Lucky that Nasa hasn't stopped the experiments. It would be a more than a little upsetting if they stoped the progress Eagle works has made.
I am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.
Quote from: Blaine on 05/14/2015 06:30 pmLucky that Nasa hasn't stopped the experiments. It would be a more than a little upsetting if they stoped the progress Eagle works has made.NASA has surely not increased Eagleworks little tiny teeny budget and we haven't heard from Paul March since the NSF article...They are downplaying it. At NASA Glenn's site they are directing interested people to an ex-employee (Millis) and not saying anything about Eagleworks work... Everybody interested should write to their congressmen
Quote from: tchernik on 05/14/2015 06:22 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/14/2015 06:00 pmI am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.Which news, can you elaborate?NASA reporting that there is no warpdrive spacecraft and downplaying Eagleworks:See:http://news.yahoo.com/no-warp-drive-nasa-downplays-impossible-em-drive-193528141.html
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/14/2015 06:00 pmI am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.Which news, can you elaborate?
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/14/2015 06:00 pmI am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.Yes, but am I correct as seeing the a and b terms in the frustum case as generating Doppler-shifted sidebands ? (the alternative being non-linear terms)This would suggest that the EW interferometer should replace the "pillbox" cavity with a frustrum and analyze by including a Fabry-Perot into the system? (might need a mode-locked laser as well.)
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/14/2015 06:16 pm...Note the frequency is NOT 3.85GHz. There are THREE factors in the Df equation, Small End diameter, Big End diameter and FREQUENCY.Look at this image: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=830138for those dimensions and look at the horizontal axis for frequency. At that frequency the Design Factor is still below 0.5Shawyer's design factor is practically unaffected by frequency except near the cut-off frequency for the small diameter.Shawyer's Design Factor is highest at lowest frequency (near cut-off) and it decreases with frequencySee my equations: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374110#msg1374110
...Note the frequency is NOT 3.85GHz. There are THREE factors in the Df equation, Small End diameter, Big End diameter and FREQUENCY.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/14/2015 06:18 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/14/2015 06:16 pm...Note the frequency is NOT 3.85GHz. There are THREE factors in the Df equation, Small End diameter, Big End diameter and FREQUENCY.Look at this image: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=830138for those dimensions and look at the horizontal axis for frequency. At that frequency the Design Factor is still below 0.5Shawyer's design factor is practically unaffected by frequency except near the cut-off frequency for the small diameter.Shawyer's Design Factor is highest at lowest frequency (near cut-off) and it decreases with frequencySee my equations: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374110#msg1374110Houston we have a problem.Working it.
Thanks Dr. Rodal for taking the time to point out my error. Fixed now. Get a Df curve like yours that peaks and then goes to zero as the Guide Frequency goes below CutOff Frequency for the small end.Interesting interactions.Keeping small end (g2) Guide Wavelength just above CutOff Wavelength, while operating at a Rf frequency which will generate a high Df, adjusting the length to obtain length resonance at the operation Rf frequency.The interactions are making sense. My gut is not so much in knots. Starting to feel confident in being able to generate at least 1g of force. Calcs say more like 2g but then the cavity needs a Q of around 50,000, which using spherical end caps should help to make a reality.Oh BTW obtaining length cavity resonance, which I believe is what is seen doing a spectrum sweep, may not generate any thrust as the small end guide wavelength may be bigger than the cutoff wavelength with the result that little or no significant energy reaches the small end to bounce back.Shields up. Rock throwing time.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/14/2015 08:51 pmThanks Dr. Rodal for taking the time to point out my error. Fixed now. Get a Df curve like yours that peaks and then goes to zero as the Guide Frequency goes below CutOff Frequency for the small end.Interesting interactions.Keeping small end (g2) Guide Wavelength just above CutOff Wavelength, while operating at a Rf frequency which will generate a high Df, adjusting the length to obtain length resonance at the operation Rf frequency.The interactions are making sense. My gut is not so much in knots. Starting to feel confident in being able to generate at least 1g of force. Calcs say more like 2g but then the cavity needs a Q of around 50,000, which using spherical end caps should help to make a reality.Oh BTW obtaining length cavity resonance, which I believe is what is seen doing a spectrum sweep, may not generate any thrust as the small end guide wavelength may be bigger than the cutoff wavelength with the result that little or no significant energy reaches the small end to bounce back.Shields up. Rock throwing time.Congratulations on fixing it.I see some differences with my plot using Mathematica. One minor, immaterial difference is that Excel artificially brings the value of the Design Factor down to zero for frequencies below the cutoff frequency and it artificially draws a vertical line at the cutoff frequency. Mathematica does not, because the Design Factor does not go down to zero below the cut-off frequency, actually its value becomes a Complex number below the cutoff frequency (since it involves the Square Root of a negative number), and the vertical line shouldn't be there. In reality there is no Real value of the Design Factor below the cut-off frequency associated with the small diameter. That's a quirk with Excel.The other thing is that the curvature in your plot looks different than mine. Perhaps it is because my plot goes to 4 GHz and your plot goes to a frequency not as high ? Perhaps it is because Excel does not plot the vertical part of the knee of the curve, since to do so would involve fine discretization of the curve near the cut-off point. In any case, if not plotted to 4 GHz, it would be wise to double check it and see what whether they look more alike if you plot it up to 4 GHz.Thanks. Congratulations again to you persistent digging of Shawyer's literature to understand what he meant by the different variables, particularly lambdg1 and lambdag2.
Quote from: Iulian Berca on 05/13/2015 07:07 pmToday i did the first test with the Emdrive (microwave oven magnetron and cooper frustum) The setup (magnetron and frusum) was suspended in a pendulum. I applied power for 40 Seconds with no visible thrust. Tomorrow will will try again with the magnetron on the small side. You have any suggestion for what should be the distance from the small side?After this i will adjust the power to the filament of magnetron and the frequency.To fine adjust the frequency i thought i can put 2 coils over the magnetron magnets to modify the magnetic field.My website;http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/Well done.Nicely rolled cavity walls.Have you tried to calibrate your pendulum test rig by using a small spring scale to see how much force is needed to pull the cavity forward (toward the big end) say 1mm?Doing this will give you some info on how much force you will need to generate to see some movement.
Today i did the first test with the Emdrive (microwave oven magnetron and cooper frustum) The setup (magnetron and frusum) was suspended in a pendulum. I applied power for 40 Seconds with no visible thrust. Tomorrow will will try again with the magnetron on the small side. You have any suggestion for what should be the distance from the small side?After this i will adjust the power to the filament of magnetron and the frequency.To fine adjust the frequency i thought i can put 2 coils over the magnetron magnets to modify the magnetic field.My website;http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/
If you happen to be using Excel, I have found the bog standard Solver plug-in very efficacious for problems involving optimisation with several variables. The trick to making it purr is intelligent setting of the constraints.
Quote from: rfcavity on 05/14/2015 04:26 pmIf microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.We plan to enclose our system in many layers of laminated microwave absorbing sheets:http://www.lessemf.com/259.pdf
If microwaves were easily contained there wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry for the testing and consultation of microwave containment.Seriously, its a big problem. I was amused by this before but when people start using high powered dirty sources to corrupt bands of the spectrum I get angry. I've processed too many Earth Observing land surface experiments that were corrupted and unusable outside of Canada and the US due to unlicensed device usage. It is perplexing that a forum dedicated to spaceflight would encourage such bad form.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/13/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: Iulian Berca on 05/13/2015 07:07 pmToday i did the first test with the Emdrive (microwave oven magnetron and cooper frustum) The setup (magnetron and frusum) was suspended in a pendulum. I applied power for 40 Seconds with no visible thrust. Tomorrow will will try again with the magnetron on the small side. You have any suggestion for what should be the distance from the small side?After this i will adjust the power to the filament of magnetron and the frequency.To fine adjust the frequency i thought i can put 2 coils over the magnetron magnets to modify the magnetic field.My website;http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/Well done.Nicely rolled cavity walls.Have you tried to calibrate your pendulum test rig by using a small spring scale to see how much force is needed to pull the cavity forward (toward the big end) say 1mm?Doing this will give you some info on how much force you will need to generate to see some movement.Maybe I should feel ashamed to propose the following calculation with all those heavy weight equations flying around, but since nobody is taking a bite at it :a hanging swing pendulum like that has, for small deviations, a linear dependency between force (thrust) F and displacement d F=(m*g/h)*d where h is length of strings and m the mass of test article and g local gravity. As a first guess, with m=2kg (or more like 5kg ?) and h=2m that's in the ballpark of 10mN/mm (milliNewton per millimetre) or 10µN/µm. Quite remarkably similar to Eagleworks balance apparent stiffness, making this mechanical setup basically as sensitive (displacement wrt thrust wise). If a linear displacement sensor of µm resolution were used it could probe into µN effects, provided proper casing to isolate from drafts and good damping where strings are suspended.Can you confirm : - weight of system 2kg, more ?- height of doorway, or rather length of strings about 2m ?- graduations marks spacing about 1cm ?The graduations marks on the video appear about 1cm apart, there is no obvious swing or displacement at power-on visible above, roughly eyeballing 1mm. That gives an upper order of magnitude bound for a thrust (if any) below 10mN/kW for this blazing fast experiment setup. Kudos, and stay safe.