Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1804618 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 239


Thanks so much for these movies !

The effect of the antenna is beautifully displayed.

highest field intensity is clearly at the SMALL BASE of the truncated cone.

Action is NOT symmetric left to right (which many critics do NOT take into account).

Wave to the SMALL BASE is travelling progressively and well formed towards the SMALL BASE.

Recoil wave originating at small base to the BIG BASE occurs sharply and all of a sudden.  Not progressive and occurs more like a shock.


Thanks apoc2021! I just finished getting one done and ready to post and boom, you're fast! Thanks again.

This shock wave is a key I was looking for and I suspected it and now makes sense to see it happening.

This is one full cycle, right?

Shell

Shell, One full cycle? It depends on what you used. The sets that have 14 frames are more than one cycle.

In both cases (June 26 data and the 14 frame output) I am running 32 periods, with an image every tenth of a cycle. In both cases the first image is labelld t000.png, but as the t000.png in the June 26 data shows some energy having propagated about the antenna, it must be the end of the first tenth of a cycle. Because at t=0, the current switches on but fields cannot propagate in zero time. I think that means that the image labelled t009 would be the end of the first cycle, with t010.png being a tenth of a cycle into the second cycle. There are 313 images in the full 32 cycle run which confuses me. You figure it out.  :-\

I think the best bet would be to find 2 images 10 frames apart which look nearly identical then remove one of the end cases and plot the remaining images as one full cycle. There should be 4 or 5 opportunities to do this in 14 images.

Edit add: I am speaking of both the fully evolved data set (June 26) and the short 14 image data set, so I changed it to hopefully make that clear.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 05:43 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
  • USA
  • Liked: 5923
  • Likes Given: 5268
Outstanding results, you people rock!

Question: do these new results contradict the calculations made by people like Greg Egan, telling there is no asymmetry of forces in the cavity?


YES, they contradict Egan. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

Egan assumed that the time variation of the fields was symmetric, given by a sinusoid in time.  His weakness is that he failed to consider the effect of the RF feed travelling wave.  Greg Egan's results only apply for the RF feed being OFF.
 
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 06:00 PM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589


Shell, One full cycle? It depends on what you used. The sets that have 14 frames are more than one cycle.

In both cases (June 26 data and the 14 frame output) I am running 32 periods, with an image every tenth of a cycle. In both cases the first image is labelld t000.png, but as the t000.png in the June 26 data shows some energy having propagated about the antenna, it must be the end of the first tenth of a cycle. Because at t=0, the current switches on but fields cannot propagate in zero time. I think that means that the image labelled t009 would be the end of the first cycle, with t010.png being a tenth of a cycle into the second cycle. There are 313 images in the full 32 cycle run which confuses me. You figure it out.  :-\

I think the best bet would be to find 2 images 10 frames apart which look nearly identical then remove one of the end cases and plot the remaining images as one full cycle. There should be 4 or 5 opportunities to do this in 14 images.

Edit add: I am speaking of both the fully evolved data set (June 26) and the short 14 image data set, so I changed it to hopefully make that clear.

Oh my, it makes things a little more messy. We'll see what I can dig out of the data. Thanks,
Shell
 

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 259
McClean reinvents a photon rocket; film at 11.
Sorry about that.
The USPTO isn't as well administered as it once was.

I can't say I know his patent would or wouldn't work without seeing it tested or my seeing a clear counter-argument.  It appears he claims better efficiency than a photon rocket.  He appears to take into account the opposing capacitance and magnetic effects (if I remember correctly).  He is using the dielectric to slow down light and increase its mass so as to get better thrust from it.  This allows him to use lower frequencies and/or to get the coils, capacitor plates closer together and still maintain the time retarded 0 deg, 180 deg phase relationship.  With multiple layers there is also a building magnetic wave of light from repeated constructive interference. 

Your right in that I would think at least the patent office would require a working device to patent such a claim.   

« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 06:16 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.     

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Let's just say that SPR does not have a single commercial product. One cannot analyse sales figures and profitability for a company that produces nothing at all.

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So everybody should stop their experiments and their modeling because Shawyer is a poor entrepreneur or bad with his finances?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   
I've been involved in many high tech projects and even ran my own multimillion dollar companies in very high tech and there is no way one person could do this kind of science by him/herself and expect clean and clear answers. This science takes a team and even with the brains here (self excluded) it's one tough nut to crack.
Although to credit RS he has taken this a long way and has been very myopic determined  to seeing it happen and that is a good quality to have. I'll give him credit where credit it due.

Shell

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
@wallofwolfstreet

While it may be suspect, there is still the case of an unexplained phenomenon witnessed and described by people other than Shawyer. So, regardless of Shawyer possibly poor finances, it will still be beneficial to research further.

I also agree with Shell that Shawyer has done a great amount on his own to push this idea along.

-I

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2150


Thanks so much for these movies !

The effect of the antenna is beautifully displayed.

highest field intensity is clearly at the SMALL BASE of the truncated cone.

Action is NOT symmetric left to right (which many critics do NOT take into account).

Wave to the SMALL BASE is travelling progressively and well formed towards the SMALL BASE.

Recoil wave originating at small base to the BIG BASE occurs sharply and all of a sudden.  Not progressive and occurs more like a shock.


Thanks apoc2021! I just finished getting one done and ready to post and boom, you're fast! Thanks again.

This shock wave is a key I was looking for and I suspected it and now makes sense to see it happening.

This is one full cycle, right?

Shell

Shell, One full cycle? It depends on what you used. The sets that have 14 frames are more than one cycle.

In both cases (June 26 data and the 14 frame output) I am running 32 periods, with an image every tenth of a cycle. In both cases the first image is labelld t000.png, but as the t000.png in the June 26 data shows some energy having propagated about the antenna, it must be the end of the first tenth of a cycle. Because at t=0, the current switches on but fields cannot propagate in zero time. I think that means that the image labelled t009 would be the end of the first cycle, with t010.png being a tenth of a cycle into the second cycle. There are 313 images in the full 32 cycle run which confuses me. You figure it out.  :-\

I think the best bet would be to find 2 images 10 frames apart which look nearly identical then remove one of the end cases and plot the remaining images as one full cycle. There should be 4 or 5 opportunities to do this in 14 images.

Edit add: I am speaking of both the fully evolved data set (June 26) and the short 14 image data set, so I changed it to hopefully make that clear.

Hello i rebuild the gif with only 10 frames. it looks much smoother  :)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So everybody should stop their experiments and their modeling because Shawyer is a poor entrepreneur or bad with his finances?
That is an odd conclusion. How do you answer your own question? It is rather obvious, isn't it?

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
  • USA
  • Liked: 5923
  • Likes Given: 5268
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   
I've been involved in many high tech projects and even ran my own multimillion dollar companies in very high tech and there is no way one person could do this kind of science by him/herself and expect clean and clear answers. This science takes a team and even with the brains here (self excluded) it's one tough nut to crack.
Although to credit RS he has taken this a long way and has been very myopic determined  to seeing it happen and that is a good quality to have. I'll give him credit where credit it due.

Shell

The "myopic determination" is IMHO his Achillles heel.  I still don't understand why hasn't he sought help from UK Universities: they have so many great scientists in the UK, at Cambridge, Oxford, etc..  Why he continues to insist on his insufficient explanations instead of seeking the help of mainstream scientists is beyond me. 

That lack of working with mainstream scientists IMHO is so odd, that I see it as a negative concerning the reality of the EM Drive.  IMHO either it is an experimental artifact, or if it works as space propulsion it must be due to something different from Shawyer's explanations.

Making a discovery and attributing it to a wrong explanation is actually common in Astrophysics.  In 1965 an initial claim was made by mainstream scientists that there might be intensity variations of intelligent origin in radio emission from the quasar CTA-102 - but this was quickly retracted. Then in 1967 when the first pulsar was discovered it was briefly thought that perhaps its precise 1.33730113-second repetition rate might be of intelligent origin.

The difference is those explanations by mainstream scientists at major universities and institutions were quickly retracted.  RS insistence on his kludgy explanations, for decades, even after the "New Scientis" article fiasco, and not seeking mainstream scientists' help is odd.

« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:01 PM by Rodal »

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0


Thanks so much for these movies !

The effect of the antenna is beautifully displayed.

highest field intensity is clearly at the SMALL BASE of the truncated cone.

Action is NOT symmetric left to right (which many critics do NOT take into account).

Wave to the SMALL BASE is travelling progressively and well formed towards the SMALL BASE.

Recoil wave originating at small base to the BIG BASE occurs sharply and all of a sudden.  Not progressive and occurs more like a shock.

Asymmetries like this (left to right) are of paramount importance to explain momentum to one side (just like the difference between the ejecting jet of air and the vacuuming intake of air in acoustic propulsion of bottles).



Althouth it looks like the field strength is stronger at the small end, we have no data.  What about averaging the field values for each frame we see in this video and produce the resulting "averaged" field strength ?

First pic: average of the frames of the above video.  Clearly stronger fields at the small end, and 4 "hot spots" at the big end.
Second pic: reflattened, darkened, single pic of the animation.  Interesting patterns of low/high activity emerge.
Third and last pic: reflattened, lightened, single pic of the animation.  Id.

For those of you who want to experiment : all done with imagemagick (-coalesce to extract the frames, - flatten to reflatten and compute the average/min/max etc.) 

Imagemagick commands for reference:
convert -coalesce Emdrive.gif Emdrive_%05d.gif
convert *.gif -background white -compose darken -flatten max.jpg
convert *.gif -background black -compose lighten -flatten min.jpg


« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:23 PM by deuteragenie »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
  • USA
  • Liked: 5923
  • Likes Given: 5268
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

Thanks for being "the one" that is bringing real facts and numbers on SPR. 

How were the  600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity disbursed in time?

Has it been receiving cash inflow steady through time?  Particularly interesting regarding the last 7 years with the emphasis on superconductivity, which should be more expensive to realize.  Has the money inflow increased with time or decreased with time?
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:40 PM by Rodal »

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2105
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 761
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So are you saying 1 million USD over 15 years? That's about $67K a year.

That's not enough to pay one engineer. It would be total compensation pack, including salary, benefits, and any company required taxes. Don't forget other business expenses would cut into that amount.

SPR is a shoestring operation. Shawyer isn't making any money off of this and I doubt there are any paid employees. Lack of funding is probably why he doesn't have definitive results, assuming his idea works.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
  • USA
  • Liked: 5923
  • Likes Given: 5268
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So are you saying 1 million USD over 15 years? That's about $67K a year.

That's not enough to pay one engineer. It would be total compensation pack, including salary, benefits, and any company required taxes. Don't forget other business expenses would cut into that amount.

SPR is a shoestring operation. Shawyer isn't making any money off of this and I doubt there are any paid employees. Lack of funding is probably why he doesn't have definitive results, assuming his idea works.

Well, claims were made in this EM Drive thread that "Shawyer says that Finite Element Analyses like COMSOL cannot accurately calculate natural frequencies and mode shapes of the EM Drive" (and an Excel spreadsheet based on cylindrical waveguides was offered as a better alternative).  Based on the information uncovered by WallofWolfStreet this claim seems vacuous, at best, as you are writing there is not enough money there to pay somebody knowledgeable and experienced with Finite Element Analysis to conduct such analysis for SPR, and RS has no known expertise in Finite Element analysis, so how can such an opinion be ascribed to him?  [*]

There doesn't even seem to be the money to pay for a license (several thousands of dollars a year) to a major FEA multiphysics package -including all the necessary solvers- (like ANSYS, ABAQUS, ADiNA, or even COMSOL), much less the money to pay an analyst.

(At the time the claim was made, I would have thought that it was being implied that SPR had some top experts on numerical analysis to make such a strong statement against the capabilities of FE analysis -which are incorrect as it should be obvious to people knowledgeable about FEA capabilties-).

_____________

[*] Even if RS was referring to FEA capabilities in the 1970's and '80's, those capabilities were there but he may have not known about them, as prior to the advent of PC's, such analysis was much more expensive (requiring much larger computers to perform)
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:22 PM by Rodal »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So everybody should stop their experiments and their modeling because Shawyer is a poor entrepreneur or bad with his finances?

NO.  I have never said anything to that effect in any of my posts, on this forum or on reddit.  I certainly never said anything like that in the post you linked.  Please don't put words into my mouth.

I summarised my research into the finances of SPR, and said that in my personal opinion the amount of time and financial resources used and the relatively modest progress made did not bode well for the EMdrive as a whole.  That is only my opinion.  Many people disagree with me, saying that the resources are not that significant and the progress much greater than I give it credit for, and to be honest they may very well have the better interpretation.  I am only trying to get as many facts into play as possible.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:23 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline deuteragenie

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Germany
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
...

Althouth it looks like the field strength is stronger at the small end, we have no data.  What about averaging the field values for each frame we see in this video and produce the resulting "averaged" field strength ?
We need NUMBERS to quantify this, there is no other way around it.  Without numbers one cannot compare.

At least now we have everything scaled to the same Max Min numbers, unfortunately we don't know the numbers.

Can you tell aero how to output NUMBERS in Meep?

I think this is achieved trough the definition of "flux", excerpt from the Meep tutorial:

...
Finally, we have to specify where we want Meep to compute the flux spectra, and at what frequencies. (This must be done after specifying the geometry, sources, resolution, etcetera, because all of the field parameters are initialized when flux planes are created.)
...
We compute the fluxes through a line segment twice the width of the waveguide, located at the beginning or end of the waveguide. (Note that the flux lines are separated by 1 from the boundary of the cell, so that they do not lie within the absorbing PML regions.) Again, there are two cases: the transmitted flux is either computed at the right or the bottom of the computational cell, depending on whether the waveguide is straight or bent.

=> In 3D and for our case I suppose that the "flux region" in Meep is to be defined as a circle.

...
Finally, we have to output the flux values:
(display-fluxes trans refl)
This prints a series of outputs like:
flux1:, 0.1, 7.91772317108475e-7, -3.16449591437196e-7
flux1:, 0.101010101010101, 1.18410865137737e-6, -4.85527604203706e-7
flux1:, 0.102020202020202, 1.77218779386503e-6, -7.37944901819701e-7
flux1:, 0.103030303030303, 2.63090852112034e-6, -1.11118350510327e-6
flux1:, ...
This is comma-delimited data, which can easily be imported into any spreadsheet or plotting program (e.g. Matlab): the first column is the frequency, the second is the transmitted power, and the third is the reflected power.

So, from there, save the .CSV file and we are ready to go for quantitative analysis.

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Sorry to interrupt the great modeling work going on right now, but I condensed some of the recent findings on the intellectual property and financial aspects of SPR into a reddit post.

To summarize, it looks like SPR has had alot more money move through the organization over the last 15 years than originally thought.  It has received roughly 600,000 pounds in grants, loans and equity.  This is about 950,000 USD at current exchange rates.  If we adjust the time at which SPR received its' financing for inflation (grants received in 2000, over 250,000 pounds of equity in 2005), we get that SPR has had well over 1 million USD in total financing, in 2015 dollars.

As I wrote in the attached reddit post, I consider this very suspect.  A few patents, a few test articles and zero sales or licensing (at least licensing that SPR would actually get paid for) of any kind is very hard to justify given the resources at SPR had at its' disposal.   

So are you saying 1 million USD over 15 years? That's about $67K a year.

That's not enough to pay one engineer. It would be total compensation pack, including salary, benefits, and any company required taxes. Don't forget other business expenses would cut into that amount.

SPR is a shoestring operation. Shawyer isn't making any money off of this and I doubt there are any paid employees. Lack of funding is probably why he doesn't have definitive results, assuming his idea works.

Yep, I am saying that over the full 15 years, if we bring all the financing figures into 2015 dollars, more than a million USD has gone into SPR.

You're right that it is not enough to pay an engineer.  SPR, to the best of my knowledge, has never had any employees on the payroll.  Additionally, in at least the last two years,2013 and 2014,Shawyer has deferred any salary himself.  Note that he is 68 years old, so he will be collecting pension.  He is also married, so he will have personal financial support from his wife's pension as well.     

Quote
SPR is a shoestring operation. Shawyer isn't making any money off of this and I doubt there are any paid employees. Lack of funding is probably why he doesn't have definitive results, assuming his idea works.

The reason I disagree with this, is that 1 million dollars isn't exactly small cheese, especially when we consider that there are what, almost a dozen individuals attempting their own replications on maybe a few hundred or thousand each?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 239
...

Althouth it looks like the field strength is stronger at the small end, we have no data.  What about averaging the field values for each frame we see in this video and produce the resulting "averaged" field strength ?
We need NUMBERS to quantify this, there is no other way around it.  Without numbers one cannot compare.

At least now we have everything scaled to the same Max Min numbers, unfortunately we don't know the numbers.

Can you tell aero how to output NUMBERS in Meep?

I think this is achieved trough the definition of "flux", excerpt from the Meep tutorial:

...
Finally, we have to specify where we want Meep to compute the flux spectra, and at what frequencies. (This must be done after specifying the geometry, sources, resolution, etcetera, because all of the field parameters are initialized when flux planes are created.)
...
We compute the fluxes through a line segment twice the width of the waveguide, located at the beginning or end of the waveguide. (Note that the flux lines are separated by 1 from the boundary of the cell, so that they do not lie within the absorbing PML regions.) Again, there are two cases: the transmitted flux is either computed at the right or the bottom of the computational cell, depending on whether the waveguide is straight or bent.

=> In 3D and for our case I suppose that the "flux region" in Meep is to be defined as a circle.

...
Finally, we have to output the flux values:
(display-fluxes trans refl)
This prints a series of outputs like:
flux1:, 0.1, 7.91772317108475e-7, -3.16449591437196e-7
flux1:, 0.101010101010101, 1.18410865137737e-6, -4.85527604203706e-7
flux1:, 0.102020202020202, 1.77218779386503e-6, -7.37944901819701e-7
flux1:, 0.103030303030303, 2.63090852112034e-6, -1.11118350510327e-6
flux1:, ...
This is comma-delimited data, which can easily be imported into any spreadsheet or plotting program (e.g. Matlab): the first column is the frequency, the second is the transmitted power, and the third is the reflected power.

So, from there, save the .CSV file and we are ready to go for quantitative analysis.

That all looks fine. Now can you tell me how to make this .ctl file work. --the "flux-in-a-box" part.

And while you're at it, please code (display-fluxes trans refl) into the file and send it back to me.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2015 07:44 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags: