Quote from: frobnicat on 10/20/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)Sheeez
Quote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...
Here is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/20/2014 02:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 10/20/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)SheeezWhere is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to puny Cannae 1 mN/KW symmetric and with dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to mighty superconducting Cannae 1000 mN/KW unsymmetric and with no dielectric?The language of engineers and scientists is drawings, spreadsheets, plots, numbers and formulas instead of words.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 10/20/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)SheeezWhere is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/20/2014 03:19 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 03:15 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/20/2014 02:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 10/20/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)SheeezWhere is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to puny Cannae 1 mN/KW symmetric and with dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to mighty superconducting Cannae 1000 mN/KW unsymmetric and with no dielectric?The language of engineers and scientists is drawings, spreadsheets, plots, numbers and formulas instead of words.Those drawings aren't one for one with the table to the right. sheesh.Well, for that we have wembley's information regarding no dielectric. So there PS: please take a look at my message on the AutoCAD drawing
Quote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 03:15 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/20/2014 02:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 10/20/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?...Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)SheeezWhere is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to puny Cannae 1 mN/KW symmetric and with dielectric?Is the drawing shown next to mighty superconducting Cannae 1000 mN/KW unsymmetric and with no dielectric?The language of engineers and scientists is drawings, spreadsheets, plots, numbers and formulas instead of words.Those drawings aren't one for one with the table to the right. sheesh.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/20/2014 03:23 pm....I can't convert it to something else. It is a 3d drawing anyway. Find a free autocad viewer. The inside dimensions of the cavity are known to me, but not usable to me because of the lack of depth perception in the photo.Well, sheeeshCan you at least post:Large Diameter=?Small Diameter=6.25 inchesLength=?how much work is that instead of all that stuff about polyethylene having magic properties How would you like it if I would post that I computed that polyethylene has magic thrusting capability with a Mathematica version 10.1 file that you cannot read?
....I can't convert it to something else. It is a 3d drawing anyway. Find a free autocad viewer. The inside dimensions of the cavity are known to me, but not usable to me because of the lack of depth perception in the photo.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.7115?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Physics+Today&utm_campaign=4848808_Physics+Today%3a+The+week+in+Physics+13-17+October&dm_i=1Y69,2VXD4,E1MTSN,AG4QR,1Just an odd analogy that just popped up. Note the motion to the right of the resonating "Hawking Black Hole"
Ok, instead of Sheeshing around I will post the Mulletronized dimensions in a language that we can understand (and more noticeable than muted colors on a black background, sheesh :Brady et. al. truncated cone, frustum, dimensionsLength = 0.27635 mLarge Diameter = 0.30523 mSmall Diameter = 0.15875compared to the dimensions now in McCulloch's chart:Length = 0.345 m (25% longer)Large Diameter = 0.28 (8% smaller)Small Diameter = 0.17 0.15875 (7% larger)
Quote from: Star One on 10/20/2014 11:17 amHere is the PDF mentioned above.http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfIs there a paper with more details to be published ?"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
I mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.
Quote from: aero on 10/20/2014 06:56 pmI mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.Shawyer points out that the main losses are due to "extraction of kinetic energy, which lower the loaded Q" he thus differentiates between a loaded Q and an unloaded Q, due to conservation of energy:"The Q of any resonant circuit can be defined as the stored energy divided by the energy loss per cycle. Thus as soon as kinetic energy is extracted from the engine, the stored energy, and hence the Q, falls."See: http://emdrive.com/firstgenapplications.html
Quote from: Rodal on 10/20/2014 07:15 pmQuote from: aero on 10/20/2014 06:56 pmI mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.Shawyer points out that the main losses are due to "extraction of kinetic energy, which lower the loaded Q" he thus differentiates between a loaded Q and an unloaded Q, due to conservation of energy:"The Q of any resonant circuit can be defined as the stored energy divided by the energy loss per cycle. Thus as soon as kinetic energy is extracted from the engine, the stored energy, and hence the Q, falls."See: http://emdrive.com/firstgenapplications.htmlYou quoted me but didn't address my question. Sure there are other losses but cosine loss is the reduction of the thrust component in the axial direction, (direction of acceleration) due to the rocket engine being pointed at an angle to the axial direction. In this case of course the whole EM thruster is pointed in the axial direction but the nozzle with flat ends is not shaped to redirect the off axis forces in the axial direction. Maybe a drawing will help.
@Rodal I think we are talking past each other. Look at my drawing - if that doesn't communicate let me know what it does say to you.
Quote from: aero on 10/20/2014 07:49 pm@Rodal I think we are talking past each other. Look at my drawing - if that doesn't communicate let me know what it does say to you.As a direct answer to the statement "cosine loss is the reduction of the thrust component in the axial direction, (direction of acceleration) due to the rocket engine being pointed at an angle to the axial direction", I cannot understand these EM Drives as a thrusting rocket, therefore I cannot use the analogy to validate a cosine loss.From classical (Maxwell's equations) electromagnetic microwave cavity theory I am closer to Frobnicat regarding electromagnetic tensor causing presure on the cavity surfaces that cancel out (no net thrust to accelerate the center of mass of the EM Drive).