Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 763774 times)

Offline DIYFAN

  • Member
  • Posts: 48
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3300 on: 11/18/2014 07:34 PM »
Upon closer inspection, it is suggested that only the plate having the larger diameter (R1) be made of metglas 2714A to obtain the amplified thrust in the indicated direction.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 07:35 PM by DIYFAN »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3301 on: 11/18/2014 09:05 PM »
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.

The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)

The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)

Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.

There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.

Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 09:20 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3302 on: 11/18/2014 09:32 PM »
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.

The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)

The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)

Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.

There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.

Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)


1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.

2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:

a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small end (see picture attached below and White's August 2014 presentation at NASA Ames)

b) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.

For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of NASA's truncated cone, it would mean that:

c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone (as compared to the Cannae device) in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.

d) the NASA authors would have been very sloppy in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite to what they found and reported for the Cannae device.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 09:41 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3303 on: 11/18/2014 09:40 PM »
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.

The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)

The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)

Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.

There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.

Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)


1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.

2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:

a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small end
b) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.

For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:

c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur.  Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.

d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.

Your argument is based off the position of the dielectric, which doesn't follow. But if it did follow, your argument support my earlier assertions that putting the dielectric at the big or small end doesn't matter. I am glad to see you are back on board with dielectric thrust.

Side note, let's not get too serious about all this.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3304 on: 11/18/2014 09:48 PM »
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.

The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)

The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)

Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.

There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.

Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)


1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.

2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:

a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small end
b) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.

For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:

c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur.  Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.

d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.

Your argument is based off the position of the dielectric, which doesn't follow. But if it did follow, your argument support my earlier assertions that putting the dielectric at the big or small end doesn't matter. I am glad to see you are back on board with dielectric thrust.

Side note, let's not get too serious about all this.
When something doesn't agree with your unexplained postures you write that it doesn't follow.   What you mean is that you don't understand or worse, don't want to understand why somebody else thinks it follows.   No I am not with you regarding your readings of the Quantum Vacuum and their effect on a piece of Teflon or Polyethylene polymer.  They don't make any sense to me, from my academic studies or professional experience.   I don't know anybody at major universities that has such theories.  If it turns out that there is an interaction between these common polymers and the Quantum Vacuum in a microwave cavity that can practically serve for space propulsion I would be both very surprised and extremely delighted.

But it logically follows (to me) that for somebody  (like Paul March and Dr. White) who thinks that the dielectric placement in the microwave cavity has an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum, that they (Paul March and Dr. White) would place the dielectric always in a consistent manner both in the Cannae and the truncated cone, and if they wouldn't I would expect them to write about it and explain why they would have placed it inconsistently.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 10:10 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3305 on: 11/18/2014 09:59 PM »
Quote
When something doesn't agree with your unexplained postures you write that it doesn't follow.   What you mean is that you don't understand or worse, don't want to understand why somebody else thinks it follows.   No I am not with you regarding your readings of the Quantum Vacuum and their effect on a piece of Teflon or Polyethylene polymer.  They don't make any sense to me, from my academic studies or professional experience.   I don't know anybody at major universities that has such theories.  If it turns out that there is an interaction between these common polymers and the Quantum Vacuum in a microwave cavity that can practically serve for space propulsion I would be both very surprised and extremely delighted.

But it logically follows (to me) that for somebody  (like Paul March and Dr. White) who thinks that the dielectric placement in the microwave cavity has an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum, that they (Paul March and Dr. White) would place the dielectric always in a consistent manner both in the Cannae and the truncated cone, and if they wouldn't I would expect them to write about it and explain why they would have placed it inconsistently.

Well the matter is settled then. If you don't believe in the dielectric thrust scenario (even when the Brady et al paper said dielectric was important to thrust) (and the heaps and bounds of literature I've presented supporting it) you can't use the dielectric thrust placement as an argument for or agin. Especially when I've said multiple times that dielectric placement isn't the most fundamental thing here.

The paradoxes still remain. We'll hopefully get answers this fall from Eagleworks anomalous thrust Part II.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes with your spirited debate.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 10:03 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3306 on: 11/18/2014 10:04 PM »
Well the matter is settled then. If you don't believe in the dielectric thrust scenario (even when the Brady et al paper said dielectric was important to thrust) (and the heaps and bounds of literature I've presented supporting it) you can't use the dielectric thrust placement as an argument for or agin. Especially when I've said multiple times that dielectric placement isn't the most fundamental thing here.

The paradoxes still remain. We'll hopefully get answers this fall from Eagleworks anomalous thrust Part II.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes with your spirited debate.
Sorry to bruise your ego, but you are not (and neither I am) the arbiter of whether the dielectric placement is important or not to interact with the Quantum Vacuum. 

For the matter at hand (which way NASA defined thrust for the truncated cone) your opinion regarding dielectric orientation with respect to thust direction is completely irrelevant.  The relevant opinion is Paul March's and Dr. White's since they are the ones that decided where to place the dielectric in NASA's truncated cone.  My expectation is that (whether their Quantum Vacuum theories are right or wrong) Paul March and Dr. White are consistent researchers and that they placed the dielectric where they placed it (at the small end of the truncated cone) fora consistent and rational (in their viewpoint) reason.

Therefore my expectation is that thrust (as defined by NASA's Dr. White) for the truncated cone occurred pointing towards the big end,

a) consistent with Shawyer's spreadsheet graphics




b) consistent with Aquino's depiction



c) consistent with the dielectric being at the opposite end of the Cannae and NASA's truncated cone
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 10:20 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3307 on: 11/18/2014 10:22 PM »
A proof that NASA's thrust of the truncated cone occurred towards the big end is given by this picture:



which shows the support bolts at the right of the Faztek 1.5" by 1.5" beam.

This is consistent with Fig.11 for the Cannae that has the support bolts on the Faztek at the right of the Faztek and this is indicated as thrust to the right

Observe that Fig 9 has the support bolts to the left of the Faztek and this is indicated as thrust to the left

Also observe that when they had Canne thrust to the left (Fig. 9) the aluminum frame is different: it has a horizontal 45 degree Faztek to the right of the pendulum support arm that does not appear with the setup for thrust to the right of the Cannae (Fig 11) or the setup of the truncated cone.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 10:35 PM by Rodal »

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3308 on: 11/18/2014 10:31 PM »
With something as important as this, I've set my ego aside. You know how many times I've commented about trying to break my own theory here. Egos hide the truth and replace it with self soothing. I just want to make sense of all this. There's no offense meant if I bring a critical eye at commonly held ideas. It is just healthy skepticism. I live by "The Skepticís Creed."

I want Humanity to advance, and I want my bleeping hover car already.....sheesh.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 10:32 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Online Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1011
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3309 on: 11/18/2014 10:45 PM »
These mounting bolts? How does bolting it down on one side or the other matter? That doesn't change sign. Flipping it changes sign. Bolts pull and push.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3310 on: 11/18/2014 10:51 PM »
Just to add my two cents worth, look at a couple of equations.

F = m * a , so force must be in the same direction as acceleration, and
F= mdot * Ve, so force must be in the same direction as Ve.

But guess what! Rocket exhaust velocity, Ve is in the direction opposite to rocket engine acceleration. Now, call one thrust and one force, but what ever you name them, Rocket exhaust velocity and rocket engine acceleration have different signs.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3311 on: 11/18/2014 10:56 PM »
These mounting bolts? How does bolting it down on one side or the other matter? That doesn't change sign. Flipping it changes sign. Bolts pull and push.
I could say "look deeper" like you have said sarcastically in the past.  But I will refrain.

I will point again that the FRAME is different.

When the bolts are at the left there is an extra 45 degree beam component.

When the bolts are at the right (both for the Cannae and the truncated cone) that 45 degree beam is missing



It appears that to have the pendulum move towards the left they flipped the whole frame 180 degrees around the vertical central axis of torsional pendulum





« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 12:14 AM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3312 on: 11/18/2014 11:03 PM »
Just to add my two cents worth, look at a couple of equations.

F = m * a , so force must be in the same direction as acceleration, and
F= mdot * Ve, so force must be in the same direction as Ve.

But guess what! Rocket exhaust velocity, Ve is in the direction opposite to rocket engine acceleration. Now, call one thrust and one force, but what ever you name them, Rocket exhaust velocity and rocket engine acceleration have different signs.
Inertial force is opposite to direction of acceleration. Inertia is a force that opposes motion.

One has to supply an equal in magnitude but opposite in direction external force to overcome inertia.

ma - F =0

D'Alembert's free body diagram is much clearer.  It is what I learnt at MIT, put everything on the left side and do a free-body diagram:

(this guy has the picture right but he screwed up the double differentiation with respect to time, it should be d2/dt2 instead)

the acceleration is to the right
the inertial force is to the left
the thrust force is to the right
According to D'Alembert there is equlibrium between inertia and thrust forces (in this simple case in which no other forces are present.  If other forces are present they all go on the same side of the equal to zero sign: all the forces have to algebraically add up to zero)

« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 12:01 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3313 on: 11/18/2014 11:15 PM »
I did finish my first attempt to compute Quality factor of the Brady cavity. It took much longer than I had hoped because I had to sleep on the cause of my computer shutting down every half hour. I awoke this morning and turned off the stupid Power management shut down which of course solved that problem. Then I let the run finished but it took 10 hours instead of six. I am now looking at the data and have decided that I won't get useful answers by simulating a perfect metal cavity. Some perfect values-

Frequency- 2.040922E+009; Q-  2,236,229.84
Frequency- 2.119509E+009; Q-  4,437,476.10

Q of 2 to 4 x106 is nice to imagine, but real metal will reduce that and maybe change the frequency. Its a start, though.

And just for giggles, I've attached an image of the fields. Red, magnetic and Blue electric, I think? It does show the effect of the dielectric. Note that the cavity is closed on both ends, it is just that the 0.002 inch copper ends draws to fine a line to show up with the graphic software. That is, if the end lines showed on the graphic they would not be true to the scale of the graphic. But the ends are included in the calculations, I get some really pretty fields without the big end closed.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3314 on: 11/18/2014 11:27 PM »
I did finish my first attempt to compute Quality factor of the Brady cavity. It took much longer than I had hoped because I had to sleep on the cause of my computer shutting down every half hour. I awoke this morning and turned off the stupid Power management shut down which of course solved that problem. Then I let the run finished but it took 10 hours instead of six. I am now looking at the data and have decided that I won't get useful answers by simulating a perfect metal cavity. Some perfect values-

Frequency- 2.040922E+009; Q-  2,236,229.84
Frequency- 2.119509E+009; Q-  4,437,476.10

Q of 2 to 4 x106 is nice to imagine, but real metal will reduce that and maybe change the frequency. Its a start, though.

And just for giggles, I've attached an image of the fields. Red, magnetic and Blue electric, I think? It does show the effect of the dielectric. Note that the cavity is closed on both ends, it is just that the 0.002 inch copper ends draws to fine a line to show up with the graphic software. That is, if the end lines showed on the graphic they would not be true to the scale of the graphic. But the ends are included in the calculations, I get some really pretty fields without the big end closed.

That looks very different from Egan: 


and from NASA Brady et al  (they have opposite coloring field convention: blue magnetic and red electric )


« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 12:43 AM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3315 on: 11/18/2014 11:33 PM »
Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone (as compared to the Cannae device) in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.
I would just note that Paul said he was checking on these linear polymers for the tests since he was wary of the nonlinearities we've traditionally faced with perovskite ceramics.  He did not say why he wanted to put the stuff in there at all.

I think he may be trying to get something from Shawyer's crazy notion, that if one changes the velocity one changes the force on the chamber wall--despite Paul ought to know this is goofy, crazy, sub-highschool physics.  Here' the dopy reasoning:

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 11:35 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3316 on: 11/19/2014 12:34 AM »
Naa - Inertia is, in

physics : a property of matter by which something that is not moving remains still and something that is moving goes at the same speed and in the same direction until another thing or force affects it.

Inertia is a property of matter.  Inertia causes mater to resist. Matter will not go along willingly but due to Inertia, must be forced.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3317 on: 11/19/2014 12:39 AM »
Don't read to much into my fields graphic. It might be weak/strong field. But I'm sure that blue is strong e-field. I'll find out and of course tell all :)

Quote
Briefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),


The cavity was excited with  an Ez field, (electric field) so the colors are a measure of the electric field. I could excite with a magnetic field if that would be helpful.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 12:53 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3318 on: 11/19/2014 01:06 AM »
Regarding Aero's effort:

Are we looking at some sort of concentration or bunching of electrical energy at the big end of the cavity?  If that is true, would said concentration amount to 'thrust?' 

Or did I just demonstrate my vast ignorance again?

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3319 on: 11/19/2014 01:27 AM »
Don't read to much into my fields graphic. It might be weak/strong field. But I'm sure that blue is strong e-field. I'll find out and of course tell all :)

Quote
Briefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),


The cavity was excited with  an Ez field, (electric field) so the colors are a measure of the electric field. I could excite with a magnetic field if that would be helpful.

There should  be an electric field and a magnetic field inside the cavity. 
In some modes (TE) the electric field is rotational (transverse).  Then the magnetic field is axial. It is obtained as (1/omega) times the curl of the transverse electric field. Where omega is the angular frequency (2 Pi f ).

In other modes (TM) the magnetic field is rotational (transverse).  Then the electric field is axial. It is obtained as (c^2/omega) times the curl of the transverse magnetic field.

Higher modes have the fields in smaller domains, with nodes (zero field points) in between the domains.


Preferably, in a numerical solution, you should get both the electric and magnetic fields at once. 

If you cannot get both field solutions at once, then by all means excite them separately (but of course keep exactly the same frequency and boundary conditions).
« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 01:35 AM by Rodal »

Tags: