Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 01:30 amHere's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.
Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles.
Not like I can't draw or design or anything.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 01:30 amHere's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles.But we know from the documentation that the "small" Shawyer device big end was 16 cm diameter.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 02:06 amNot like I can't draw or design or anything.Did you assume, note from citation, or measure the extruded T-slot aluminum to be standard 1.5" (3.81cm) bars?
We know that the (Faztek) beam (at the bottom of the picture, shown in cross-section) has a square cross section of 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch...
::Tiptoes quietly away::
Quote from: aero on 10/21/2014 01:35 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 01:30 amHere's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.That software don't do poop. Fornaro Inside!Every last dimension is eyeballed. I could go to great lengths to geometrically correct for parallax, but without a multiple equational frobnicatory analysis of possible frequencies and resonance, 'twould be a major wast of my time. There are commonalities in the proportions. I point out that there is no 45 degree cone.
Found this. Hope the dratted link works: ....Other stuff at ADS (Astrophysical Data System) that might be relevant here. Search term I used was 'Photonic Laser Propulsion.'
(time flies)
This dimension was given to us by Paul March (a member of Dr. White's team) more than a 100 pages along (time flies)
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 01:56 amQuote from: aero on 10/21/2014 01:35 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 10/21/2014 01:30 amHere's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.That software don't do poop. Fornaro Inside!Every last dimension is eyeballed. I could go to great lengths to geometrically correct for parallax, but without a multiple equational frobnicatory analysis of possible frequencies and resonance, 'twould be a major wast of my time. There are commonalities in the proportions. I point out that there is no 45 degree cone.It is a really outstanding job.Based on the last drawing, that has the dimensions for the Big Diameter based on the 1.5"x1.5" cross section, given to us by Paul March,I compute the following based on scaling of Fornaro's drawing:Brady et.al.Length = 0.33245 mBigDiameter = 0.39697 mSmallDiameter = 0.24393 mThe ratios (Length to Big Diameter, and Length to Small Diameter) are pretty close to aero: L/BigDiameter L/SmallDiameter ( L/SmallDiameter - L/BigDiameter)Fornaro 0.8375 1.3629 0.525422aero 0.92 1.3939 0.473939Mulletrn 0.90538 1.7408 0.835404Since John used a superior method, using the known dimensions of the cross section of the beam, and it is the median measurement (using the above-mentioned ratios), Let's take John's measurements for Brady et.al.
Sorry but this solution doesn't work. See the screenshot and link to drawing. The 1.5inch reference is at an arbitrary depth so you can't use it. The same reason I couldn't use the width of the chamber. Also, we want inside dimensions, not outside.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/21/2014 08:25 amSorry but this solution doesn't work. See the screenshot and link to drawing. The 1.5inch reference is at an arbitrary depth so you can't use it. The same reason I couldn't use the width of the chamber. Also, we want inside dimensions, not outside.Not that I'm right or anything, but I would observe that the visual vertical orientation of the device suggests that the line of the cone's vertical diameter passes thru the center line line of the Faztek thingy, virtually in the same plane perpendicular to the camera. The parallax is to be ignored in my analysis, and the distance of the cone and thingy from the camera is immaterial.
...Point being: Twerk the CAD file. Also, in my eye, color is a distraction, and your drawing is hard on old eyes. That's why I converted the JPEG to a ....
Notice the 1.5inch dims in yellow in the foreground and background. Because of depth perception, one is behind the test article and the other is in front. That creates a situation where you can't rely on the 1.5inch reference without knowing the viewing angle of the camera and at least one length in the Z axis of the chamber...
....It has been suggested that the inside must be properly mirrored for the desired M/W resonance. The inside of that cone has to be conically flat. Dollars to donuts sez it ain't. Not if it is made of 1/8" thick copper. The inside may have been polished with Turtle Wax, but it has not been polished nor flattened to Hubble specs. The substrate is too thin. The exterior has a mill finish only. Was it formed over a wood mandrel? Who knows?...