawyer’s results. And very simply, if someone has built an apparatus and not introduced “a load” as Sawyer understands and documents then they have proven nothing. (Watching folks build their apparatus like Jamie and rmfwguy is certainly educational however.)
It is like piling up dynamite claiming it is not an explosive because it does nothing, throwing up ones hands and walking away muttering. Introducing a blasting cap with a lit fuse may confound what are otherwise very premature conclusions. -
#85 by RotoSequence on 04 Nov, 2019 07:26
-
Shaywer hasn't proved anything until someone else can reproduce his claims. Remember the kerfuffle with Cold Fusion? If other people can't replicate it, the name of the person who claims to be able to do that something is mud.
-
#86 by demofsky on 04 Nov, 2019 08:06
-
Shaywer hasn't proved anything until someone else can reproduce his claims. Remember the kerfuffle with Cold Fusion? If other people can't replicate it, the name of the person who claims to be able to do that something is mud.
Very simply, you need to prove or falsify his experiment (which I think we both agree). Based on what I have seen no one has really addressed the “the load” issue (initial movement) although Jamie seems to be going in the right direction among posters here at the moment.
I believe to do a proper scientific proof/falsification one really should also create an exact replica of Sawyers apparatus along with proper and credible operational notes. This is what I believe TheTraveler is attempting to achieve. -
#87 by Vlad Kri on 04 Nov, 2019 09:01
-
The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!)
Absolutely right. The coupler along with the cavity were a simple receiver. Together with the plate beneath them, Tajmar received GRAVITSUP. This was the reason that then he turned EMdrive thrust was maintained. -
#88 by TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 09:28
-
I believe to do a proper scientific proof/falsification one really should also create an exact replica of Sawyers apparatus along with proper and credible operational notes. This is what I believe TheTraveler is attempting to achieve.
Hi Demofsky,
That is the plan.
All contractors selected.
150W RF amp is being modified to cover 3.7-4.0GHz range & RS485 interface added.
Roger's engineering drawings are being converted into CNC files. -
#89 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 13:26
-
I was posting back then, and it was obviously a poor design, but the recent experiments from Tajmar do not use that cavity, so your entire post is irrelevant.Questionable Q and low power of Tajmar's apparently were enough for him to test an extreme sensitivity test bed.
Baseless accusations of intellectual dishonesty: not helpful.
Its in the noise, apparently by design...
I did not notice any mention of Q values when skimming through the paper. So what are you basing that "questionable Q" comment on? TT's post has some mentions of Q values, but that is stuff like assertions that end plates need to be curved, which is nonsense, since it has been demonstrated many times over the years that good Q values can exist with flat end plates. Any vestige of logic behind these claims has been killed by the recent cavity design TT hyped up which showed that the end plates were mostly flat, the one just had a bit of a curve near the edges, certainly not what TT has been asserting is necessary for years.
The power is apparently plenty to cause a significant thermal signal, so "more power" would also just be "more errors" until the thermal issue is addressed.
The issues with Tajmar’s original apparatus were well discussed on this forum earlier and were widely seen as ridiculous. The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!) and I seem to recall that some had done enough simulation to show that it was likely that all the energy was in the coupler and not the cavity.
I pale at the thought of what your review of the experiment would have been if you were posting back then. It was basically a graduate students best efforts at building an apparatus that would fit into a very small vacuum chamber. Kind of a summer project from what I gathered.
I am not aware of any improvements to that first attempt. But anyone citing that particular experiment as proving anything is being risible.
All recent citations of Tajmar refer to recent experiments that do not have the listed problems. Rejecting them because of the existence of a previous poor experiment is simply unscientific.The fact of the matter is, several years since these efforts kicked off, there is still no recipe to create or replicate indisputable thrust signatures from scratch. In that context, Tajmir's apparatus is irrelevant.
Fine. Just don’t cite Tajmar as proving anything (pro or con) -
#90 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 13:42
-
That is the opposite of any result reported by Tajmar. Please don't make things up.
The coupler was almost as large as the cavity (!)
Absolutely right. The coupler along with the cavity were a simple receiver. Together with the plate beneath them, Tajmar received GRAVITSUP. This was the reason that then he turned EMdrive thrust was maintained. -
#91 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 14:22
-
“The problem is that, unlike a rocket, but more like an electrical machine, EmDrive requires to work against a load before thrust can be measured.”
The problem is that there has been no meaningful definition given for the load requirement. Every cavity ever built has mass that the drive would do work to accelerate. And not just the walls, but also flanges and bolts. Every force measurement device I have ever heard of involves some amount of motion to perform the measurement.
This is a key point that seems to fall on deaf ears intentionally or otherwise.
Very simply the issue at hand is the proof or falsification of Sawyer’s results. And very simply, if someone has built an apparatus and not introduced “a load” as Sawyer understands and documents then they have proven nothing. (Watching folks build their apparatus like Jamie and rmfwguy is certainly educational however.)
It is like piling up dynamite claiming it is not an explosive because it does nothing, throwing up ones hands and walking away muttering. Introducing a blasting cap with a lit fuse may confound what are otherwise very premature conclusions.
So far that supposed requirement is either meaningless or non-falsifiable. If you have a meaningful statement of it please provide one. As is, it seems to be used as nothing other than an empty excuse to reject the existing data. -
#92 by TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 14:42
-
The problem is that there has been no meaningful definition given for the load requirement. Every cavity ever built has mass that the drive would do work to accelerate. And not just the walls, but also flanges and bolts. Every force measurement device I have ever heard of involves some amount of motion to perform the measurement.
So far that supposed requirement is either meaningless or non-falsifiable. If you have a meaningful statement of it please provide one. As is, it seems to be used as nothing other than an empty excuse to reject the existing data.
I have explained the external load caused the scale's spring to be compressed, storing potential energy in the spring.
Then as background noise triggered Motor mode & the EmDrive started to generate small end directed force, causing the EmDrive's weight to decrease, the spring's stored potential pushed upward on the EmDrive, due to it's lower weight, generating the required small end directed external acceleration assistance until the EmDrive lifted off the scale.
-
#93 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 16:17
-
And I have explained that without the external load, there is still the mass on the other side of the balance that also has potential energy. Vibrations are present in all experiments, so again, you have provided no criteria that is not satisfied by every experiment that has ever been performed.The problem is that there has been no meaningful definition given for the load requirement. Every cavity ever built has mass that the drive would do work to accelerate. And not just the walls, but also flanges and bolts. Every force measurement device I have ever heard of involves some amount of motion to perform the measurement.
So far that supposed requirement is either meaningless or non-falsifiable. If you have a meaningful statement of it please provide one. As is, it seems to be used as nothing other than an empty excuse to reject the existing data.
I have explained the external load caused the scale's spring to be compressed, storing potential energy in the spring.
Then as background noise triggered Motor mode & the EmDrive started to generate small end directed force, causing the EmDrive's weight to decrease, the spring's stored potential pushed upward on the EmDrive, due to it's lower weight, generating the required small end directed external acceleration assistance until the EmDrive lifted off the scale. -
#94 by JohnFornaro on 04 Nov, 2019 17:28
-
“The problem is that, unlike a rocket, but more like an electrical machine, EmDrive requires to work against a load before thrust can be measured.”
This is a key point that seems to fall on deaf ears intentionally or otherwise.
You're kidding, right?
The "load" is the measuring apparatus. Their devices should push on the measuring apparatus, which will measure the "thrust".
There could be a reason for those "deaf ears". -
#95 by rfmwguy on 04 Nov, 2019 18:04
-
I'm surprised some of tajmar supporters missed this one...there are many more:
SMA Floating feedthru: Anyone with half a Watt of hands on RF experience will know that SMAs are not only lossy but reflective at MW frequencies ESPECIALLY WITH A FLOATING GROUND. Then...it goes to a N connector assembly with GALINSTAN contacts !?. Talk about a sure bet for mismatch or worse. What is the impedance of Galinstan? Answer is, liquid is never a good choice for RF contacts of any frequency or power.
Advocacy scientism is not scientific. Especially advocacy for pet projects such as competing technologies.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=49270.0;attach=1591015;sess=47785 -
#96 by meberbs on 04 Nov, 2019 18:17
-
I'm surprised some of tajmar supporters missed this one...there are many more:
Which explains why they bothered putting a coupler with powermeters after those contacts as shown by the diagram you attached.
SMA Floating feedthru: Anyone with half a Watt of hands on RF experience will know that SMAs are not only lossy but reflective at MW frequencies ESPECIALLY WITH A FLOATING GROUND. Then...it goes to a N connector assembly with GALINSTAN contacts !?. Talk about a sure bet for mismatch or worse. What is the impedance of Galinstan? Answer is, liquid is never a good choice for RF contacts of any frequency or power.Advocacy scientism is not scientific. Especially advocacy for pet projects such as competing technologies.
No idea what you are talking about here. Are you referring to the random people who pop into this thread advocating for some other supposed propellantless device? The last couple examples of that got properly split into their own threads where they could be debunked separately.
-
#97 by TheTraveller on 04 Nov, 2019 21:15
-
And I have explained that without the external load, there is still the mass on the other side of the balance that also has potential energy. Vibrations are present in all experiments, so again, you have provided no criteria that is not satisfied by every experiment that has ever been performed.
Standard setup is to balance the beam, ie the EmDrive end of the beam neither drops no climbs.
Total mass of balance beam, EmDrive & counterweights is say 10kg.
Then place a 0.5g mass on the top of the EmDrive.
Then EmDrive end of the balance beam drops, touching the scale, compressing the scale's spring & the scale registers 0.5g.
Because of the balanced situation it only takes 0.5g of upward force to reduce the scale's measured weight to 0.0g.
Plus there is a direct background vibrational pathway, bottom of EmDrive to scale, scale to table.
So any vibrations on the table are transmitted to the almost balanced EmDrive.
With 0.5g pressing down and 14mg of vibration pressing up, the EmDrive will occasionally move up from the upward component of the vibration.
If Rf power is applied to the cavity, during one of those upper vibrational force events, the EmDrive may engage Motor Mode & start to generate an upward directed force.
When it does so, the weight sensed by the scale will drop and the scale's compressed spring will release some of it's stored potential energy, pushing the EmDrive upward.
Which will enforce the strength of Motor Mode.
So here we have an initial vibration short time trigger and a longer time release of potential energy by the scale's spring as the EmDrive starts moving upward.
When no RF is applied & the 0.5g mass is removed from the top of the EmDrive, it moves up to a balanced position, not registering any weight on the scale.
Background vibrations can only then reach the EmDrive via the central pivot, where then need to lift a 10kg mass, instead of the 0.5g mass as existed when the EmDrive was touching the scale.
In this case there is no compressed scale spring ready to push the weight reducing EmDrive upward.
Nor are there any significant vibrations as the 14mg force now needs to do work to lift a 10kg mass up a 1g gravity well.
So force generation is observed when the EmDrive is very lightly pushing down on the scale but not when the EmDrive is in a balanced state.
-
#98 by Monomorphic on 04 Nov, 2019 21:20
-
I'm surprised some of tajmar supporters missed this one...there are many more:
I would agree that the galinstan liquid metal RF contact needs to be better characterized. This is especially the case since Tajmar has not shown any infrared images of his cavity heating up during tests. NASA showed infrared images, rfmwguy had infrared images, and I had infrared images. These images would show pretty conclusively that RF energy is dissipating inside the cavity and not inside their liquid metal RF contact or elsewhere.
When I asked about this at Estes Park, Tajmar said they could not get infrared images of the cavity inside the vacuum chamber. I do not think their IR camera was rated for vacuum and they did not have a IR transparent window into the chamber. I suggested that they get the infrared images with the device on the bench (using the same RF equipment as in the vacuum chamber) as that is better than nothing. It does not seem like they listened to my advise.
I am working on a liquid metal RF contact now and plan on running a number of tests on the contact itself and reporting back here. -
#99 by kenny008 on 04 Nov, 2019 21:32
-
And I have explained that without the external load, there is still the mass on the other side of the balance that also has potential energy. Vibrations are present in all experiments, so again, you have provided no criteria that is not satisfied by every experiment that has ever been performed.
...
So any vibrations on the table are transmitted to the almost balanced EmDrive.
With 0.5g pressing down and 14mg of vibration pressing up, the EmDrive will occasionally move up from the upward component of the vibration.
...
So you need some force upward to shift it to Motor Mode.
And 14mg is the right amount? Is that empirically determined, or is it able to be shown in an equation somewhere?
Or is 14 micrograms enough?
Or maybe .00000014 micrograms?
Or is it actually some value of acceleration that matters? Your mixing of units has me somewhat confused, since "14mg" is not a unit of force, but of mass.
You mentioned that the upward acceleration of the 10kg mass due to random background fluctuations is not enough, but the upward force of "14mg" is enough.
Because there is almost always some type of vibration happening (above 0K), causing the drive to accelerate some (very tiny) amount. There must be some number above which it works, and below which it doesn't?