Quote from: Rodal on 06/20/2015 03:58 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/20/2015 03:39 pm...OK, you've got mine at 11.01 x 6.25 x 9.91"L as discussed with you and Traveller.OK, those dimensions are actually closer to NASA's and Iulian Berca's truncated cone geometry, and significantly different from Prof. Yang's dimensions (when taking into consideration the cone angle and the distance to the vertex of the cone). The big and the small diameters are same as NASA's, the length is closest to Yang's.(NASA has the following internal copper surface dimensions.Large OD : 11.00 " (0.2794m), Small OD: 6.25" (0.1588 m) & Length : 9.00 " (0.2286m) )rfmwguy Dimensionsaxial length = 0.252 meters = 9.91 inchesbig diameter = 0.280 meters = 11.01 inches [same as NASA]small diameter = 0.159 meters = 6.25 inches [same as NASA]givesr1= 0.340 metersr2=0.599 metershalf cone angle = 13.5 degreesSee the dimensions of the other EM Drives here: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_ResultsRe. NASA dimensions. I am confused. You state that the measurements are internal dimensions then in the same breath say that they are OD. OD normally stands for Outer Diameter. I know that the dielectric disks used are 6.25 inches, OD, which makes the small diameter of the cavity >= 6.25 inches, ID. The others, I'm not sure as I'm not sure where you are coming up with the numbers, but I think it is the origonal Brady cavity. The dimensions of the NASA copper kettle cavity are a little different, given in the attached, as provided by Paul March.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/20/2015 03:39 pm...OK, you've got mine at 11.01 x 6.25 x 9.91"L as discussed with you and Traveller.OK, those dimensions are actually closer to NASA's and Iulian Berca's truncated cone geometry, and significantly different from Prof. Yang's dimensions (when taking into consideration the cone angle and the distance to the vertex of the cone). The big and the small diameters are same as NASA's, the length is closest to Yang's.(NASA has the following internal copper surface dimensions.Large OD : 11.00 " (0.2794m), Small OD: 6.25" (0.1588 m) & Length : 9.00 " (0.2286m) )rfmwguy Dimensionsaxial length = 0.252 meters = 9.91 inchesbig diameter = 0.280 meters = 11.01 inches [same as NASA]small diameter = 0.159 meters = 6.25 inches [same as NASA]givesr1= 0.340 metersr2=0.599 metershalf cone angle = 13.5 degreesSee the dimensions of the other EM Drives here: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
...OK, you've got mine at 11.01 x 6.25 x 9.91"L as discussed with you and Traveller.
The copper frustum we built and now are using has the following internal copper surface dimensions.Large OD: 11.00" (0.2794m), Small OD: 6.25" (0.1588m) & Length: 9.00" (0.2286m)
<snip>The amplification could be due to a nonlinear effect that Todd has not taken into account. Masers (and Lasers) involve amplification. A solid state room-temperature Maser was invented during the last two decades but it is one meter long and it involves a special material to help amplification through emmission.I have not calculated the combined effects of TE011, TE012 and TE111, and/or the effects of coupling with a DC component.I can't calculate any thrust without mass/energy escaping the frustum somehow. That's what bothers me the most. I can't see how can the center of mass of an object be accelerated purely from the inside without expelling mass/energy to produce the thrust.
Seems to me that if the thicknesses of the copper walls are varied, but the other dimensions remain the same, and thrust also differs between the models, then we know the drive is interacting with the outside environment somehow. If thrust does not vary between models of different wall thickness, then the thrust is occurring in-house- so to speak.
Quote from: sghill on 06/20/2015 08:52 pmSeems to me that if the thicknesses of the copper walls are varied, but the other dimensions remain the same, and thrust also differs between the models, then we know the drive is interacting with the outside environment somehow. If thrust does not vary between models of different wall thickness, then the thrust is occurring in-house- so to speak.Cart before the horse? - if you will excuse me saying so.To date we do not even have at least two independent laboratories using identical devices producing identical thrust to within experimental tolerances.That for me is a prerequisite for declaring that there is any thrust at all.
In my Meep runs with Q in the millions, I was making a fundemental error. I was chasing resonance at a frequency near 2.45GHz, and ended up at (set! fsi 2.46316014E+009). In doing this I continually narrowed the noise bandwidth, getting as low as 73.5 MHz and finally settling on a bandwidth of 246 MHz and a length of 0.232 meters (not .24 meters; To keep resonance close to 2.45 GHz). Of course I forgot to mention this in my post. So this is not really Yang's model although I don't know what the bandwidth of Yang's magnetron source should be. I've made some more runs and with the bandwidth set somewhere between 500 MHz and 540 MHz, the Q value should be what we expect. (5,000, isn't it?)But that's not what I want to post! Something interesting happened when I decided to quit fooling with resonance and look at the field patterns! The attached image is generated using the new copper model that we developed here on NSF in the last few days. There is energy outside of the frustum! Now we need to be very careful and certain the the copper model is correct for 2.4 GHz frequency.If the copper model is correct, this image becomes a significant piece of data.
Have lost hope.IMHO what was promising has turned into dust.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
You say there is little test data...I say there is NONE past EW.To this point we have EW...Shaywer and the Chinese are mistaken. This is what Occam says and after much ado appears to be correct.I see the hint from old timers here that I may be correct.
What solid data did Julien garner? None.Where is he now?I disagree (agree?) we need more controlled experimental results, not more theory.