Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (Read 689835 times)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 1578
...
IMO, this requires the emdrive to produce an em wave in one direction, not a standing wave. I mean, all the power should go into a wave without return, not a standing wave. A kind of wave generated and captive from its center, not shot from one end of the cavity. In other words, we have to produce a wave from its center, not from one end. A sort of rectified dipole.  As such the “cavity” would not be required anymore.

How do we produce such unidirectional captive wave structure? (Reminds me of the Pares fractal antenna)  Any induction process would produce a free to move away em wave. So, we can’t build directly the unidirectional captive wave (cuws) by induction of a resonant circuit. The wave structure has to be built and maintained as two adjacent separate portions. We could think of two axial (wrt direction of motion) static electric fields in opposite directions and insulated from one another. For increased energy we might insert some dielectric material. Then, we would have formed two capacitors.(Woodward?) 

I think that such a cuws appears or emerges as a non-steady, low level side effect in various experiments and configurations, including the emdrive. The idea now would be to produce it on purpose with the appropriate configuration. But, can we produce directly this cuws or do we have to resort to producing it as an optimized side effect of some more complex process (like in the emdrive)? Pares, using a radio wave generator, is possibly optimizing a cuws produced as a side effect of his special fractal antenna. Woodward, working with capacitors, could be directly forming a small cuws, but inefficiently.   

Food for thought .....

What you are describing here at the end, I interpret as nothing more than a photon rocket, using 1/4-wave phased array antennas. It has been discussed by @dustinthewind and I many times in previous threads. Without the resonant Q factor, it can never achieve a thrust greater than a photon rocket. The resonance is what allows it to store enough energy to push against and exchange momentum.

Also, Planck's constant of action is just the magnetic flux quanta I've been talking about in my theory. I suggest you review the Lorentz Gauge wave equations, where the wave equations are easily separated and much easier to follow, especially for an EmDrive. The conservation of energy and momentum, as well as general covariance is inherent in these equations. "IF" it can be explained in this way with the addition of a dissipation factor, there can be no argument. That's what I'm working on.




« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 04:05 AM by WarpTech »

Offline therealjjj77

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Earth
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 10
In a gravitational field, an object move (fall) spontaneously toward a lower rate of time. We will then place the lower half of the time rate h in the front portion of the sine wave so that it moves toward it. What about the higher half of the time rate? If an object moves spontaneously toward a relatively lower time rate, it is assumed that it would spontaneously move away from a relatively higher time rate.
Though this observation("objects being attracted toward lower time rates") may be true, it might not be causative. Suppose we had 2 clocks. One clock was in space with no or little gravitational fields acting on it and of the same velocity of a particular planet. The second clock was in free fall toward the planet. Both clocks would experience time the same. The only situation where time gets slowed(relatively speaking) is if the 2nd clock were in the gravitational field but not in free fall. Therefore, it might not go to reason that time effects are causative of gravity but that they are a result of gravity.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 796
  • Likes Given: 8
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!

Todd:

"So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading."

The documented force vector for the EW copper frustum with 2-PE discs driving the TM212 mode is from the frustum's large OD to small OD, so the small end is leading.  Sorry...

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline nukus

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm been thinking a bit recently about how the N/kw of the Emdrive compares to existing engines and what level would be required to match them in performance. In his Emdrive website, on the page for Second Generation Drives, Shawyer mentions drives at the kN/kW level, but this seems like more of an upper limit since that is the amount that would be required for flight/hover, but it doesn't require that much to make something that could fly with wings if we are talking about something much closer to the Wright Brothers than modern spacecraft. I seem to recall that some WWI and/or WWII planes basically used car engines to power them, so I'm wondering what N/kw would be required to match various engines. Seems like the Emdrive power-to-weight ratio may be useful here.

As for spaceflight applications, this seems useful to know as it seems like an Emdrive powered plane could serve as a launch platform for satellites and such, even if it say can't function in a vacuum well enough or is limited to being close to the Earth or are severely limited in how fast they can go (rapid dropoff in acceleration as they increase velocity) due to some quirk on how the drive functions.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 05:01 AM by nukus »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 1578
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!

Todd:

"So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading."

