Quote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 12:25 PMQuote from: Rodal on 08/03/2015 12:15 PMSo we have 7 drawings from the author's in the author's previously ballyhooed "peer-reviewed papers".The smallest angle in any of these drawings is practically TWICE as much as 6 degrees, the median is 15 degrees and the max is 25 degrees. Yet we are going to ignore all these drawings in peer-reviewed journals?The drawings are part of a big master conspiracy?The peer-reviewers are part of a master conspiracy or they just did not realize that the drawings did not match the text?Since we are at it, why not just say that Yang used a cylinder for her experiments?You know for sure what she used? She could have used a box for all we know. Peer reviewed or not. A real picture would be better not by much. I find this interesting as well. Every open test that could be verified with real time video and EW as well has showed very low thrusts and here we have the Chinese and RS claiming outrageous thrusts. Why is that? Wouldn't that fact alone lead you to question not only thrusts but configurations and other important data... peer reviewed hmmm.Of course it leads me to question everything that Yang reported. But the alternatives are either to disregard what she reported or to take into consideration all her drawings, but not to throw all her drawings to the garbage and substitute for her drawings pre-conceived notions. Either I believe nothing she reported or I take into consideration her drawings. It does not make any sense whatsoever to disregard all her drawings and substitute them with an estimate of 6 degrees based on a single paper she published in 2010 dealing mainly with her Finite Element formulation prior to her large thrust measurement papers

Quote from: Rodal on 08/03/2015 12:15 PMSo we have 7 drawings from the author's in the author's previously ballyhooed "peer-reviewed papers".The smallest angle in any of these drawings is practically TWICE as much as 6 degrees, the median is 15 degrees and the max is 25 degrees. Yet we are going to ignore all these drawings in peer-reviewed journals?The drawings are part of a big master conspiracy?The peer-reviewers are part of a master conspiracy or they just did not realize that the drawings did not match the text?Since we are at it, why not just say that Yang used a cylinder for her experiments?You know for sure what she used? She could have used a box for all we know. Peer reviewed or not. A real picture would be better not by much. I find this interesting as well. Every open test that could be verified with real time video and EW as well has showed very low thrusts and here we have the Chinese and RS claiming outrageous thrusts. Why is that? Wouldn't that fact alone lead you to question not only thrusts but configurations and other important data... peer reviewed hmmm.

So we have 7 drawings from the author's in the author's previously ballyhooed "peer-reviewed papers".The smallest angle in any of these drawings is practically TWICE as much as 6 degrees, the median is 15 degrees and the max is 25 degrees. Yet we are going to ignore all these drawings in peer-reviewed journals?The drawings are part of a big master conspiracy?The peer-reviewers are part of a master conspiracy or they just did not realize that the drawings did not match the text?Since we are at it, why not just say that Yang used a cylinder for her experiments?

...The only way to obtain the correct angle is either by calculus or by engineering drawings. Performing statistical distribution diagrams , medians , etc is all pointless in this case....

Quote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 12:17 PM...What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust....ShellYou are completely wrong in the above statement. The calculation of stress shows that the stresses on the sidewalls are most significant. I discussed in previous posts, and Todd understood it, as he actually said that's what he expected.

...What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust....Shell

Quote from: Rodal on 08/03/2015 12:39 PMQuote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 12:17 PM...What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust....ShellYou are completely wrong in the above statement. The calculation of stress shows that the stresses on the sidewalls are most significant. I discussed in previous posts, and Todd understood it, as he actually said that's what he expected.Are those the images you showed for the large end around the outer diameter? I have a point here to follow through with and got your attention.You showed a very strong stress on the center and outside flange of the large end with a very sharp cutoff where the flange meets the sidewalls. I found that very hard to see that that stress didn't show any propagation to the sidewalls. Did you just calculate for the endplates? Why?Shell

The closest we have to 6 frustum verified data points is when Shawyer took my 3 Flight Thruster internal dimensions estimations, put them through the SPR in-house software and produced the Df and resonant frequency at TE013 being:Frustum big diameter m: 0.2314mFrustum small diameter: 0.1257mFrustum centre length: 0.1386mResonance: 3.9003 GHzMode: TE013Df: 0.634With Shawyer we have multiple photographs of 4 EMDrives and the test rigs, a video of the Demonstrator EMDrive accelerating on a rotary test table, willing to corro via email, continual updates on SPR progress, a web site with experimental data and many papers with the last being peer reviewed.Yet most here reject him like he has the plague. Go figure?

This is actually what I have been arguing for in the last dozen of pages.

Quote from: Rodal on 08/03/2015 01:09 PMThis is actually what I have been arguing for in the last dozen of pages.BTW what resonance and Q do you get for those dimensions?Frustum big diameter m: 0.2314mFrustum small diameter: 0.1257mFrustum centre length: 0.1386mMode: TE013

Quote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 12:52 PMQuote from: Rodal on 08/03/2015 12:39 PMQuote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 12:17 PM...What I find interesting is it seems the stress values are located big end or small end and little shows up in the sidewalls which is what the current theory of Yang's proposes as to thrust....ShellYou are completely wrong in the above statement. The calculation of stress shows that the stresses on the sidewalls are most significant. I discussed in previous posts, and Todd understood it, as he actually said that's what he expected.Are those the images you showed for the large end around the outer diameter? I have a point here to follow through with and got your attention.You showed a very strong stress on the center and outside flange of the large end with a very sharp cutoff where the flange meets the sidewalls. I found that very hard to see that that stress didn't show any propagation to the sidewalls. Did you just calculate for the endplates? Why?ShellWrong. Please refer to the prior posts, where it is stated a number of times that that is post-processing of Meep data using Wolfram Mathematica. As aero understands, I can only post-process data that aero produces. He did not send me the over 200 files necessary to calculate the stresses on the side conical walls, only the data for the big and small ends.I have calculated the stresses on the side walls with a different program I wrote in Mathematica and I have verified that the stresses on the side walls are most significant. I have pointed out how Shawyer is wrong in neglecting the stresses on the side walls.Aero sends me the information for the big and small ends, and that's what I post-process.If aero sends me no data I cannot post-process non-existing data.The statement << stress didn't show any propagation to the sidewalls.>> is incorrect. High stresses at boundaries are shown and they satisfy the mode shape boundary conditions, for example:

...Not seeing the sidewall angle is because it's just a thin slice through the frustum showing stress in XYHere is where I'm going.How could you show the stress, big end to small end by taking a point on the outside wall where the large plate connects to the side wall and project along that wall (z axis) to a point on the small plate. Drew a quick pic to show you what I mean. What I'm looking for here is a traveling stress value over a X amount of time to see how the Stress propagates down the sidewalls. Can you do this?

Quote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 01:32 PM...Not seeing the sidewall angle is because it's just a thin slice through the frustum showing stress in XYHere is where I'm going.How could you show the stress, big end to small end by taking a point on the outside wall where the large plate connects to the side wall and project along that wall (z axis) to a point on the small plate. Drew a quick pic to show you what I mean. What I'm looking for here is a traveling stress value over a X amount of time to see how the Stress propagates down the sidewalls. Can you do this?Yes, I have done this with my program. Cannot be done with Meep at the moment, if you want to know why PM aero, he will tell ya. You are tired of the 6 degree? I'm tired of explaining why. It has to do with Meep not with me. If you want to have an idea of what the force looks like on the lateral walls take a gander at Greg Egan:(see the difference between TE and TM modes -what difference do you see between TE and TM ? - ) Your drawing of side forces on conical walls is very wrong for TE modes http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

...The TE modes are a better way to add stress into the frustum walls and one of the reasons I picked a TE mode.

Quote from: Flyby on 08/03/2015 12:39 PM...The only way to obtain the correct angle is either by calculus or by engineering drawings. Performing statistical distribution diagrams , medians , etc is all pointless in this case....Thanks, we look forward to your use of Calculus to elucidate this problem and further teaching us about statistical methods

... Let's wipe the board clean and start over...

Quote from: SeeShells on 08/03/2015 01:46 PM...The TE modes are a better way to add stress into the frustum walls and one of the reasons I picked a TE mode.This bears emphasizing: there has NOT been a single Meep computer run (csv file for sure, and I don't recall seeing any images for TE mode excitation either) for Yang/Shell exciting the frustum in a TE (transverse electric) mode. Not even one. Nada. Zilch.

I doubt it will be in a non-metal material. All those materials, except ceramics, have very low melting points.so it has to be in a metal... Titanium would be excluded, as I know from colleagues that it prices around 50euro/cm³....expensive to build solid welled objects in...