Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 09:02 pmThe quote attached is a copy of my post in the EMDrive main thread #9.The simulations are related to the discussion of the {Q}uality -factor when the small end of a truncated conical cayity resonator is below, at or above the cutoff diameter of a cylindrically waveguide. To use the related value is frequently stated by TheTraveller(TT) (he says he quotes Shawyer in this regard) and have suggested to take it as a rule, i.e. to make the small diameter equal to the cutoff diameter.Several explanations where given by TT but nothing conclusive.For example, that there is no reflection at all if the small end plate diameter is below this cutoff rule. This was debunked as nonsense by Dr.Rodal and others. As one of lastest "explanations" TT stated that the Q for such a cavity is much smaller ( or even: "...below anything usefull..") than for a cavity that fits the so called cutoff rule. The results shown here debunk this to be nonsense also.Please note that this tells nothing about differences related to (possible) thrust generation.Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.Can you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.
The quote attached is a copy of my post in the EMDrive main thread #9.The simulations are related to the discussion of the {Q}uality -factor when the small end of a truncated conical cayity resonator is below, at or above the cutoff diameter of a cylindrically waveguide. To use the related value is frequently stated by TheTraveller(TT) (he says he quotes Shawyer in this regard) and have suggested to take it as a rule, i.e. to make the small diameter equal to the cutoff diameter.Several explanations where given by TT but nothing conclusive.For example, that there is no reflection at all if the small end plate diameter is below this cutoff rule. This was debunked as nonsense by Dr.Rodal and others. As one of lastest "explanations" TT stated that the Q for such a cavity is much smaller ( or even: "...below anything usefull..") than for a cavity that fits the so called cutoff rule. The results shown here debunk this to be nonsense also.Please note that this tells nothing about differences related to (possible) thrust generation.Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.
Quote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?
Quote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q!
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.
As you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors.
Quote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 05:54 pmCan you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.Todd I am not sure this is what you like to see. However, the field pattern looks very interesting.Q0=74382
Can you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/15/2017 03:09 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 05:54 pmCan you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.Todd I am not sure this is what you like to see. However, the field pattern looks very interesting.Q0=74382Very interesting indeed! I like it. Don't know what will happen, but the fact that the Q when up and the surface current went up is promising. My model and @notsosureofit's both predict that the larger angle should help. It definitely concentrated sidewall losses to one end. Thank you!Edit: is there a particular location for the antenna, that gives this nice 50 Ohm impedance?
Quote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 05:54 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 09:02 pmThe quote attached is a copy of my post in the EMDrive main thread #9.The simulations are related to the discussion of the {Q}uality -factor when the small end of a truncated conical cayity resonator is below, at or above the cutoff diameter of a cylindrically waveguide. To use the related value is frequently stated by TheTraveller(TT) (he says he quotes Shawyer in this regard) and have suggested to take it as a rule, i.e. to make the small diameter equal to the cutoff diameter.Several explanations where given by TT but nothing conclusive.For example, that there is no reflection at all if the small end plate diameter is below this cutoff rule. This was debunked as nonsense by Dr.Rodal and others. As one of lastest "explanations" TT stated that the Q for such a cavity is much smaller ( or even: "...below anything usefull..") than for a cavity that fits the so called cutoff rule. The results shown here debunk this to be nonsense also.Please note that this tells nothing about differences related to (possible) thrust generation.Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.Can you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.Todd I am not sure this is what you like to see. However, the field pattern looks very interesting.Q0=74382
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/15/2017 03:09 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 05:54 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 09:02 pmThe quote attached is a copy of my post in the EMDrive main thread #9.The simulations are related to the discussion of the {Q}uality -factor when the small end of a truncated conical cayity resonator is below, at or above the cutoff diameter of a cylindrically waveguide. To use the related value is frequently stated by TheTraveller(TT) (he says he quotes Shawyer in this regard) and have suggested to take it as a rule, i.e. to make the small diameter equal to the cutoff diameter.Several explanations where given by TT but nothing conclusive.For example, that there is no reflection at all if the small end plate diameter is below this cutoff rule. This was debunked as nonsense by Dr.Rodal and others. As one of lastest "explanations" TT stated that the Q for such a cavity is much smaller ( or even: "...below anything usefull..") than for a cavity that fits the so called cutoff rule. The results shown here debunk this to be nonsense also.Please note that this tells nothing about differences related to (possible) thrust generation.Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.Can you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.Todd I am not sure this is what you like to see. However, the field pattern looks very interesting.Q0=74382Can you simply scale the frustum on the right, of "your" original image, until the frequency is 2.45GHz please? Just to compare to my wide base idea. It's hard to choose which one I want to spend money on.Thanks.
I have parameterized all dimensions now, therefore I can scale the whole thing by changing one number only*. After increasing the frustum step by step, it matched 2.45GHz almost exactly.*This means all dimensions(!) including the antenna radius, antenna wire radius and its position, as well as the frustum size. All of this depend on this simple scaling factor.Regards
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/20/2017 03:39 pmI have parameterized all dimensions now, therefore I can scale the whole thing by changing one number only*. After increasing the frustum step by step, it matched 2.45GHz almost exactly.*This means all dimensions(!) including the antenna radius, antenna wire radius and its position, as well as the frustum size. All of this depend on this simple scaling factor.RegardsThat's cool! I would be curious then, how the frequency transforms with general scaling. Such as;1:11:21:31:4Does doubling the size give 1/2 the frequency, or 1/4th the frequency?
Quote from: WarpTech on 01/18/2017 06:07 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/15/2017 03:09 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 01/13/2017 05:54 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 09:02 pmThe quote attached is a copy of my post in the EMDrive main thread #9.The simulations are related to the discussion of the {Q}uality -factor when the small end of a truncated conical cayity resonator is below, at or above the cutoff diameter of a cylindrically waveguide. To use the related value is frequently stated by TheTraveller(TT) (he says he quotes Shawyer in this regard) and have suggested to take it as a rule, i.e. to make the small diameter equal to the cutoff diameter.Several explanations where given by TT but nothing conclusive.For example, that there is no reflection at all if the small end plate diameter is below this cutoff rule. This was debunked as nonsense by Dr.Rodal and others. As one of lastest "explanations" TT stated that the Q for such a cavity is much smaller ( or even: "...below anything usefull..") than for a cavity that fits the so called cutoff rule. The results shown here debunk this to be nonsense also.Please note that this tells nothing about differences related to (possible) thrust generation.Quote from: X_RaY on 01/12/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: Rodal on 01/05/2017 09:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:34 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 01/05/2017 08:31 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 01/05/2017 08:17 pmAs you can see in the first two results the situation differs from calculation to calculate. The reason is slightly different mesh size and coupling factors. Don't forget to include the spherical end-plate frustum with Q of 111,454. That is a pretty significant increase.Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.EDITThis is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q! Can EmPro calculate Q?If yes can you check the results with EmPro?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1626572#msg1626572FEKO SE calculation is above, EMPro (FEM Eigenresonance solver) below. Dimensions are the same, material is copper in both cases. EMPro results should show Q0.Can you lower the frequency of the one on the right to 2.45 GHz, by expanding the Big diameter? I need to know what those dimensions would be. 2.6 GHz is too far outside the amplifier's range.Todd I am not sure this is what you like to see. However, the field pattern looks very interesting.Q0=74382Can you simply scale the frustum on the right, of "your" original image, until the frequency is 2.45GHz please? Just to compare to my wide base idea. It's hard to choose which one I want to spend money on.Thanks.I have parameterized all dimensions now, therefore I can scale the whole thing by changing one number only*. After increasing the frustum step by step, it matched 2.45GHz almost exactly.*This means all dimensions(!) including the antenna radius, antenna wire radius and its position, as well as the frustum size. All of this depend on this simple scaling factor.Regards