Sounds to me kind of like: "Surface integral (numeric) of this expression:.....This is the integral of the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the truncated cone surface at that point" The vector normal to the truncated cone surface does not change for different modes.That's what it sounds like anyway.................
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 03/21/2015 05:45 pmSounds to me kind of like: "Surface integral (numeric) of this expression:.....This is the integral of the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the truncated cone surface at that point" The vector normal to the truncated cone surface does not change for different modes.That's what it sounds like anyway.................If "sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" (a scalar) is replaced by "pressure" (as scalar pressure in ideal gas at thermal equilibrium) then the formula would read as the surface integral of the pressure multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the truncated cone surface at that point. Pressure is N/mē scalar, integrated over a surface yields N. The normal_z factor (dimensionless) leaves only the z component of the force at each point. Over a patch of surface the integral result would be the z component of the force exerted by such gas on that patch. For the inner surface of a closed cavity filled by a gas at thermal equilibrium and at rest (and without pressure gradient due to gravity or acceleration), that should integrate to 0.If this analogy holds, the units of "the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" should be like a pressure, or equivalently energy volumetric density, in N/mē or equivalently J/m^3 (passing by Nm/m^3 and Nm is J). Maybe this is more clear to understand "volumetric energy densities (in J/m^3) taken at the surface" rather than "surface energy densities" as the later seems to imply surface densities (in J/mē).1) Integrating J/m^3 over a surface gives N (mē*J/m^3 -> J/m -> Nm/m -> N)2) Integrating J/m^2 over a surface gives J, equivalent to Nm, not to NOnly 1) makes the formula dimensionally consistent (to give N in the end)My musings, can't go much further, why I asked dr Rodal his views on the matter. Latest posts are quite readable even when lacking any decent basis with electromagnetic stress-energy tensors.
Doctor McCulloch put forth another blog post on the EM Drive, using a 'one wave' version of his theory. By and large, his predictions with this new model seem much closer to the mark than before. There are a few tests he put in red because of uncertainty over the geometry.http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/At times, it seems almost like this device operates in the murky area between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.
Quote from: ThinkerX on 03/21/2015 11:11 pmDoctor McCulloch put forth another blog post on the EM Drive, using a 'one wave' version of his theory. By and large, his predictions with this new model seem much closer to the mark than before. There are a few tests he put in red because of uncertainty over the geometry.http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/At times, it seems almost like this device operates in the murky area between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.The GRT coupling between EM and Gravity is miniscule; something like billionths of a trilionth or some ridiculously small amount like that. (source: popular articles on Martin Tajmar's retracted gravity effects paper.) Are these present effects in that slender range or are they outliers to what GRT allows? If it is it's not necessarily invalidating because GRT does not describe dark sector interactions for example. But it's worth exploring how they vary from predictions.
Unless they assume some non-conventional time-dependence for the electromagnetic waves such that the time derivative equals the original function. Essentially that would imply a time-dependence going like e^t (the derivative with respect to time of e^t equals e^t) instead of harmonic dependence e^(i*omega*t).e^t dependence would not be a standing harmonic wave, but it would be a disturbance growing exponentially with time !
Is it too much to hope for a strong divergence from predictions? http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/03/lhcbs-new-analysis-confirms-old-puzzle
Folks:While you think about possible explanations for the gathering body of data that surrounds the EM-Drive, I've been given permission by Dr. John Brandenburg to post his latest conjecture on how he thinks the EM-Drive AKA Q-Thruster can generate a thrust signal that does not violate the conservations laws. It's not too far off what Dr. White is proposing, but it's just different enough to be of interest especially to the GRT crowd.Best, Paul M.
Moreover the Nexus graviton can also be considered as a globule of vacuum energy which can merge and de-merge with others in a process that resembles cytokineses in cell biology.The Nexus graviton is Dark Matter and constitutes space-time. The emission of a graviton of least energy by a high energy graviton results in the expansion of the high energy graviton as it assumes a lower energy state. This process manifests as Dark Energy and takes place throughout space-time as the theory explains.
Ephraim Shahmoon, Gershon Kurizki (Weizmann Institute of Science) and Igor Mazets calculated what happens to vacuum forces between atoms when they are placed in the vicinity of an electrical transmission line such as a coaxial cable or a coplanar waveguide (a device used in cavity quantum electrodynamics experiments as an open transmission line), cooled to very low temperatures. "In that case, the fluctuations are effectively confined to one dimension," says Igor Mazets. The virtual particles will be forced to go into the direction of the other atom.In that case, the fluctuation-mediated attraction between the atoms becomes orders of magnitude stronger than in free space. Usually, the force decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the atoms. Due to the transmission line, it falls off with one over the distance cubed, instead of one over the seventh power of the distance, as in the usual case.
Attached are VSWR plots for the unloaded frustum configuration currently in my possession between 2400-2500mhz. The cursors are at the MIN VSWR. The peaks of each plot is a VSWR of 99. ...
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/22/2015 11:57 amAttached are VSWR plots for the unloaded frustum configuration currently in my possession between 2400-2500mhz. The cursors are at the MIN VSWR. The peaks of each plot is a VSWR of 99. ...Would like to perform some calculations of Poynting vector, etc.What are the geometrical dimensions of your truncated cone?Internal Diameter of Big Base = ?Internal Diameter of Small Base = ?Internal Axial Length (perpendicular to the bases) = ?
@Paul March, what do you recommend doing with the sample port on the frustum during actual force measurements? It seems that leaving a 50ohm termination on there during the actual force testing will just ensure energy will get coupled back out of the cavity and into the load, which is what I don't want to happen.Should I leave it terminated with a termination with a very low rating? Or should I remove the probe inside? Or should I just remove the connector and tape over it with copper tape? Connect it to some test equipment? Something else?What do you do?Thanks for all that you are doing.
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/22/2015 01:27 pm@Paul March, what do you recommend doing with the sample port on the frustum during actual force measurements? It seems that leaving a 50ohm termination on there during the actual force testing will just ensure energy will get coupled back out of the cavity and into the load, which is what I don't want to happen.Should I leave it terminated with a termination with a very low rating? Or should I remove the probe inside? Or should I just remove the connector and tape over it with copper tape? Connect it to some test equipment? Something else?What do you do?Thanks for all that you are doing.Not NASA here, of course, but I would just leave the connector "open", ie. high impedance. (what impedance are you looking into as a monitor ?)My personal favorite would be to use it as feedback in an oscillator configuration. (I'm "biased" )
Can you use your analyser in a reflectometer configuration ?