Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2171719 times)

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
... Right now everything you are doing is wrong because you don't understand the physics. ...

Given that he is at least one person among billions on this planet who is attempting a replication of a mystifying device, much of what he is doing is right. 

Also, to the guy operating the microwave magnetron outside of the microwave: STOP
At best you are violating the laws of your local government's regulatory committee for the electromagnetic spectrum. At worst you will damage your body. At this frequency, the damage is somewhat insidious. Due to low water content of your skin, you don't feel the heat, but internal nerve endings can be damaged so that chronic phantom pain can appear. Sometimes days after exposure. Please STOP otherwise you will inevitably be reported to your government.

While I agree with your safety suggestions, I think your tone and delivery are a bit over the top.  Microwaves are easily contained.

If microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.

Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Have modified my Shawyer Df calculator and best Df scanner as per the derived Shawyer Df equation, using cutoff wavelength and guide wavelength as per microwave industry supplied equations. I assume Shawyer did not supply these equations in his papers as they are equations that should be known to microwave industry individuals skilled in the art. Anyway they are now in the public record.

The scanner still sweeps the frequency range 0Hz to 10GHz but reports the frequency that generates a Df as close to 1 as possible but not over.

The attached results are very interesting as the frequency needed to get the Df to just below 1 is very close to the Rf driving frequency used to generate Lambda0 or free wavelength in the selected medium.

While I'm still testing the spreadsheet, which meets both of Shawyers boundary conditions, the results for my Flight Thruster design are looking to be very close to what I could build. Bit of dimension tweaking should get the Df 1 frequency to the 3.85GHz Shawyer used.

Will post the spreadsheet after a bit more testing.

I've built and tested many microwave cavities over many years.

You're guided wavelength equation is wrong, because this is for a rectangular wave guide (i.e., not even a rectangular cavity)

You need to derive mode of frequency yourself (unless there is a paper somewhere) for a circular tapered cavity. There is no other way around it. I would start with Balanis - Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics as he derives a few examples for other topologies. Right now everything you are doing is wrong because you don't understand the physics. I would study that book from front to cover if I were you.

The Guide Wavelength equation uses a circular cutoff wavelength as it's basis. That cutoff wavelength used is for the end conditions, just before reflection. It only focuses on that happens at each end.

A rectangular waveguide will have a different cutoff wavelength and hence a different Guide Wavelength.

As an ex ham, I see this as 2 semi connected resonate elements of an antenna. Each element has it's own unique operational characteristics as do each of the ends.

The length between the 2 ends is tuned to be at resonance of some sub, prime or harmonic of the Rf driving frequency as Shawyer says in the attachment.

My EM Drive design calculator says that for the Flight Thruster dimensions worked out on this thread, the length is very close to resonance at 2x the 3.85GHz wavelength and likewise the Df = 1 condition also occurs at close to the Rf driving frequency. I don't think this is a random event.

While I respect you may not agree with Shawyers or this analysis, I suggest that the Df =1 and length resonance results supporting operation at 3.85GHZ has added some degree of validity to the equation and calc process. At least for me.

The length of the waveguide from the magnetron is chosen to reduce back reflected power from the cavity to protect itself. The waveguide feeding from the magnetron into the cavity is a separate entity. So its hard to really understand what you are talking about. Cut off frequency and mode shapes for different cavity shapes have been described long ago and proven again and again, so I'm not sure what this has to do with Sawyer and his (strange) calculations.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
...
I can feel your pain, understand your concern and yes it concerns me too.
I'm digging through this paper right now and it seems to offer an answer. I'll re-read it several times, as it's looking to be the Tar Baby in the Brier Patch for me.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4376.pdf
I find it disheartening how much smaller is the effect explored in this "Tar Baby in the Brier Patch" paper and van Tiggelen's other papers, compared to what is claimed by the EM Drive researchers (particularly what is claimed by Shawyer and Prof. Yang regarding measured forces), and the fact that Shawyer and Prof. Yang do not use any dielectric polymer insert in their tests.
I understand the concern, I really do and it worries me too. There might be more than one way. I'm looking for the connection(s) and commonality in all.

