Quote from: Star One on 07/31/2015 12:24 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/30/2015 08:30 pmYou were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.It's not my job to justify your statements for you. If you feel their is some exodus of scientists away from dark matter or dark energy, prove it. I'm not going on some wild goose chase to learn about some fact I couldn't care less about. As a "fringe" man yourself (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just that you are interested in alternative theories), you know how many people believe a theory has no impact on whether or not it's true. I know this likewise, and so QuoteThere are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy. is irrelevant. But I figured I'd ask to see if you could rustle up the source you got that from, or if you just made it up on the spot. Such sources are easy to find should you have the mind to look.Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energyHere's the article.http://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-alternative-explanation-dark-energy.htmlHere's the paper.http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550Here's one relating to Dark Matter.It’s crunch time for dark matter if WIMPs don’t showhttps://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229712.600-its-crunch-time-for-dark-matter-if-wimps-dont-showC'mon. That wasn't an answer to my question and you know it. I know alternative explanations are out there. You can just read the wikipedia page for a brief introduction, simple as that.You wrote:QuoteThere are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy.Citing alternative theories doesn't justify that statement. You need to show a source that demonstrates more and more scientists are abandoning dark matter and energy for alternative theories, not just that alternative theories exist, which is self evident.
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/30/2015 08:39 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/30/2015 08:30 pmYou were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.It's not my job to justify your statements for you. If you feel their is some exodus of scientists away from dark matter or dark energy, prove it. I'm not going on some wild goose chase to learn about some fact I couldn't care less about. As a "fringe" man yourself (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just that you are interested in alternative theories), you know how many people believe a theory has no impact on whether or not it's true. I know this likewise, and so QuoteThere are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy. is irrelevant. But I figured I'd ask to see if you could rustle up the source you got that from, or if you just made it up on the spot. Such sources are easy to find should you have the mind to look.Study finds possible alternative explanation for dark energyHere's the article.http://m.phys.org/news/2014-12-alternative-explanation-dark-energy.htmlHere's the paper.http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550Here's one relating to Dark Matter.It’s crunch time for dark matter if WIMPs don’t showhttps://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229712.600-its-crunch-time-for-dark-matter-if-wimps-dont-show
Quote from: Star One on 07/30/2015 08:30 pmYou were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.It's not my job to justify your statements for you. If you feel their is some exodus of scientists away from dark matter or dark energy, prove it. I'm not going on some wild goose chase to learn about some fact I couldn't care less about. As a "fringe" man yourself (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just that you are interested in alternative theories), you know how many people believe a theory has no impact on whether or not it's true. I know this likewise, and so QuoteThere are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy. is irrelevant. But I figured I'd ask to see if you could rustle up the source you got that from, or if you just made it up on the spot.
You were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.
There are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy.
Is there an exact solution for 915MHz though? Are you able to calculate dimensions for a copper frustrum?
I seem to be operating in Blurt Mode today. Here's another blurt:If they can take an espresso machine to ISS, why not an EmDrive for microgee testing?
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 07/30/2015 08:53 pm@zellerium: the "cardboard-like square part" is a thin piece made of mica which covers the end of the waveguide in a microwave oven. Mica (as well as white Teflon) is indeed transparent to microwaves. It lets the EM waves pass through it but protects the food from being impregnated by some undesirable substance that may be emitted from the magnetron cavity, like oil or metallic particles.This is a thought to EmDrive DIYers: maybe it is a good idea to insert a Teflon or Mica sheet in the waveguide to protect the interior of the cavity from those substances, in the same manner as food is protected in the oven.@Rodal, flux capacitor and all other experts:I was thinking about the glimmer plate inside the microwave cooking oven and MW sputtering technique. Without such a plate how many metal ions would enter the cavity? Is it possible that the ions (with high velocity a.k. relativistic mass times rest mass) cause the trust while the EM-field inside the cavity give them preferred direction to a single(? or unsymmetrical ion impact) end plate? @flux capacitorThanks for surprising to Tajmar. Here one can see how important the peer review process really is!
@zellerium: the "cardboard-like square part" is a thin piece made of mica which covers the end of the waveguide in a microwave oven. Mica (as well as white Teflon) is indeed transparent to microwaves. It lets the EM waves pass through it but protects the food from being impregnated by some undesirable substance that may be emitted from the magnetron cavity, like oil or metallic particles.This is a thought to EmDrive DIYers: maybe it is a good idea to insert a Teflon or Mica sheet in the waveguide to protect the interior of the cavity from those substances, in the same manner as food is protected in the oven.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/31/2015 04:52 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/31/2015 04:43 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/31/2015 04:00 pmDr. Rodal,I'm reviewing all my collected data this morning sorting and categorizing. I can't locate the data sets for the cavity dimensions on the Rodal-complete ez data set we ran on June 23?https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharingThanks,ShellHi Shell,there is no folder with that name in my Google Drive. I cannot find what the root folder for that folder is from that link. I would need to see what the root folders are to make sense of what this folder contains.We need aero to interpret what this folder is. I found a different folder titled Dr.Rodal.... etc. but contains different files.Ok, we were just starting to get things organized about that time, no surprise. We'll wait to see if sero has some info.Thanks,ShellShell, I took a look inside these folders. They are all images. They are not csv files. Hence this folder is nothing I ever analyzed.From looking at the images, it looks like a very extended cone, extending it so that the small base is close to the apex and much smaller than usual. I think that aero might have titled the folder "Rodal" not because he intended for me to analyze it (which I couldn't: there are no csv files) but because of my paper (attached below) on how cut-off doesn't apply to tapered cavities, (not my theory, something that is known by people involved in microwave cavities for dozens of years).As I showed in my paper, the resonant frequency goes down as one extends the cone, so it should resonate at a lower frequency than 2.45 GHz in the same mode.
Quote from: Rodal on 07/31/2015 04:43 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/31/2015 04:00 pmDr. Rodal,I'm reviewing all my collected data this morning sorting and categorizing. I can't locate the data sets for the cavity dimensions on the Rodal-complete ez data set we ran on June 23?https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharingThanks,ShellHi Shell,there is no folder with that name in my Google Drive. I cannot find what the root folder for that folder is from that link. I would need to see what the root folders are to make sense of what this folder contains.We need aero to interpret what this folder is. I found a different folder titled Dr.Rodal.... etc. but contains different files.Ok, we were just starting to get things organized about that time, no surprise. We'll wait to see if sero has some info.Thanks,Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/31/2015 04:00 pmDr. Rodal,I'm reviewing all my collected data this morning sorting and categorizing. I can't locate the data sets for the cavity dimensions on the Rodal-complete ez data set we ran on June 23?https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharingThanks,ShellHi Shell,there is no folder with that name in my Google Drive. I cannot find what the root folder for that folder is from that link. I would need to see what the root folders are to make sense of what this folder contains.We need aero to interpret what this folder is. I found a different folder titled Dr.Rodal.... etc. but contains different files.
Dr. Rodal,I'm reviewing all my collected data this morning sorting and categorizing. I can't locate the data sets for the cavity dimensions on the Rodal-complete ez data set we ran on June 23?https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharingThanks,Shell
Quote from: birchoff on 07/31/2015 07:07 pmHmmm, If Shawyer and Yang are using non standard methodology to figure out Q. What does this non standard methodology tell us. For example is there a difference in result between the Shawyer methodology and the standard methodology? If so, with what parameters does the Q result begin to diverge? What is the implication of this divergence?Also, and most interestingly. Why has Shawyer and Yang opted for this non standard methodology?Doing S11 return loss measurements to determine unloaded Q on a 1 port resonant system is NOT non standard. This method is the standard way to measure EMDrive cavities unloaded Q. As used by EWs, Shawyer, Prof Yang, Tajmar and myself.What others are talking about is doing 2 port loaded Q measurements using S21 methodology. No one in the EMDrive world is interested in loaded Q values or doing 2 port (2 holes in the cavity) S21 measurements.Here is a paper describing how to do unloaded Q measurements using S11. It is not correct to say using S11 to measure unloaded Q on a 1 port cavity is non standard.2 documents attached to support that opinion.
Hmmm, If Shawyer and Yang are using non standard methodology to figure out Q. What does this non standard methodology tell us. For example is there a difference in result between the Shawyer methodology and the standard methodology? If so, with what parameters does the Q result begin to diverge? What is the implication of this divergence?Also, and most interestingly. Why has Shawyer and Yang opted for this non standard methodology?
Quote from: X_RaY on 07/31/2015 04:55 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 07/30/2015 08:53 pm@zellerium: the "cardboard-like square part" is a thin piece made of mica which covers the end of the waveguide in a microwave oven. Mica (as well as white Teflon) is indeed transparent to microwaves. It lets the EM waves pass through it but protects the food from being impregnated by some undesirable substance that may be emitted from the magnetron cavity, like oil or metallic particles.This is a thought to EmDrive DIYers: maybe it is a good idea to insert a Teflon or Mica sheet in the waveguide to protect the interior of the cavity from those substances, in the same manner as food is protected in the oven.@Rodal, flux capacitor and all other experts:I was thinking about the glimmer plate inside the microwave cooking oven and MW sputtering technique. Without such a plate how many metal ions would enter the cavity? Is it possible that the ions (with high velocity a.k. relativistic mass times rest mass) cause the trust while the EM-field inside the cavity give them preferred direction to a single end plate? @flux capacitorThanks for surprising to Tajmar. Here one can see how important the peer review process really is!Is there really no one with ideas about (blue text) ?
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 07/30/2015 08:53 pm@zellerium: the "cardboard-like square part" is a thin piece made of mica which covers the end of the waveguide in a microwave oven. Mica (as well as white Teflon) is indeed transparent to microwaves. It lets the EM waves pass through it but protects the food from being impregnated by some undesirable substance that may be emitted from the magnetron cavity, like oil or metallic particles.This is a thought to EmDrive DIYers: maybe it is a good idea to insert a Teflon or Mica sheet in the waveguide to protect the interior of the cavity from those substances, in the same manner as food is protected in the oven.@Rodal, flux capacitor and all other experts:I was thinking about the glimmer plate inside the microwave cooking oven and MW sputtering technique. Without such a plate how many metal ions would enter the cavity? Is it possible that the ions (with high velocity a.k. relativistic mass times rest mass) cause the trust while the EM-field inside the cavity give them preferred direction to a single end plate? @flux capacitorThanks for surprising to Tajmar. Here one can see how important the peer review process really is!
...Sure it will resonate at some lower frequency because of the traveled distance. What is interesting is the modes it makes and watching the waves decay into Evanescent decay I'd assume. I was wondering if a CSV file was around for this.Interesting chart observation on the TE013 mode.Shell
10^10 to 10^11 for superconducting single cell cavitiesin the chart below Qo is the Intrinsic Qhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1051668;image
Quote from: X_RaY on 07/31/2015 07:46 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 07/31/2015 04:55 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 07/30/2015 08:53 pm@zellerium: the "cardboard-like square part" is a thin piece made of mica which covers the end of the waveguide in a microwave oven. Mica (as well as white Teflon) is indeed transparent to microwaves. It lets the EM waves pass through it but protects the food from being impregnated by some undesirable substance that may be emitted from the magnetron cavity, like oil or metallic particles.This is a thought to EmDrive DIYers: maybe it is a good idea to insert a Teflon or Mica sheet in the waveguide to protect the interior of the cavity from those substances, in the same manner as food is protected in the oven.@Rodal, flux capacitor and all other experts:I was thinking about the glimmer plate inside the microwave cooking oven and MW sputtering technique. Without such a plate how many metal ions would enter the cavity? Is it possible that the ions (with high velocity a.k. relativistic mass times rest mass) cause the trust while the EM-field inside the cavity give them preferred direction to a single end plate? @flux capacitorThanks for surprising to Tajmar. Here one can see how important the peer review process really is!Is there really no one with ideas about (blue text) ? Yes, I had an idea, which was to "like" your post, which meant that I agree with you that this is another possible source of thrust.
Shawyer has updated his device Force generation and direction summary to include the Tajmar results as attached.That makes 8 devices, tested in 4 countries and 5 labs.
Another error that Shawyer has in that chart (besides the direction of the force in NASA's experiments) is the specific force for Yang's experiments. Shawyer has only 0.288 N/kW for Yang. Yang reported 1 N/kW. You now say that it was really 4 N/kW. Regardless, why is Shawyer reporting only 0.288 N/kW and making Yang's experiments to have lower specific force than Shawyer's Flight Thruster ? (it looks like the peer reviewers for Shawyer's paper missed all of this ...)
Quote from: Rodal on 07/31/2015 08:36 pmAnother error that Shawyer has in that chart (besides the direction of the force in NASA's experiments) is the specific force for Yang's experiments. Shawyer has only 0.288 N/kW for Yang. Yang reported 1 N/kW. You now say that it was really 4 N/kW. Regardless, why is Shawyer reporting only 0.288 N/kW and making Yang's experiments to have lower specific force than Shawyer's Flight Thruster ? (it looks like the peer reviewers for Shawyer's paper missed all of this ...)Explanation:Specific thrust to power ratio is given for a specific thrust measured at a specific input power, which does not vary linearly a priori (but this last statement is not true, as explained below).288 N/kW is Yang's specific thrust measured for the maximum force recorded (720 mN) at the maximum power she used (2.5 kW).1 N/kW is a contrario the maximum mean specific thrust Yang recorded at an input power of 300 W, where she measured a thrust of 310 then 270 mN (2013 Yang paper, page 7 and .But after she corrected the dip in the thrust versus power curve due to the magnetron to cavity bandwidth mismatch (see same paper, page we can indeed calculate an average specific thrust comprised between 2 and 4 N/kW (and even an -erroneous?- 14N/kW for the first recorded value):As Yang concludes, this relation shows that the EM thrust monotonously increases with the practical power augmentation.EDIT: This was already pointed out by TheTraveller several days ago.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/29/2015 12:11 pmShawyer has updated his device Force generation and direction summary to include the Tajmar results as attached.That makes 8 devices, tested in 4 countries and 5 labs.Another error that Shawyer has in that chart (besides the direction of the force in NASA's experiments) is the specific force for Yang's experiments. Shawyer has only 0.288 N/kW for Yang. Yang reported 1 N/kW. You now say that it was really 4 N/kW. Regardless, why is Shawyer reporting only 0.288 N/kW which makes it look like Yang's experiments have lower specific force than Shawyer's Flight Thruster ? (it looks like the peer reviewers for Shawyer's paper missed all of this ...)
now, is there any way to translate the E and B field values into Watts? or maybe do the inverse: determine the intensity of the E and B fields in a frustum (with a given watt).