Quote from: Josave on 07/30/2015 09:53 pmTo help in this question it deserves a look the Gerald Kaiser work "Electromagnetic inertia, reactive energy and energy flow velocity" http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/44/34/345206/ and subsequent works by others easy to track in Thomson Reuters WoS....Maybe a good starting point to face EM Drive challenge is to characterize a cavity by irradiating it with wavelets instead of sinusoidal waves... But there is no way to transmit wavelets, unless using a extremely wideband linear amplifier and antenna (fractal antenna?).Very interesting papers by Kaiser. Very timely post. Thanks!
To help in this question it deserves a look the Gerald Kaiser work "Electromagnetic inertia, reactive energy and energy flow velocity" http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/44/34/345206/ and subsequent works by others easy to track in Thomson Reuters WoS....Maybe a good starting point to face EM Drive challenge is to characterize a cavity by irradiating it with wavelets instead of sinusoidal waves... But there is no way to transmit wavelets, unless using a extremely wideband linear amplifier and antenna (fractal antenna?).
Random thought alert - I respect dead scientists, its just that I expect live ones to take it to the next level
Aircraft engines are very noisy. Even if you cannot see a reconnaissance drone you just have to hear it to shoot it down. If the EMDrive is quiet it would be permit a major increase in audio stealth.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/31/2015 03:30 amAircraft engines are very noisy. Even if you cannot see a reconnaissance drone you just have to hear it to shoot it down. If the EMDrive is quiet it would be permit a major increase in audio stealth.Yabut the massive helium balloons are a dead giveaway
Interesting calcs digging through the data of Prof Yang.....The cavity they used had a measured Q of 1,531 because it needed a wide bandwidth to try to swallow all their magnetrons output. Adjusting the 4N/kW value to a cavity with a Q of 117,500 (their latest design) the Specific Force would grow to 307N/kW. Playing with the cavity Df to get it to 0.95 and still having the 117.500 unloaded Q would maybe boost it another 50%....
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/31/2015 02:19 amInteresting calcs digging through the data of Prof Yang.....The cavity they used had a measured Q of 1,531 because it needed a wide bandwidth to try to swallow all their magnetrons output. Adjusting the 4N/kW value to a cavity with a Q of 117,500 (their latest design) the Specific Force would grow to 307N/kW. Playing with the cavity Df to get it to 0.95 and still having the 117.500 unloaded Q would maybe boost it another 50%....What is your best estimate of the dimensions of the resonant truncated cone cavity Prof. Yang used to obtain her largest reported thrust and thrust/InputPower ?Big Base Diameter = Small Base Diameter =Length (measured perpendicular to the bases) =
@TheTraveller:Do you have an estimate of the thrust and power you plan to use?Oh, the power is 100W I think from that amp you showed.
Never tried to work out the dimensions. Prof Yang is like Shawyer and doesn't give away the frustum dimensions. Shawyer does gives more dimensions, Q and Df details than Prof Yang but still not enough to pin down his 3 frustum internal dimensions.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/31/2015 06:52 amNever tried to work out the dimensions. Prof Yang is like Shawyer and doesn't give away the frustum dimensions. Shawyer does gives more dimensions, Q and Df details than Prof Yang but still not enough to pin down his 3 frustum internal dimensions.As I've started on building a guesstimate top-view of the complete Yang setup(cavity+waveguide), with the little info i could gather, i can confirm the lack of consistency in her drawings. Although they appear to look as accurate engineering drawings, the different drawings do not match very well as far as their dimensions go. That lack of consistency of the different drawings let me conclude that they are not accurate engineering drawings, but more schematic/principle drawings dressed up as accurate drawings. No surprise actually, if you want to keep some secrets close to the chest...So yes, it is highly unlikely we're looking at the accurate dimensions of dr. Yang's device...
Quote from: Star One on 07/30/2015 08:30 pmYou were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.It's not my job to justify your statements for you. If you feel their is some exodus of scientists away from dark matter or dark energy, prove it. I'm not going on some wild goose chase to learn about some fact I couldn't care less about. As a "fringe" man yourself (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just that you are interested in alternative theories), you know how many people believe a theory has no impact on whether or not it's true. I know this likewise, and so QuoteThere are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy. is irrelevant. But I figured I'd ask to see if you could rustle up the source you got that from, or if you just made it up on the spot.
You were quite happy to lecture a poster on here about doing further research. So I'll turn that around and suggest if you want to know the people with alternatives to dark matter theory that you do some research on the matter.
There are an increasing number of scientists who are having doubts about the whole concept of Dark Matter/Energy.