The documented force vector for the EW copper frustum with 2-PE discs driving the TM212 mode is from the frustum's large OD to small OD, so the small end is leading.  Sorry...

Best, Paul M.

It would seem then that the graphs of Surface Force density and Volume Loss Density provided by @zellerium are not an accurate representation of what is going on in the EW frustum. Just looking at these graphs, I think anyone would expect the frustum to go the other way.

I can understand it having the small end leading, because it is evident that the magnetic field is primarily heating the big end, so I would expect the higher losses to be at the big end as I've said before. However, the graphs show the higher Volume Loss Density at the small end and "nothing" at all at the big end. I think this should not be the case.

Perhaps the graphics need to show Surface loss not Volume loss to see this accurately?

Thanks!

Offline TheTraveller

EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!

According to radiation pressure theory,  the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave has the highest momentum & radiation pressure.  So would expect static force direction, with the dielectric, to be big to small as Paul measured.

When the dielectric is removed, the wave patterns reverse, with the shortest 1/2 wave at the big end. Measured static force direction also reverses being small to big, as Paul, Roger and I measured.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 06:37 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 164
EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!

According to radiation pressure theory,  the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave has the highest momentum & radiation pressure.  So would expect static force direction, with the dielectric, to be big to small as Paul measured.

When the dielectric is removed, the wave patterns reverse, with the shortest 1/2 wave at the big end. Measured static force direction also reverses being small to big, as Paul, Roger and I measured.

Some how me thinks, it would be a good idea if you were to agree on a definition of force and thrust that at least seems consistent with. What the definitions that others in these discussions seem to use. Maybe I am just really tiered but it sounds like your expected direction of thrust is not consistent with what Star-Drive just posted a bit earlier.

Yes, there was some issue between what WarpTech's theory predicted (or so it seems) and Paul's clarification, but your post above just seems confusing.

Right now that may be all me, tired and ..... maybe it is just me but the way you describe whatever you are trying to say just seems confused or confusing.

I am sure the same applies to much of what I post, but at present for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is what it is and just remains a bit beyond my control.

Offline TheTraveller

EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc ???

Interesting results...

The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!

According to radiation pressure theory,  the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave has the highest momentum & radiation pressure.  So would expect static force direction, with the dielectric, to be big to small as Paul measured.

When the dielectric is removed, the wave patterns reverse, with the shortest 1/2 wave at the big end. Measured static force direction also reverses being small to big, as Paul, Roger and I measured.

Some how me thinks, it would be a good idea if you were to agree on a definition of force and thrust that at least seems consistent with. What the definitions that others in these discussions seem to use. Maybe I am just really tiered but it sounds like your expected direction of thrust is not consistent with what Star-Drive just posted a bit earlier.

Yes, there was some issue between what WarpTech's theory predicted (or so it seems) and Paul's clarification, but your post above just seems confusing.

Right now that may be all me, tired and ..... maybe it is just me but the way you describe whatever you are trying to say just seems confused or confusing.

I am sure the same applies to much of what I post, but at present for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is what it is and just remains a bit beyond my control.

See the attached for clarification. Note the force direction arrows in the bottom images that point to the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave, that has the highest photon momentum & radiation pressure.

Paul, Roger and I, with non dielectric frustums, measured a static force  direction small to big or big end forward as per the left side images.

Paul, with a dielectric containing frustum,  measured a static force direction big to small or small end forward as per the right side images.

It should be noted that the small to big non dielectric force direction, left side images, was in the opposite direction to the Lorentz and CG heating generated forces, which says that while there were Lorentz and CG alerting heating forces present, they did not generate the small to big impulse force measured. That force was generated by the EmDrive WITHOUT a dielectruc.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 10:02 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

For those considering building a YBCO based frustum, as I am, here are 2 interesting graphs:

1st is 2015 data showing max H field vs temp vs various superconductors. From this data it would seem that YBCO is the champ material for dealing with high H field, which suggests it can handle very high Q frustum builds.

2nd is 2009 data from Roger Shawyer showing YBCO Rs vs various temperatures at 3.85GHz. Note that the ~78uOhm value in 2009 is now 3uOhm in 2016.

While LNe is somewhat expensive, it does appear to offer a 5x lower Rs (5x higher Q) and 2.5x higher max Hc so maybe worth giving it a shot?

For sure design for LN2 and if you need to go further maybe consider LNe instead of LH2 or LHe?
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Willem Staal

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
For those considering building a YBCO based frustum, as I am, here are 2 interesting graphs:

1st is 2015 data showing max H field vs temp vs various superconductors. From this data it would seem that YBCO is the champ material for dealing with high H field, which suggests it can handle very high Q frustum builds.

2nd is 2009 data from Roger Shawyer showing YBCO Rs vs various temperatures at 3.85GHz. Note that the ~78uOhm value in 2009 is now 3uOhm in 2016.

While LNe is somewhat expensive, it does appear to offer a 5x lower Rs (5x higher Q) and 2.5x higher max Hc so maybe worth giving it a shot?

For sure design for LN2 and if you need to go further maybe consider LNe instead of LH2 or LHe?
YBCO is a ceramic compound. The gap to excitations that leads to superconductivity is a result of pairs of electrons (or other fermions) bound together at (very) low temperatures, and thats in the case of ceramic superconductors usualy a surface effect. If a magnetic field is close to  these type of  superconductors  the effect will be lost. (meissner ochsenfeld effect)  as the frustrum works with a crude coil as rf transmitter , so how does Shawyer prevent magnetic interference and loss of superconductivity?
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 11:37 AM by Willem Staal »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • France
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 809
See the attached for clarification. Note the force direction arrows in the bottom images that point to the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave, that has the highest photon momentum & radiation pressure.

TT, you're showing data for Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TE012 mode, where max E & H fields are located near small end.

Whereas zellerium, WarpTech and Star-Drive are discussing Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TM212 mode, where max E & H fields are located near big end. Besides, in that particular mode only 10% of the RF energy resides in the PE discs.

Your "shorter vs longer 1/2 wave" conjecture may still apply, but the two field configurations are very different, and their max strength values are located opposite from each other.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 11:42 AM by flux_capacitor »

Offline TheTraveller

See the attached for clarification. Note the force direction arrows in the bottom images that point to the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave, that has the highest photon momentum & radiation pressure.

TT, you're showing data for Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TE012 mode, where max E & H fields are located near small end.

Whereas zellerium, WarpTech and Star-Drive are discussing Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TM212 mode, where max E & H fields are located near big end. Besides, in that particular mode only 10% of the RF energy resides in the PE discs.

Your "shorter vs longer 1/2 wave" conjecture may still apply, but the two field configurations are very different, and their max strength values are located opposite from each other.

We only have data for TE012 for both dielectric and non dielectric forces and direction.

It is which end has the shortest 1/2 that is of interest as the shortest 1/2 wave has the highest momentum and radiation pressure.

As Roger has shown, without dielectrics, as attached, the static force is generated small to big as Paul and I also measured and observed.

Any theory needs to be able to explain the force direction and why it swaps direction with and without dielectric when excited in the same mode.

I may be that where the highest energy density is located is not what is creating the measured static force with a direction big to small when a dielectric is at the small end.

Please note the measured force direction, big to small is the same for ALL the EW tests and seems to be mode independent.

The EW mode map I have seen has shown the TM212 dielectric frustum also has the shortest 1/2 wave at the small end, which is consistent with the measured force direction being big to small.

Zellerium's mode map in TM212 also shows the shortest 1/2 wave at the small end, which us consistent with the EW TM212 mode map.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 12:02 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • France
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 809
Fair enough, let's discuss your "shorter vs longer 1/2 wave" conjecture.
You're saying that as the EM wave travels towards a larger space (to the big end in a frustum without dielectric) its wavelength decreases and the carried momentum increases. Conversely when the EM wave travels towards small end, its wavelength increases and the carrier momentum decreases.
This is all swapped with the PE discs at small end in Eagleworks frustum, where wavelength becomes larger at big end and smaller at small end, hence thrust reverses.

This is measured along the axis of the frustum.

But have you considered that when the zenith component of the wavelength indeed increases as you claim, its radial component locally decreases accordingly (and the opposite at the other side) so the wavelength as a whole keeps the same value everywhere, as pointed out by WarpTech in this post:
Quote from: WarpTech
1. The radial wavelength is longer toward the small end and shorter toward the big end.
2. The zenith wavelength is longer toward the big end and shorter toward the small end.
3. The sum of the squares of the two frequencies at each end is the square of the resonant frequency, and supposedly constant.

Offline TheTraveller

Fair enough, let's discuss your "shorter vs longer 1/2 wave" conjecture.
You're saying that as the EM wave travels towards a larger space (to the big end in a frustum without dielectric) its wavelength decreases and the carried momentum increases. Conversely when the EM wave travels towards small end, its wavelength increases and the carrier momentum decreases.
This is all swapped with the PE discs at small end in Eagleworks frustum, where wavelength becomes larger at big end and smaller at small end, hence thrust reverses.

This is measured along the axis of the frustum.

But have you considered that when the zenith component of the wavelength indeed increases as you claim, its radial component locally decreases accordingly (and the opposite at the other side) so the wavelength as a whole keeps the same value everywhere, as pointed out by WarpTech in this post:
Quote from: WarpTech
1. The radial wavelength is longer toward the small end and shorter toward the big end.
2. The zenith wavelength is longer toward the big end and shorter toward the small end.
3. The sum of the squares of the two frequencies at each end is the square of the resonant frequency, and supposedly constant.

As guide wavelength increases, group velocity decreases and radiation pressure decreases.
As guide wavelength decreases, group velocity increases and radiation pressure increases.

This has been known since 1951 via the work of Cullen.

It seems that placing a non resonant dielectric at the small end of the frustum, reverses the normal non dielectric guide wavelength distribution and causes the static force direction to swap to follow the longest 1/2 guide wavelength end to the shortest 1/2 guide wavelength end.

BTW freq does not alter inside a resonant cavity. Only guide wavelength, group velocity and radiation pressure alter.

Please continue to explore theory options, just be sure they fit the observed and measured experimental data.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 12:39 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • France
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 809
increasing the "guide wavelength" somewhere doesn't mean the wavelength of the traveling EM waves increases in that particular location?

Wait… all this time thinking Shawyer was saying the EM wavelength was varying, but all is varying is the guide wavelength which has a purely geometrical definition and has nothing to do with the actual EM wavelength variation? ???
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 01:08 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline TheTraveller

increasing the "guide wavelength" somewhere doesn't mean the wavelength of the traveling EM waves increase in that particular location?

The displayed standing wave is just the superposition of the 2 travelling waves. It has no reality without the 2 travelling waves as attached. It is a GIF file so click it to see the waves move.

So if the standing wave shows longer 1/2 guide waves at one end versus the other, the travelling waves must be doing the same thing as the standing wave is just their reflection.

BTW here is the E and H field distribution in my spherical frustum. I have NO DOUBT when placed on a scale, that frustum will generate a static force with a direction small to big.

Paul observed this non dielectric force direction as did Roger and as did I.

As I said, please explore theory options as long as the predicted force direction matches the experimental data with a non resonant dielectric at the small end and without.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 01:27 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • France
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 809
So if the standing wave shows longer 1/2 guide waves at one end versus the other, the travelling waves must be doing the same thing as the standing wave is just their reflection.

This sentence sounds to me as a hint towards a local variation of the wavelength. If so how could the 1/2 wave become longer at one end and shorter at the other end? Please confirm or deny my statement.

BTW here is the E and H field distribution in my spherical frustum. I have NO DOUBT when placed on a scale, that frustum will generate a static force with a direction small to big.

But you'd also admit according to your sketch that your frustum, when free to move, will accelerate small end leading (Shawyer's reaction force). I emphasis on that since it confuses everyone.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 01:52 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline M.LeBel

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 29
In a gravitational field, an object move (fall) spontaneously toward a lower rate of time. We will then place the lower half of the time rate h in the front portion of the sine wave so that it moves toward it. What about the higher half of the time rate? If an object moves spontaneously toward a relatively lower time rate, it is assumed that it would spontaneously move away from a relatively higher time rate.

Though this observation("objects being attracted toward lower time rates") may be true, it might not be causative. Suppose we had 2 clocks. One clock was in space with no or little gravitational fields acting on it and of the same velocity of a particular planet. The second clock was in free fall toward the planet. Both clocks would experience time the same. The only situation where time gets slowed(relatively speaking) is if the 2nd clock were in the gravitational field but not in free fall. Therefore, it might not go to reason that time effects are causative of gravity but that they are a result of gravity.


This is where I usually pull my Unruh quote:

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993  (my bold)

People often offer some GR gedanken which I personally find hard to follow..

[ I met Bill Unruh in Montreal in 2004 (?) at a conference... Big lumberjack style of a man .. did not go for my approach which has a pilot wave flavor he did not go for. ... 2016: Pilot waves are back.... ]   

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

... and a few more arxiv articles easy to find..
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 03:57 PM by M.LeBel »

Offline TheTraveller

So if the standing wave shows longer 1/2 guide waves at one end versus the other, the travelling waves must be doing the same thing as the standing wave is just their reflection.

This sentence sounds to me as a hint towards a local variation of the wavelength. If so how could the 1/2 wave become longer at one end and shorter at the other end? Please confirm or deny my statement.

BTW here is the E and H field distribution in my spherical frustum. I have NO DOUBT when placed on a scale, that frustum will generate a static force with a direction small to big.

But you'd also admit according to your sketch that your frustum, when free to move, will accelerate small end leading (Shawyer's reaction force). I emphasis on that since it confuses everyone.

According to radiation pressure theory, the big to small accelerative force is the equal but opposite Reaction force to the small to big static Thrust force.

Roger has told me you can't measure a static force from the Reaction force as it can only be measured during free acceleration via F = A * M.

What Paul, Roger, and myself measure on a virtually non moving ( OK a few um of movement ) static force test rig is the Thrust force generated as the result of the differential of the end plate radiation pressure, adjusted for side wall radiation pressure.

Roger has clearly shown these two force directions being generated as the test rig alters from static to dynamic as attached.

By end 1st qtr 2017 I hope to be able to duplicate both the static force measurements and the dynamic force measurements, plus measuring Q drop (photon momentum drop) as acceleration starts and the change in power supply load as the rotary test rig increases angular velocity from 0 RPM to 60 RPM over 40 minutes or so.

That data will be a biggie as it should experimentally answer a few questions such as CofM and CofE.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 01:54 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1218
  • Likes Given: 1578
See the attached for clarification. Note the force direction arrows in the bottom images that point to the end plate with the shortest 1/2 wave, that has the highest photon momentum & radiation pressure.

TT, you're showing data for Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TE012 mode, where max E & H fields are located near small end.

Whereas zellerium, WarpTech and Star-Drive are discussing Eagleworks' frustum with dielectric at small end and TM212 mode, where max E & H fields are located near big end. Besides, in that particular mode only 10% of the RF energy resides in the PE discs.

Your "shorter vs longer 1/2 wave" conjecture may still apply, but the two field configurations are very different, and their max strength values are located opposite from each other.

We only have data for TE012 for both dielectric and non dielectric forces and direction.

It is which end has the shortest 1/2 that is of interest as the shortest 1/2 wave has the highest momentum and radiation pressure.

As Roger has shown, without dielectrics, as attached, the static force is generated small to big as Paul and I also measured and observed.

Any theory needs to be able to explain the force direction and why it swaps direction with and without dielectric when excited in the same mode.

I may be that where the highest energy density is located is not what is creating the measured static force with a direction big to small when a dielectric is at the small end.

Please note the measured force direction, big to small is the same for ALL the EW tests and seems to be mode independent.

The EW mode map I have seen has shown the TM212 dielectric frustum also has the shortest 1/2 wave at the small end, which is consistent with the measured force direction being big to small.

Zellerium's mode map in TM212 also shows the shortest 1/2 wave at the small end, which us consistent with the EW TM212 mode map.

TT,

For the NASA TE012 mode data, my theory did predict the reversed direction of force when the dielectric was added. However, the TM212 mode simulation that @zellerium just posted shows a different configuration of energy, wavelength and losses. IMO, the only issue is that I went by what was shown on the graphs as "Volume Loss Density", when I believe we should be looking at "Surface Loss Density", to have an accurate representation. Then it would be obvious that in the TM212 mode the majority of losses are at the big end, when the dielectric is present "shielding" the small end from those surface losses.

Tags: