Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1872137 times)

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
If you setup a sealed system to give an impulse that would provoke particles to move what would seem faster then the speed of light in classical mechanics, consequential reaction would be smaller then the impulse and a part of the impulse would "externalize".

This is just my guess.

What happens on the level of quantum physics will probably be the last thing we find out on the topic. If we knew quantum physics this well then we wouldn't even need an experiment. However, empirical is still the primary method and everything more specific is also way more abstract.

My working prototype uses a different approach, has better power to weight ratio and will probably be the one to withstand the test of time.

What working prototype is that? When will you present some data?
Todd

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Doctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:

Quote
I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).

In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?
The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect.  I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.

His criticism of numerical methods does make sense here (although I don't personally agree with his criticism, I'm much more in your camp) if you consider that McCulloch doesn't consider the Pioneer anomaly to be explainable by conventional physics.  Since any software, whether it be MEEP, Mathematica, Matlab or C++ can only simulate what is known, and to him the pioneer anomaly isn't explainable with what exists in known physics, he chose to attack the use of numerical simulation tools in general,l rather than trying to prove exactly what was wrong in the numerical code.  I suppose he is claiming the numerical results explain the pioneer anomaly only by coincidence, and the method of that explanation is incorrect.

In essence, McCulloch has a horse in the race with the pioneer anomaly (he has rejected the thermal emissions explanation), and in order to reject the thermal emissions explanation, he must in some sense reject the accuracy of numerical models.   
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 09:06 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Doctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:

Quote
I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).

In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?
The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect.  I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.

His criticism of numerical methods does make sense here (although I don't personally agree with his criticism, I'm much more in your camp) if you consider that McCulloch considers the Pioneer anomaly to not be explainable by conventional physics.  Since any software, whether it be MEEP, Mathematica, Matlab or C++ can only simulate what is known, and to him the pioneer anomaly isn't explainable with what exists in known physics, he chose to attack the use of numerical simulation tools in general rather than trying to prove exactly what was wrong in the numerical code that resulted in the pioneer anomaly being explained with conventional physics.

In essence, McCulloch has a horse in the race with the pioneer anomaly (he has rejected the thermal emissions explanation), and in order to reject the thermal emissions explanation, he must in some sense reject the accuracy of numerical models.

If somebody has a mathematical theory, it certainly can be simulated with Mathematica or with an open code like Meep (where you can write your own equations for pre, concurrent or post-processing), or using C (there is a mathematical proof about that that goes back more than 60 years).

If somebody does not have a mathematical theory about something , then, in my opinion they should stay silent on the subject, instead of sermonizing to others whether they can analyze the problem or not.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 10:06 PM by Rodal »

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
Your first equation ( the definition of the wave vector K), is wrong.
It establishes a erroneous z dependence on K.
The K will depend at most on total geometry( including the dimensions of cavity), medium constitutive relations (mu and epslon), and boundary conditions, which defines de modes inside the sctruture, and thus the modes cut off frequencys.

I am not describing a cavity. It's an open ended tapered waveguide and the radius "IS" dependent on the z coordinate. Can you provide a better way to derive the propagation vector kz for a tapered waveguide than to parameterize the radius in terms of z? The radius is a variable in this waveguide, as is the transverse resonant frequency. Both are dependent on the location along the z axis of the waveguide. It is not "erroneous", it is precisely what makes the tapered waveguide different from a straight one.

EDIT: You said in a previous post,

Quote from: Ricvil
"...The conical geometry of cavity can produce a gradient intensity of the fields inside it, and resulting on a axial non symmetric scattering of axions (produced by the stationary wave of hybrid modes), and thus the thrust is formed....".

Are you saying that you believe the conical geometry can produce a gradient thrust only with axions but not with transverse, resonant EM standing waves? The equation I derived is exactly that, the gradient in the potential energy stored in the transverse standing wave as it travels down the waveguide. How else would you do it than to parameterize the potential energy wrt z?
Todd
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 10:27 PM by WarpTech »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
Doctor McCulloch made a comment on the MEEP results:

Quote
I applaud the NSF people for the work: it's interesting (though they don't give the magnitudes in their plots) but I've been revising Poynting vectors & I don't believe they are going to move the cavity: the consequences still have to obey conservation of momentum as usual (so nothing to do with MiHsC).

In general, I'm wary of the tendency in physics to use complex computer models (eg: thermal explanation of Pioneer, dark matter) to explain things, it is so seductive but the details are hidden and it can give the right answer for the wrong reasons. How many free parameters are in the model? Have they tested it on cavity data?
The comment about free parameters was previously made by him also in reference to "analysis with a large number of Finite Elements" analysis by JPL of the Pioneer anomaly or something to that effect.  I'm sorry to say this but this is either a poorly phrased statement or a misunderstanding of FD and FE methods, as of course the number of finite elements or finite difference grid points are not free-parameters.

His criticism of numerical methods does make sense here (although I don't personally agree with his criticism, I'm much more in your camp) if you consider that McCulloch considers the Pioneer anomaly to not be explainable by conventional physics.  Since any software, whether it be MEEP, Mathematica, Matlab or C++ can only simulate what is known, and to him the pioneer anomaly isn't explainable with what exists in known physics, he chose to attack the use of numerical simulation tools in general rather than trying to prove exactly what was wrong in the numerical code that resulted in the pioneer anomaly being explained with conventional physics.

In essence, McCulloch has a horse in the race with the pioneer anomaly (he has rejected the thermal emissions explanation), and in order to reject the thermal emissions explanation, he must in some sense reject the accuracy of numerical models.

If somebody has a mathematical theory, it certainly can be simulated with Mathematica or with an open code like Meep (where you can write your own equations for pre, concurrent or post-processing), or using C (there is a mathematical proof about that that goes back more than 60 years).

If somebody does not have a mathematical theory about something , then, in my opinion they have nothing, and they should stay silent on the subject, instead of sermonizing to others whether they can analyze the problem or not.

Absolutely.  I was just trying to add some backstory to explain where McCulloch was probably coming from with that comment.

Whenever I see MiHsC brought up, it's always mentioned how it:

1)  Explains galaxy rotation without dark matter.

2)  Explains cosmic expansion without dark energy.

3)  Explains the Pioneer anomaly. 

If the Pioneer anomaly is adequately explained by conventional physics married with a simple numerical model, then he loses one of MiHsC's "selling points" so to speak.  Rather than attacking conventional physics, he chose to make a general claim against numerical methods.

Just my best guess of where that comment came from. 

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
My apparatus is different and I am not disclosing until IP is protected and published. I can say for sure that I could get 3 grams from a 100 gram apparatus. Now I get 2 from 500 grams with common materials.
I assume you mean gm-weight, since I assume you mean a force - right?

Can you at least provide some indication of power level, so that we can write down the Newton/Watt number?
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 10:26 PM by deltaMass »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Dr. Rodal,
The yz slices along the cavity axis are up. Same top level csv file. Read and understand the description, I won't try to explain my naming convention until/unless more or different information is needed. Ask.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 10:31 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 59
Quote
My apparatus is different and I am not disclosing until IP is protected and published. I can say for sure that I could get 3 grams from a 100 gram apparatus. Now I get 2 from 500 grams with common materials.

At this point, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Putting up the relevant data on the wiki does not constitute disclosure.

I would point out that only in a few instances did we have full specifications from the various experimenters.

And consider this:  wait to long, and the very bright people here are likely to deduce your devices principles and specifications before much longer anyhow.   

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
...
The question of, "How does the momentum get out?", is a different answer. Obviously, it would have more thrust if the big end were open. Any momentum reflecting off the big end plate will negate the momentum gained in getting there. However, in a dissipative system, after each bounce the wave rotates the momentum a little more into the "x" direction, but loses energy due to dissipation of heat into the copper. That means that when it reaches the back wall, it has less momentum than it should have. The NET is not zero because something was lost along the way.
...

Sorry, please explain to the Newtonian guy in me : how a play of throwing and bouncing and catching balls within a free floating box could give any persistent deltaV to the box ? deltaX I see, but not deltaV at the end of the story (when the game stops). At one end of the box you have a source of energy, the energy flows in some arbitrary geometry and after long or short path ends absorbed asymmetrically by some inner walls. Some walls (patches) will have received more energy, some less. A source full of energy (loaded battery, or fresh radioisotopes generator) weighs more than when depleted. A hot wall patch weighs more than a cold one. All that has happened is a (tiny) displacement of the centre of mass within the box, following the displacement of conserved energy. A corresponding tiny deltaX in the opposite direction will be observed from the outside of the box, no deltaV between start and end of "discharge". That is, unless the inner walls bleed thermal IR outside, with photon rocket efficiency as an upper bound.

Do you really say that the mechanism you propose here would allow a system fully enclosed in an ideal perfect thermal blanket to gain an ultimate deltaV, i.e. without bleeding any radiation having permanently (asymptotically after switch off) changed its velocity relative to its initial inertial rest frame, as good as the velocity acquired by a  chemical thruster burst is still there indefinitely after power off of said thruster ?

Not addressing the later hypothesis involving DC components, just this specific part quoted, as you seem to imply that it could be valid by itself and independently.

"... throwing and bouncing and catching balls within a free floating box..."  Is a linear equation of momentum. The momentum coming out of the waveguide is a non-linear equation, with a force exerted as 1/r^2. The momentum transferred by the wave is proportional to the phase velocity, not c. So there is more momentum exchange at the small end due to higher phase velocity, than there is at the big end.  A photon rocket in free space is a linear equation. Inside a tapered wave guide, it is non-linear. It can't be explained in terms of billiard balls. The question you are asking is the one I am trying to resolve mathematically. My theory is not quite there yet.

This is where I'm at... The attached image is the derivation of the Photon Rocket equation, for an open-ended circular waveguide. So anyone who says a photon rocket can only exert a maximum force of F = 2P/c, is only correct in free space but not when confined to a waveguide. The thrust-to-power ratio is much, much larger near the cut-off.
Todd

F=2P/c is for a perfectly reflective solar/laser sail receiving an (normal) illumination of power P. The only admitted (upper bound) yield for a photon rocket is F=P/c, not F=2P/c.

While what you are at with your gradient is above my head (not your fault, I'm a Newtonian guy) I think that if it tells you that an open EM drive (big end plate removed) would yield significantly more thrust per power than the closed frustums tested so far (assuming they did thrust) then you have (at least) a contradiction arising.

On attached illustration top, an "open" EM drive :
orange rectangle is battery, blue rectangle is RF amp, black is frustum without big end plate, blue arrow microwave radiations bouncing around before escaping (geometry illustrative only, no details). Dotted line ellipse around figures the whole free floating system. So that we discuss on firm ground : your claim is that this configuration can make for more than thrust/power (power drawn from battery) than claimed by closed frustums tests, that are themselves claimed to be between 1 and 5 orders of magnitude above the "official" thrust/power of photon rocket (namely, 1/c) ? Is that it ?

On attached illustration bottom, same system, linked mechanically within a much wider (drawing not to scale) casing, in grey. Casing assumed an ideal thermal isolator and a perfect microwave absorber. The section of casing more or less in front of the open end of frustum will catch the incoming radiations escaping the open end of the frustum, generating ever increasing heat (red arc circle). The received power can't exceed the output power of the battery (it is actually lower since some energy is lost as heating the RF amp and walls of the frustum). Since we are in a (arbitrarily) big volume, the wavelength is way below cutoff, the casing will absorb the incoming radiations in the same conditions as a perfectly black solar sail in vacuum. So the push (to the left) of this oncoming flux of photon cannot exceed P/c.

By putting the proposed system (open frustum drive) in a completely isolated context, we only lose P/c thrust overall, compared to n times P/c with n claimed >> 10. So this is not a significant improvement to consider an open system compared to a closed one (assuming a closed one could work at all, and at much better than P/c). Your claim that opening the system would make a significant difference (in efficiency) seems inconsistent.

A photon rocket is not supposed to fly within a wave guide, neither in a high refraction index medium, but in deep space. And in deep space vacuum a spent radiation is only worth P/c of thrust, and making accountancy of momentum far from where things have been emitted (and ignoring gory details of process of emission) has always given correct results, in principle equivalent to the results obtained by tackling the local details, but with much lower risks of making mistakes or fooling oneself.


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Quote
My apparatus is different and I am not disclosing until IP is protected and published. I can say for sure that I could get 3 grams from a 100 gram apparatus. Now I get 2 from 500 grams with common materials.

At this point, you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Putting up the relevant data on the wiki does not constitute disclosure.

...

I propose that we should not put any such claimed data on the wiki without some minimum standards.  If somebody wants to keep their experimental information proprietary that's fine, but we should agree on some minimum standards of disclosure to put data on the wiki. 

Either one is pregnant or one isn't.
Either one is releasing experimental information to the public for public examination or one isn't.

I suggest that at the minimum we should have the name of the researcher and institution (if they are associated with one) (i.e. "Prof. Yang NWPU", "Brady et.al. NASA", "Iulian Berca", etc.) -no monickers-, geometrical dimensions, force, power input, etc. etc., to put experimental information on the wiki "Experimental Results" section.

Monickers are fine for builds.

There should be a higher standard for the experimental results table than for proposed builds.

The reason for this is that otherwise the table can become a joke (I'm not implying at all that that's the case here, I'm looking at the worst possible scenario, where somebody with a monicker can claim anything:  10^6 Newtons Thrust for 1 Watt and a Free Energy machine).


« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 11:03 PM by Rodal »

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 59
Quote
I propose that we should not put any such claimed data on the wiki without some minimum standards.  If somebody wants to keep their experimental information proprietary that's fine, but we should agree on some minimum standards of disclosure to put data on the wiki. 

Either one is pregnant or one isn't.
Either one is releasing experimental information to the public for public examination or one isn't.

I suggest that at the minimum we should have the name of the researcher and institution (if they are associated with one) (i.e. "Prof. Yang NWPU", "Brady et.al. NASA", "Iulian Berca", etc.) -no monikers-, geometrical dimensions, force, power input, etc. etc., to put experimental information on the wiki "Experimental Results" section.

Monikers are fine for builds.

Agreed.  As I pointed out his initial posts fell into the 'unsubstantiated claim' category, something we have enough here already.  I was hoping he'd post evidence to support that claim.

Suggestion: Given the number of DIY builds at the moment, could the wiki be modified to include your requested criteria for the EM test models? 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Quote
I propose that we should not put any such claimed data on the wiki without some minimum standards.  If somebody wants to keep their experimental information proprietary that's fine, but we should agree on some minimum standards of disclosure to put data on the wiki. 

Either one is pregnant or one isn't.
Either one is releasing experimental information to the public for public examination or one isn't.

I suggest that at the minimum we should have the name of the researcher and institution (if they are associated with one) (i.e. "Prof. Yang NWPU", "Brady et.al. NASA", "Iulian Berca", etc.) -no monikers-, geometrical dimensions, force, power input, etc. etc., to put experimental information on the wiki "Experimental Results" section.

Monikers are fine for builds.

Agreed.  As I pointed out his initial posts fell into the 'unsubstantiated claim' category, something we have enough here already.  I was hoping he'd post evidence to support that claim.

Suggestion: Given the number of DIY builds at the moment, could the wiki be modified to include your requested criteria for the EM test models?
I suggest to wait and see what happens.

If it gets bad we may eventually have to split the table, to separate recognized institutions like NASA, The Technische Universitšt Dresden, and NorthWestern Polytechnic University from experiments not conducted at research or educational institutions. 

I think things are fine for the time being.  I was just looking at the worst possible scenario.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Dr. Rodal,
The yz slices along the cavity axis are up. Same top level csv file. Read and understand the description, I won't try to explain my naming convention until/unless more or different information is needed. Ask.
I did not see a text file with a description.
The files are labeled as follows in this example:

exx-s03-m26

e= Electric Field (h for magnetizing field)
xx= x component in the plane with normal x (where x is the Cartesian axis oriented along the longitudinal axis  of axisymmetry of the cone)
s03=time step 03
m = does this mean "metal model" ?  (and if so, "p" stands for copper model ?)
26 = this must be an identifier of the x position, if so I don't understand why the number 26 instead of 150 though
« Last Edit: 07/05/2015 11:29 PM by Rodal »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
35 Watt 2.5 GHz - 3.8 GHz Amp available
I was at Halted Electronics last week and noticed they had a lot of  used microwave gear, including an amplifier that could be useful to any DIY'r building a cavity for heating air.  The price tag on it was $125, which is a very good price   I don't know if it was tested or if they have more.  It's most likely a Class C amp.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
...
F=2P/c is for a perfectly reflective solar/laser sail receiving an (normal) illumination of power P. The only admitted (upper bound) yield for a photon rocket is F=P/c, not F=2P/c.

While what you are at with your gradient is above my head (not your fault, I'm a Newtonian guy) I think that if it tells you that an open EM drive (big end plate removed) would yield significantly more thrust per power than the closed frustums tested so far (assuming they did thrust) then you have (at least) a contradiction arising.

On attached illustration top, an "open" EM drive :
orange rectangle is battery, blue rectangle is RF amp, black is frustum without big end plate, blue arrow microwave radiations bouncing around before escaping (geometry illustrative only, no details). Dotted line ellipse around figures the whole free floating system. So that we discuss on firm ground : your claim is that this configuration can make for more than thrust/power (power drawn from battery) than claimed by closed frustums tests, that are themselves claimed to be between 1 and 5 orders of magnitude above the "official" thrust/power of photon rocket (namely, 1/c) ? Is that it ?
...

I am saying the thrust-to-power ratio can exceed 1/c by many orders of magnitude, yes. This is done by controlling the potential energy input at the small end of the waveguide and the exit velocity at the big end. This improves the thrust to power ratio significantly and does not violate any CoE or CoM. It's the standard rocket equation, with a non-linear term added onto it. It is getting a "boost" from the non-linear affect of a tapered waveguide, the same as one would get from falling in a gravitational field. I'm not saying it's gravity, I'm saying that there is a Newtonian potential energy gradient from the small end to the big end that pushes the energy out and pushes the waveguide forward.

Right now, I'm not ready to discuss anymore about closed frustums. My goal was to show how to enhance a photon rocket to explain the 10,000x a photon rocket thrust to power ratios we're seeing. I think I have successfully, "theoretically" done this. I have not done it numerically yet and I'm working to finish up the paper, where I present 3 different types of thrust to power equations for a photon rocket. A photon rocket is not quite as easily understood as a flashlight. :)
Todd

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Dr. Rodal,
The yz slices along the cavity axis are up. Same top level csv file. Read and understand the description, I won't try to explain my naming convention until/unless more or different information is needed. Ask.
I did not see a text file with a description.
The files are labeled as follows in this example:

exx-s03-m26

e= Electric Field (h for magnetizing field)
xx= x component in the plane with normal x (where x is the Cartesian axis oriented along the longitudinal axis  of axisymmetry of the cone)
s03=time step 03
m = does this mean "metal model" ?  (and if so, "p" stands for copper model ?)
26 = this must be an identifier of the x position, if so I don't understand why the number 26 instead of 150 though

I am looking at the folder titled "ex-hx-slices"

This folder contains exx and hxx components for the time steps 03-13 for apparently two material models (metal "m" and copper "p")  and two x locations (26 and 85)

The Poynting vector cannot be calculated solely based on exx and hxx at a given location.  What is needed to calculate the Poynting vector field at a surface are ALL six of the electromagnetic components for that surface:

electricEXx =exx
electricEYx = eyx
electricEZx = ezx
magneticHXx = hxx
magneticHYx = hyx
magneticHZx = hzx

For each location and material model and time step.

I was expecting these data (all electromagnetic components) just for TS13, copper, at the two x locations, to minimize your efforts.

If you like to provide the above data for all time steps, that would be great.

Based on prior information there was no difference between the copper and metal models, so that would be the very last thing to spend time on (just one material model is fine).

____________

I don't understand the naming of 26 and 85.  I had asked for x positions 150 and 209 as I recall, from the left end closest to the big end.

If your numbering starts at the right end closest to the small end, and since "x" has 247 entries, this would mean:

247-150= 97

247-209= 38

which are still quite different from 26 and 85 (both differing by "12")
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 12:48 AM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Doing some modeling with Aero (what would we do without him!) for my EMDrive where I went with close to Yang's model in dim. So far it's looking interesting as I placed the dipole close to their insertion point at the large end. Not sure how it will turn out but the .gif animation is very different than What we have seen with the antenna to the small end. The modes look very good and it resonates @ 2.463 GHz. We still are looking at the Q as it seems to be a little high and will visit that a little latter.
Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 151
meep images.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfkF0Z184NHRtd0ViN28tNzRDY3JzSVc0WFBTOGZmSFZMcUpWLWJfcDRfZEU&usp=sharing

If you want 3d rendered version of these, let me know which...I am using a graphic ray-tracing program (www.povray.org) and have it coded and parameterized, so I can generate the 3d stuff pretty quickly...

Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline Ricvil

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 24
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
The equations for the em fields of a tampered conical waveguide can be founded above.
The expressions for the cavity( for more simple modes) are founded after matching boundaring conditons at the taps.
The geometry is matched by spherical coordinates, so the fields are spherical coordinate dependent too, an this facilitate match the boundary conditions by aproximation ( the taps are not spherical but planes in real cavity).
But the point is, the fields are expressed by coordinates functions, but the the wave vectors not. In fact the wave vectors are "the coordinates"  of the modes of propagation, where the modes are a base to span the function space of em fields inside the guide/cavity.
To be  more precise, one has to use a ccordinate system of type (z, theta, phi), express the wave equations  on that coordinate system, find the general solutions (if possible) , and match the boundary conditions.






Your first equation ( the definition of the wave vector K), is wrong.
It establishes a erroneous z dependence on K.
The K will depend at most on total geometry( including the dimensions of cavity), medium constitutive relations (mu and epslon), and boundary conditions, which defines de modes inside the sctruture, and thus the modes cut off frequencys.

I am not describing a cavity. It's an open ended tapered waveguide and the radius "IS" dependent on the z coordinate. Can you provide a better way to derive the propagation vector kz for a tapered waveguide than to parameterize the radius in terms of z? The radius is a variable in this waveguide, as is the transverse resonant frequency. Both are dependent on the location along the z axis of the waveguide. It is not "erroneous", it is precisely what makes the tapered waveguide different from a straight one.

EDIT: You said in a previous post,

Quote from: Ricvil
"...The conical geometry of cavity can produce a gradient intensity of the fields inside it, and resulting on a axial non symmetric scattering of axions (produced by the stationary wave of hybrid modes), and thus the thrust is formed....".

Are you saying that you believe the conical geometry can produce a gradient thrust only with axions but not with transverse, resonant EM standing waves? The equation I derived is exactly that, the gradient in the potential energy stored in the transverse standing wave as it travels down the waveguide. How else would you do it than to parameterize the potential energy wrt z?
Todd
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 02:00 AM by Ricvil »

Tags: