We have Cannae dimensions. Page 6 of the anomalous thrust paper has some.
Each Cannae test article is approximately 11 inches in diameter and 4-5 inches between the ends of the beam pipes, not counting beam pipe extensions or antenna mounts.
From the video that Shawyer made of his test configuration , many years ago, it is clear that the cone is moving towards the small diameter.Not sure to why he wanted to represent his findings in a drawing that resembles a rocket engine (action- reaction) where there clearly is no exhaust force.. it kinda puzzles me...Let's hope Paul March gives a conclusive answer to that so we can leave that confusion behind us.Btw, ever since the EMdrive got worldwide publicity, a few months ago, I've been trying to follow the different discussions pro and contra between "believers" and "non-believers". I find the discussions here, on the NASA forum, by far the most constructive discussion. Having only a basic scientific background, it is indeed sometimes tough to follow the discussions between professionals when they venture into the higher levels of mathematics, radiation physics and quantum mechanics, but even with only a 50% understanding it is great to see things unfold. Strangely enough it gives me the same degree of excitement, then when I watched the live feed on the discovery confirmation of the Higgs-boson. Maybe, just maybe, we are indeed on the edge of a new chapter in space exploration...Fantastic what you people established here. Really!It is inspiring to see the collaboration from different fields in action, almost in real time...Not sure, but if I may do a prudent suggestion, but in the discussion about magnetic permeability (some pages ago), wouldn't it make more economical sense to use iron instead of metglas. I believe it would be far easier to shape a slab of iron then finding a plate metglas 2714a. On condition iron scales linear compared to metglas, an iron backplate would still perform roughy 10 times better then copper.Enough to validate all discussions till now for a reasonable price... ?Geert
Do we know what the Eagleworks vacuum chamber is made of? I think I remember it being a Stainless Steel chamber but I can't find confirmation of that at the moment. It is kind of important to me because the evanescent fields from my simulation runs overlap the edges of the vacuum chamber. That means to me, that I need to add the vacuum chamber to my meep model. And expect different answers as a result.
Hello;I have been following this for a while, but this is my first post. (I have corresponded with Josť Rodal about this in the past.) My congratulations on a spirited and informative discussion of some thorny issues. It is apparent that the E&M waves on the outside of the drive extend far enough to interact with the walls of the vacuum chamber (not to mention the support, pendulum and other mechanisms inside the chamber). Thus, to verify (or rule out) the reality of the measured thrust, it will be crucial to calculate the force caused by these interactions. As I was reading through the forum, this point impressed itself upon me, and I was going to ask if it has been done but, of course, if we don't know the material of the chamber, it hasn't. MEEP should be adequate to do this, as this is entirely a conventional physics effect, and I would encourage someone to take this on.
All:Sorry I didn't make the time to participate in this ME-Drive forum for the last 6-to-8 months up, but I will try to catch up with everyone else in due course. That said lets try to answer the questions that popped up since my morning post.1. I was not the lead author for the Eagleworks' 2014 AIAA/JPC paper and in fact I only supplied pictures and data for same during that period because Dr. White thought that my time was best spent in the lab gathering data instead of report writing. Thus some of the details that Dr. Rodal is looking for may have been lost or garbled in the report writing by the others on the author list.2.0 The thrust vector for the four resonant modes examined in detail, (the cavity's fundamental TM010, TE012, TM211 & TM212 for our copper frustum is normally in the frustum's large OD to small OD direction for most, but not all the E&M resonant modes checked. However, one can also reverse this thrust vector for this copper frustum by just changing which excited resonant mode is used and/or mounting the dielectric discs at the large OD end of the cavity instead of the small OD end, see attached resonant mode map. Sorry, but a one size fits all solution to this EM-Drive thrust direction is not available in this venue because of the importance of the ExB phase relationship of the expressed Lorentz forces between the excited E&M fields and the possible dielectric and QV plasma flow phenomenon that may be at work in each resonant mode expressed. That is why this type of E&M thruster is so hard to get a handle on, for there are far too many degrees of freedom in the system to track let alone directly control. 3. The Eagleworks vacuum chamber's main body is made from 304L stainless steel while its swing out door is made from aluminum. Most of the nuts and bolts in the vacuum chamber are also made from 18-8, 304 or 316 stainless steel alloys. Now to try to answer Dr. Rodal's specific questions:"1) In the NASA experiments the truncated cone's center of mass moved towards the [ ? ] diameter end (where ? stands for big or small)"For the TE012 and TM212 excited resonant modes, our copper frustum's center of mass moved toward the small OD end of the frustum when RF power was applied to the copper frustum."2) In the NASA experiments, we at NASA Eagleworks define the thrust force direction to be in the [? ] direction as the movement of the truncated cone's center of mass (where ? stands for same or opposite)"For just the TE012 & TM212 excited resonant modes, the thrust force direction AKA thrust vector was observed to be in the same direction as the movement of the frustum's center of mass when RF power was applied to the frustum's magnetic loop antenna. If I missed a question along the way keep asking, but I'll be in and out of the house for the rest of the day, so I may not get to answer them until late this evening or tomorrow afternoon USA based CST.Best, Paul M.
....If I missed a question along the way keep asking, but I'll be in and out of the house for the rest of the day, so I may not get to answer them until late this evening or tomorrow afternoon USA based CST....
please look at this model and tell me if your read of Paul March's description of the cavity joins are as shown, or is there a cone flange pinched under the Teflon gasket which is held in place by a thicker copper ring.
The fact that it has reverse too pretty much clinches it. That speaks volumes.
I'm thinking an xU cubesat with a big battery. Spin stabilized even at 50 micro newtons we would see positive results within an hour, tracked from the ground.
Quote from: SleeperService on 02/14/2015 11:51 pmI'm thinking an xU cubesat with a big battery. Spin stabilized even at 50 micro newtons we would see positive results within an hour, tracked from the ground.I hoped to be experimental about this.Experiment trumps theory every time.With what we have, lets have an experiment in zero-g