Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803515 times)

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • France
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 909
It is your own conclusion

No it's not.
I only quoted what the Boeing spokesman said…

and because it is not even in the original text,I call it bias and not facts
Your English needs work, then.
Always, as it's not my primary language. But I think "bias" is the correct meaning I wanted to communicate. Would "a priori" or "prejudice" be a better term?
Again, I carefully read the original article to separate the journalist's conclusions from the two sentences made by the Boeing spokesman.

The only truth about this is: we don't know. So don't infer wrong conclusions from twisted quotes.
I'm not inferring anything.
Indeed. I was answering deltamass all along. Apologies if you though I was answering you. The way I quoted was my fault so I edited my previous post to clarify.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 09:49 PM by flux_capacitor »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
Before I have to get out to my envied shop to play some more I thought I'd at least post what the last test configuration on my RFChicken in a Blender EMDrive and what I want to do. I'll write more later but I have a few projects I got to get done today.

Aero, Love the way your Meeps is starting to work. I swear in image and a few others I looked at (and I'll pick one) EZ.T168.png, zooming in to the angled sidewalls I could see small fractals all up and down the wall. Interesting indeed.

Shell

Edit: writing to fast... booboos

PS Edit: Hint... Look at the variable dimensions across the bottom plate that the hexagon provides.  Really GTG this time.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 09:46 PM by SeeShells »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • France
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 909
Greetings everyone.
Greetings Mark, welcome to the forum!

How important are the frustum measurements? Can we produce similar effects within two concentric spherical shells containing a vacuum? What will happen?

I'm not sure to understand what you are proposing. The EmDrive, because it is a frustum (truncated cone) has an asymmetric shape. It is believed this asymmetry is the key for the anomalous thrust. Hence there is no thrust possible with a symmetric cavity, for example cylindrical (unless having a dielectric inside, which produces a gradient and restore an asymmetry). So two concentric spheres, which is also a symmetrical shape, would not produce any thrust.

Offline Dortex

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • United States
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 12
I only quoted what the Boeing spokesman said…

To be clear, I'm just saying they could still work on the thing even if they literally said they aren't anymore. I don't care whether they actually are or not.

Always, as it's not my primary language. But I think "bias" is the correct meaning I wanted to communicate. Would "a priori" or "prejudice" be a better term?
Again, I carefully read the original article to separate the journalist's conclusions from the two sentences made by the Boeing spokesman.

"Assumption" or "misunderstanding" seem to fit better. Unless you're honestly trying to say he's got some kind of ideological problem with Boeing working on the EMDrive. In that case, it's exactly the word for it, though I'd be baffled by your trying to make it so personal.

Indeed. I was answering deltamass all along. Apologies if you though I was answering you. The way I quoted was my fault so I edited my previous post to clarify.

I understand. Sorry for getting a little harsh myself.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...EZ.T168.png, zooming in to the angled sidewalls I could see small fractals all up and down the wall. ...
An artifact of the Finite Difference scheme in Cartesian coordinates.

The boundary conditions along the side walls are difficult for the Finite Difference scheme to satisfy.  (Satisfaction of boundary conditions along complex boundaries is one of the many reasons why Finite Elements are preferred to Finite Differences).

The side walls are not oriented along any of the Cartesian axes.  The side walls are at an angle to the Cartesian axes.

The boundary conditions for the Finite Difference scheme can only be imposed (and only  satisfied) at the finite difference mesh points.   Suitable boundary conditions have to be imposed  at every Finite Difference mesh point on the Cartesian components of the Electric field such that, the Electric Field (for example) component parallel to the wall is zero.  Since the walls are not aligned along the Cartesian axes, the finite mesh discretization leads to a fractal pattern that arises as an artifact of the mesh discretization and the Cartesian coordinates.

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
...EZ.T168.png, zooming in to the angled sidewalls I could see small fractals all up and down the wall. ...
An artifact of the Finite Difference scheme in Cartesian coordinates.

The boundary conditions along the side walls are difficult for the Finite Difference scheme to satisfy.  (Satisfaction of boundary conditions along complex boundaries is one of the many reasons why Finite Elements are preferred to Finite Differences).

The side walls are not oriented along any of the Cartesian axes.  The side walls are at an angle to the Cartesian axes.

The boundary conditions for the Finite Difference scheme can only be imposed (and only  satisfied) at the finite difference mesh points.   Suitable boundary conditions have to be imposed  at every Finite Difference mesh point on the Cartesian components of the Electric field such that, the Electric Field (for example) component parallel to the wall is zero.  Since the walls are not aligned along the Cartesian axes, the finite mesh discretization leads to a fractal pattern that arises as an artifact of the mesh discretization and the Cartesian coordinates.
Thanks for the detailed write up, that makes sense how it breaks down.

Shell

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
"We are not working on it" is unambiguous.

It might just be true from a certain point of view. Not to say they're still working on it, but it's easy to just rename the drive and project then say you're not working on an "EMDrive" specifically.

Hint...boeing has thousands of suppliers and contractors.

Edit - this is meant to remind all to keep working on their theories and projects. Don't assume its been shelved or doesn't work just because one company rep says something. drive on troops.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 10:41 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 239
@Rodal - I hope you won't be upset that I have re-named the cavity model, formerly named "Rodel" to the new name, "Brady-Rodal." That way, if I want to make "Yang-Rodal," I can do so without naming confusion.  :)

Meep, Harminv calculates resonant frequency = 2.33737192E+009 for the Brady-Rodal cavity excited by Hy magnetic source. Does that frequency seem reasonable to you. I note that Q ~100 which is very similar to the Q obtained when excited by the Ez electric source.

Note that since Meep sucks up over 99.7% of all 4 of my CPUs, I can't run other batch jobs in parallel. They don't get resources. (Happily the user interface is higher priority.)
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
weight budget 1.5 kg, total so far 750.2 g. includes exciter, power amp, rf switch, exciter box, sma connector, 4 copper support rods and 6800 mah lipo battery. whats left is 5vdc rectifier, copper wire mesh and pc boards. should come in right around 1.5 kg as planned. assembly begins sunday.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 01:38 AM by rfmwguy »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
@Rodal - I hope you won't be upset that I have re-named the cavity model, formerly named "Rodel" to the new name, "Brady-Rodal." That way, if I want to make "Yang-Rodal," I can do so without naming confusion.  :)

Meep, Harminv calculates resonant frequency = 2.33737192E+009 for the Brady-Rodal cavity excited by Hy magnetic source. Does that frequency seem reasonable to you. I note that Q ~100 which is very similar to the Q obtained when excited by the Ez electric source.

Note that since Meep sucks up over 99.7% of all 4 of my CPUs, I can't run other batch jobs in parallel. They don't get resources. (Happily the user interface is higher priority.)

Concerning names, I think that "Pointy Brady" and "Pointy Yang" would be more descriptive :) and I strongly suggest their use.  We can discriminate to different degrees of pointyness by two figures after the name Pointy Brady ##

For example, Pointy Brady 50  means:  a Brady cavity, that has been extended, keeping the same cone angle, to the point where the small base diameter is now 50% of the original diameter of the small base of Brady's cavity.


////////////////////////////////////
Concerning frequency if the cavity resonates at 2.33737192E+009 for the Pointy-Brady cavity excited by Hy magnetic source, this could be mode TM212, the same mode used by NASA and by Iulian Berca's in their tests

///////////////////////////////////
Regarding the excitation of the Pointy Brady cavity excited by Hy magnetic source, I imagine that this is a different computer run you are running in addition to the request of running the cavity excited with Ez electric RF feed, where we need to see the Hx field (in the flat trapezium cross-sections that have y or z axis perpendicular to the cross sections) of the Ez electric field.  We need to see this in order to fully understand what is going on, to verify what mode shape is being excited, and what is the effect of the electric RF feed in that case.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 12:12 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 239
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharing

Dr. Rodal, this is the same link as before so I hope it will give you access to the new x slices data set. The cavity sliced 276 times across the axis of rotation. Only thing I see is that the influence of the antenna diminishes markedly toward the upper half of the cavity. That and it seems very little energy actully reaches the small end. That may be simply an artefact of the time slice I chose.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfjVmb1RiZXpaajd6WGpGQmpSWDkxRlV3cG10TEJmWVVEbTd2U0t4MC1aa1E&usp=sharing

Dr. Rodal, this is the same link as before so I hope it will give you access to the new x slices data set. The cavity sliced 276 times across the axis of rotation. Only thing I see is that the influence of the antenna diminishes markedly toward the upper half of the cavity. That and it seems very little energy actully reaches the small end. That may be simply an artefact of the time slice I chose.

Is x=0 near the small base and higher x means closer to the big base of the truncated cone?

If so , it is amazing that we can represent the cavity as a standing wave ignoring the antenna only for x>194

for lower values of x the antenna effect is extremely important.

Clearly, the problem, incorporating the antenna effect, is much more complicated than what Greg Egan considered

It looks like there are lots of runs that could be run with MEEP to learn about the effect of the antenna.

Unfortunately at the moment we don't have a theory of thrust force, so how do we know what is a good effect and what is not?

I look forward to everybody in the thread to comment on the antenna and its effect on thrust force
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 12:25 AM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Correct. One can write T = P/v until the cows come home, but there's nobody able to say how something disconnected from everything in an asymptotically field-free flat spacetime can know its v-value. If it could, then Einstein's postulate of there being no preferred inertial reference frame is gainsayed, and the jig is up.

However, this does work splendidly for a car tyre on a road.

An EMDrive powered ship only knows
A = F/M.

The ship's EMDrive generates the Force, which does Work Accelerating the Mass of the ship over a distance The Energy use to do the work comes from the ship's electrical power supply via the Rf generator.

The ship knows nothing of velocity or KE or distant observers in different reference planes.

As long as the EMDrive can generate the Force and the power supply can deliver the Energy for the Force to do Work on the ship's Mass over a distance, the ship will Accelerate.
@frobnicat: Is he ready to be shown The Wheel Of Fortune?

I think TheTraveller saw my drawing about that, already posted and reposted quite a few times.

@TheTraveller, why deltaMass and me don't buy the "Q is degraded by acceleration" is that there is a scheme where force is put to work without any acceleration, and yield apparent CoE breaking nonetheless, so this should by itself be sufficient to show the problem : apparent CoE breaking doesn't imply integration for some interval of time of a power, i.e. requiring a certain amount of energy, it is "instantaneous" in that it is manifest for an arbitrarily small time interval. If not viable from an engineering point of view, at least in principle, if it is indeed a real thrust that don't depend on a preferred rest frame, the 50µN for 50W for 40s or so (with nearly null acceleration, just pushing statically) of Eagleworks is already apparently breaking CoE, in principle.

I haven't seen any argument so far to explain how an (inertial frame agnostic) propellantless thrust device exhibiting stationary thrust/power better than 1/c (averaged) wouldn't be amenable to such over break-even feed back system. No need to accelerate, no need to talk about kinetic energy, let's concentrate on this case alone, as I summarized for instance here.

All known forms of "emitting" propulsion (chemical, electric ionic, photon rocket) are "inertial frame agnostic" : the thrust (as measured from the spacecraft itself, i.e. with an accelerometer and/or load cells between drive unit and hull) won't depend on some absolute velocity, at a given moment, this is an "instantaneous" parameter. Non emitting propulsion, so far, requires an interaction with a field or medium that naturally defines a preferred rest frame (earth magnetic field for electrodynamic tethers, solar wind for sailing, source of beam rest frame for beamed propulsion, asphalt road for a car, air for a plane...). Non of those categories is amenable to such apparent CoE breaking schemes, even if some are indeed "harvesting" energy (sailing for instance).

The only way I see to have an inertial frame invariant effect, as is the case for emitting propulsion, and better than photon rocket thrust/power (accounting in the power term the flow of energy equivalent content of the exhaust, which makes thrusting on massive particles worse than thrusting on photons), and not apparently breaking CoE, is by emitting tachyons. Hence, it's not surprising that the theoretical musings here bring on the table candidate FTL or "slower c" phenomenons such as quantum tunnelling or pseudo refraction indices, this is the natural outcome of any attempt to extract more momentum for a given mass_energy budget than from a massless particle. I remain quite sceptical of the interpretations made to fit those kind of virtual FTL or slow c effects with the claimed propulsive efficiency of EM drive, as I think they are "bound" effects (and if it ain't leavin' it ain't thrustin') but the frameworks are way beyond my comfort zone.

If EM drive effect is not emitting tachyons or exhausting a kind of frame invariant energy deficit (lower than zero point field wake...), then there is a coupling with a field with a local preferred rest frame, to be determined.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 12:32 AM by frobnicat »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 239
I think so. The small base appears as 25% the diameter of the big base, so check the number in the file name. It is actually the computational lattice that is sliced up, the first 10 and last 10 images are outside of the cavity so show nothing. ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the big base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the small end.

Oh, and I can't name a model "pointy" that doesn't contain any source information. "Rodal" conveys the "why" of the model. Where would we be if Einstein or Maxwell or even Mach hadn't allowed their name to be attached to their theories? And you don't hear notsosureofit or warptech object to your use of their handles to discuss their theory.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
I think so. The small base appears as 25% the diameter of the big base, so check the number in the file name. It is actually the computational lattice that is sliced up, the first 10 and last 10 images are outside of the cavity so show nothing. ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the big base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the small end.

Oh, and I can't name a model "pointy" that doesn't contain any source information. "Rodal" conveys the "why" of the model. Where would we be if Einstein or Maxwell or even Mach hadn't allowed their name to be attached to their theories? And you don't hear notsosureofit or warptech object to your use of their handles to discuss their theory.

<<ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the big base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the small end.>>

Did you mean to write that exactly that way, it seems to contradict your earlier statement <<I think so. >>

to my question whether x=0 is near the small base, not the big base, so my understanding is that

ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the small base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the big end.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 01:21 AM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Before I have to get out to my envied shop to play some more I thought I'd at least post what the last test configuration on my RFChicken in a Blender EMDrive and what I want to do. I'll write more later but I have a few projects I got to get done today.

Aero, Love the way your Meeps is starting to work. I swear in image and a few others I looked at (and I'll pick one) EZ.T168.png, zooming in to the angled sidewalls I could see small fractals all up and down the wall. Interesting indeed.

Shell

Edit: writing to fast... booboos

PS Edit: Hint... Look at the variable dimensions across the bottom plate that the hexagon provides.  Really GTG this time.

OK, I see some dimensions there in order to model the frequencies and mode shapes in your EM Drive:

Inscribed Diameter = 7 inches
Circumscribed Diameter = 8 inches

There is also a length of 9 9/16 but I don't know the cone half angle or the small base diameters.

If you are planning to use the same cone half-angle calculated for Prof. Yang, 6.159 degrees, this is going to be a  long pointy cone (from big base to the apex)

« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 01:36 AM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Correct. One can write T = P/v until the cows come home, but there's nobody able to say how something disconnected from everything in an asymptotically field-free flat spacetime can know its v-value. If it could, then Einstein's postulate of there being no preferred inertial reference frame is gainsayed, and the jig is up.

However, this does work splendidly for a car tyre on a road.

An EMDrive powered ship only knows
A = F/M.

The ship's EMDrive generates the Force, which does Work Accelerating the Mass of the ship over a distance The Energy use to do the work comes from the ship's electrical power supply via the Rf generator.

The ship knows nothing of velocity or KE or distant observers in different reference planes.

As long as the EMDrive can generate the Force and the power supply can deliver the Energy for the Force to do Work on the ship's Mass over a distance, the ship will Accelerate.
@frobnicat: Is he ready to be shown The Wheel Of Fortune?

I think TheTraveller saw my drawing about that, already posted and reposted quite a few times.

@TheTraveller, why deltaMass and me don't buy the "Q is degraded by acceleration" is that there is a scheme where force is put to work without any acceleration, and yield apparent CoE breaking nonetheless, so this should by itself be sufficient to show the problem : apparent CoE breaking doesn't imply integration for some interval of time of a power, i.e. requiring a certain amount of energy, it is "instantaneous" in that it is manifest for an arbitrarily small time interval. If not viable from an engineering point of view, at least in principle, if it is indeed a real thrust that don't depend on a preferred rest frame, the 50µN for 50W for 40s or so (with nearly null acceleration, just pushing statically) of Eagleworks is already apparently breaking CoE, in principle.

I haven't seen any argument so far to explain how an (inertial frame agnostic) propellantless thrust device exhibiting stationary thrust/power better than 1/c (averaged) wouldn't be amenable to such over break-even feed back system. No need to accelerate, no need to talk about kinetic energy, let's concentrate on this case alone, as I summarized for instance here.

All known forms of "emitting" propulsion (chemical, electric ionic, photon rocket) are "inertial frame agnostic" : the thrust (as measured from the spacecraft itself, i.e. with an accelerometer and/or load cells between drive unit and hull) won't depend on some absolute velocity, at a given moment, this is an "instantaneous" parameter. Non emitting propulsion, so far, requires an interaction with a field or medium that naturally defines a preferred rest frame (earth magnetic field for electrodynamic tethers, solar wind for sailing, source of beam rest frame for beamed propulsion, asphalt road for a car, air for a plane...). Non of those categories is amenable to such apparent CoE breaking schemes, even if some are indeed "harvesting" energy (sailing for instance).

The only way I see to have an inertial frame invariant effect, as is the case for emitting propulsion, and better than photon rocket thrust/power (accounting in the power term the flow of energy equivalent content of the exhaust, which makes thrusting on massive particles worse than thrusting on photons), and not apparently breaking CoE, is by emitting tachyons. Hence, it's not surprising that the theoretical musings here bring on the table candidate FTL or "slower c" phenomenons such as quantum tunnelling or pseudo refraction indices, this is the natural outcome of any attempt to extract more momentum for a given mass_energy budget than from a massless particle. I remain quite sceptical of the interpretations made to fit those kind of virtual FTL or slow c effects with the claimed propulsive efficiency of EM drive, as I think they are "bound" effects (and if it ain't leavin' it ain't thrustin') but the frameworks are way beyond my comfort zone.

If EM drive effect is not emitting tachyons or exhausting a kind of frame invariant energy deficit (lower than zero point field wake...), then there is a coupling with a field with a local preferred rest frame, to be determined.

You do understand that for a truly static EMDrive it will NOT move?

Shawyer in his Force measurement document makes that very clear.

The EMDrive operates in 1 of 3 mode:

1) Do Nothing - no externally applied forces

2) Motor Mode - externally applied force moving the cavity big end toward small end.

3) Generator Mode - externally applied force trying to move the cavity small end toward big end.

The Energy for the Motor Mode generated Force to do Work over Distance comes from newly created microwave energy, powered by increased energy draw on the power supply.

Hook an EMDrive to a rotary wheel and feed it to a generator is not a source of free energy as the energy necessary to turn the generator under load comes from the EMDrives primary electrical power supply.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
You do understand that for a truly static EMDrive it will NOT move?

Shawyer in his Force measurement document makes that very clear.

The EMDrive operates in 1 of 3 mode:

1) Do Nothing - no externally applied forces

2) Motor Mode - externally applied force moving the cavity big end toward small end.

3) Generator Mode - externally applied force trying to move the cavity small end toward big end.

The Energy for the Motor Mode generated Force to do Work over Distance comes from newly created microwave energy, powered by increased energy draw on the power supply.

Hook an EMDrive to a rotary wheel and feed it to a generator is not a source of free energy as the energy necessary to turn the generator under load comes from the EMDrives primary electrical power supply.

Pardon me if I am not understanding but I would like to clarify what seems to be a conceptual problem.  Are you saying an em drive can be truly static?  That doesn't make sense to me because take a car for instance moving down the street.  The EM drive is not static to the car.  In the case of the car the EM drive can do work and has force but for the lab frame observer no force is observed?  In one case the Em drive could gain kinetic energy and the other frame would observe no gain in kinetic energy.  That just doesn't seem right to me and almost seems like traveling into alternate dimensions where different things happen with respect to frames, or am I misunderstanding things. 
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 02:56 AM by dustinthewind »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
Before I have to get out to my envied shop to play some more I thought I'd at least post what the last test configuration on my RFChicken in a Blender EMDrive and what I want to do. I'll write more later but I have a few projects I got to get done today.

Aero, Love the way your Meeps is starting to work. I swear in image and a few others I looked at (and I'll pick one) EZ.T168.png, zooming in to the angled sidewalls I could see small fractals all up and down the wall. Interesting indeed.

Shell

Edit: writing to fast... booboos

PS Edit: Hint... Look at the variable dimensions across the bottom plate that the hexagon provides.  Really GTG this time.

OK, I see some dimensions there in order to model the frequencies and mode shapes in your EM Drive:

Inscribed Diameter = 7 inches
Circumscribed Diameter = 8 inches

There is also a length of 9 9/16 but I don't know the cone half angle or the small base diameters.

If you are planning to use the same cone half-angle calculated for Prof. Yang, 6.159 degrees, this is going to be a  long pointy cone (from big base to the apex)
The numbers were from another cone I was doing and they really are not relative to Prof Yang's layout. I just wanted to show the grid arrangement on the bottom being open.
Shell

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 239
I think so. The small base appears as 25% the diameter of the big base, so check the number in the file name. It is actually the computational lattice that is sliced up, the first 10 and last 10 images are outside of the cavity so show nothing. ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the big base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the small end.

Oh, and I can't name a model "pointy" that doesn't contain any source information. "Rodal" conveys the "why" of the model. Where would we be if Einstein or Maxwell or even Mach hadn't allowed their name to be attached to their theories? And you don't hear notsosureofit or warptech object to your use of their handles to discuss their theory.

<<ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the big base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the small end.>>

Did you mean to write that exactly that way, it seems to contradict your earlier statement <<I think so. >>

to my question whether x=0 is near the small base, not the big base, so my understanding is that

ez.x10.png looks like the first image inside of the small base of the cavity and ez.x126.png looks to be the last image inside the big end.
Are we looking at the same data set? I did somehow err, the image file named ez.x265.png is the last image inside the small end. Now that does contradict the sign convention in the model which is small end +, big end -, but these coordinate labels for the images are the image coordinates. It is confusing so perhaps I should switch directions for the x axis in the model, but the image coordinates and the model coordinates are quite different things once they are filtered through the h5topng program. The lattice coordinates and the model coordinates are the same, but h5toping seems to reverse x. Just judge by the diameter of the circles, knowing that all images in the set have the same width and height, in pixels. Then image ez.x10.png is clearly larger diameter circle than ez.x265.png

I checked this with the data on Google drive which is the correct set of data. I don't know what data set I was looking at when I typed 126.
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags: