@aero McCulloch's tableDemonstrator by ratiow_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREEw_small = 0.18375 meters 0.04 meters DISAGREEheight = 0.2975 metersDemonstrator by photow_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREEw_small = 0.0778 meters 0.04 meters DISAGREE Whatever worksheight = 0.381 metersExperimental by photow_big 0.16 meters 0.16 meters DISAGRE Agreew_small 0.0778 meters 0.08 meters AGREEheight 0.177 metersYou don't think Shawyer just extended the big end of the Experimental model to make the Demonstrator model, do you?
Where is the photograph you used for Shawyer's demonstrator drive?
I think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated cone
...This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? .....
QuoteWhere is the photograph you used for Shawyer's demonstrator drive?At the bottom of the page here: http://emdrive.com/
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/17/2014 05:54 pm...This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? .....What statistical argument can you use to state that those two are outliers?
...Waiting for adjusted inputs...
Quote from: Rodal on 10/17/2014 05:58 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 10/17/2014 05:54 pm...This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? .....What statistical argument can you use to state that those two are outliers?It was a sarcastical argument, not a statistical argument. I'm not seriously considering to lower the data count to 4 samples.
QuoteI think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated coneI don't know. I speculate that knowing the big diameter, we might be able to back the small diameter out of Shawyer's performance model using his published data. He does say that the thrust agrees with his performance model and it does use diameters of the ends of the cavity.
Quote from: aero on 10/17/2014 05:58 pmQuoteI think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated coneI don't know. I speculate that knowing the big diameter, we might be able to back the small diameter out of Shawyer's performance model using his published data. He does say that the thrust agrees with his performance model and it does use diameters of the ends of the cavity.Do you agree that there is a cylindrical section to Shawyer's Demonstrator EM Drive that has the same diameter throughout? and that the diameter of this cylindrical section is the same as the diameter of the small base of the truncated cone? And therefore the smaller diameter at the end of the cavity is the same as the diameter of the small base of the truncated cone?Did I miss something ?If my logic above is not faulty, then our large discrepancy (a factor 2 between us and a factor of 4 between my estimate and McCulloch's estimate) is a matter of measurement and scaling. Of the photograph you and I are using is not the Demonstrator Drive, and Prof. McCulloch has better information as to what the dimensions of the Demonstrator Drive are?One of us must be closest to the real answer ...
....I don't know. I did post asking Prof M if he had better information. I also emailed Shawyer and Juan's university asking the same question. We will see if anyone responds.I had assumed that the tapered cavity extended within the cylindrical section but you may be right. However, as was pointed out by Notsosureofit, it looks like there is some sort of mechanism in the cylindrical section. If there is a moveable small end, then I can't guess what the interior of the cylinder looks like.
For the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/17/2014 08:11 pmFor the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)Can you also please estimate the OD of the big diameter base end?(Using your same method)
Another explanation for the EM Drive experimental findings based on a theory that allows electromagnetic fields to modify the space-time metric of General Relativity:http://inspirehep.net/record/1220790/files/arXiv%3A1302.5690.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.5029.pdf
Quote from: Rodal on 10/17/2014 07:27 pmAnother explanation for the EM Drive experimental findings based on a theory that allows electromagnetic fields to modify the space-time metric of General Relativity:http://inspirehep.net/record/1220790/files/arXiv%3A1302.5690.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.5029.pdfThe proposed experiment looks exceptionally simple. Has this experiment been conducted? If there were positive results, the fringe forums would be ablaze with excitement over the possibilities.