Quote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 08:18 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 07:03 pm...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do Several people have asked (Ref: NSF threads 1 and 2). No answers have been reported. Ever.It has been reported Prof. Yang told a Scientific News reporter that "publicity about her EM Drive research is most unwelcome"no answer? bad scientist
Quote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 07:03 pm...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do Several people have asked (Ref: NSF threads 1 and 2). No answers have been reported. Ever.It has been reported Prof. Yang told a Scientific News reporter that "publicity about her EM Drive research is most unwelcome"
...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do
Quote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 08:30 pmQuote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 08:18 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 07:03 pm...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do Several people have asked (Ref: NSF threads 1 and 2). No answers have been reported. Ever.It has been reported Prof. Yang told a Scientific News reporter that "publicity about her EM Drive research is most unwelcome"no answer? bad scientist She doesn't do what she wants, this is China. So take into account politics and human rights. Moreover NWPU is also a military school. So add geopolitics and defense purpose.
Quote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 08:30 pmQuote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 08:18 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 07:03 pm...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do Several people have asked (Ref: NSF threads 1 and 2). No answers have been reported. Ever.It has been reported Prof. Yang told a Scientific News reporter that "publicity about her EM Drive research is most unwelcome"no answer? bad scientist There is always hope. Maybe SeeShells can contact her.
...It makes perfect sense to me that when she calculated the stresses (and therefore the resonance of the electromagnetic fields) she was cognizant of the fact (obvious to anyone performing a FEA solution) that there is no such thing as a sharp cut-off frequency, and thus she was free to choose a smaller diameter for the small base...
Quote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 08:33 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 08:30 pmQuote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 08:18 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 07:03 pm...Did ever someone ask for the dimensions (for verification) personally? [email protected]It isn't helpful to poke in the dark, IMHOPS: I am not the one who want to do Several people have asked (Ref: NSF threads 1 and 2). No answers have been reported. Ever.It has been reported Prof. Yang told a Scientific News reporter that "publicity about her EM Drive research is most unwelcome"no answer? bad scientist There is always hope. Maybe SeeShells can contact her.Nada nothing...digital silence from that end.
Quote from: Rodal on 08/02/2015 07:53 pm...It makes perfect sense to me that when she calculated the stresses (and therefore the resonance of the electromagnetic fields) she was cognizant of the fact (obvious to anyone performing a FEA solution) that there is no such thing as a sharp cut-off frequency, and thus she was free to choose a smaller diameter for the small base...Given that there is no sharp cut-off. If we have a frustum that is too small at the small end and too big at the big end. What determines the resonance? Is there any mode that would resonate without interacting with either end? Todd
weekly interactive particleyou can't go peaking under peoples clothes.Sometimes poor spelling is an advantage
Did those attempting to contact Yang do so in legit non-Google translated Chinese? If not, I can try sending a message that might be more intelligible / likely to be acknowledged. Or even if it's been attempted already, sending an additional request for info might not hurt.
The mode TE012 which has smallest Large-End has the largest thrust, so has the highest quality factor and thrust. Mode TM011 thruster has the worst performance. As the Large-End of the cavity increases, the height of cavity reduce, cavity volume and wall surface area also reduced, leading to low quality factor and producing less thrust.
The last case you calculated has a cone half-angle of only 5.70 degrees: practically a cylinder.Not only I don't trust, I think, based on calculations, that these geometries that are close to a cylinder will result in lower (if any thrust). I find comfort with the fact that my calculations agree with Shaywer, who has used much larger cone angles and actually has been increasing the cone half-angle in his EM Drive. His latest design is over 30 degrees as I recall. NASA and everybody else has used much larger cone angles than 6 degrees as well.The formulas of McCulloch, Shawyer and Notsosureofit all show that a cone half-angle of only 6 degrees is very ineffective. The Meep runs post-processed with Wolfram Mathematica also show the poor performance of the 6 degree almost a cylinder geometry. I much trust these formulas and the geometries used by Shawyer and NASA, and much more trust the drawings of Yang than any result from her 2010 publication hinting at an angle of 6 degrees.I don't think that Yang obtained the highest thrust and thrust/InputPower using a cone with a half angle of only 6 degrees.If SeeShells tests a cone at 6 degrees we will learn the truth from her test results...
...So she seems to confirm that a longer cavity with the big end as small as possible, thus with a very low cone-angle, the frustum being almost cylindrical, has a higher Q and higher thrust…
Quote from: X_RaY on 08/02/2015 08:16 pm...If you think that's it we have all together SD=0.1492mBD=0.200mL=0.240mf_res(TE012)=~2,4537GHzangle=6,041degwith SD 0.15m i get 2,4490GHzangle=5,946degThank you. Confirmed:1) There was no "booboo" 2) Your computer program agrees quite well with my computer program (once again). TheTraveller's program is only off by 2%, a difference which I consider to be an utterly negligible difference when we are talking about much larger differences here. The calculations by TheTraveller are quite acceptable for engineering purposes.
...If you think that's it we have all together SD=0.1492mBD=0.200mL=0.240mf_res(TE012)=~2,4537GHzangle=6,041degwith SD 0.15m i get 2,4490GHzangle=5,946deg