I have placed the attached text file in the csv files folder.
That figure alone should be enough to convince you that in general, the Poynting vector can not be reduced to a force. Clearly there is some difference between a solar sail being "pushed" by the poynting flux from the sun, and the lack of force on a metal sheet caught in the poynting flux of a simple DC circuit.
I am a bit afraid about this but I don't think it will be too easy to figure out. I disclosed it and discussed it with a doctor of physics specialized in quantum. He said "I still don't believe it works but I saw it".I am interested in your thoughts about commercial application. Obviously, Shawyer has a few Patents... But there is a just a handful of investors who could develop this into commercial technology.
Quote from: aero on 07/06/2015 03:31 amI have placed the attached text file in the csv files folder.I have been working on computing (from your prior csv data that I used to plot the Poynting vector field) the time evolution of the Poynting vector through time. Ideally, I would like to use a gridpoint along the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive to show this, but in examining your data it has become apparent that your present Finite Difference model mesh does not have Finite Difference grid points along the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive. The closest grid rows are 132 and 133 that are equidistant from the longitudinal axis of axisymmetry of the cone. The reason is that you have an even number of equally spaced gridpoint rows (264) in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. In the future, if you re-mesh, it would be convenient to have an odd number of gridpoints in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, so that you have gridpoints located in the longitudinal axis. This would allow direct computation of field quantities at the longitudinal axis (which many times correspond to a maximum) without having to use interpolation.Having gridpoints along the longitudinal axis of axisymmetry would also allow to define the antenna directly at longitudinal gridpoints, rather than at gridpoints equdistant from the longitudinal axis.QUESTION: since you do NOT have any gridpoints along the longitudinal axis, how can the antenna location be defined to be in the longitudinal axis? Everything in Finite Differences gets defined only at FD gridpoints. Do you have antennas located at equidistant points from the longitudinal axis? (that's what the plots show).The csv file data shows the antenna on the xz plane with normal y to be located at both rows z=132 and z=133 gridpoints and at column x=208Shown below are the Poynting vector x component ( minus sign means direction is towards the big base, plus sign means direction is towards small base) in the xz plane with normal y, at columns x=207,208 and 209, first zooming at the location of the peak and below are the plots showing the whole, un-zoomed range.It is important to have grid points along the longitudinal axis, in order to avoid the artifact of two peaks seen at column 207 below, and the flat top (a "mesa") seen at column 208 instead of a peak.
...I'll see what I can do.Meep documentation says that Meep uses "pervasive" interpolation, or some word like that. Implying that when a value not on a grid point is needed, weighted average of adjacent points is calculated.
There is anotherThis is the best place to comment so I'll go aheadAMAP device today measured 22 micro Newtons from 4,5 watt input. Weighing 500 grams the first protoype is nowhere near its potential.
at the risk of appearing to disagree with the direction the thread has been on almost since it's inception; i have to point out that two of those are not definitive of the EM drive phenomenon. They are definitive of the type of EM drive this thread has discussed. That is true. but the thread title is not Shawyer, Yang, Cannae, EW type EM drives. It is EM drives. Now i am suspicious as the next person when someone makes grand claims but will not show any evidence for it. (About the only thing going for him at the moment is he is from where Tesla came from) But it is entirely possible for there to be an EM drive that is not a truncated cone or pyramid that works at another frequency. I would hope that if someone jumped into the discussion that had another approach they would be welcome ( provided they had a solid case to present.)
Quote from: Rodal on 07/04/2015 06:00 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.Another suggested question to Prof. Tajmar: given the very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum measured by Prof. Tajmar (less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket), does Prof. Tajmar see his (and Georg Fiedler's) experiments at The Technische Universität Dresden as a scientific nullification of the claims made by Yang and Shawyer, since Yang and Shawyer claim over 1,000 to 10,000 times greater force/InputPower than what Tajmar measured) ?Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why Shawyer and Yang claimed much higher thrust is because Shawyer and Yang reported tests at ambient pressure (unlike Prof. Tajmar who has performed his tests in a vacuum), and Shawyer and Yang just reported thermal convection artifacts?If, not a nullification due to Shawyer and Yang not performing tests in vacuum, what does Prof. Tajmar think that the huge difference (1,000 to 10,000 times) is due to ?
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.
did a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin Tajmar
Quote from: aero on 07/06/2015 03:04 pm...I'll see what I can do.Meep documentation says that Meep uses "pervasive" interpolation, or some word like that. Implying that when a value not on a grid point is needed, weighted average of adjacent points is calculated.Yes, that's what Meep did (interpolation), as I show in the plots above. But it is not optimal, as I also show what happens at location 207 (double peak). It is much better to have gridpoints along the longitudinal axis, so if you ever re-mesh I suggest to take the opportunity to have an odd number of rows with gridpoints along the longitudinal axis. It is only at Finite Difference gridpoints in a Finite Difference solution that one can control the solution (imposing conditions at gridpoints).
Quote from: Rodal on 07/06/2015 03:11 pmQuote from: aero on 07/06/2015 03:04 pm...I'll see what I can do.Meep documentation says that Meep uses "pervasive" interpolation, or some word like that. Implying that when a value not on a grid point is needed, weighted average of adjacent points is calculated.Yes, that's what Meep did (interpolation), as I show in the plots above. But it is not optimal, as I also show what happens at location 207 (double peak). It is much better to have gridpoints along the longitudinal axis, so if you ever re-mesh I suggest to take the opportunity to have an odd number of rows with gridpoints along the longitudinal axis. It is only at Finite Difference gridpoints in a Finite Difference solution that one can control the solution (imposing conditions at gridpoints).I seem to have misplaced the h5 files needed to generate the csv files for the case you are interested in, so I'll need to re-run it. Shall I go ahead and recreate and upload the complete data set with a new mesh, or try to match the data that I already used. (I'm a little concerned that I may have changed the antenna length).Rerunning and uploading the complete data set won't take as much effort as it did the first time because using my new file naming convention I can do it all en-mass, without the need to keep the default identically named .csv files in separate identifying folders.Your call. I'm leaning toward the latter to avoid any concern about inconsistent data.
Regarding the question is my device an EM drive...It doesn't use propellant and can be used to drive space objects.It is different from the EM drive, however.Mine is better it appears.Both are relativity drives, both are a disproof od Newtons third (which is something special relativity should have taught us), both partially "externalize" impulse and reduce sealed system entropy by doing so.
...I'll see what I can do.
I think it is my fault. He started his own thread. I told him it belonged in this thread because his claims fits the generalized EM drive definition. Then his thread disappeared and he was posting in here. Now it appears the thread isn't for generalized EM drives but specifically A narrow subset and mostly for independent confirmation or nullification thereof. So it is my mistake. Solution... maybe he could post his topic independently again. Maybe a topic for other EM drive schemes that do not follow the shawyer, cannae, Yang, EW general form; like that guy with the weird v shaped antenna in Colorado or was it Iowa?
Quote from: Stormbringer on 07/06/2015 08:31 pmI think it is my fault. He started his own thread. I told him it belonged in this thread because his claims fits the generalized EM drive definition. Then his thread disappeared and he was posting in here. Now it appears the thread isn't for generalized EM drives but specifically A narrow subset and mostly for independent confirmation or nullification thereof. So it is my mistake. Solution... maybe he could post his topic independently again. Maybe a topic for other EM drive schemes that do not follow the shawyer, cannae, Yang, EW general form; like that guy with the weird v shaped antenna in Colorado or was it Iowa?It appears that you know much more about this than I do. Please let us know at what frequency does his device works. Thank you.