It's hard to glean information from the other tests, I see what's going on right now in setting the cavity sizes and selecting correct harmonics (good detective work BTW) from the lack of information. Your tests were the only one where I feel confident that you used and reported a Dielectric Polymer with a solid yea/nay, it works, it doesn't. On a side note in my business of building Semiconductor machines (sold it and retired in 08 btw) I received sheet metals (copper included) with very thin coatings of plastic sheeting that needed to be pealed off, did I get it all before using, did some adhere, bonding to the surface affecting the tests? I'm not sure as that info isn't there.

This paper looks like it may offer out a way to the issues of violation of CoE and CoM which is a severe no no. As to the difference between the tests we simply have to do some more detective work. I think the answers are there.

Don't forget about the nonreciprocity of Nitrogen papers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0712
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1174
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1859.htm
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-when-the-speed-of-light.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330846#msg1330846

Imagine the implications of having the speed of light depend on its direction in a medium.


Quote
I've been trying to wrap my brain around why a difference in phase results in a better thrust.  Also, why couldn't EW obtain a thrust without a dielectric?

I think we can all agree that in order for a net thrust, the momentum delivered to the larger end plate is smaller than that delivered to the smaller end plate. So where did the momentum go?

Can momentum be delivered and removed from an orbiting electron?

Take a simple two dimensional case with two atoms, one on the small end, one on the large end, each with their own electron orbiting at a the same angular frequency. If a force is applied to both of them, one in the direction of revolution and the other opposite, one of the forces would slow down the electron and the other would speed it up. The sped up electron requires a larger force to keep it tied to the nucleus and we have a net thrust.

Perhaps this could help explain a couple things:

The dielectric is composed of different elements, thus the electrons are orbiting at a different angular velocity. Using a constant frequency with different elements gives a certain degree of difference in the phase at which momentum is delivered to the electrons.

Shawyer observed more losses with a dielectric because a magnetron outputs a signal at many phases and somehow 'matches' the orbital tendency of the electrons.
I imagine the magnetic component of the wave could be contributing to an alignment of electrons which could amplify this miniscule effect.

Any thoughts?
I'm digging through this paper right now and it seems to offer an answer to your question. I'll re-read it several times, as it's looking to be the Tar Baby in the Brier Patch for me.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4376.pdf

Exact words from Eagleworks about obtaining thrust without a dielectric:
Quote
We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 04:47 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline LasJayhawk

... Right now everything you are doing is wrong because you don't understand the physics. ...

Given that he is at least one person among billions on this planet who is attempting a replication of a mystifying device, much of what he is doing is right. 

Also, to the guy operating the microwave magnetron outside of the microwave: STOP
At best you are violating the laws of your local government's regulatory committee for the electromagnetic spectrum. At worst you will damage your body. At this frequency, the damage is somewhat insidious. Due to low water content of your skin, you don't feel the heat, but internal nerve endings can be damaged so that chronic phantom pain can appear. Sometimes days after exposure. Please STOP otherwise you will inevitably be reported to your government.

While I agree with your safety suggestions, I think your tone and delivery are a bit over the top.  Microwaves are easily contained.

If microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.

Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.

Like the 17 years it took Parkes to find out it was a microwave oven causing the perytons they were getting in the radio telescope? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/microwave-oven-stumped-astronomers-17-years/story?id=30822415

And I don't see how you will get repeatablity with a nasty old maggie, unless this is a brute force effect. A Klystron based source would be a better option IMHO.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
...Don't forget about the nonreciprocity of Nitrogen papers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0712
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1174
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1859.htm
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-when-the-speed-of-light.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330846#msg1330846

Imagine the implications of having the speed of light depend on its direction in a medium....
Isn't the magnitude of this effect (nonreciprocity of Nitrogen papers), regarding a thrust force even smaller than the magnitude for the chiral polymer ?

Therefore, isn't this unable to explain what is claimed by Shawyer and Yang? (numerically speaking, as those effects appear to be orders of magnitude smaller than what is being claimed by the researchers)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
... Right now everything you are doing is wrong because you don't understand the physics. ...

Given that he is at least one person among billions on this planet who is attempting a replication of a mystifying device, much of what he is doing is right. 

Also, to the guy operating the microwave magnetron outside of the microwave: STOP
At best you are violating the laws of your local government's regulatory committee for the electromagnetic spectrum. At worst you will damage your body. At this frequency, the damage is somewhat insidious. Due to low water content of your skin, you don't feel the heat, but internal nerve endings can be damaged so that chronic phantom pain can appear. Sometimes days after exposure. Please STOP otherwise you will inevitably be reported to your government.

While I agree with your safety suggestions, I think your tone and delivery are a bit over the top.  Microwaves are easily contained.

If microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.

Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.

Like the 17 years it took Parkes to find out it was a microwave oven causing the perytons they were getting in the radio telescope? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/microwave-oven-stumped-astronomers-17-years/story?id=30822415

And I don't see how you will get repeatablity with a nasty old maggie, unless this is a brute force effect. A Klystron based source would be a better option IMHO.

The guy in Romania has the magnetron antenna clearly placed inside the frustum. And yes it is a brute force effort and will likely burn out his source if he pushes it. Luckily they're a dime a dozen. He's in Romania, so we have no idea what sort of regulatory environment they have there. Even in the US, nobody is going to notice noise in the ISM band for 40 seconds. Those in the US might not want to post on the internet what they're doing with magnetrons without consulting the FCC first.

The spoils go to those who are bold enough to try. The trick is to accept and manage risk appropriately. If you aren't willing to take risk, you'll never even get the chance to fail.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline TheTraveller

The length of the waveguide from the magnetron is chosen to reduce back reflected power from the cavity to protect itself. The waveguide feeding from the magnetron into the cavity is a separate entity. So its hard to really understand what you are talking about. Cut off frequency and mode shapes for different cavity shapes have been described long ago and proven again and again, so I'm not sure what this has to do with Sawyer and his (strange) calculations.

Yes of course and as Shawyer says the:

Microwave energy is fed from a magnetron,
.. via a tuned feed,
.... to a tapered waveguide,
...... whose overall length
........ gives resonance
.......... at the operating frequency
............ of the magnetron.

1) microwave feed from magnetron to tapered waveguide / cavity is tuned for best feed.

2) overall length (up and down) of the tapered waveguide / cavity is adjusted so it resonates with the applied Rf or the applied Rf frequency is altered to achieve resonance between the 2 end plates.

This is what Shawyer was doing physically in his 1st and 2nd EM Drives. Note tuning mechanism on top of the 1st test device and extensive stepper motor length tuning system on end of the 2nd device.

Last attachment shows what I believe the left side tuning system was doing inside the fixed diameter cylindrical section.

The Rf signal must achieve length resonance for the EM Drive to deliver thrust. No resonance, to thrust. I also believe the DF should get very close to 1 at the same applied Rf frequency.

So 3 dimensions to tune to get optimal thrust production. Get Df close to 1 at Rf frequency via small & big end diameter adjustments and get cavity length resonance to the applied Rf frequency via adjustment of the spacing between the end plates. Get one or both wrong and there will be no thrust.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
...
I can feel your pain, understand your concern and yes it concerns me too.
I'm digging through this paper right now and it seems to offer an answer. I'll re-read it several times, as it's looking to be the Tar Baby in the Brier Patch for me.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4376.pdf
I find it disheartening how much smaller is the effect explored in this "Tar Baby in the Brier Patch" paper and van Tiggelen's other papers, compared to what is claimed by the EM Drive researchers (particularly what is claimed by Shawyer and Prof. Yang regarding measured forces), and the fact that Shawyer and Prof. Yang do not use any dielectric polymer insert in their tests.
I understand the concern, I really do and it worries me too. There might be more than one way. I'm looking for the connection(s) and commonality in all.

It's hard to glean information from the other tests, I see what's going on right now in setting the cavity sizes and selecting correct harmonics (good detective work BTW) from the lack of information. Your tests were the only one where I feel confident that you used and reported a Dielectric Polymer with a solid yea/nay, it works, it doesn't. On a side note in my business of building Semiconductor machines (sold it and retired in 08 btw) I received sheet metals (copper included) with very thin coatings of plastic sheeting that needed to be pealed off, did I get it all before using, did some adhere, bonding to the surface affecting the tests? I'm not sure as that info isn't there.

This paper looks like it may offer out a way to the issues of violation of CoE and CoM which is a severe no no. As to the difference between the tests we simply have to do some more detective work. I think the answers are there.

Don't forget about the nonreciprocity of Nitrogen papers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0712
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1174
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1859.htm
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-when-the-speed-of-light.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1330846#msg1330846

Imagine the implications of having the speed of light depend on its direction in a medium.


Quote
I've been trying to wrap my brain around why a difference in phase results in a better thrust.  Also, why couldn't EW obtain a thrust without a dielectric?

I think we can all agree that in order for a net thrust, the momentum delivered to the larger end plate is smaller than that delivered to the smaller end plate. So where did the momentum go?

Can momentum be delivered and removed from an orbiting electron?

Take a simple two dimensional case with two atoms, one on the small end, one on the large end, each with their own electron orbiting at a the same angular frequency. If a force is applied to both of them, one in the direction of revolution and the other opposite, one of the forces would slow down the electron and the other would speed it up. The sped up electron requires a larger force to keep it tied to the nucleus and we have a net thrust.

Perhaps this could help explain a couple things:

The dielectric is composed of different elements, thus the electrons are orbiting at a different angular velocity. Using a constant frequency with different elements gives a certain degree of difference in the phase at which momentum is delivered to the electrons.

Shawyer observed more losses with a dielectric because a magnetron outputs a signal at many phases and somehow 'matches' the orbital tendency of the electrons.
I imagine the magnetic component of the wave could be contributing to an alignment of electrons which could amplify this miniscule effect.

Any thoughts?
I'm digging through this paper right now and it seems to offer an answer to your question. I'll re-read it several times, as it's looking to be the Tar Baby in the Brier Patch for me.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4376.pdf

Exact words from Eagleworks about obtaining thrust without a dielectric:
Quote
We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf

Explain to me if I'm light in a medium that forced to go faster than the medium allows, what laws have I broken? Blame it on me sitting in my hot tub watching the waves interact in ways faster than they normally would just by going across the water. . .  and also needing a break.

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 400


If microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.

Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.

We plan to enclose our system in many layers of laminated microwave absorbing sheets:
http://www.lessemf.com/259.pdf


Offline phaseshift

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Seattle, WA
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 97
Today i did the first test with the Emdrive (microwave oven magnetron and cooper frustum)
The setup (magnetron and frusum) was suspended in a pendulum.
I applied power for 40 Seconds with no visible thrust. Tomorrow will will try again with the magnetron on the small side. You have any suggestion for what should be the distance from the small side?
After this i will adjust the power to the filament of magnetron and the frequency.
To fine adjust the frequency i thought i can put 2 coils over the magnetron magnets to modify the magnetic field.
My website;
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/



Can you turn the drive on and off rapidly so that it lengthens the oscillation of the pendulum, like a child's swing? It would have to be computer controlled.. The period might be less than the engine response time though. I'm thinking of running through the math on this.

« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 05:47 PM by phaseshift »
"It doesn't have to be a brain storm, a drizzle will often do" - phaseshift

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
@Rodal: You say that you get a blow-up with your Df formula, and yet
a) you agree that both lambdag1,2 are greater than lambda0 (because vg < c)
b) you agree that, this being the case, it's mathematically impossible to get blow-up (denominator zero)

Clarify please?

This is a picture for the case

bD=0.2797 m;sD=0.1588 m;cMedium=in Air

which has a cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter of 1.10609 GHz

Notice that there is a singularity at 1.10609 GHz such that Shawyer's Design Factor doesn't have a Real value for frequencies below it.  Also notice the rise and steepening of the Design Factor curve as the cut-off frequency is approached


Offline StrongGR

I am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.

I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.

As usual, any comment is very welcome.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Have modified my Shawyer Df calculator and best Df scanner as per the derived Shawyer Df equation, using cutoff wavelength and guide wavelength as per microwave industry supplied equations. I assume Shawyer did not supply these equations in his papers as they are equations that should be known to microwave industry individuals skilled in the art. Anyway they are now in the public record.

The scanner still sweeps the frequency range 0Hz to 10GHz but reports the frequency that generates a Df as close to 1 as possible but not over.

The attached results are very interesting as the frequency needed to get the Df to just below 1 is very close to the Rf driving frequency used to generate Lambda0 or free wavelength in the selected medium.

While I'm still testing the spreadsheet, which meets both of Shawyers boundary conditions, the results for my Flight Thruster design are looking to be very close to what I could build. Bit of dimension tweaking should get the Df 1 frequency to the 3.85GHz Shawyer used.

Will post the spreadsheet after a bit more testing.

This is a picture for the FLIGHT THRUSTER case

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;cMedium=299705000 m/s (Air)

which has a cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter of 1.21136 GHz

Notice that there is a singularity at 1.21136 GHz such that Shawyer's Design Factor doesn't have a Real value for frequencies below it.  Also notice the rise and steepening of the Design Factor curve as the cut-off frequency is approached.

QUESTION: If Shawyer thinks that his Design Factor steepening behavior near the cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter is correct, why didn't he test his Flight Thruster at a lower frequency, closer to 1.2 GHz instead of the higher frequency he chose of 3.782 GHz? Doesn't Shawyer want to maximize thrust force ?
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:08 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Here are the 1st cut of the Flight Thruster dimensions based on Df = just below 1.0 and length resonance.

I'm impressed the dimensions are VERY close to those calculated from the Flight Thruster picture.

The calculator lets me set the big and small end dimensions to get Df just below 1 at a calculated frequency close to the 3.85GHz design frequency. Then using the What If capability, the cavity length is auto adjusted to get resonance at the same frequency that generates a Df just below 1.

Attached are the Flight Thruster dimensions and resonate frequency that lock the 2 optimal frequencies together. While 3.78GHz is not 3.85GHz, it is close enough for my variable Rf frequency generator to lock on.

Time to start getting serious and design, build and test the Teeter Totter balance beam thrust measurement system and data capture & logging system.
"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

Have modified my Shawyer Df calculator and best Df scanner as per the derived Shawyer Df equation, using cutoff wavelength and guide wavelength as per microwave industry supplied equations. I assume Shawyer did not supply these equations in his papers as they are equations that should be known to microwave industry individuals skilled in the art. Anyway they are now in the public record.

The scanner still sweeps the frequency range 0Hz to 10GHz but reports the frequency that generates a Df as close to 1 as possible but not over.

The attached results are very interesting as the frequency needed to get the Df to just below 1 is very close to the Rf driving frequency used to generate Lambda0 or free wavelength in the selected medium.

While I'm still testing the spreadsheet, which meets both of Shawyers boundary conditions, the results for my Flight Thruster design are looking to be very close to what I could build. Bit of dimension tweaking should get the Df 1 frequency to the 3.85GHz Shawyer used.

Will post the spreadsheet after a bit more testing.

This is a picture for the FLIGHT THRUSTER case

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;cMedium=299705000 m/s (Air)

which has a cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter of 1.21136 GHz

Notice that there is a singularity at 1.21136 GHz such that Shawyer's Design Factor doesn't have a Real value for frequencies below it.  Also notice the rise and steepening of the Design Factor curve as the cut-off frequency is approached.

QUESTION: If Shawyer thinks that his Design Factor steepening behavior near the cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter is correct, why didn't he test his Flight Thruster at a lower frequency, closer to 1.2 GHz instead of the higher frequency he chose of 3.782 GHz? Doesn't Shawyer want to maximize thrust force ?

Shawyer has said Df = 1 is the max value to consider in the real world. Which I have done. Try these dimensions and frequency and see what Df you get?

Note both the DF = 1 frequency and cavity length resonance frequency are the same and that the cavity dimension are close to those workout on this forum. So the guys who did that work were close.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:12 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Have modified my Shawyer Df calculator and best Df scanner as per the derived Shawyer Df equation, using cutoff wavelength and guide wavelength as per microwave industry supplied equations. I assume Shawyer did not supply these equations in his papers as they are equations that should be known to microwave industry individuals skilled in the art. Anyway they are now in the public record.

The scanner still sweeps the frequency range 0Hz to 10GHz but reports the frequency that generates a Df as close to 1 as possible but not over.

The attached results are very interesting as the frequency needed to get the Df to just below 1 is very close to the Rf driving frequency used to generate Lambda0 or free wavelength in the selected medium.

While I'm still testing the spreadsheet, which meets both of Shawyers boundary conditions, the results for my Flight Thruster design are looking to be very close to what I could build. Bit of dimension tweaking should get the Df 1 frequency to the 3.85GHz Shawyer used.

Will post the spreadsheet after a bit more testing.

This is a picture for the FLIGHT THRUSTER case

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;cMedium=299705000 m/s (Air)

which has a cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter of 1.21136 GHz

Notice that there is a singularity at 1.21136 GHz such that Shawyer's Design Factor doesn't have a Real value for frequencies below it.  Also notice the rise and steepening of the Design Factor curve as the cut-off frequency is approached.

QUESTION: If Shawyer thinks that his Design Factor steepening behavior near the cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter is correct, why didn't he test his Flight Thruster at a lower frequency, closer to 1.2 GHz instead of the higher frequency he chose of 3.782 GHz? Doesn't Shawyer want to maximize thrust force ?

Shawyer has said Df = 1 is the max value to consider in the real world. Which I have done. Try these dimensions and frequency and see what Df you get?

Note both the DF = 1 frequency and cavity length resonance frequency are the same and that the cavity dimension are close to those workout on this forum. So the guys who did that work were close.



Sorry, the dimensions I see in that spreadsheet are the same dimensions I see in your prior post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374106#msg1374106

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;

which give a Design Factor below 0.5

Could you please send the dimensions that give DF=0.9999 in another post and double check them ? Thanks
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:16 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Have modified my Shawyer Df calculator and best Df scanner as per the derived Shawyer Df equation, using cutoff wavelength and guide wavelength as per microwave industry supplied equations. I assume Shawyer did not supply these equations in his papers as they are equations that should be known to microwave industry individuals skilled in the art. Anyway they are now in the public record.

The scanner still sweeps the frequency range 0Hz to 10GHz but reports the frequency that generates a Df as close to 1 as possible but not over.

The attached results are very interesting as the frequency needed to get the Df to just below 1 is very close to the Rf driving frequency used to generate Lambda0 or free wavelength in the selected medium.

While I'm still testing the spreadsheet, which meets both of Shawyers boundary conditions, the results for my Flight Thruster design are looking to be very close to what I could build. Bit of dimension tweaking should get the Df 1 frequency to the 3.85GHz Shawyer used.

Will post the spreadsheet after a bit more testing.

This is a picture for the FLIGHT THRUSTER case

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;cMedium=299705000 m/s (Air)

which has a cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter of 1.21136 GHz

Notice that there is a singularity at 1.21136 GHz such that Shawyer's Design Factor doesn't have a Real value for frequencies below it.  Also notice the rise and steepening of the Design Factor curve as the cut-off frequency is approached.

QUESTION: If Shawyer thinks that his Design Factor steepening behavior near the cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter is correct, why didn't he test his Flight Thruster at a lower frequency, closer to 1.2 GHz instead of the higher frequency he chose of 3.782 GHz? Doesn't Shawyer want to maximize thrust force ?

Shawyer has said Df = 1 is the max value to consider in the real world. Which I have done. Try these dimensions and frequency and see what Df you get?

Note both the DF = 1 frequency and cavity length resonance frequency are the same and that the cavity dimension are close to those workout on this forum. So the guys who did that work were close.

Sorry, the dimensions I see in that spreadsheet are the same dimensions I see in your prior post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374106#msg1374106

bD=0.2440 m ;sD=0.1450 m ;

which give a Design Factor below 0.5

Could you please send the dimensions in another post and double check them ? Thanks

Note the frequency is NOT 3.85GHz. There are THREE factors in the Df equation, Small End diameter, Big End diameter and FREQUENCY.

Check the Df at the quoted frequency and let me know the Df?
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:18 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
...
Note the frequency is NOT 3.85GHz. There are THREE factors in the Df equation, Small End diameter, Big End diameter and FREQUENCY.

Look at this image:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=830138

for those dimensions and look at the horizontal axis for frequency.  At that frequency the Design Factor is still below 0.5

Shawyer's design factor is practically unaffected by frequency except near the cut-off frequency for the small diameter.

Shawyer's Design Factor is highest at lowest frequency (near cut-off) and it decreases with frequency

See my equationshttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374110#msg1374110
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:48 PM by Rodal »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
I am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.

I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.

As usual, any comment is very welcome.

Which news, can you elaborate?

Offline Blaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Spring Hill, KS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 122
Lucky that Nasa hasn't stopped the experiments.  It would be a more than a little upsetting if they stoped the progress Eagleworks has made.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 06:31 PM by Blaine »
Weird Science!

Tags: